Although the Province of Ontario sees Public-Private Partnerships (P3s) as an effective means to procure major transportation infrastructure, the public interest implications of P3s from a planning perspective are little understood. P3s are purported to deliver cost-savings to the public sector through transferring expanded elements of risk to the private sector. However, critics argue that P3s erode the public interest through reduced project transparency, weakened public participation, and higher life-cycle project costs. Through a case study of the Eglinton Crosstown transit line in Toronto, this paper evaluates the extent to which the public sector agency, Infrastructure Ontario (IO), has been able to fulfill a series of evaluative criteria grounded in the public interest. Although IO has been able to maintain the public interest in the case of the Eglinton Crosstown, a lack of consistency in project transparency and weakened ex post reporting standards hampers the ability of the agency to consistently uphold the public interest in present and future projects
Although the Province of Ontario sees Public-Private Partnerships (P3s) as an effective means to procure major transportation infrastructure, the public interest implications of P3s from a planning perspective are little understood. P3s are purported to deliver cost-savings to the public sector through transferring expanded elements of risk to the private sector. However, critics argue that P3s erode the public interest through reduced project transparency, weakened public participation, and higher life-cycle project costs. Through a case study of the Eglinton Crosstown transit line in Toronto, this paper evaluates the extent to which the public sector agency, Infrastructure Ontario (IO), has been able to fulfill a series of evaluative criteria grounded in the public interest. Although IO has been able to maintain the public interest in the case of the Eglinton Crosstown, a lack of consistency in project transparency and weakened ex post reporting standards hampers the ability of the agency to consistently uphold the public interest in present and future projects
Consumer activism is the collective use of consumer purchasing power for political ends. It encompasses diverse actions, especially boycotts, by people who make consumption choices with the goal of changing market or institutional practices and/or influencing corporate and public policymakers. The ultimate goal of consumer activists is usually to create what they see as a socially just marketplace. Consumer activism recognizes seemingly nonpolitical or private arenas (such as the market or the home) as venues for political action. It recognizes the connections between consumer choices and labor rights, corporate behavior, the environment, and human rights. Consumer activism has a long history and has been an important tactic in many social movements. The efficacy of consumer activism is often difficult to measure and therefore open to debate. Green and ethical consumption, fair trade, socially responsible investing, culture jamming, and anti‐sweatshop campaigns are among the dominant forms of consumer activism today.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.