Assessing the Contributions of Collaborators in Public–Private Partnerships

Abstract

Partnerships that bring together public, private, and nonprofit organizations have become widely used by local governments. But we lack knowledge about the distinct contributions of collaborators to the partnership. This study uses tax increment financing (TIF) in Dallas, Texas, to assess the distinctive roles of public and private partners in achieving mutually beneficial policy outcomes. We find that, while public investment is essential to the partnership’s success, private investment directly increases property values. The city’s greatest contribution is to leverage private investment to create added taxable value in the TIF district. The increased property value provides revenue that is used for public purposes benefiting TIF district occupants. As with other quasi-private institutions that have gained popularity in the new order of governance, the appeal of TIF is its capacity to create public goods with bounded benefits. In addition, both institutional and operational knowledge contribute to the partnership’s success. The city’s experience at establishing new TIF districts and administering existing ones increases taxable value.

Market Differentiation and the Adoption of Economic Development Strategies: Explaining Policy Adoption in Metropolitan Areas

“…Interjurisdictional competition occurs in a local market for public goods, which is analogous to a private market where cities in a polycentric system of government compete to attract households and businesses. Local governments act like producers in a private market but provide local public goods, which are public goods with geographically bounded benefits (Bland and Overton, 2014;Hindriks and Myles, 2006). Households and businesses "shop" for public goods by exiting communities that do not match their preferences for public goods and entering communities that do match their preferences (Tiebout, 1956).…”

“…Evidence suggests businesses are sensitive to both a city's tax rate and the tax incentives it offers(Hanson and Rohlin, 2011;Bland and Overton, 2014), especially when making their final location decisions(Bartik, 1991;Fisher and Peters, 1998).…”

The rhetorical work of a partnership coordinator in mega-project construction

“…A common approach in the North American market has therefore been for teams and organizations to partner with municipalities and other private businesses to offset the cost of these facilities (Crompton et al, 2003; Long, 2013). Broadly defined, a public–private partnership (PPP) is “… a formal or informal arrangement between a city and one or more private firms where all participants share in the financial risk, and the benefits that accrue to each partner are dependent on the success of the other partners” (Bland and Overton, 2014: 2). This partnership is motivated by the desire to generate surplus value, defined as those ‘policy outcomes that exceed what would have been obtained in the absence of the collaborative arrangement’ (Bland and Overton, 2014: 2).…”

“…Broadly defined, a public–private partnership (PPP) is “… a formal or informal arrangement between a city and one or more private firms where all participants share in the financial risk, and the benefits that accrue to each partner are dependent on the success of the other partners” (Bland and Overton, 2014: 2). This partnership is motivated by the desire to generate surplus value, defined as those ‘policy outcomes that exceed what would have been obtained in the absence of the collaborative arrangement’ (Bland and Overton, 2014: 2). The details differ for each facility project; however, a typical approach is for the municipality and the owner to be responsible for an agreed percentage each of the construction costs.…”

Fatores críticos sobre manifestações de interesse em Parcerias Público-Privadas e as propriedades da visão do produto

“…Em ambos os modelos, os governantes orientam as partes interessadas por meio da promulgação das O compartilhamento das responsabilidades a ser constituído e disponibilizado a um determinado grupo de beneficiados resulta no regime de partilha dos riscos (KE et al, 2010), ainda mais se confrontado a um serviço (marginal, provido ou novo) a ser oferecido à população. Nessa esteira, espera-se que o compartilhamento das responsabilidades sobre o projeto possa gerar mútuos benefícios, tanto para o ente privado quanto para o ente público (BLAND; OVERTON, 2014;HAMMAMI;RUHASHYANKIKO;YEHOUE, 2006;HIGGINS;HUQUE, 2015;ISEKI;HOUTMAN, 2012;ISMAIL, 2014).…”