Contracting out publicness: The private management of the urban public realm and its implications

Abstract

In the UK, there has been a noticeable increase in public space management arrangements based on transfer and contracting-out of managerial responsibilities to organisations outside the public sector, whether in the shape of community or private trusts, tenants organisations, Business Improvement Districts, private companies or voluntary sector organisations. Recent cuts in local authority budgets have accelerated this process. Underpinning it there is an underlying assumption that publicness, however defined, can be guaranteed by means other than public ownership, funding and management, and that public sector ownership and direct control might not be in themselves essential features of spaces that are public. This paper reports on a case study research tries that investigates the impact on public spaces of the transfer of management away from the public sector. Based on nine case studies of public spaces in London under a variety of different management arrangements, the paper discusses how publicness is affected by the various contractual forms of transfer and what the main implications of this process are for different stakeholders and for the public realm as a whole. The paper suggests that contracted-out management of public space might not necessarily affect publicness negatively. However, it requires judiciously designed accountability mechanisms and clear decisions by all key stakeholders, including local authorities, about whose aspirations will be privileged and how other aspirations should be protected. In a climate of austerity and spending cuts, this requires a different kind of public management and of policy.

Community gardens as third places

“…Gardeners experienced a sense of community based on common interests that bring them together (Day, 2006;Delanty, 2010). The investigation found that individual community gardens fit on a scale between a club or community organisation (with formal governance, membership obligations, locked access, and common interests), to a third place (as described by the eight characteristics).…”

“…As Chitov (2006, p. 454) noted, "bridging social capital is reinforced by the regulars and characters" in community gardens. The Kookaburra Community Garden members exhibited some bonding capital aspects of club rather bridging capital or weak ties than third place-like, with gardeners experiencing a sense of community based on common interests which bring them together (Day, 2006;Delanty, 2010). This element of club-like similarity of interest between members was also in evidence at Frank Street community garden.…”

Place-Keeping for Health? Charting the Challenges for Urban Park Management in Practice

“…This includes the public sector, the state working in partnership with the private sector (e.g., business improvement districts around the world), voluntary and third sector organisations, as well as individual volunteers [37]. UK park management is largely carried out by the public sector, with increasing use of external input from contractors [53] and the voluntary involvement of local community groups. The use of contractors is a legacy of the Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT) introduced in the UK in 1980 [36], opening up the market to the private, public, and/or third sector, allowing them to bid competitively to deliver parks management [54].…”

“…Buizer and Van Herzele found that volunteers don't necessarily represent all the citizens living in an area [58], which is echoed by Mathers et al, who found that green space community groups are largely made up of retired, older white residents [46]. De Magalhães and Trigo pointed out that different governance processes can lead to a reallocation of rights, which prioritises the attributes they (e.g., community group/private sector contractor) have because of their direct involvement in the decision-making [53]. Pillemer et al (2010) highlighted that many older people who volunteer do it for the well-being benefits gained through positive social interaction [51], while others do it to address pressing environmental issues that affect public health [51,59].…”

The Value of Public Sector Risk Management: An Empirical Assessment of Ghana

“…However, internal control focuses primarily on compliance while risk management enhances performance . Based on this knowledge, the conceptual framework (Figure 2), outlined a set of variables developed from a wide range of literature relevant to the study (Cofie 2016;Davis 2016;Dementiev 2016;De Magalhães and Trigo 2017;Dong et al 2017;Da Silva Etges et al 2018;Demek et al 2018). We hypothesized the implementation of a commitment to ethics, control environment, segregation of duties, review and information and communication as agents of internal control which could significantly influence and minimize the impact of risk on the performance of public entities.…”