Talk:Public–private partnership/Archives/2011

re: WHO and Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization

I'm inclined to say that these are not P3s since their operations weren't transfered to the private sector. For public policy purposes P3s are significant because they represent a form of privatization. For a NGO to receive donations from the private sector does not make it private. Dhodges 23:48, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1) I know that half of the budget from the WHO is financed by private foundations.

2) in GAVI the B%M-Gates Fundation has a permanent seat in the supervisory board of GAVI.--Nerd 16:47, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is an issue of control, not finance. Sufficient finance suggests control (as does the board seat) - so fine for GAVI. But even if the WHO figure is true it almost certainly means largely or entirely privately cofinanced projects. Those projects will be PPPs, but not the WHO, since the private sector has no control over the organization - it is controlled by states. And the organization can choose to enter into as many or as few privately cofinanced projects as it wishes - it is not itself a PPP! Rd232 17:03, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Would anyone object to the material on WHO and Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization being moved to their respective main articles? ( after writing an article for Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization) This material may be important in its own right but it doesn't say much about what a P3 is. --Dhodges 01:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

no objection

no objection here. NGO by definition is not a Public Private venture. Government isn't involved in an NGO, or shouldn't be. The WHO is not a public private venture. RacerZero 19:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, my above comment was made April 6th and referred to the edit of the time. I'm fairly satisfied with the modifications that have been made.-Dhodges 00:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to revisit this. WHO is an international organization rather than a PPP. Set up as the health arm of the United Nations, it clearly does not belong in the category of PPP. Marilyn @MLangfeld @marilynsview 02:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlangfeld (talk • contribs)

revised intro

I'm frankly dubious about the new introduction. Particularly, it seems to suggest that government will always put up the cash. One of the objections which is often made to P3 is that governments (which represent a very safe investment for lenders) can raise funds more cheaply than the private sector. -Dhodges 02:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

See this web site for more info on PPP http://ncppp.org/howpart/index.html

It has been my experience that PPP ventures rarely have anything to do with privatizing government programs but are very often joint ventures using government revenue and authority and private industry experience and capital to do some project. Very often sports arenas and convention centers are constructed with PPP venters.

This was why I changed the original intro. The original seamed to suggest that PPP ventures always involve privatization of government functions. In fact that is rarely the case. RacerZero 05:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Just a reminder that Wikipedia is an international project. A contributor's experience in, for example, the U.S. is not necessarily reflective of that in other countries. The United States already has a far more prominent private sector and as such has less scope for privatisation. -Dhodges 16:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Marilyn Langfeld, and am joining this discussion since I just made some edits to the section on international health PDPs. I now work with the International Partnership for Microbicides (as web manager), and have suggested to my colleagues that we work on our own page. In addition, I have been researching the creation of PDPs in the global health arena, for eventual inclusion in our website. My interest stems from over 12 years spent working in Geneva with the World Health Organization, during the 1990s. I worked with TDR, Emerging Diseases, the Global Programme on AIDS, TB Control, Reproductive Health, UNAIDS, etc. as well as the Global Health Research Forum, so saw some of the formative developments leading to PDPs.

I would actually like to see the whole section on PDPs removed to a new page for global health-related PDPs. I would also remove WHO from the section, since it is the UN Agency for Health, not a PDP or PPP unless the UN itself is also classed as a PPP, which I find highly unlikely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlangfeld (talk • contribs) 03:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you are highly qualified to clean up this article. Please do! I propose that the various lists of examples be removed. There are already specific examples explained within the other text, where they belong. The long lists are just growing without thought or reason. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 14:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Woah

Sydney sure has a lot of PPPs listed here compared to other places. Is that symptomatic of our government? Or are we missing examples of PPPs from other places of the world? -- Newhoggy | Talk 13:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot in the UK and Victoria also, but NSW (Sydney specifically) has been one of the biggest markets for this stuff. JQ 23:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

New Content Proposal

I would like to propose that the below additional text be added following the PSPP Variant subheading:
Public-Private Product Development Partnerships (PDP)
PDPs are a class of PPPs that focus on health product development for diseases of the developing world. PDPs have formed over the past decade to unite the public sector's commitment to international public goods for health with private industry's expertise in product development and marketing. These not-for-profit organizations bridge public- and private-sector interests, with a view toward resolving the specific incentive and financial barriers to increased industry involvement in the development of safe and effective products.

I would also like to propose that the following international example be added underneath the DNDi (Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative) example:
The International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI), a biomedical product development public-private partnership (PDP), was established in 1996 to accelerate the development of a vaccine to prevent HIV infection and AIDS. IAVI is financially supported by governments, multi-lateral organizations, and major private sector institutions and individuals.

Does anyone have any objections to this langua

Since there are no objections to this new content, the above proposed text has been added. --IAVI Com (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

122.108.21.162 (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

New Content Proposal

I would like to object to the bias of this page, which barely mentioned the many and profound criticisms of PPP. I would propose that something like the text below is added:

Criticisms of Public-Private Partnerships

The most telling criticism of PPP is that private companies are run primarily to extract a profit. In the case of PPP this profit-seeking is actually assisted by taxpayer subsidies, a boon for the company but of no real benefit to the public. Thus in some cases, such Fazackerly prison in Liverpool, the initial cost of the project has, it is claimed, been paid back within two years, leaving 23 years of pure profit from the construction. If this was a state-owned institution this would provide significant benefits to the ability of the state to reinvest in this and other services, rather than simply entering a corporate bank account.

There is also evidence that many PPP projects have not been up to standard. Private companies are often accused of cutting corners in order to maximise profits, and in the case of PPP this means that essential services underperform, affecting the basic living conditions of millions of people.

Another criticism of PPP is presented by unions who argue that as their members are shifted into the private sector, they receive fewer employment rights and benefits such as pensions and childcare. 122.108.21.162 (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Sorry in advance for the rubbish formatting... I've never done this before :) 122.108.21.162 (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to add criticisms of PPP, provided they meet Wikipedia guidelines for verifiability. I'll tell you right now, the above does not.-Dhodges (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

122.108.21.162 (talk) 09:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1518523.stm - mostly taken from that. Criticising private corporations for their practices is hardly some extreme thing to do. Unless you seriously want me to reference somebody saying those things about corporations. 122.108.21.162 (talk) 09:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That, seriously, would be about it. Someone who's a reliable source making the points you are making in the article. -Dhodges (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)