Public‐Private Partnerships: Governance Scheme or Language Game?

TLDR

Debates on public‑private partnerships for infrastructure are confused, with PPPs viewed both as governance schemes and language games, and critics challenge the loose assumptions underlying their various types and motives. The study aims to examine the merits of private finance initiative schemes, assessing their benefits and costs, and to determine whether such partnerships truly serve the public interest. The authors analyze private finance initiative schemes as a branch of cross‑sectoral mixing arrangements, evaluating their benefits and costs. They conclude that in PFI arrangements, government and business interests can dominate, undermining the public interest.

Abstract

Accepting that there is much confusion in current debates about the use of public‐private partnerships for public infrastructure projects, the article begins by considering the emergence of the ‘PPP phenomenon’ as a ‘governance scheme’ and as a ‘language game’. The existence of several types of so‐called PPPs, and motives for them, is noted, as are criticism of loose assumptions about them in the debates. The argument then focuses on private finance initiative (PFI) schemes as one branch of cross‐sectoral mixing arrangements, and examines the benefits and costs of using this mechanism. The conclusion is a pessimistic one: in the PFI arrangement, the potential for the interests of the advocating government and the business partners to dominate over the public interest has been palpable. There is an urgent need to explore further the merit of these infrastructure ‘partnerships’ to ensure that they do advance the public interest.