Public–Private Partnerships

The need for effective governance is all the more pressing in conflict prone countries. A world plagued with poverty, disease and environmental degradation will be a world short of stability and a breeding ground for the threats which already face us. Stability and development are not separate issues. Effective, responsible, aspired mode of governance is on top of the agenda for the countries that are recovering form conflicts. The collaboration of a broad range of active players in both private and public sector particularly civil society and businesses are required to be coordinated in countries that are set to recover from post conflict collapses. The role of private sector is emphasized for their access to funds that are not easily available in other sectors as well as motivated, expertise in human resources that are hard to locate in bureaucratic sector. The infrastructure necessary for lasting economic recovery from conflict is unattainable without active, and decisive presence of both international and local businesses. However there are deep prejudices and controversies among different stakeholders in public and private partnerships. Management and risk control are revisited on partnerships to bring about stability and development in chaotic and uncertain situations. Although there is justified contention about curbing the extent of government influence and interference however, there is collective wisdom for its importance to establish stability, infrastructure and development particularly where security is an issue. The extent of responsibility of governments to manage public services such as providing water, sanitation, and transport other than administrating laws and security issues are much debated. Looking to factors that contribute to state failure and civil wars including excessive centralization of decision making, mob monopolization of wealth and restricted access to resources, weak organization capacity in government and a climate of mutual suspicion between public and private sector all are powerful indicator of trouble future ahead. Weak local administrations can not fulfill the task of rebuilding viable physical and administrative infrastructures in divided societies that suspicious is rampant. Therefore policies that are based on divide an rule will ultimately bring about its own downfall.

In such context even aid agencies could unintentionally contribute to conflict by focusing on certain groups or prioritizing certain needs. To avoid this coordinated distribution of implementing aid projects is prerequisite to bring the community together. The same applies for private sector to regulate a healthy market not to over invest in certain areas or sectors. This will lead us to religious or sectarian prejudiced states that exacerbate local social divisions by allocating lion share of budgets or subsidies to certain supporting groups. They risk feeding into war economies and ultimately other sectoral or ethnic conflicts. Recent policy oriented research, for example work on civil wars by Paul Collier et al (2003) has highlighted the links between distorted economic structures and conflict. In this context legitimate and transparent economic activities are undermined for the benefit of particular groups, instigating unrest and uprising against rules and regulations, which in turn intensifies risk of escalation of conflicts.

Additional caution needs to be taken to encourage consensus environment and stabilizing basic security through capacity building of government’s actors, an enabling environment that advocates client oriented bureaucratic system. Governments have the responsibility to act strongly and transparently on setting legal rules. Their legitimacy will be compromised if they appear to be captured by partisan political or commercial interests. A well regulated state will attract important international entities along with willing experts from private sector to work together by providing positive and secure environment for investment and economic growth. Both local and international companies are stakeholders in economic recovery and they have expertise to share with the government. Badly trained and poorly paid government forces have increasingly been a source of corruption, insecurity, and fear rather than of reassurance. Deregulated conditions might justify bribes paid by companies or even aid agencies at the time of emergency to political officials in accelerate their performance to deliver vital services. However the long term consequences are appalling sometimes impossible to rectify.

Studies show that national training systems, and electoral institutions, as well as partisanship, shape government responses. Socialist- style bureaucratic obstacles are among main deterrents for international companies to invest and encourage economic growth. In order to make both public and private sector and healthy market forces play their role investment in infrastructure is prerequisite. The reconstruction of physical infrastructure such as roads, power stations and water utilities is an essential precondition for recovery. Ultimate objective of all external actors in reform processes, whether private or public sector, should be to reinforce local government capabilities and not to reduce them, to encourage transparency, and accountability for players both to governments and the people whom they serve. Risk management need to apply to bridge the gaps between public and private sectors which highlights the role of civil society organizations for their sensitivity to conflict prone impediments. Civil society organizations have the tools and local knowledge to minimize the risk for economic growth primarily for their mind-set that acts positively where they are brought in.

Sources:
Bray. John, 2006, Public Private Partnerships in State Building and Recovery from Conflict, Chatham House, www.chathamhouse.org.uk
Collier, Paul et al. 2003, Breaking the Conflict Trap. Civil War and Development Policy. Washington, DC/Oxford: World Bank/Oxford Univ Press
International Finance Corporation 2006, Performance Standards on Social and Environmental Sustainability: www.ifc.org/ifcext/enviro.nsf/Content/PerformancesStandards
www.undp.org/cpsd/indexF.html
www.worldbank.org/conflict
www.dfid.gov.uk/wp2006/
www.eitransparency.org