Evaluating Collaborative Public–Private Partnerships

Kate Nelischer

Journal of the American Planning Association, 2024, vol. 90, issue 2, 261-273

Abstract: Problem, research strategy, and findingsPublic–private partnership models designed to facilitate greater collaboration have become increasingly popular. Scholarship on these partnerships has shown that they rely less on contracts and more on trust between partners, engage private partners early to allow for participation in project visioning, and prioritize shared decision making. However, there is a need to further define collaborative partnerships and distinguish them from more conventional models. In addition, research into the impacts of collaborative partnerships within planning processes is limited, and additional insights into their administrative structures, management, and internal dynamics is needed. I respond to these gaps by analyzing the collaborative co-creation public–private partnership formed to plan a smart city in the Quayside district of Toronto (Canada). Drawing on interviews (N = 35), participant observation, and document analysis, I found that those qualities of the Quayside partnership typical of collaborative partnership models reduced governmental oversight, facilitated conflicts of interest, and afforded the private partner substantial power. The challenges precipitated by the partnership structure were amplified through its application in a smart city context, where the private partner was a technology corporation with expansive resources and ambitions. Based on these findings, I argue that collaborative partnerships pose significant risks of privatizing planning processes and that these risks are heightened when asymmetries between partners are particularly stark.Takeaway for practicePlanners should not allow a desire for greater collaboration to overshadow the necessity of divisions between public and private roles, because tension between the two is vital to partnership success. If seeking deeper collaboration, planners should ensure that responsibilities are clearly detailed in contracts to avoid ambiguities or conflicts of interest. This is especially important in projects where power differentials between partners are too significant to rely solely on trust instead of contracts.

Date: 2024
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01944363.2023.2195389 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:rjpaxx:v:90:y:2024:i:2:p:261-273

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/rjpa20

DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2023.2195389

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of the American Planning Association is currently edited by Sandi Rosenbloom

More articles in Journal of the American Planning Association from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().