<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3199" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=212354419-17112007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Asmat,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=212354419-17112007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=212354419-17112007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I
don't know the details of the initiative you are pointing to and my
apologies to all for a somewhat glib reponse.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=212354419-17112007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=212354419-17112007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>The
issues of PPP's and so on are very important ones in this context as (based on
an earlier note), PPP's are it appears, the operative arm of MSP's which seems
of such interest and enthusiasm among Civil Society folks at
least.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=212354419-17112007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=212354419-17112007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Based
on a casual review and a range of personal experiences (including I should add
in the Canadian geomatics context in an earlier lifetime), the results are
decidedly mixed.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=212354419-17112007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=212354419-17112007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>In the
instance you have pointed to, the website, as with previous iterations of
Canadian government attempts to generate a geomatics industry in Canada is
sponsored (and I presume paid for) by the Canadian government i.e.
taxpayers. My prediction is that (as with previous such
initiatives) the site and the infrastructure it represents will continue as long
as the Canadian government continues to pump money in and will collapse once
that is withdrawn. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=212354419-17112007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=212354419-17112007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Nothing wrong with this, and I personally think that developing a
Canadian geomatics industry is a suitable target for Canadian government
funding, but I would be very careful about calling it a "partnership" which to
my definition implies shared risk/shared reward. In this (and parallel
instances) the risk i.e. expenditure is all on the public sector side, while the
(immediate) reward is gained by the private sector "partners" (the argument
being that the public reward comes in the longer term with increased jobs, tax
revenues etc.etc.).</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=212354419-17112007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=212354419-17112007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>But
this is small potatoes compared to the situation in other sectors where for
example various governments have guaranteed private investments in public
infrastructure (schools, roads, hospitals) and so on and where the risks
(and costs) of often grotesque cost overruns have been borne by the public
sector while the ultimate returns are structured to the benefit of the
private sector "partners" and dare I say without any sort of look in by
Civil Society.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=212354419-17112007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=212354419-17112007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>For an
in-depth review of the UN's experience in this area see
below.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=212354419-17112007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=212354419-17112007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>MG</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=212354419-17112007><FONT size=2><BR><BR>Beyond Pragmatism:
Appraising UN-Business Partnerships<BR>Authors: Ann Zammit, Peter
Utting<BR>Programme Area: Markets, Business and Regulation<BR>Paper No.:
1<BR>Code: PP-MBR-1<BR>No. of Pages: 63<BR><</FONT><A
href="http://snipurl.com/un_ppp"><FONT color=#0000cc
size=2>http://snipurl.com/un_ppp</FONT></A><FONT size=2>><BR><BR>In recent
years, the United Nations (UN) has emerged as one of the <BR>principal
proponents of public-private partnerships (PPPs), considered <BR>by many to be a
key instrument of development and an ideal to be <BR>emulated. The authors of
this paper argue that idealizing the concept <BR>and its normative content, as
well as the feel-good discourse that <BR>infuses much of the mainstream
literature, risk diverting attention away <BR>from various tensions and
contradictions that characterize UN–business <BR>partnerships (UN–BPs) and that
raise questions about their contribution <BR>to equitable development and
democratic governance. Both the theory and <BR>practice of partnerships suggest
that thinking and policy need to go <BR>beyond evidence and assumptions about
“good governance” and pragmatism.<BR><BR>The paper identifies key ideational,
institutional, political and <BR>economic forces that have driven the PPP
phenomenon, only some of which <BR>are recognized in the mainstream literature.
This analysis reveals the <BR>multiple, sometimes contradictory agendas and
interests involved. The <BR>authors argue that if the contribution of UN–BPs to
equitable <BR>development is to be adequately assessed, these diverse logics
<BR>underpinning partnerships need to be identified and
addressed.<BR><BR>“Partnership” has become an infinitely elastic concept, and
the authors <BR>suggest that it is essential to unbundle the notion, by
analysing the <BR>different activities and relationships subsumed under various
<BR>partnerships in order to reflect on their contribution to equitable
<BR>development. A review of UN–BPs suggests that, unless the UN’s
<BR>partnering work is founded on greater conceptual clarity and more robust
<BR>analytical frameworks, it will be difficult to make useful comparisons
<BR>or draw practical conclusions.<BR><BR>The paper outlines the growing number
of partnerships across the UN <BR>spectrum and notes the recent emphasis placed
on mainstreaming and <BR>scaling up partnership activities in the UN system. The
authors argue <BR>that the case for scaling-up, and how this should be done,
rests on <BR>whether it can be plausibly demonstrated that such scaling-up
would, in <BR>and of itself, have a decisive impact on the problems or issues at
<BR>stake. Both the theory of partnerships and empirical studies that have
<BR>been carried out on actual experiences suggest that it is crucial to
<BR>study the effects of such partnerships from a political economy
<BR>perspective: will they strengthen local capacities or simply facilitate
<BR>faster and deeper penetration of foreign capital and globalization; are
<BR>they really compatible with the nature, mandates and priorities of the
<BR>UN in general and UN agencies in particular; and how do they affect
<BR>power relations among different development actors and
institutions?<BR><BR>From the above analysis, the authors conclude that there is
a need to <BR>develop a more active, critical intellectual culture in and around
UN <BR>partnership activities. This would involve the UN moving beyond the
<BR>present emphasis on accumulating and showcasing best practice examples
<BR>of partnerships, and devoting greater resources and energies to
<BR>developing and applying methodological tools that facilitate ex-ante and
<BR>ex-post assessments of the immediate or direct development impacts of
<BR>partnerships, as well as of their wider development implications.<BR><BR>It
is essential to devote greater attention to seeing the bigger picture <BR>and to
take account of key contributions, contradictions and trade-offs. <BR>This
requires both the development of a panoply of evaluation methods <BR>that go
beyond some conventional tools, and a broader conceptual <BR>framework regarding
development than that which currently informs the <BR>UN–BP arena. For example,
focusing on foreign direct investment, <BR>linkages between transnational
corporations (TNCs) and small and <BR>medium-sized enterprise, and privatization
as an objective or outcome of <BR>partnerships, is problematic from the
perspective of equitable <BR>development. Corporate social and environmental
responsibility, net <BR>balance-of-payments flows, value added, transfer pricing
and the <BR>crowding out of domestic competitors, among other things, also need
to <BR>be included in the reckoning.<BR>While impact assessment has not been a
priority of UN agencies promoting <BR>partnerships, some measures have been
taken to reform the operating and <BR>normative environment of UN–BPs. The paper
pays particular attention to <BR>reforms related to accountability, mainly in
relation to the United <BR>Nations Global Compact, as well as the issues of
decentralization and <BR>local ownership of partnerships.<BR><BR>The authors
emphasize the need to be more selective about which <BR>partnerships potentially
contribute to the fundamental goals of the UN. <BR>Among other criteria, they
highlight the principle of “policy coherence” <BR>in the sense of avoiding ad
hoc interventions where there is a <BR>disconnect from core government or agency
policy, or a situation where <BR>one policy or governance approach contradicts
another, as illustrated in <BR>the cases of some partnerships associated with
water privatization, or <BR>global health funds that generate tensions in
relation to public health <BR>policy.<BR><BR>In spite of the complexity
involved, it is incumbent on the UN, as a <BR>leading institution in the field
of international development, to <BR>reflect on how partnerships relate to
particular patterns of <BR>development. However, critical thinking in the UN on
its relationship <BR>with the private sector in general, and partnerships with
TNCs in <BR>particular, has been marginalized in recent years.<BR><BR>Given its
key roles in promoting partnerships and as a learning forum, <BR>it is important
for the Global Compact to accelerate its efforts to move <BR>beyond best
practice learning and embrace “critical thinking”. This <BR>would require
greater intellectual pluralism and interactions with a <BR>wider range of
subdisciplines and research institutions, as well as with <BR>civil society
organizations that are organically linked to social <BR>movements. Without this
balance of intellectual and social forces, the <BR>Global Compact runs the risk
of doing as much to legitimize corporate <BR>power as promote inclusive and
equitable patterns of development.</FONT><BR></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=212354419-17112007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=212354419-17112007> </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=212354419-17112007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=212354419-17112007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT
face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Asmat Ali
[mailto:asmatali@yahoo.com] <BR><B>Sent:</B> November 17, 2007 11:24
AM<BR><B>To:</B> governance@lists.cpsr.org; michael
gurstein<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: RE: AW: [governance] 3P or
3C<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>MG, pls see this , it is exactly from the sphere where you live i.e.
Canada</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://cgdi.gc.ca/en/aboutcgdi.html">http://cgdi.gc.ca/en/aboutcgdi.html</A></DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR><B><I>michael gurstein <gurstein@gmail.com></I></B>
wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Nope,
Asmat -- not where I live, whatever the text books or theory might
be<BR>peddling these days.<BR><BR>And the idea that these PPP's might
include civil society (at least in<BR>Canada) is not even on the
radar...<BR><BR>(I should add that in the ICT area that I know best, in
Canada there are<BR>Public/NGO "partnerships" which in practice are ways for
government to<BR>outsource their public (and legislated) responsibilities
(and overhead<BR>costs) to the already completely underfunded and
over-burdened Not for<BR>Profit sector. <BR><BR>MG<BR><BR>-----Original
Message-----<BR>From: asmatali@yahoo.com [mailto:asmatali@yahoo.com]
<BR>Sent: November 17, 2007 10:41 AM<BR>To:
governance@lists.cpsr.org<BR>Subject: Re: RE: AW: [governance] 3P or
3C<BR><BR><BR>michael gurstein, I guess that you have changed the order
unintentionally ,<BR>it is private sector which takes risk and public sector
takes benefits.<BR><BR>Regards<BR>asmat
____________________________________________________________<BR>You received
this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>governance@lists.cpsr.org<BR>To
be removed from the list, send any message
to:<BR>governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org<BR><BR>For all list information
and functions,
see:<BR>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>____________________________________________________________<BR>You
received this message as a subscriber on the
list:<BR>governance@lists.cpsr.org<BR>To be removed from the list, send any
message to:<BR>governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org<BR><BR>For all list
information and functions,
see:<BR>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>
<DIV align=center><FONT size=3>Asmat Ali <BR></FONT><A
href="http://www.geocities.com/asmatali/"><FONT
size=3>http://www.geocities.com/asmatali/</FONT></A></DIV>
<DIV align=center>Mobile:+31-638-759982</DIV>
<P>Inbox cluttering up with junk? Clean up with <A
href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mailuk/taglines/gmail/clean_up/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48525/*http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/mail/isp_targeting.html">Yahoo!
Mail</A>. !DSPAM:2676,473f418286771276010415! </P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>