Rural-Urban linkages and Public Private PartnershipA Discussion on Principle and Experiences

Rural-Urban linkages and

Public Private PartnershipPublic Private Partnership

Presentation Structure

� Defining the nature of urban-rural linkages

� Defining social cohesion

� A conceptual framework

� Operationalising social cohesion� Operationalising social cohesion

� Discussion points

Defining rural-urban linkages

• Lack of clarity and complexity underestimated

• Two-way flows which are functional and structural

– Movements of people, goods, capital,

– Social transactions and administrative / service provision / Governance

– Flows of technology, lifestyles

• Interdependencies and increasingly complex inter-relations

• Geographic (territorial) and socio-economic (relational) space

Defining social cohesion

• Academic (Sociology and Psychology):

– Social and economic relevance

– Solidarity and division of labour (Durkheim)

– Communities, groups and memberships.– Communities, groups and memberships.

– Shared values; reducing disparities; common enterprise; facing shared challenges

– Nature and extent of socio-economic divisions in society

– Group membership: how members can shape the conditions of their environment

Defining social cohesion

• Policy perspective – social and economic:– Achieving Integration – income differentials; labour market access; housing conditions; social networks; community interaction; whilst:

– Recognising differences and interdependences– Recognising differences and interdependences

– Focus on social networks and community interaction leads debate to Social capital (Networks, norms, trust, reciprocity)

Social Capital

• Implicit and explicit relationship well documented, and contested

• Tool to achieve or sub-set of cohesion? Societal or group level?

• Social Capital – individual and group levels (i.e. • Social Capital – individual and group levels (i.e. networks);

• Social Cohesion – General condition of society (networks may be exclusionary, thus high social capital but low levels of cohesion)

• Need to tackle social exclusion and cohesion in tandem

Measuring

• Means-end and Pluralistic approaches

• Council of Europe’s multi-dimensional approach:

– Equity in enjoyment of rights; dignity & recognition; occupational and family development; participation and commitmentand commitment

– Half of indicators focussed broadly on social capital

• Chan et al’s two-by-two framework:

– Horizontal – cohesion within civil society

– Vertical – State-citizen cohesion

A Conceptual framework

Shared identity

Social capitalRural-urban linkage/ inter-dependency:

movement of people, goods, capital; social

transactions; and

Thematic governance arrangements/ delivery

vehicle

Intervention/ co-ordinated actions

That reinforces/ provides capacity to support…

That shape …

That reinforce/

Reduce social/ economic

inequalities

transactions; and administrative and service provision

ordinated actions That reinforce/ support…

Shared identity of place

Territorial capital

Reduce spatial inequalities

Spatial governance arrangements/ delivery

vehicle

That shape…

That reinforces/ provides capacity to support…

Operationalising RUL

• Labour market linkages

• Rural-urban migration

• Rural-urban partnership working• Rural-urban partnership working

Labour market linkages

• Division of labour supports dependence, supports social cohesion, thus labour market patterns and commuting important

• Research shows varying patterns of employment decentralisation and journey to work timesdecentralisation and journey to work times

• Combining residential and employment land use will help support services, stocks of human and social capital

• Related to wider patterns of rural-urban migration

Rural-urban Migration

• Patterns of rural-urban flows of human and social capital and implications for civil society differentiated and difficult to predict

• In-migration of urban professionals can create tensions but can add to civic vibrancy

• Out-migration from rural areas can lead to spiral of decline, • Out-migration from rural areas can lead to spiral of decline, although return migration can bring urban knowledge, skills and networks

• As a form of linkage, impacts of commuting are variable according to sector and distance

Rural-urban partnership working

• Limited evidence indicates that a number of opportunities and

barriers exist

• But that good practice can be sought• But that good practice can be sought

• To be examined in the context of the vignettes

Point to Discuss

• Can we foster rural-urban linkages? Are rural-urban linkages

special?

• Should we attempt to measure social/territorial cohesion derived

from rural-urban linkages and if so how?

• Is there merit in considering social cohesion separately from RUL?

Rural-Urban linkages:

Do they foster cohesion?Do they foster cohesion?

Point for Discussion

• Can we foster social cohesion through rural-urban linkages? Are rural-urban linkages special?

• Should we attempt to measure social/territorial cohesion derived from rural-urban linkages and if so how?

• Is there merit in considering social cohesion separately from the • Is there merit in considering social cohesion separately from the RUL?

illustration• How will we illustrate the issues?

– Inter-municipal partnership

– NGO-driven work with disadvantaged urban youth

– Combined Universities work– Combined Universities work

– Tackling out-migration

– Counteracting digital exclusion through broadband

– Joining up public transport in the metropolitan area

What can be done?

– Infrastructure building

– Improving public services

– Training and employment

– Tackling social problems

Rural-Urban linkages

Some thoughts from our case

Making rural-urban linkages

– Outline some key ideas

– What have we learnt from EU initiatives

– Vignette illustrations

– What you think

Rural-Urban Partnerships

Benefits/opportunities

– Reduced polarisation

– Ability to address regional issues

– Intelligence of local concerns at strategic level

Challenges/constraints

– Political and cultural differences

– Difficulties in cross-collaboration and building trust

– Lack of regional policy frameworks strategic level

– Inclusion of multiple stakeholders

– Increased global competitiveness

– Increased capacity to provide fiscal relief for revitalisation

– Lack of regional policy frameworks and ambiguous structures

– Operational complexity of process

– Lack of resources

– Competition between local authorities

Partnerships: experience

– Partnerships are important for problem identification and project delivery

– Partnership programmes need to be integrated and area-based

– Transfer of lessons

– Partnerships need to be encouraged to be innovative

Institutional structures

– Voluntary local government associations (with and without incentives)

– Regional partnerships

– Non-governmental partnerships

– Partnerships for identifying priorities and partnerships for delivering

projects

Voluntary associations of municipalities

• Giving small ‘rural’ authorities a voice

• Voluntary association brings together municipalities to pool some

resources – this partnership identifies prioritiesresources – this partnership identifies priorities

• Project partnerships take forward projects calling co-finance

• Transferability? Probably good if have strong local government

Non-governmental public partnership

� Combined Universities work

� Partnership of universities comes together around accessing co-

financefinance

� Provides courses

� Transferability? Depends on capacity of non-governmental sector

Propositions

– Proposition 1: partnership is crucial in the delivery of rural-urban linkages

– both in terms of issue identification and project delivery

– Proposition 2: partnerships will probably mostly depend on local

government but is not the only form of partnership

– Proposition 3: EU co-finance/support has been important in facilitating

rural-urban linkage

– Proposition 4: lessons on partnership can be transferred across Europe

Section II

Public-Private Partnerships

Presentation Outline

– What is a public-private partnership?

– PPPs Problematic?

– Pros and cons of PPPs

– Recommendations and conclusions

What is a Public-Private Partnership?

– “…the combination of a public need with private capability and resources to

create a market opportunity through which the public need is met and a

profit is made.”

– According to the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the

broadest definition of a PPP includes agreement frameworks, traditional

contracting, and joint ventures with shared ownership.

How does a public private partnership work?

• Public and private organizations work together to:

– - determine a commonly-agreed upon goal for social benefit

– - produce consumer research

– - design and implement a promotional/educational campaign

– - evaluate the campaign

Overall Pros of PPPs

• Financial and in-kind resources are contributed

• Local & international efforts are combined

• Locals guide the development with expert aid

• Efforts are focused on a circumscribed problem• Efforts are focused on a circumscribed problem

• Programs are compatible with the population

Overall Cons of PPPs

• Selection of partners can be tricky

• Conflicts of interest to ensure profit

• Financial leverage affects decision-making

• Shifting of responsibilities from governments• Shifting of responsibilities from governments

• Sustainability is questionable

• Ethical considerations

• Bureaucracy

Conclusions

• PPPs are a relatively new concept

• PPPs have pros and cons and will require more research to establish best practices

• Some keys to success include:• Some keys to success include:– Partnership equality/transparency

– Community involvement

– Rigorous formative research

– Comprehensive evaluation

Recommendations

• PPPs Can be applied to capacity building and infrastructure strengthening

• Ideals grounds for partnership should be established before entering a PPPbefore entering a PPP

• Third-party monitoring

• Rigorous monitoring & evaluation

References• World Bank, 1994. World Development Report

• Thomas A. Curtis V. Public-private partnerships for health; a review of best practices in the health sector. July 2003

• The global public-private partnership to promote handwashing with soap [Online] [cited 2007 April 21]; Available from: URL:www.globalhandwashing.org

• Buse, K.; Waxman, A. “Public-Private Health Partnerships: A Strategy for WHO.” Bulletin of the World Health Organization. August 2001, 79 (8), 748-754.

• Roberts, M.J.; Breitenstein, A.G.; Roberts, C.S. “Chapter 4: The Ethics of Public-Private Partnerships.” Public-Private Partnerships for Public Health. April 2002, Harvard University Press, Boston, MA.

• Wheeler, C.; Berkley, S. “Initial Lessons from Public-Private Partnerships in Drug and Vaccine Development.” Bulletin of the World Health Organization. August 2001, 79 (8), 728-734.World Health Organization. August 2001, 79 (8), 728-734.

• Widdus, R. “Public-Private Partnerships for Health: Their Main Targets, Their Diversity, and their Future Directions.” Bulletin of the World Health Organization. August 2001, 79 (8), 713-720.

• PRISMA. “Behavioral Study of Handwashing with Soap in Peri-urban and Rural Areas of Peru.” Joint Publication 11E. September 2004. 1-159.

• Shiva, V. "Saving lives or destroying lives? World Bank sells synthetic soap & cleanliness to Kerala: the land of health and hygiene”

• “PPPHW program: the story of Ghana.” Available at http://www.globalhandwashing.org/Country%20act/ghanapu.pdf.