Sharing Expertise for Growth

Languages

Blog

Submitted by wadiehobson on 19.09.2011

Why Public Private Partnerships should not be an excuse for government getting back into economic production

When I was recently informed by a Municipal official that the Municipality was engaging in Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) for LED, I did not expect the type of project he was referring to. The Municipality was starting up economic production enterprises to be run jointly with the private sector. The rationale was that such projects would both generate revenue for the Municipality as well as create local jobs. 

 

While at first glance you may think "well what's wrong with that?!", consider the following example. After community consultations, one Municipality perceived the need for a local dairy processing factory, given an abundance of livestock in the locality and the lack of processing facilities. The rationale was that if dairy products could be processed locally, they could satisfy local market demand and sell to other areas. However, Municipal capacity was low in undertaking sound market research or feasibility assessment for the project before investing in it. The result was that after building the factory, the Municipality has been unable to attract a private sector operator to equip and run it. The factory therefore remains shut and un-operational to this day, having wasted significant public funds.

 

Such examples were common in the country in question, leading a variety of stakeholders to criticize the capacity of Municipalities or to doubt the potential of the private sector to contribute to LED.

 

The main issue in my opinion, however, is whether public private partnerships should be focused on local governments starting up and engaging in economic production in the first place? The historical experience of socialism highlighted the inefficiency and low productivity associated with state control of productive enterprises. This led to conventional wisdom in economic policy prescribing privatization of government owned enterprises, which is being implemented at the national level throughout African countries. It is surprising, therefore, that local governments are often reversing this trend by acquiring or starting up new productive enterprises.

 

It is true that there is sometimes a case for government investment because the private sector is not taking up a genuinely feasible business opportunity due to market failures such as the lack of information, or because social returns outweigh private returns.

 

A distinction should, however, be made between government investment in projects that create public goods such as environmental, infrastructure or skills training projects, and between investing in pure business ventures such as the dairy factory example above (which in my opinion are better left for the private sector to invest or not invest in). Local government can by all means publicize the presence of investment opportunities and incentivize private sector actors to come to the locality, but if this fails to attract them, there is usually a good reason and government should not waste precious public funds on ventures that are likely to fail.

 

This issue needs debate, however, as PPPs has become an often used and yet unclear concept, while local governments need more precise guidance based on good and bad practice experiences. There is no generally accepted definition of PPPs in the context of LED. While most definitions focus on either the private sector performing a function usually carried out by government such as maintaining a road or providing electricity, or acquiring state property for commercial purposes, they do not preclude government acquisition of equity in productive enterprises.

 

Given the current lack of clarity on what PPPs should and should not entail, I think a safer bet for local governments would be to focus on projects that increase public goods i.e. improve infrastructure, develop human skills, provide services to local businesses or attract inward investment. Local government would be well advised to stay out of productive enterprises that would compete with other businesses in the locality or in other localities as they are less knowledgeable in such ventures and should not distort local markets.

0
Your rating: None
2

 PPP is not an excuse for

PPP is not an excuse for government to get back into the business sector but is it an excuse for the private sector (particularly multi-nationals) to seize up control of the public sector in weak countries? That is a question that exercises my mind, Ms Hobson. It seems like too much government interventions in the business sector is just as bad a total laissez faire regime. Developing countries need government to steer the development agenda. What is needed in my view is developmental (local) governments. We know of the phenomenon of pervasive growth whereby all the growth generated in a country  benefit only a segment of the population and mostly multinational corporations which constantly repatriate the funds to their home countries further impoverishing on the long run their host countries. What is needed is empowerment of the locals to begin to take available business opportunities and (local) governments need to be present and friendly to these efforts. Actually to fast track development, government need to be the main driver of the process. PPP can help but it not a panacea neither is it a sacrosanct principle that government should not get involved in business.  Let not elevates issues to absolute, to dogmas. Look at Singapore to see how government entrepreneurship can do it for the best. China is an example too that government can get it right in the economic sector and unleash the broader potential of the locals. Context determines action, not preset dogmas and assumptions, so I submit respectfully.

Thanks very much for your

Thanks very much for your comments! I agree with you that at the national level, African governments need to regulate the activities of multi-national firms and ensure that privatisation leads to efficiently run businesses that improve employment and poverty reduction. When privatising, governments need to rigorously assess whether multi-nationals are likely to act in a way that benefits the local population, compared with a local company.

At the local level, however, which was the main focus of my blog, multi-nationals are less of a threat, as we are talking about small productive ventures like the dairy factory example that I gave, olive pressing factories, tourist accomodation, etc and here I stand by what I said that I dont think local government has the expertise or the mandate to run this kind of enterprise efficiently.

China and Singapore are great examples of how a developmental state can achieve economic development but these governments have greatly encouraged private sector ownership and competitiveness in recent years. Most enterprises are privately owned in Singapore and China, it's just that the government invests a lot of money into providing an enabling environment for business, good infrastructure, good human skills and attracting investment....which I think are policies that no one would argue with as they are not market distortive...

But I totally agree that the main focus of local governments should be on encouraging local enterpreneurship in their localities. It's just I'd rather see them supporting local businesses and start ups rather than starting them up themselves!

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.