- Home
- About us
- ILAC Activities
- Resources
- ILAC Publications
- ILAC Briefs
- ILAC Sourcebook
- Part 2 - Tools and approaches
- Chapter 6: Introduction Part 2
- Chapter 7: Innovation histories
- Chapter 9: Culture study as a tool for change
- Chapter 12: Collaborative agreements
- Chapter 13: Facilitation as a foundation skill for ILAC
- Chapter 14: Learning alliances
- Chapter 15: Institutional histories
- Chapter 16: Engaging Scientists through Institutional Histories
- Chapter 18: Horizontal evaluation
- Chapter 19: Appreciative inquiry
- Part 3 - Cases and experiences
- Part 4 - Challenges and strategies
- About the authors
- Glossary
- References
- Part 2 - Tools and approaches
- Presentations by ILAC Team
- Working Papers
- Journal Articles
- Newsletter
- Reports
- ILAC Library
- Tools and methods for M&E
- Appreciative inquiry
- Biophysical measurements
- Case study
- Content analysis
- Contribution analysis
- Cost-Benefit Analysis
- Creative expression
- Diaries, journals and logs
- Dreams realised or visioning
- Expert review
- GIS mapping
- Graphing results
- Group assessment
- Historical trends and timelines
- Horizontal evaluation
- Impact evaluation
- Benefit-cost methods
- Case studies
- Cost-effectiveness analysis
- Counterfactual Impact Evaluation (CIE)
- Difference-in-difference
- Econometric methods
- Ex-post comparison of project beneficiaries with a control group
- Instrumental variables
- Integrated partial indicators
- Mathematical programming
- Modified peer review
- Partial indicators of impact
- Patent analysis
- Pipeline comparison
- Production function approach
- Propensity score matching
- Quasi-experimental design, involving the use of matched control and project groups
- Randomization
- Rapid assessment or review, conducted ex post
- Regression discontinuity design
- Simulation method
- User surveys
- Impact flow diagram
- Innovation histories
- Institutional history
- Institutional linkage diagram
- Interviews
- Learning alliances
- Learning-oriented evaluation
- M&E Frameworks
- M&E wheel (or "spider web")
- Mapping (sketch)
- Matrix scoring
- Most significant change
- Net-Map
- Non-random sampling
- Observation
- Outcome mapping
- Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis
- Participatory methods
- Performance indicators
- Photographs and video
- Problem and objectives trees
- Random sampling
- Ranking and pocket charts
- Rapid appraisal methods
- Relative scales or ladders
- Rich pictures (or mind maps)
- SWOT
- Seasonal calendars
- Semantic differentials
- Social mapping or well-being ranking
- Sociograms
- Stakeholder analysis
- Survey
- Systems (or inputs-outputs) diagram
- Theory-Based Evaluation
- Transects
- Evaluation studies and reports
- Evaluating capacity development
- Partnership
- Seminars
- Video Room
- Links to other sites
- E-learning courses
- ILAC Publications
- Contact
- Blog
For the Good of the People: Using public-private partnerships to meet America's essential needs
Sun, 08/31/2008 - 12:52 — Cristina Sette
Publication Type:
MiscellaneousSource:
A White Paper on Pertnerships, The National Council for Public-Private Partnerships, Washington, USA (2002)Keywords:
partnership; PPP; USAAbstract:
Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) are used in meeting a wide variety of public needs, to the great satisfaction of the vast majority of the users of this approach. However, PPPs are often misunderstood. Issues such as the structure of partnerships, the origin of privatesector profits, the role of the public-sector in these agreements and the value (to both the general public and public agencies) are all complex aspects where limited knowledge can lead to misinformation and misperceptions. This paper provides a more complete picture of how and where public-private partnerships work. In the context of this paper, ?public-private partnerships? covers a full range of projects and services involving private-sector resources in the delivery of services or facilities for public use. This includes everything from outsourcing of services to full privatization of government activities, but the principle focus of this report is to review the blending of resources and assets from both sectors in a way that is advantageous to all parties. Advantages include cost-reducing solutions that maintain the same or better levels of quality, and successfully leveraging of the increasing limited resources of government agencies to complete high-cost, high need projects. In many cases, a partnership can save as much as 40% of the original cost of the program, while maintaining or even improving the quality when compared to pre-partnership performance benchmarks.
Notes:
http://www.ncppp.org/presskit/ncpppwhitepaper.pdf
Sublibrary:
Partnership
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page