Download
1 / 15
150 likes | 168 Views
This article explores the significance of Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) in global governance, highlighting how collaboration between public and private actors benefits society by pooling diverse knowledge and resources. It delves into the origins of PPPs, their application in various sectors such as transportation and healthcare, and the role of influential organizations like the Global Compact. The discussion also delves into the Constructivist approach, contrasting it with Institutionalism, and examines the involvement of major companies in initiatives like the Global Compact.
E N D
Who’s got to PPP? • With any luck in the next few years everyone! • Public- Private Partnerships (PPPs) are projects or governance initiatives in treaty like agreements with both public and private actors • Actors include advocacy groups, companies and corporations, international institutions like the UN and World Bank, and governments of different states. • Public-private partnerships are typically voluntary in nature and are beneficial because they pool the knowledge of different sectors • These partnerships typically arise in areas that would typically be deadlocked among nations alone because of the difficulties for countries to agree on rules.
Why is PPP’ing good? • Great question! • Triple P had helped increase the visibility of its issues while endorsing informal standards that help diffuse the norms. • The private actors bring capital the public needs • The partnership provides a shields from criticism. • Public-private partnerships promote participation and make it easier for stakeholders to get involved.
Where do you PPP? • Public-private partnerships are used in areas of transportation, development, delivery of social services including health care, and the environment • Examples of public-private partnerships are: the World Nuclear Association, World Commission on Dams, ARPA, Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations, and hundreds more
Where does (this) PPP come from? KOFI ANNAN
The Global Compact • Spending time with this Dubee will make you smarter. Listen to what he has to say about the Global Compact: • http://broadband.ameinfo.com/it/index.asp?videoID=38664&adID=13 • January 1999 • World Economic Forum • Network of governments, businesses, labor unions, civil society organizations, and other actors. • Kofi Annan’s missions: a sense of corporate responsibility to increase engagement in the areas of human rights, labor right, the environment, and anti-corruption, to increase the bane of globalization. • The ten points
Why participate? • It’s voluntary • No financial obligation • Minimal criteria for members to join • Ethical global contribution opportunities • Increase better business and performance standards • Increases transparency in potential investment opportunities which minimizes risk and builds trust • Appeases stakeholder’s demands for transparency in one’s business and decreases public critiques • Ability to share business strategies and ideas • Opportunities to increase one’s leadership
Example • DaimlerChrysler and Germany • Aids, prevention and care, Africa
Institutionalism Pros. • Unifying organization • Increases transparency • Affilate of the UN • Presence of Public and Private companies
Intuitionalism Cons • No immediate benefits • Can hurt profits • Does not explain normative aspect
Constructivist Approach • Constructivism: approach to IR helps explain what Realism & Classical Liberalism often miss. • Constructivism: a company would forfeit millions by signing Global Compact instead of exploiting human rights, for example. • It explains that norms have changed over time (at the beginning of the 20th century, Global Compact would have been near impossible) • International norms have moved in a moral/humane direction, especially in last few decades (human rights, labor rights, environment) • Undermine to Constructivist approach: member companies of Compact may have had ulterior motives for signing.
Companies WHAT! • Volvo, Bayer, BMW, Cisco Systems, Carrefour, Deutsche Bank, Gap, Hewlett-Packard, Mitsubishi, Nike, Nestle, Pfizer, Royal Dutch/Shell, Starbucks, Toshiba, and Volkswagen
Which is better • Clearly constructivism is better • This theory focuses on social norms • The focus of the Global Compact is not centered on creating institutions that change globalization, or on hastening peace between nations, but the norms that surround that which is moral and immoral in the world of business • Constructivism explains the emphasis on the want to better the world through norms placed in the workplace and further understanding and Human Rights expansion there
Contd’ • Also, institutionalism would not allow one to understand why the business would acquiesce to lesser profit margins to support these causes. • Constructivism explains why they would do so –to support a moral code of human rights, a better environment, a better world overall, whereas Institutionalism would not, considering its basic assumption of Realist ideology (looking out solely for your own interests. • While inter-state actions are important, as explained by Institutionalism, it is, in fact, the norms that are the most progressive and uniting factor within the Compact that makes Constructivism the better theory.
Questions • Could the global compact potentially be a façade of corporate responsibility to appease critics of globalization? • What do you think the implications of giving business men a larger role in global politics are?
