A Presentation on Rural urban linkages and public private partnership

1. Rural-Urban linkages and Public Private Partnership
A Discussion on Principle and Experiences

2. Rural-Urban linkages
and
Public Private PartnershipPublic Private Partnership

3. Presentation Structure
Defining the nature of urban-rural linkages
Defining social cohesion
A conceptual framework
Operationalising social cohesionOperationalising social cohesion
Discussion points

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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)

7. 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

8. 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

9. A Conceptual framework
Shared identity
Social capital
Rural-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…

10. Operationalising RUL
• Labour market linkages
• Rural-urban migration
• Rural-urban partnership working• Rural-urban partnership working

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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?

15. Rural-Urban linkages:
Do they foster cohesion?Do they foster cohesion?

16. 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?

17. 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

18. What can be done?
– Infrastructure building
– Improving public services
– Training and employment
– Tackling social problems

19. Rural-Urban linkages
Some thoughts from our case

20. Making rural-urban linkages
– Outline some key ideas
– What have we learnt from EU initiatives
– Vignette illustrations
– What you think

21. 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 frameworksstrategic 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

22. 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

23. Institutional structures
– Voluntary local government associations (with and without incentives)
– Regional partnerships
– Non-governmental partnerships
– Partnerships for identifying priorities and partnerships for delivering
projects

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. Section II

28. Public-Private Partnerships

29. Presentation Outline
– What is a public-private partnership?
– PPPs Problematic?
– Pros and cons of PPPs
– Recommendations and conclusions

30. 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.

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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

36. 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.