Public–private partnerships in TVET: adapting the dual system in the United States

Author(s):  
Thomas F. Remington
2004 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 331-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhittin Acar ◽  
Peter J. Robertson

The study from which this article is drawn constitutes one of the first attempts to remedy the paucity of research on accountability in the context of interorganizational networks and public–private partnerships. The data for the study were drawn from field research focusing particularly on partnerships formed between K-12 public schools and private and/or non-profit organizations in the United States. The most frequently cited difficulties associated with accountability in partnerships were the availability of and access to information, sectoral and personal differences, and frequent changes in personnel, resources, and partners.


2019 ◽  
pp. 69-87
Author(s):  
Sarah L. Quinn

This chapter shows how Progressives returned to the issue of farm credit distribution in the early 1900s and drew on European precedents to reframe credit allocation as a way for the central government to help people help themselves. American Progressives thus replaced their earlier, more radical farm credit politics with a more moderate vision of government-supported credit as an inexpensive way of supporting self-help. The chapter then considers the Federal Farm Loan Act (FFLA). Compared with other hallmarks of Progressive Era state building, the FFLA seems relatively unimportant. Nevertheless, it was a turning point in the use of selective credit as a tool of federal statecraft in the United States. The FFLA provided federal credit on a national level that was administered through public–private partnerships and bolstered by tax expenditures. By tracing the lead-up to this policy, one can see how Progressives forged a new array of cultural and organizational approaches to federal credit that would later proliferate across policy arenas.


Subject Public-private partnerships. Significance Amid attempts to secure new investment from Canada and the United States, the government is wrestling with political difficulties surrounding the future of public-private partnerships (PPPs). These have been magnified in recent months by the bad publicity arising from the Odebrecht bribery scandals. Establishing a politically acceptable balance between attracting investors and ensuring the transparency of public works contracts is proving increasingly important. Impacts The problem of corruption in sub-national government will cloud the operations of PPPs. There will be a need for stronger and more independent regulation of PPP projects. The localised reach of the Works for Taxes programme will limit its scope in dealing with wider objectives.


2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 165-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander von Hoffman

President Lyndon Johnson declared the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 to be “the most farsighted, the most comprehensive, the most massive housing program in all American history.” To replace every slum dwelling in the country within ten years, the act turned from public housing, the government-run program started in the 1930s, toward private-sector programs using both nonprofit and for-profit companies. As a result, since its passage, for-profit businesses have developed the great majority of low-income residences in the United States. The law also helped popularize the idea of “public-private partnerships,” collaborations of government agencies and non-government entities—including for-profit companies—for social and urban improvements. Remarkably, political liberals supported the idea that private enterprise carry out social-welfare programs. This article examines the reasons that Democratic officials, liberals, and housing industry leaders united to create a decentralized, ideologically pluralistic, and redundant system for low-income housing. It shows that frustrations with the public housing program, the response to widespread violence in the nation's cities, and the popularity of corporate America pushed the turn toward the private sector. The changes in housing and urban policy made in the late 1960s, the article concludes, helped further distinguish the American welfare state and encourage the rise of neoliberalism in the United States.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document