英语翻译The Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration126Effo

英语翻译
The Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration
126
Efforts to Classify
An early recognition of the problem,and an early attempt to classify,
came from Linder (1999) of the University of Texas,Houston.His concern
was,however,with the semantics – the senses in which the publicprivate
descriptor is used – rather than with the actual organisational
and functional arrangements that attract that descriptor.He (1999:41-48)
identified six senses :
PPP as management reform;
PPP as problem conversion;
PPP as moral regeneration;
PPP as risk-shifting;
PPP as restructuring public service;
PPP as power-sharing.
Sorting out the Organisational and Functional Arrangements
It is apparent that various attempts to define PPP highlighted the
conceptual problem and pushed towards efforts to classify.Here Dutch
analysis has been prominent.For example,when Van Ham and Koppenjan
(2001:598) wrote of PPPs as outcomes of cooperative agreements to “jointly
develop products” and to “share risks,costs and resources”,they were
significantly limiting the field.Others assumed all partners would be
“principals” in the enterprise,but manifestly that was not so in many PFIstyle
infrastructure projects.So Klijn and Teisman (2005:98) distinguished
between contract (or concession) projects and organisational cooperation
projects; and van der Wel (2004) and Koppenjan (2005) between alliancemodel
and concession-model arrangements.