D IREC TIONS IN E DUCATIONAL P LANNING : S YMPOSIU M TO H ONOU R THE W ORK OF F RANOISE C AILLODS L ES O RIENTATIONS DE LA P LANIFICATION D E L DUCATION : S YMPOSIUM EN L HONNEUR

S YMPOSIUM EN L HONNEUR DU TRAVAIL ACCOMPLI PAR F RANOISE C AILLODS

Thursday 3 July Friday 4 July 2008 Jeudi 3 juillet Vendredi 4 juillet 2008

Can and should public private partnerships play a role in education?

Ilona Genevois

Workingdocument Documentdetravail

International Institute for Educational Planning Institut international pour la planification de lducation

PublicPrivatePartnershipsandEducation Canandshouldpublicprivatepartnershipsplayaroleineducation?
IlonaGenevois INTRODUCTION
We live in a tense world. Often at the centre of these tensions is the depth of economic despair that exists in so many places in our world. While a political battle rages abut the wisdom of publicprivate partnerships,thepioneeringbutcontroversialconceptofmixingpublicandprivatemoneyiscatchingon likewildfireabroad. Driving forces behind universal high quality education are the six Education For All (EFA) goals and the Millennium Development Goals. The Education for All Track Initiative is a global iniatives to support basic education. Launched in 2002 by donor governments under the organisational leadership of the World Bank, it was a direct response to the pledges made at Dakar in 2000 and at Monterrey1 in 2002, which said, among other things, that the international community would provide the necessary resourcestocountriescommittedtoachievingtheEFAandMDGgoals. Franoise Caillods mentioned in Financing Secondary Education in Developing Countries (UNESCOIIEP 2001) that whatever additional resources the state will be able to mobilize will not necessary be available for secondary education, as reaching universal primary education still requires a large proportion of government resources, and a secondary education place costs at least two or three times as much as one in primary education. 2 Costs have a significant impact on whether and which children are educated and a potential contributor to this effort that has been largely overlooked by many is the privatesector. This paper discusses if public private partnerships can and should play a role in education. It provides a brief history of global public private partnerships before touching on the issue within the education sector. It inquires if public private partnerships are good or bad, why consider public private partnerships,takesstockonwhatisalreadydoneandwhatholdsbackthepublicprivatepartnerships. The paper concludes that public private partnership can add value, but it can be overused or misused. The relevant question here is how and when to adapt public private partnerships to developing countriesneedsiftheyaretocontributetoEFAandMDGs.
UnitedNationsInternationalConferenceonFinancingforDevelopmentheldMarch2002inMonterrey Caillods Francoise in : Financing secondary Education in developing countries, Strategies for sustainable growth, UNESCOPublishing,InternationalInstituteforEducationalPlanning
2 1

I.

ABRIEFHISTORYOFPUBLICPRIVATEPARTNERSHIPS
In principle, companies and business associations kept their distance from the UN for many years. However, individual companies did appear early on at the UN as sponsors. One particularly symbolic example is that of multimillionaire John D. Rockefeller Jrs gift to the UN. At the end of the 1940s, he donated$8.5milliontopurchaseapieceoflandontheNewYorkEastRiverfortheUNsheadquarters. Without this donation, the UN today would probably have its seat on the outskirts rather than in the centreofthecity. Until the 1980s such collaboration tended to be oneoffs, with international politics largely remaining theterritoryofgovernments.TheUnitedNationswasfoundedin1945asastateorganisationandthen as now there was no international legal basis covering hybrid forms of international collaboration. The movetowardswhatwecannowdescribeasaboominglobalpartnershipswasnotalinearprogression, nordiditproceedatasteadypace.ThepostSecondWorldWar developmenttookplaceinthreebroad phases: The first phase, from the 1940s to the 1960s, was characterised by the reconstruction and new creation of state structures after the Second World War destruction and the end of colonialism. International politics at this time was defined by decolonisation and the cold war, and by confronting between states andblocksofstates.Nonstateactorsplayedlittleornorole. Inthesecondphase,the1970sandthe1980s,confrontationwasnolongeronlybetweenstatesbutalso between states and nonstate actors. On the one hand global social movements for the environment, womensrights,disarmament,anddemocratisationgrewupinoppositiontothepoliticalestablishment. On the other, multinationals gained economic power and political influence. These developments tended to provoke defensive reactions from most governments who tried to maintain political control. Thetermpartnershipwasasyetaforeignconceptwithininternationalpoliticaldiscourse. This changed in the third phase, which began in 1989 and is still ongoing. The end of Eastern European state socialism, the dominance of a neoliberal ideology which pushes for less state intervention, deregulation and privatisation, together with overwhelming global problems have opened the way for increasingintegrationofnonstateactorsintointernationalpolitics. When Kofi Annan arrived as Secretary General of the United Nations in January 1997 he opened the UN to the private sector. In the very first month, Annan travelled to Davos for the World Economic Forum, where he told hundreds of the most influential business leaders in the world that The link between the workoftheUnitedNationsandthebusinessisavitallyimportantone.()Strengtheningthepartnership between the United Nations and the private sector will be one of the priorities of my term as Secretary General3 AlsoSecretaryGeneralBanKimoondeemedthatbusinessandtheUnitedNationsneedeachother.The UN needs business innovation, the iniatives and technological prowess. But business also needs the United Nations. In his address to the UNAUSA Business Council for the United Nations and the Association for a Better New York on 10 January 2007, SecretaryGeneral Ban Kimoon stressed that business, trade and investment are essential pillars of peace and prosperity and confirmed that the
3

SeeUnitedNationsSecretaryGeneral(1997)

UnitedNationsmustengagemorefullywithnonstateactorsinordertobringaboutaprosperous,more secureandpeacefulworld.4 For the 2002 Monterrey conference on Financing and Development, the private sector and NGOs were includedsystematicallyrightfromthestartinthe preparatoryphase.Forthefirsttimesinthehistoryof the UN, the opportunity to become accredited was offered not just to business associations with consultative status at ECOSOC, but also to individual companies. This meant that companies such as Cisco Systems or Deutsche Bank were able to take part in the negotiations alongside civil society organisations such as Third World Network, Oxfam or Social Watch. This decision set a precedent, but onewhichwasunsupportedbyanylegalrelationshipwithNGOs.5 TheGlobalCompactLeadersSummit2004 Kofi Annan used his annual speech to set the tone each year for the relationship between the UN and the business sector. His 1999 speech, in which he suggested a Global Compact between the UN and the business sector was particularly important.6 The goal of this initiative was for companies to engage voluntarily in helping to pursue central UN principles. In return, The Secretary General promised companies support in striving towards these principles but also in going further: More important, is what we can do in the political arena, to help make the case for and maintain an environment which favourstradeandopenmarkets.7Duringthisphase,theUNalsofounditselfinaseriousfinancialcrisis and it was inthis situation that the Secretary General sought out the political and financial assistance of companies. The Global Compact Leaders Summit held at the United Nations in New York at the invitation of the Secretary General carried an even more symbolic meaning. Over 400 business leaders and some representativesfrominternationalorganisations,governmentsandNGOs cametogether todiscusshow business could develop and strengthen the UN principles in general, and the principles of the Global Compact in particular, through voluntary initiatives. It was the largest summit of this kind that had ever taken place at the UN. Kofi Annan himself drew attention to the symbolism of the final event of the conference: for the closing plenary, the business leaders gathered in the General Assembly Hall and sat in the seats normally occupied by government representatives. Not least of this symbolism, the summit marked a climax in the new definition of the relationship between the United Nations and the private sectortheconflictofpreviousyearsisabandonedinfavourofcooperationandpartnership. Today nearly all areas of the UN system have undergone the partnership boom. As the UN Secretary Generalobservedinhis2005reportonthetopictoday,partnershipsareanintegralpartoftheworkof much of the United Nations system8. One can only guess at how many collaboration projects and institutionsmadeupofpublicandprivateactorsexistatinternationallevel.
UnitedNations:BanKimoon,AddresstotheUNAUSABusinessCouncilfortheUnitedNationsandthe AssociationforabetterNewYork,10January2007 5 ECOSOCResolution1996/31,25July1996 6 SeeUnitedNationsSecretaryGeneral(1999) 7 ibid 8 SeeUNdoc.A/60/214,10August2005
4

VirtuallyallUNspecialisedagenciesandsubsidiarybodieshavesignificantlyincreasedtheirengagement with multistakeholder partnerships, in particular the World Bank, FAO, UNESCO, WHO, UNIDO, UNDP, UNICEF, UNCTAD and UNEP. The FAO in a first evaluation counted more that 830 collaborative arrangementswithexternalpartners.UNICEFlists187corporatepartnersonitswebsite.

II.

PUBLICPRIVATEPARTNERSHIPSINTHEEDUCATIONSECTOR

Education is generally perceived as the prerogative of the government. Lack of financial and managerial capacity often impede the governments ability to meet their obligations in regard to their national education systems. Governments can use partnerships to make up for deficiencies in state education programs.At thesametime,improving educationaroundtheworldisin thelongterminterestofevery business. There are benefits from engaging in enhancing skills of workers, developing brand reputation and strengthening community relations. Even if their core business does not directly relate to the educationsector,manycompaniesfindthattheircorecompetenciescanaddsignificantvalue. Chronic financial constraints in developing countries, together with the positive experiences made with public private partnerships, have led to new private and community management, financing, and investment in education. An important element of success is lining up private sector efforts with broader policy frameworks and strategies. At the global level, this can mean broad campaigns or commitmentssuchastheWorldDeclarationonEducationforAllortheMillenniumDevelopmentGoals. At the national level, there are many intervention points within the education system where highly valuableprivatesectorcompetenciescouldbejoinedwiththecompetenciesofthepublicsector. The private sector is becoming an essential partner in promoting education. A large number and variety of public and private partnership iniatives are being carried out in many different countries. Over the past few years, the number of UNESCOs partners from the private sector has increased to several hundreds, ranging from multinational companies to small and medium sized enterprises, philanthropic trustsandfoundations,economicandbusinessassociationsandindividuals. PublicPrivatePartnershipsTheMillenniumDevelopmentGoalsEducationforAll We live in a tense world. Often at the centre of these tensions is the depth of economic despair that exists in so many places in our world. While a political battle rages abut the wisdom of publicprivate partnerships,thepioneeringbutcontroversialconceptofmixingpublicandprivatemoneyiscatchingon likewildfireabroad. Driving forces behind universal high quality education are the six Education For All (EFA) goals and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) declared by world leaders at summits marking the new millennium.TheEFAgoalsaimtoprovideequitableaccesstoprimaryeducationforallchildrenby2015, accesstolifeskillsandlearningprogrammesforyouth,andexpandedadultliteracy. TheEducationforAllTrackInitiativeisaglobaliniativestosupportbasiceducation.Launchedin2002by donor governments under the organisational leadership of the World Bank, it was a direct response to 5

the pledges made at Dakar in 2000 and at Monterrey9 in 2002, which said, among other things, that the international community would provide the necessary resources to countries committed to achieving theEFAandMDGgoals. TheMillenniumDeclarationof2000wasratifiedby189headsofstate,expressedacommitment.World leaders pledged to ease the plight of the millions of people around the world living in abject poverty by achieving the MDGs. MDGs have one specific education goal of universal primary completion and a related goal on gender equity. Beyond that education is often viewed as the foundations for achieving theothergoals,whichrelatetopovertyreduction,womensempowerment,healthandenvironment. A report10 on progress towards the MDG goals find that while progress has been made by many countries,therearemanyothersespeciallyinsubSaharanAfricathatarefarfromachievingthegoals. The education of children is costly for parents. Cost can include: tuition fees, uniforms, text books, teachers fees, school construction and transportation etc. Costs have a significant impact on whether andwhichchildrenareeducated. Whatever additional resources the state will be able to mobilize will not necessary be available for secondary education, as reaching universal primary education still requires a large proportion of government resources, and a secondary education place costs at least two or three times as much as oneinprimaryeducation.11 A potential contributor to this effort that has been largely overlooked by many is the private sector. Today the private wields unprecedented influence globally, particularly in developing countries where large transnational corporation are major sources of employment, wealth creation and knowledge transfer. Majorcategoriesofpublicprivatepartnerships Since the 1980s policy makers have increasingly recognized that the traditional methods of education finance and management were unable to deliver quality basic education to all children and that radical changes were needed. Two responses to this excess demand and the need of enhanced quality of provisionhavebeenanincreaseinemphasisonparticipationineducationfromtheprivatesector,anda pushfortheestablishmentofpublicprivatepartnerships. Public private partnership can complement and enhance the role of the government in the provision of education. The task that each player can provide includes financial provision, pedagogical development, human resources development, service delivery, infrastructure, facilities management, among others. For these reasons, it is critical to investigate which are the appropriate roles of each stakeholder in the provisionofeducationinthecontextofspecificmarketsandlocations.
UnitedNationsInternationalConferenceonFinancingforDevelopmentheldMarch2002inMonterrey GlobalMonitoringReportMillenniumDevelopmentGoals:FromconsensustoMomentum(Washington,D.C.: worldBank,2005) 11 CaillodsFrancoisein:FinancingsecondaryEducationindevelopingcountries,Strategiesforsustainablegrowth, UNESCOPublishing,InternationalInstituteforEducationalPlanning
10 9

Definitionofpublicprivatepartnership There exists a spectrum of possibilities for alliances between the public and private sectors within the context of education. The term publicprivate partnership has many different definitions, especially across different sectors. In a strict definition, a publicprivate partnership is a model of development cooperation in which actors from the private sector (private corporations, corporate foundations, groups or associations of business) and the public sector (Ministry of Education, local authorities and schools)pooltogethercomplementaryexpertiseandresourcestoachievedevelopmentgoals. The two means of provision public and private can be characterized according to the way that they are managed and financed. In their purest forms, public provision is managed directly by the government and the expenditures are met by tax revenues while in private provision revenues are derived from fees and private contributions and the providers are free to determine the type of their educationalservices. Severalthingsthatpublicprivatepartnershipsarenot Like many public policy concepts, public private partnerships have slowed down in a muddle of conceptualambiguities.Publicprivatepartnershipsarenotequivalenttothepromotionofafreemarket economy. In the typical confusion of terms, donor agencies promote privatization and government subsidiestoprivateentrepreneursinthenameofbuildingpublicprivatepartnerships. There is also common use of defining public private partnerships as a development strategy, but a development strategy they are not. Public private partnerships rather than being the centrepiece of a development strategy are primarily a set of institutional relationships between the government and variousactorsintheprivatesectorandcivilsociety.12 A partnership assumes several parties have combined forces to define and/or accomplish an objective. Therewill,ofcourse,beadivisionoflabourbetweenthepartners,butasilentpartnershipinwhichone of the parties provides only the capital necessary to implement the venture is a partnership in name only. Thebusinessalliance The private sector is an underutilized resource for addressing the challenges in education and there appearstobeconsiderablescopeforwinwinsituations:Publicprivatepartnershipsareapromisingway ofcombiningthefinancialresourcesandtheexpertiseofbothparties. Cooperation with the private sector will only succeed if firms are willing to cooperate with the public sector on development issues. This raises the questions why firms should take any interest in strategic alliances in the first place. In fact, many companies are not willing to engage in cooperative arrangementswithgovernmentinstitutions,pointinginparticulartothehightransactioncostsinvolved.
ClydeMitchellWeaverandBrendaManning,PublicPrivatePartnershipsinThirdWorldDevelopment:A conceptualOverviewinStudiesinComparativeInternationalDevelopment,Winter199192,Vol.26,No4,4567
12

Thosecompaniesthatdocooperateadvancethreemainarguments: Costsharing. Public cofinancing may cut the costs of necessary investments in firms business environment,e.g.improvementtoeducationofthelocalworkforce; Legitimacy. The private sector is often heavily criticized for exploiting the developing countries, for paying unfair prices, repatriating profits, evading taxes, bribing politicians, crowding out local competitors,etc.Criticismisespeciallyheavyofpotentiallypollutingandlabourintensiveindustries.Itis no coincidence that theses industries are particularly engaged in corporate social responsibility, especially if they are associated with brand names. Working together with public development cooperationisseenasmarkofconfidenceandasincreasingthelegitimacyofthecompaniesconcerned; Complementary specialization. Among the specific competences attributed to development agencies are their experiences in dealing with governments and in supporting organisational developmentindifferentculturalsettings. PublicPrivateCivilSocietyPartnerships Multisector partnerships involve the private sector and/or government working with notforprofit actors such as social entrepreneurs, community development charities, church groups, advocacy organizations, or research institutes. Some define such arrangements as publicprivatecivil society partnerships (PPCPs). PPCPs that involve strategic alliances between private companies and notfor profit organizations offer added value in at least two ways: First, they bring local knowledge about priority beneficiary needs, limits to affordability, gender and cultural sensitivities. Second, they provide ongoingcommunicationchannelstothelocalpopulationandopinionformers. Direct involvement of credible civil society organizations in PPCPs can help assure that the poorest in society are served. PPCPs thus offer an additional pathway for governments to deliver on their obligation to assure continuity in the delivery education. Public private partnerships, in particular those thatinvolvecivilsocietyorganizations,arealogicalresponsetomanagingthiscomplexity. MultiStakeholderPartnershipsforEducation:WhatareMSPEs? MultiStakeholder Partnerships for Education (MSPEs) are initiatives that pool and manage resources and mobilise competencies and commitments from governments, the private sector, civil society organisations and others to contribute to the expansion and enhanced quality of education. The use of the terminology MSPEs rather than PPPs (PublicPrivate Partnerships) is deliberate to indicate that their success is dependent on a broader coalition of partners and stakeholders than merely the public (governments)andtheprivate(companies)sectors13
13

http://www.pfore.org/StaticPages/TheCase.aspx

IIIPUBLICPRIVATEPARTNERSHIPS:GOODORBAD?
There are also critical voices concerning the new partnership approach. Above all, the risk of an overwhelming influence of private business in particular, the potential decisionmaking power private actors could gain on international political priorities and its financial commitments are widely criticised.14 Public private partnership could be a device for government to keep oppositions out. It works by allowing the government to spend more on political sensitive issues like schools and in politically sensitive places without startling the electorate with higher taxes or new debt. Any opposition would considersuchaninventionacurse. But public private partnership is not just an expensive accounting trick. True believers in public private partnership do not really make their case around the governments ability to spend without taxing or borrowing. They claim that public private partnership allows public services to be delivered quicker, cheaper and better. The counter claim is that they are no quicker, no better and only cheaper because theyshiftemploymentfromreasonablypaidpublicsectorjobstopoorlypaidprivatesectorjobs. WhyconsiderPublicPrivatePartnership? Effective education can best be achieved when government collaborates with a range of other actors private sector, civil society, independent experts, communities, and families. Public private partnerships entail the pooling of resources, competencies, and capacities from the public and private sector to achieve outcomes that add value beyond what either party could achieve acting alone. The approach builds on the idea that different sectors in society public, private, civil society have different yet potentially complementary core competencies and resources that, if appropriately joined, produce a positivesumtoadvancepublicandprivategoods.15 Clearly, business benefits from a well educated work force, political stability and economic growth all products of a sound education system. Partnerships can provide access to national and community leaders enhance a corporation visibility and reputation, and help deliver on corporate social responsibilitycommitments. Government benefit from public private partnerships by gaining access to corporate expertise and experience in management, strategic planning, innovative problem solving, labour market expertise, skillsdevelopment,efficientdeliveryofgoodsandservices,productdevelopment,andlogisticalsupport.
Martens Jens, Multistakeholder Partnerships Future Models of Multilateralism?, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, DialogueonGlobalization,OccasionalPapers,Berlin,January2007
14

IngramGeorge,WilsAnnabatette,CarrolBidemiandTownsendFelicity:TheUntappedopportunity:HowPublic PrivatePartnershipscanadvanceEducationForAll,AcademyforEducationalDevelopment,2006 9

15

Whatistheprivatesectoralreadydoing? A year before the Millennium Declaration, Kofi Annan called upon world business leaders to implement fully the UNs Global Compact, which sets out universal principles on human rights, labour standards and the environment, designed to guide the business leaders in their global activities. The Global CompactisclearlyrelatedtotheMDGs.Indeed,theMDGsbuilduponmuchofthefoundationlaiddown fortheGlobalCompactbybroadeningthescopeofitsambition. Given the pivotal role played by the private sector in developing countries, there is no doubt that business activities have the potential to both impede and accelerate progress towards meeting the MDGs. Business has an impact through its core business activities in developing countries. For example companies contribute to economic growth through generating employment and by paying taxes. Companies that source their inputs from local suppliers in developing countries encourage the creation of a vibrant supply chain that provides employment and incomes directly, as well indirectly through multipliereffects.Similarly,policiesonstafftraining,knowledgeandtechnologytransferifappropriately calibratedcananddohaveapositiveimpactonhostsocieties. There are many examples of business activities in this sphere that have a positive impact upon the societies in which they operate, for example in the areas of education and skills development. The companies that have shown best practice in this regard have developed expertise, capacity and delivery systems, either through purely philanthropic activities or through inhouse social programmes for the companysemployees. Whatholdsbackthepublicprivatepartnership? ManyseethegreatestassetoftheUNinitsmoralauthorityand credibilityasaworldforumtomediate on conflicts of interest. For this reason, it is particularly problematic for the UN to collaborate with partners whose activities contravene the UN charter in spirit, who are responsible for violating UN normsandstandardsandwhoarerepeatedlysubjecttopubliccriticism. The economic difference between the private sector and the public education is that the private sector is subject to competition, heterogeneity and often seeks profitmaking and more share of the potential market. These are the reasons that make it efficient and effective in any sector, including social sectors. As a result of the competition, the private sector is usually more flexible, entrepreneurial and innovative. Companies do not enter into a publicprivate partnership out of development motives, at least not first and foremost. They are focused on profits. Often, this is accepted in development cooperation only in thesensethatunfortunatelythatcannotbechanged.Butunderstandinginsteadbusinessorientationon profit as potential for sustainable development is one of the most important prerequisites for achieving successforthepublicprivatepartnershipapproach. Sociallyresponsibleinvestmenthasaroletoplayinfinancingofdevelopment.Theideaofinvestingwith a social conscience is not a new and transient fashion. It is old. For a long time socially responsible investment was conducted by religious foundations and related to religious views of what was the right andwrongwaytoprofit. 10

Publicprivatepartnershipisofteninterpretedasanattempttoinvolvetheprivatesectorintheinterests and goals of development cooperation. Commerce and industry do not need to allow themselves to be instrumentalised for development cooperation. After all, the public private partership debate did not arisefromtheinabilityofcompaniestoearnmoneyindevelopingandtransitioncountries,butfromthe problems of official development assistance in view of shrinking funds to still be able to achieve significant results on its own. Therefore it is development cooperation that must move towards the companies and be open to the question of the interest of the question of the interests of the private sector. For the UN, nonnegotiable principles are those outlined in intergovernmental conventions and agreements, and the notion of education as a public good. For government public sector, it is responsibilitytoitsconstitutionandtheelectoratethatcannotbechanged. The public education is not profitmaking and is traditionally subject to strict government regulations, statedominated and funded, and based on equal opportunities for equity and access. As the institutional partner with the mandate and ultimate responsibility for public infrastructure and service delivery for all citizens, governments are usually a core partner in public private partnerships. National, state and governmental bodies control physical and administrative infrastructure, as well as broad based servicedelivery systems. Yet the capacity of public sector systems are severely limited in many developingcountries.Thepersistentdevelopmentchallengesfordevelopingcountriesfaceinseekingto meet the MDGs and other international goals. For national governments, improving the policy and institutionalenvironmentshouldbeapriority. Government can take a lead role in identifying which public private partnership models are best suited to meet public goals, and then building public support for their implementation. The right mix is not easy. Equity which is fundamental for provision of public education may be jeopardised by culture of competition of the private sector. The private sector may be discouraged by strict bureaucratic procedures. ShouldPublicPrivatePartnershipbeintegratedindevelopmentcooperation? International agencies, including multilaterals like the World Bank and the United Nations and bilateral agencies are also key players. Different evaluations showed that as a rule public private partnership projectsaremoresignificantanddevelopagreaterstructurebuildingimpactiftheyareacquiredinsuch a way that they complement development cooperation priority areas. However, integrating Public Private Partnership in bilateral takes place only slowly and the potential for meaningful public private partnershipsmeasuresinbilateraldevelopmentcooperationappearsinnowaytohaveexhausted.16 Before embarking on public private partnerships in education, business partners should be aware of a number of key iniatives that are important to the way education policy and programming is happen todayindevelopingcountries.
16

D+CVol.302003:4

11

Wheretogofromhere? Business and the United Nations might seem to have different purposes. Business has traditionally focusedongrowthandprofit. TheUnitedNationsfocusesonpeaceandsecurity,povertyreductionand humanrights.Butmanyoftheseobjectivesarethesame:buildingandsupportingstrongeconomiesand communities, providing opportunities for people to get educated. In these goals the UN and business arepartners. Myassessmentisthatthepublicprivatepartnershipscanaddvalue,butitcanbeoverusedormisused. Publicprivatepartnershipscanachievepositiveoutcomeforbusinessandcommunities.Apublicprivate partnership can help a company prosper economically while at the same time help a community meet its basic needs or make improvements in other ways. Each successful public private partnership is unique,yetmanysharesimilartraits. The relevant question here is how and when to adapt public private partnerships to developing countries needs. If public private partnerships are to contribute to EFA and the MDGs, they must become essentially developing world institutions, fitting settings and meeting particular developing worldneeds. But it would be wrong to believe that one model can just be transplanted elsewhere without taking cultural and other differences into account. There are plenty opportunities around the globe, and progresshasnotalwaysbeenasquickasgovernmentsmighthavehoped. Littleresearchonpublicprivatepartnershipsforprimaryandsecondaryeducationexists.TheIIEPmade this topic one of the key research topics for its current MediumTerm Plan. Further networking with the Ministries of Education and the private sector interested in this domain should lead to more sharing of experiences, reviews and analyses. While the cases are multiple and varied, generalisations are often misleadingandnotreplicable.

12

 Bibliography: Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada; Goss Gilroy Inc. Canada; Education for Change Ltd., UK. 2003. Local solutions to global challenges: Towards effective partnership in basic education: Joint evaluation of external support to basic education in developing countries.The Hague, Netherlands: MinistryofForeignAffairs. Auswrtiges Amt (Hrsg.). 2001. Neue Globale Partnerschaften. Fnftes Forum Globale Fragen. Berlin: AuswrtigesAmt. Altenburg, T. 2005. The private sector and development agencies: How to form successful alliances, Criticalissuesandlessonslearnedfromleadingdonorprograms.Bonn:GermanDevelopmentInstitute. Baker, W. 2003. Private sector partnerships, a personal contribution from a private sector perspective. PreparedfortheSectorforExternalRelationsandCooperation,Paris,2003. Ban,K.M.2007.AddresstotheUNAUSABusinessCouncilfortheUnitedNationsandtheAssociation forabetterNewYork,10January2007,UnitedNations. Bennis, P. mit der Wirtschaft aus der Finanzkrise. 2001. Die drohende Vereinnahmung der UNO duch private Geldergeber. In: T. Brhl et al. (Hrsg.), Die Privatisierung der Weltpolitik, Entstaatlichung und KommerzialisierungimGlobalisiesrungsprozess.(pp.130149).Bonn:Dietz. Bertsch, T.; Bouchet, R.; Godrecka, J.; Krkkinen, K.; Malzy, T.; Zuckerman, L. 2005. Corporate sector involvement in Education for All: Partnerships with corporate involvement for the improvement of basic education, gender equality, and adult literacy in developing countries. Report for UNESCO. Paris: UNESCO. Bundesministerium fr wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung, Entwicklungspartnerschaften mitderWirtschaftPublicPrivatePartnership(PPP),Jahresbericht2005 Bovaird, T. 2004. Publicprivate partnerships: from contested concepts to prevalent practice. In: InternationalReviewofAdministrativeSciences,70(2),199215. Brhl, T.; Debiel, T.; Hamm, B.; Hummel, H.; Martens, J. (Hrsg.). 2001. Die Privatisierung der Weltpolitik. EntstaatlichungundKommerzialisierungimGlobalisierungsprozess.Bonn:Dietz. CaillodsFranoise:FinancingsecondaryEducationindevelopingcountries,Strategiesforsustainable growth,UNESCOPublishing,InternationalInstituteforEducationalPlanning,Paris2001 Clyde MitchellWeaverandBrenda Manning,PublicPrivatePartnershipsinThirdWorldDevelopment: A conceptual Overview in Studies in Comparative International Development, Winter 199192, Vol. 26, No4,4567 13

Cramer, J. 2005. Applying international standards and guidelines on corporate social responsibility: An actionplan.EnvironmentalQualityManagement,14(3),7177. Commission for Africa. 2005. Our common interest. Report of The Commission For Africa. UK: CommissionforAfrica. Deutscher Entwicklungsdienst in Cooperation with the Private Sector. Working together for sustainable development Economic Focus. 2001. Curse of the ethical executive. Why corporate social responsibility is not a welcomefashion.In:TheEconomist,(84),17November2001. DFID.2001.Imfundo.PartnershipforITineducation.London:DFID. DevelopmentandCooperation.2003.Vol.30,No4,ISSN07212178 Draxler Alexandra, New Partnerships for EFA: Building on Experience, UNESCOIIEP, World Economic Forum,2007 Fombrun, C. 2005. Building corporate reputation through CSR initiatives: Evolving standards. In: CorporateReputationReview,8(1),712. Friedrich, A.; Valence, E.G. 2004. Publicprivate partnership within the United Nations system. Bielefeld: W.BertelsmannVerlag. Gerrard, M. Partenariat publicpriv, Questce que les partenariats publicpriv et en quoi diffrentil desprivatisations?.In:FinanceandDevelopment,September2001. Nancy, V.; Hauselmann, P. 2004. Global Knowledge Partnership. Multistakeholder partnerships. IssuePaper,GlobalKnowledgePartnerships. GlobalMonitoringReportMillenniumDevelopmentGoals:FromconsensustoMomentum(Washington, D.C.:WorldBank,2005) Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Education. 2003. Publicprivate partnerships in the education sector:EducationSectorReformsActionPlan20012005,Islamabad:MinistryofEducation. Hfner, K. 2002. PrivatePublic Partnership im System der vereinten Nationen. In: Hamm, Brigitte (2002) (Hrsg.): PublicPrivate Partnership und der Global Compact der Vereinten Nationen. INEF Report 62. Duisburg:GerhardMercatorUniversitt,S.46 HumanDevelopmentSectorUnit,East Asiaandthe PacificRegion.2004.The WorldBank,privatesector involvementineducation,AreviewofWorldBankactivitiesinEastAsiaandPacific,19962002.Working PaperSeriesNo200413.

14

Lienhard, A. 2006. Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) in Switzerland: experience risk potentials. In: International Review of Administrative Sciences. Vol. 72, No. 4, 547563 (2006) DOI: 10.1177/0020852306070083 IEG. 2007. Independent evaluation group sourcebook for evaluating global and regional partnership programs,indicativeprinciplesandstandards.Washington,DC:IEGWorldBank. Ingram George, Wils Annabatette, Carrol Bidemi and Townsend Felicity : The Untapped opportunity : How Public Private Partnerships can advance Education For All, Academy for Educational Devlopment, 2006 Joint Inspection Unit: United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS). 1998. Broader Engagement withUnitedNaitonsSystemOrgnaizations.16+4(JIU/REP/98/5).Geneva:UN, Karmokolias, Y.; van Lutsenurg, M.J. (no date). The business of education, a look at Kenyas private educationsector.Washington,DC:WorldBank. Kell, G. 1999. Weltorganisation und wirtschaftswelt. Globaler pakt fr das nchste jahrhundert. In: VereinteNationen,47(5),163168 KayizziMugerwa, S. 1998. Africa and the donor community: From conditionality to partnership. Gteborg:DepartmentofEconomics,Gteborg,University. Latham,M.2002.Privatesectorparticipationineducation,Areviewofpossiblewaysandmeans.CfBT. PublishedbyTheCentreforBritishTeachers60QueensRoadReadingRG14BS Laval,C.2003.Lcolenestpasuneentreprise.Paris:EditionsLaDcouverte. Martens, J. 2007. Multistakeholder partnerships Future models of multilateralism?. In: F.E. Stiftung (Ed.),Dialogueonglobalization,OccasionalPapers,Berlin,January2007 Maxwell, S.; Christiansen, K. 2002. Negotiation as simultaneous equation: building a new partnership withAfrica.In:InternationalAffairs,78(3),477491. Mezzalama,F.;Quedraogo,L.D.1999.ReportonprivatesectorinvolvementandcooperationwithUnited Nationssystem.JIU/REP/99/6.Geneva:UnitedNations. Ngomo, A.C. 2007. Les partenariats publicpriv en ducation et la problmatique du renforcement des capacits daccueil dans lenseignement du second dgre gnral au Gabon. IIEP Masters thesis. Paris: IIEPUNESCO. OECD.2001.CorporateresponsibilityPrivateinitiativesandpublicgoals.Paris:OECD. OECD.2007.Principlesforprivatesectorparticipationininfrastructure.Paris:OECD. Patrinos, H.A. 2006. Publicprivate partnerships: Contracting education in Latin America. Preliminary draft.Washington,DC:WorldBank. 15

Paul, J.A. 2001. Der weg zum Global Compact. Zur Annherung von UNO und multinationalen Unternehmen. In: Brhl, T. et al. (Hrsg.), Die Privatisierung der Weltpolitik. Entstaatlichung und KommerzialisierungimGlobalisierungsprorozess.(pp.104129).Bonn:Dietz. Robertson, S.L. 2002. Chanigng governance/changing equality? Understanding the politics of publicprivate partnerships in education in Europe. University of Bristol, European Science Foundation ExploratoryWorkshop,Globalization,EducationRestructuringandSocialCohesioninEurope,Barcelona, Spain,35October2002. Shobhana, S. 2000. Trends in private sector development in World Bank education projects. Policy ResearchWorkingPaper.Washington,DC:WorldBankHumanDevelopmentNetworkEducationTeam. Spackman, M. 2002. Publicprivate partnerships: lessons from the British approach. In: Economic Systems,26,(3),283301. Tesner,S.;Kell,G.2000.TheUnitedNationsandbusiness.Houndmills:MacMillan. UNDP. 2001. UNDP/CSOPP/IP: Partnerships with business. (Online document). Retrieved at: http/:intra.undp.org/brsp/factsheet_private_sector.htm UNESCO. 2001. Comprehensive strategy devised to raise the visibility of UNESCOs action through strengthening the coordination of information and dissemination activities within the secretariat. 161 EX/43:2May2001. UNESCO.2000.KochiroMatsuurasspeechofJuly2000. UNESCO.1995.MediumTermStrategy20022007.Paris:UNESCO. UNESCO. UNESCOprivate sector partnerships: Making a difference. Paris: UNESCO. www.unesco.org/en/communities/privatesector United Nations Funds for International Partnerships. (no date). (Online document). Retrieved at: http://www.un.org/unfip UNICEF.1994.Corporatepartnershipproceduremanual.NewYork:UNICEF. United Nations. Cooperation between the United Nations and all relevant partners, in particular the privatesector.ReportoftheSecretaryGeneraltotheGeneralAssembly,2001(UNDoc.A/56/442UN,of August2001).NewYork:UnitedNations. United Nations/General Assembly/Business and Development. Report of the SecretaryGeneral. (UN Doc.A/56/442of5October2001).NewYork:UN, United Nations Global Compact Office. 2007. After the signature: A guide to engagement in the UnitedNations Global Compact. Report for United Nations Global Compact Office. Washington, DC: UnitedNations.

16

Unwin, T. 2005a. Partnerships in development practice: Evidence from multistakeholder ICT4D partnership practice in Africa. UNESCO Publications for the World Summit on the Information Society. Paris:UNESCO. Unwin, T. 2005b. Towards a framework for the use of ICT in teacher training in Africa. London: RoyalHolloway,UniversityofLondon,TheOpenUniversity. USAID; AED. 2006. A conceptual framework for private sector investment in education: Strategies from theLatinAmericanandCaribbeanRegion.Draftfordiscussion.USAID. Utting, P. 2000. UNbusiness partnerships: whose agenda counts? Geneva: UNRISD (Available at: http/www.unrisd.org). Wang,Y.2000.Publicprivatepartnershipsinthesocialsector:IssuesandcountryexperiencesinAsiaand thePacific.ADBIPolicyPapersNo1.Tokyo:AsianDevelopmentBankInstitute Weinzierl, V. 2005. Zur Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Vereinten Nationen und der Privatwirtschaft, die Partnershaften und ihre Nachhaltige und effiziente Entwicklung. Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles,NewYork,OxfordWien,PeterLang. Wegweiser GmbH Berlin (Hrsg.). 2001. Beschaffungsmarkt Vereinte Nationen, Weltbank und ausgewhlte NGOs. Tipps, Hintergrnde, Kontakte fr das Geschft mit den wichtigsten Weltorganisationen.Berlin:Wegweiser. West,E.1995.EducationwithandwithouttheState.Humancapitaldevelopmentandoperationspolicy. HCOWorkingPapers.Washington,DC:WorldBank. Witte, J.M.; Reinicke, W. Business UNusual. Facilitating United Nations reform through partnerships. NewYork:GlobalPublicPolicyInstitute. Woicke, P.L. 1999. Geschftszweck: Frderung des privaten Sektors. Die Internationale FinanzCorporation(IFC).In:VereinteNationen,47(5),157162. World Economic Forum. 1999. Building on the Monterrey Consensus: The growing role of publicprivate partnershipsfordevelopment.NewYork:UnitedNations. World Economic Forum. 2006. Building on the Monterrey Consensus: The growing role of publicprivate partnershipsinmobilizingresourcesfordevelopment.Geneva:WorldEconomicForum. World Economic Forum. 2006 Harnessing private sector capabilities to meet public needs: The potential of partnerships to advance progress on hunger, Malaria and Basic Education. Geneva, World Economic Forum Zadek, S.S. et al. 2001. Endearing myths, enduring truths, enabling partnerships between business, civil societyandthepublicsector.London:BusinessPartnersforDevelopment.

17