The Effects Of Public Private Partnerships On Local Entrepreneurs In The Context Of Neoliberalism And Local Governance

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 26 Sayı: 3, 763 - 782, 25.12.2019

Burcu Gediz Oral , Tuğba Arpazlı Fazlılar

https://doi.org/10.18657/yonveek.572864

Öz

There is a direct relationship
between the rise of neoliberalism and the emergence of a new system of
governance defined as local entrepreneurship. The new local policy is affected
by the limitation of the public sector and the increase in international
capital mobility. Therefore, it is called for transformation to promote capital
accumulation and to increase the comparative advantage of the local.Transition
to forms of entrepreneurial governance means that reducing governance in public
services and reducing governance to local practices and local regulations for
involve new social actors in the sphere of government. Local services in both
the public private partnerships (PPPs) as well as the ability is increasing
interest in entrepreneurship. In this study analized that the importance of
PPPs for local entrepreneurship and the complexity of the PPPs management
dimensions.  Local projects are quite
complex because they contain more than one actor with different expectations.
This requires the existence of governance regimes at the local or regional
level. PPPs bring together local authorities, the financial sector and
non-profit organizations to optimize their financing programs. Therefore, these
cooperation is one of the effective ways of local financing. PPPs provide
support mechanisms that are easily accessible by local businesses and adapted
to their needs. This study focuses on a theoretical view of how complexity of
multi-player governance affects the implementation of local projects.

Key Words:
Entrepreneurship, Local Entrepreneurship,
Entrepreneurial Urbanism, Public Private Partnerships

JEL Classification: L26, R11, L32 

Neoliberalizm ve Yerel Yönetişim Bağlamında Kamu Özel Sektör İşbirliklerinin Yerel Girişimcilik Üzerine Etkileri

Öz

Neoliberalizmin yükselişi ile yerel girişimcilik
olarak tanımlanan yeni bir yönetim düzeninin ortaya çıkması arasında doğrudan
bir ilişki vardır. Yeni yerel politika, kamu faaliyet alanının
sınırlandırılması ve uluslararası sermaye hareketliliğinin artmasından etkilenmektedir.
Bu yüzden sermaye birikimini teşvik etmek ve yerelin karşılaştırmalı
üstünlüklerini artırmak için dönüşüm çağrısında bulunulmaktadır. Girişimci yönetişim biçimlerine geçiş, kamu hizmetleri tedariğinde değişimi
ve yeni sosyal aktörleri yönetim alanına dâhil etmek için yönetişimin yerel
uygulamalara ve düzenlemelere indirgenmesi anlamlarına gelmektedir. Yerel
hizmetlerde hem kamu özel
sektör işbirliklerine (KÖSİ) hem de girişimciliğin kabiliyetine olan ilgi
artmaktadır. Bu çalışmada KÖSİ’lerin yerel girişimcilik için önemi ve KÖSİ
yönetim boyutlarının karmaşıklığı analiz edilmiştir. Yerel projeler, farklı beklentileri olan birden fazla oyuncuyu
içerdiklerinden oldukça karmaşıktır. Bu durum yerel veya bölgesel düzeyde
yönetişim rejimlerinin varlığını gerektirmektedir. KÖSİ'ler finansman programlarını optimize etmek için
yerel otoriteleri, finans sektörünü ve kar amacı gütmeyen kuruluşları bir araya
getirirler. Bu nedenle bu işbirlikleri yerel finansmanın etkili yollarından
biridir. KÖSİ'ler, yerel işletmeler
tarafından kolayca erişilebilen ve onların ihtiyaçlarına göre uyarlanmış destek
mekanizmaları sağlamaktadır.   Bu
çalışma, çok oyunculu yönetişimin karmaşıklıklarının yerel projelerin
uygulanmasını nasıl etkilediği üzerine teorik bir bakışla odaklanmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Girişimcilik, Yerel Girişimcilik, Girişimci Şehirler, Kamu Özel Sektör
İşbirlikleri

            JEL Sınıflandırması: L26, R11, L32

Anahtar Kelimeler

kösi, girişimcilik, yerel yönetişim

Kaynakça

• Banerjee-Guha, S. (2010). “Introduction: Transformative Cities in the New Global Order”, In S. Banerjee-Guha (Ed.), Accumulation by Dispossession: Transformative Cities in New Global Order, New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1-16. Bel, G., Brown, T., & Marques, R.C. (2013). “Public–Private Partnerships: Infrastructure, Transportation and Local Services”, Local Government Studies, 39(3), 303-311.Bloomfield, P. (2006). “The Challenging Business of Long Term PPPs: Reflections on Local Experience”, Public Administration Review, 66(3), 400-411.Casady, C. B., Eriksson, K., Levitt, R. E., & Scott, W. R. (2019). “(Re)Defining Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) in The New Public Governance (NPG) Paradigm: An İnstitutional Maturity Perspective”, Public Management Review, doi:10.1080/14719037.2019.1577909, 1-23. Cruz, C.O., & Marques, R.C. (2013). “Endogenous Determinants for Renegotiating Concessions: Evidence From Local Infrastructure”, Local Government Studies, 39(3), 352-374.Dannin, E. (2011). “Crumbling Infrastructure, Crumbling Democracy: Infrastructure Privatization Contracts and Their Effects on State and Local Governance”, Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy, 6(1), 47-105.Davies, J. S. (2007). “The Limits of Partnership: An Exit-Action Strategy for Local Democratic Inclusion”, Political Studies, 55(4), 779-800.Davies, J. S. (2009). “The Limits of Joined-Up Government: Towards a Political Analysis”, Public Administration, 87(1), 80-96.Edelenbos, J. ve Teisman, G. R. (2008). “Public–Private Partnership: On The Edge of Project and Process Management. Insights from Dutch Practice: The Sijtwende Spatial Development Project”, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26(3), 614-626.ESCAP (2012). A New Vision for Public–Private Partnerships (PPP) in Asia-Pacific, https://www.unescap.org/speeches/new-vision-public-private-partnerships-ppp-asia-pacific, (21.03.2019).Flyvbjerg, B. (2005). “Machiavellian Megaprojects”, Antipode 37, 18-22.Flyvbjerg, B., Holm, M., & Buhl, S. (2002). “Understanding Costs in Public Works Projects: Error or Lie?”, Journal of The American Planning Association, 68(3), 279-295.Gediz Oral, B. (2015). “Kamu Hizmet Arzında Değişim Temelinde Kamu Özel Sektör İşbirlikleri ve Yolsuzluk”, Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 15, 15(4), 185-225. Gediz Oral, B., Arpazlı Fazlılar T. (2015). Enerji Güvenliğinin Değisen İçeriği Kapsamında Enerji Sektöründe Kamu Özel Sektör İşbirliği ve Kısıtlar Enerji Projelerinde Yolsuzluk. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 17(4), 461-492., Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.16953/deusbed.18799. Gillen, J. (2009). “The Co-production of Narrative an Entrepreneurial City: An Analysis of Cincinnati, Ohio in Turmoil”, Series B. Human Geography, 91(2), 107-122. Grimsey, D., & Lewis, M. (2004). Public Private Partnerships: The Worldwide Revolution in Infrastructure Provision and Project Finance, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Grimshaw, D., Vincent, S., & Willmmott, H. (2002). “Going Privately: Partnership and Outsourcing in UK Public Services”, Public Administration, 80(3), 475-502.Higgins, C., & Huque, A. S. (2014). “Public Money and Mickey Mouse: Evaluating Performance and Accountability in The Hong Kong Disneyland Joint Venture Public–Private Partnership”, Public Management Review, 1-21.Hodge, G. A., Greve, C., & Boardman, A. (2010). International Handbook on Public Private Partnerships, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Hodge, G., & Greve, C. (2007). “Public–Private Partnerships: An İnternational Performance Review”, Public Administration Review, 67(3), 545-559.Jessop, B. (2002). “Liberalism, Neoliberalism and Urban Governance: A State-Theoretical Perspective”, Antipode, 34(3), 452-472. Jessop, B., & Sum, N. (2000). “An Entrepreneurial City in Action: Hong Kong’s Emerging Strategies in and for (inter) Urban Competition”, Urban Studies, 37(12), 2290-2315. Kuhle, H. (2007). “The Experience of Public-private Partnerships in Financing Entrepreneurship in Eastern Germany and Poland”, in Sylvain Giguère (ed.), Local Innovations for Growth in Central and Eastern Europe, OECD Publishing, Paris, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264038523-12-en, 215-226.Lamie, J., & Ball, R. (2010). “Evaluation of Partnership Working within a Community Planning Context”, Local Government Studies, 36(1), 109-127.Lee, Y. -I. (2012). “South Korea's Globalization in The Late Twentieth Century: An End to Economic Nationalism?”, In A. P. D'Costa (Ed.), Globalization And Economic Nationalism İn Asia, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 157-176.Linder, S. H. (1999). “Coming to Terms with The Public–Private Partnership”, American Behavioral Scientist, 43(1), 35-51.MacLeod, G. (2002). “From Urban Entrepreneurialism to a ‘Revanchist City’ on the Spatial İnjustices of Glasgow’s Renaissance”, Antipode, 34(3), 602-624. McCarthy, J. (2007). Partnership, Collaborative Planning and Urban Regeneration, Aldershot: Ashgate.Miraftab, F. (2004). “Public–Private Partnerships. The Trojan Horse of Neoliberal Development?”, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24(1), 89-101.Moulaert, F., F. Martinelli, S. Gonzales & E. Swyngedouw (2007). “Introduction: Social Innovation and Governance in European Cities: Urban Development between Path Dependency and Radical Innovation”, European Urban and Regional Studies 14,195-209.Osei-Kyei, R., & Chan, A.P. (2015). “Reviews of Studies on the Critical Success Factors for Public–Private Partnership (PPP) Projects from 1990 to 2013”, International Journal of Project Management, 33, 1335–1346.Palcic, D., & Reeves, E. (2011). “Privatization, Employee Share Ownership and Governance: The Case of EIRCOM”, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 82(4), 437-454.Pierre, J. (1999). “Models of Urban Governance: Institutional Dimension of Urban Politics”, Urban Affairs Review 34, 372-396. Putri, R. ve Wirahadikusumah, R.D. (2019). “Readiness of Local Government in PPP Project Development - Case of LRT Bandung”, MATEC Web of Conferences 270, 05002, https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201927005002. Roberts, A. (2010). The Logic of Discipline: Global Capitalism and The Architecture of Government, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Rogerson, R., & Boyle, M. (2000). “Property, Politics and The Neoliberal Revolution in Urban Scotland”, Progress in Planning, 54(3), 133-196.Sagalyn, L. B. (2007). “Public/Private Development. Lessons from History, Research and Practice”, Journal of the American Planning Association, 73(1), 7-22.Sager, T. (2011). “Neo-Liberal Urban Planning Policies: A Literature Survey 1990–2010”, Progress in Planning 76, 147-199. Santos Junior, O. A. (2017). “Entrepreneurial Governance: Neoliberal Modernization”, Luiz Cesar de Queiroz Ribeiro Ed., Urban Transformations in Rio de Janeiro, 273-286. Sclar, E. (2015). The Political Economics of Investment Utopia: Public–Private Partnerships for Urban Infrastructure Finance, Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 18(1), 1-15.Shin, H. B. (2009). “Residential Redevelopment and the Entrepreneurial Local State: The İmplications of Beijing’s Shifting Emphasis on Urban Redevelopment Policies”, Urban Studies, 46, 2815-2839. Siemiatycki, M. (2007). “What’s The Secret? Confidentiality in Planning Infrastructure Using Public/Private Partnerships”, Journal of the American Planning Association, 73(4), 388-403.Siemiatycki, M. (2010). “Delivering Transportation Infrastructure through Public–Private Partnerships: Planning Concerns”, Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(4), 43-58.Siemiatycki, M. (2013). “Public–Private Partnerships in Mega-Projects: Successes and Tensions”, In H. Premus, & B.V. Wee (Eds.), International Handbook On Mega-Projects, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 133-157.Smitha, K. C. (2017). “Entrepreneurial Urbanism in India: A Framework”, Entrepreneurial Urbanism in India The Politics of Spatial Restructuring and Local Contestation, Ed. Kanekanti Chandrashekar Smitha, ISBN 978-981-10-2235-7 ISBN 978-981-10-2236-4 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-2236-4, 1-17. Soomro, M.A., & Zhang, X. (2013). “Roles of Private-Sector Partners in Transportation Public– Private Partnership Failures”, Journal of Management in Engineering, http:// Dx.Doi.Org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000263, 31(4).Swyngedouw, E. (2005). “Governance Innovation and the Citizen: The Janus Face of Governancebeyond- State”. Urban Studies 42, 1991-2006.Swyngedouw, E., F. Moulaert & A. Rodriguez (2002a). “Neoliberal Urbanization in Europe: Large-scale Urban Development Projects and the New Urban Policy”, In: N. Brenner&N. Theodore eds., Spaces of Neoliberalism: Urban Restructuring in North America and Western Europe, Malden, MA: Blackwell, 195–229.Swyngedouw, E., F. Moulaert & A. Rodriguez (2002b). “Neoliberal Urbanization in Europe: Large-scale Urban Development Projects and the New Urban Policy”, Antipode 34, 542-575.Taşan-Kok, T. (2010). “Entrepreneurial Governance: Challenges of Large-Scale Property-Led Urban Regeneration Projects”, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 101(2), 126-149.Theodore N, Peck J, Brenner N (2009). “Urbanismo Neoliberal: la Ciudad y el İmperio de los Mercados”, Temas sociales, 66. Van Ham, H., & Koppenjan, J. (2001). “Building Public–Private Partnerships: Assessing and Managing Risks in Port Development”, Public Management Review, 4(1), 593-616.Zheng, J. (2011). “Creative Industry Clusters’ and the ‘Entrepreneurial City’ of Shanghai”, Urban Studies, 48, 3561-3582.