Public Social Private Partnership

This article or section needs to be revised. Details should be given on the talk page. Please help to improve it , and then remove this flag.

Public Social Private Partnership (PSPP) describes partnership projects between private and state institutions to finance and generate resources for social protection and conservation interests or for activities to improve the living situation and life chances of disadvantaged people or groups of people. PSPP is derived from the Public Private Partnership (PPP). The implementation of social interests is to be financed through PSPP. These can be projects, for example, in the area of ​​assistance for the disabled, to support jobseekers, to provide training and further education for disadvantaged people, to advise people who are in debt, or projects in the area of ​​environmental protection.

background

PPP as a starting point for PSPP

PPP is, especially in the western European industrial countries, an expression of a strong tendency towards (re-) privatization . This was intensified by the end of the boom and the resulting structural crisis in the public sector (cf. Eschenbach, Müller, Gabriel: 1993). The emergence of public private partnerships for the performance of public tasks by public administration together with private companies is related to this counter-movement.

Today, the main argument in (economic) political discourse is the lack of public funds. The state is less and less responsible for financing infrastructure projects alone . Instead, new strategies for cooperation with the private sector are being sought. In addition, the EU competition concept for public companies , which was shaped by the tender competition, requires new competition strategies in the sense of a market-oriented performance of tasks. In privatization debates, it is also argued that public administrations are inefficient and should use private-sector management concepts for more efficient public tasks. The state is developing from a producing state to a guaranteeing state that no longer performs certain tasks itself, but only ensures that they are fulfilled. This means that there is a change from the collective, tax-based financing of infrastructure measures to forms of financing that the users have to bear (cf. Budäus 2006).

The term PPP has been used in German-speaking countries since the mid-1990s to describe the interaction between sovereigns and private business entities.

PPP compared to the conventional performance of public tasks

Roughly summarized, PPPs are forms of cooperation between the public sector and the private sector for the performance of public tasks. There are now a large number of publications and studies on PPP.

PPP is distinguished from two variants of the performance of public tasks:

1. PPPs are differentiated from doing things yourself . The state takes a public task exclusively with our own material resources and own staff, including through equity or owned companies , true.

Count to self-completion

a) Conventional procurement measures , such as B. the sales contract . A PPP differs from these through its mostly long-term partnership and risk sharing.

b) Formal privatization (organizational privatization ). A public task is carried out by a company in a private legal form (e.g. a GmbH ), which, however, is majority owned by the state.

c) Outsourcing . A service previously provided by the public administration is outsourced to a private company or a mixed-economy company and carried out by them (e.g. cleaning of public buildings by private cleaning companies). Here, too, there is no risk sharing.

2. PPPs are differentiated from material privatization (= task privatization ). In the case of material privatization, the state completely surrenders the completion of a public task to a private company (e.g. garbage collection). Sometimes control rights remain in the supervisory bodies. Material privatizations are not seen as PPPs.

PPPs differ from other forms of public service in three main ways:

• In the context of PPPs, the management of a plan or project is shared. The core of a PPP is a risk and profit sharing .
• Compared to doing public tasks in-house, the state can concentrate on its core competencies with PPPs . He does not have to assign his own specialists to do the work and is therefore less closely involved in the implementation.
• PPPs distinguish from conventional forms of financing by the above-mentioned tendency to change from tax-based collective financing concepts to individual, user-oriented financing approaches (e.g. motorway tolls).

From PPP to PSPP

In the area of social services , PPPs have so far mainly been implemented in health care and development policy. As current discussions about PPPs in the social sector show (cf. EQUAL development partnership “Public Social Private Partnership”, workshop at the University of Cologne on the subject of “PPP in the social and educational sector”, 03/06, conference: “Alliances in work integration: added value for companies? ”Zurich, 10/05), this sector requires the observation of special framework conditions and the development of criteria for how a public-private partnership can be designed specifically in the social field. The objective of a PPP in particular is decisive for the form and design of the implementation of a public-private partnership. Where previous implementations of PPPs have not been adequately effective due to their design, specific criteria must be developed. In terms of social objectives, this means that Public Social Private Partnership (PSPP) is not just an extension, but primarily a conceptual guarantee (and thus the quality of a PPP) that a PPP will be used

• the public goals, contents or tasks of the PPP object, in the sense of the understanding of the common good , public service , etc., are preserved, fulfilled and achieved,
• Cooperation contents and goals are only used in the medium and long term and
• the necessary framework conditions and requirements (e.g. financing) have been taken into account and implemented as part of this.

For the public sector, the specification of PPP to PSPP has the following meaning:

• Tasks of the public hand are medium and long-term solutions in the sense of the common good, the general welfare and supplied
• The transfer of public sector tasks to cooperation solutions expands their scope for action by two things: on the one hand through a cooperative form of "outsourcing" (including financing) and on the other hand through additional partners of the private and social economy in handling tasks.

Both of the points just mentioned make it possible for the public sector to be able to fulfill its areas of responsibility more comprehensively, more professionally, more sustainably and more extensively through additional financial, know-how and implementation resources.

For the private sector, PSPP is also able to expand room for maneuver in any (market economy) respect through the form of cooperation with the public sector and the social economy.

Due to the differentiated perspective of the PPP model compared to the PSPP, the social economy is able to use its intermediary understanding of roles to ensure that public concerns are brought to competent medium and long-term solutions and are partners of both the public sector within the framework of a form of cooperation between the public sector and the private sector as well as the private sector according to their strengths with simultaneous risk reduction for all parties involved in the cooperation. For the social economy, the medium- and long-term nature of the solutions improves planning, development and quality.

Ultimately, PSPP means, above all for the target group of disadvantaged people, covering their needs on the one hand, that socially guaranteed services are also guaranteed in the medium and long term, and on the other hand, a PSPP enables medium and long-term needs to be identified, anticipated and innovative services through proactive measures and solutions can be supplied.

In summary, it can be stated here that a PPP is specified as a PSPP when used in relation to social goals for people in disadvantaged life situations. The main indication for applying and applying PSPP criteria is the pursuit of public goals in the sense of an understanding of the common good and general interest. And associated with this, all medium and long-term success factors in the pursuit of cooperation content and goals require the consideration of PSPP specifications.

Model description

description

In following and analyzing the discussions within representatives of the social economy on the subject of “Public Social Private Partnership”, a differentiation between a broad and a narrow definition of the term must be made. The broad definition can be understood as the basis on which each specification is built. PSPP in its broad definition of terms includes, similar to PPPs, models of cooperation between the participants. In the case of Public Social Private Partnerships, these are not only public and private sector institutions and companies (as is the case with PPPs), but also organizations and companies in the social economy. The focus here is on the partnership between the organizations and companies involved, which pursues the joint development and implementation of social goals.

The two main characteristics of a PSPP in the broad definition are therefore:

a. Social objective: the implementation of activities in the sense of social protection and maintenance interests or for the improvement of the living situation and / or life chances of disadvantaged people or groups of people

b. Implementation based on partnership: the concept of partnership between firstly public, secondly purely private-sector and thirdly socio-economic companies and / or organizations.

Specifying the PSPP model makes sense due to the above-mentioned needs of disadvantaged people and the social economy, but also the public and private sectors. So that disadvantaged people are not completely or partially excluded from participation in society, their needs must be met both long-term and continuously. For this, the implementation of social activities in this sense must be ensured. This can only be guaranteed through longer-term financing. Therefore, a narrow definition of “Public Social Private Partnership” takes up the financing element of the functional description of the term PPP in order to make it usable for social interests. The partnership aspect is also important here (see below). Only through this can the long term and the expansion of the scope for action be achieved.

In terms of content, a PSP partnership is therefore related to a special field of activity and explicitly aims at long-term partnership financing and resource generation for products and services to pursue social protection and maintenance interests or to improve the living situation and life chances of disadvantaged people or groups of people: PPP As a financing and resource generation instrument for disadvantaged people, it becomes the PSPP.

The following three main features characterize a public social private partnership:

1. First, the “S” of the term precisely specifies the goal or purpose of the financing tool: the implementation of social protection and conservation interests or activities to improve the living situation and life chances of disadvantaged people or groups of people. While PPPs are described in the literature in such a way that their purpose lies in the performance of public tasks in general, PSPP's aim is restricted to explicitly social content.

2. Second, assumes a Public Social private partnership the nature of the financing and resource generation instrument . In order to act in the interests of social protection and preservation, i.e. to implement social services or to introduce social products, infrastructure must be built and operated in many cases . PSP partnership projects therefore aim on the one hand to finance infrastructure that is used to implement social products and services. In this case, PSP partnerships follow the scope of PPP projects, which are also usually related to infrastructure financing. The implementation of social services does not necessarily require a comprehensive infrastructure, but always a phase of development, planning and establishment of the prerequisites for the implementation of social services. PSPP as a financing instrument can therefore also be used to finance the development and preparation of social products and services that do not require major infrastructure investments. Depending on whether the infrastructure has to be co-financed or not, the financing instruments used differ in each case.

3. Third, “partnership” is introduced as a condition that at least two partners are required to fulfill the tool under the conditions of partnership principles that generate both financial means and other resources to achieve the common goal “S”. The PSPP characteristic “partnership” also corresponds to the characteristics of a PPP. Three of Budäus (2006: 19) characteristic features of PPP are integrated here:

• Partnership principle to the effect that the goals and benefit expectations of the partner companies and organizations involved are compatible with each other.
• Partnership principle in the sense of creating synergy potential
• Identity of the partner companies and organizations that remains intact

Here, too, PSPP is specific to the conventional performance of public tasks. In contrast to PPP projects in which only two partners need to be involved, "partnership" in a Public Social Private Partnership ideally means the partnership between at least three actors There are three essential but very different roles to be performed: The financing of the project, the sponsorship for the implementation and ensuring the demand for social services.

In a public social private partnership, three functions must be fulfilled:

Systemic representation PSPP

At least one partner ensures the financing (financing level), at least one partner assumes responsibility for the project and is therefore responsible for coordinating the project from planning and construction to implementation of the social product or the social one Service responsible (sponsorship level) and in turn at least one partner ensures the flow of payments by guaranteeing the acceptance of this very service and thus also contributing to the financing. These three functions - as detailed under roles and functions - are ideally filled by three partner companies or organizations that have the respective competencies and responsibilities. As a minimum, the synergies can also be created by two partner companies or organizations, as long as all three functions are fulfilled. A PSP partnership is therefore a partnership between different levels: the financing and the implementation level.

Goal setting

The tasks of the present European states are of the most diverse nature according to a historical-political understanding. In any case, the social interest in the various protective functions and activities of the state is of eminent importance. In addition to the basic mandate of the constitutional community to at least stabilize socially precarious and / or fragile conditions or to improve them as far as possible, the state is primarily obliged to offer protection to the weaker, disadvantaged and endangered; at all levels of government activity, namely legislation, jurisdiction and administration.

Typical areas of the protection of the vulnerable are consumer, labor, tenancy and, in particular, social law. The respective state implementation of social protection interests is therefore to be regarded as embedded in the entire legal system; Both the legal dogmatic foundations and the practical implementation of legal norms are subject to constant theoretical (e.g. from a sociological, political or philosophical point of view) and practical (e.g. through the media or political interest groups) discussion. Terms such as “common good”, “human dignity”, “(distributive) justice”, “services of general interest” and “clientele policy” can be seen with the “protection issue” sometimes more closely, sometimes more loosely.

If the Leviathan's duty of guaranteeing and granting protection is primarily related to individuals or sub-groups of the state population, then social conservation interests vis-à-vis the state will be more oriented towards securing the pluralities of society as a whole and (minimum) standards. In this way, the “interest in preservation” adds to the interest in protection, and indeed supplements it. For example, the legal norms that regulate the receipt of unemployment benefit will be assigned to the protection area, and those that determine the activity of political parties will be assigned to the conservation area; The mutual interpenetration of the two areas of interest becomes evident when different parties (can) influence those legal norms that regulate the position of those who have become unemployed, in accordance with their political programs within the framework of the legal system (through legislation).

The state, as the addressee of social protection and conservation interests, is therefore obliged to implement them both through legal norms and in the enforcement of them, regardless of whether this is in its own area (legislation, jurisdiction and administration) or in cooperation with non-state actors in the form of "Social partnerships" happen.

The term “social protection and conservation interests”, which comes from legal parlance, only partially defines the objectives of a PSPP. With regard to this definition, the addition of “pursuit of activities to improve the living situation and chances of people or groups of people in disadvantaged situations” is added. This expansion is more specific insofar as this definition is person-related. Nevertheless, the question remains as to when people or groups of people are or will be socially disadvantaged.

The maxims of action of a democratic state are to be chosen as the reference point for PSPP. The democratically legitimized constitutional state orients itself on the maxim of action of the common good as a means to guarantee its citizens "overall optimal life and development opportunities" (Reinhold 2000: 204). What the state now regards as the common good is reflected in its legislation. Thus, constitutions and city statutes are the most suitable indicators for the lowest common denominator for what is viewed as the common good in a democratically organized society. In addition, the elected government expresses the status quo through the common good of society. If the orientation towards the common good is broken down from the national to the local level, the reference points can e.g. B. in Austria also the federal states, or even smaller regions, such as municipalities, and their respective views of the common good (for the respective region). If the principles and ideas legitimized by the democratic legal system about what securing livelihoods, services of general interest and basic living conditions and social participation mean in a society cannot be perceived equally by all people or groups of people, we speak of social disadvantage.

The public sector has the task of avoiding social disadvantages and therefore, in the sense of foresight, state intervention where the market cannot meet the common good of society without state intervention. The reaction of so-called civil society to disadvantageous situations can make the disadvantage visible. The reaction becomes clearest and most noticeable when civil society alternatives that aim to remedy disadvantages are established. These can be citizens' initiatives, socio-economic organizations, self-help groups, social projects in general.

It should be noted once again that no normative or recommendation was made here as to what counts or should count as social disadvantage. A descriptive approach was chosen that includes the social system and the legitimation mechanisms of this system.

Also on the descriptive level - based on the definition made - a wide variety of characteristics of persons or groups of persons can be described, on the basis of which disadvantages can arise:

Results of empirical social research show that there are three main characteristics, the respective form of which determines the social position and the chances of social participation more strongly and more consistently than other characteristics - and thus also represent factors influencing potential social disadvantage. These characteristics are:

• social class ,
• Gender ,
• Ethnicity or nationality .

Many other factors can also be decisive. The most frequently cited include physical and mental abilities, sexual orientation, age, religion and education (in strong correlation with the social class mentioned above). The list of possible characteristics that can lead to social disadvantage is, however, never complete, especially with regard to the above-mentioned reference value - the societal ideas about the common good, since factors causing disadvantage are always subject and situation-dependent.

The goal setting is the crucial moment of a PSP partnership. Therefore, all components of a PSPP (from the interactions between the participating partner companies and organizations, through the roles and functions to the process of setting up and implementing the PSPP) should be compatible with the specific objective chosen by the partnership and the implementation of this objective serve. On the other hand, in terms of the qualitative implementation of a Public Social Private Partnership, the path to the realization of the specifically agreed goal as well as the structures that were set up for the realization should correspond to the general objective described here. This means that the structures and agreements of the partnership and the project process itself are designed in such a way that they - in their scope or in their area of ​​application - also contribute to improving the living situation of disadvantaged people as defined above.

Partnership principles

Partnership in general is a specific form of social interaction which implies that two or more actors work together in a certain, self-chosen area. The actors must have a choice of whether to participate in the partnership or not. The decision against the respective special partnership must not jeopardize their existence. In any case, the identity of the partner remains intact.

Partnership in the sense of a Public Social Private Partnership includes the three levels of financing, sponsorship and demand / contract award .

In order to be able to speak of a public social private partnership, the “constituent partnership principles” must be implemented. The fulfillment of the "expanding partnership principles" are relevant for the successful implementation of a public social private partnership.

The following table gives an overview of the constituent and expanding partnership principles, whereby the expanding principles are thematically assigned to the constituent principles.

Constituent partnership principles	Expanding partnership principles
	Transparency and commitment Transparency and commitment are top principles in the cooperation. This applies to the partnership principles themselves: All companies / organizations involved must have agreed on partnership principles before entering into the partnership, these must be made explicit and there must be binding force to adhere to these partnership principles . On the other hand, the principle of transparency and liability applies to many of the contents of the partnership principles, such as the definition and disclosure of the benefits, gains and risks through the partnership, the resources brought into the partnership, the common objectives and the tasks, roles and Distribution of functions. Content Controlling - "Observatory Support" Controlling the content or observing support enables an improvement of the process, an optimization of the services and a learning from the experiences during the project period, with particular attention to the implementation of the concrete objectives of the project and to the observance of the general PSPP objectives also in the process is valued. In addition, it contributes to the sustainable utilization of experiences. Successful negotiation processes in terms of a strategic partnership The partnership is a medium to long-term strategic community of action and responsibility in which the partners bring their specific inputs into the joint process in a joint service creation process. Decision-making through negotiation takes place jointly, so that - in line with the general PSPP objective - no disadvantages arise or are promoted in the decision-making process, but rather contribute to their elimination. An efficient exchange mode must be defined for the risks that arise, for the planned input and the expected profits. Each participant assumes the role that is assigned to him in this partnership. The equivalence of the roles is not decisive as long as the partners are equal in their assigned role. Equal rights in the respective roles The negotiated roles do not have to be equal, but equality in the respective roles does. It must be ensured that the characteristics of the negotiating partners or differences in the structure of the companies / organizations in terms of gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, physical and psychological abilities and the associated framework conditions are not reasons for different weighting of roles or for unequal treatment represent in the partnership.
I. Involvement of at least 3 partners who play the following roles: the roles of financing, implementation and securing through demand.	It participate in each one of its affiliates or a partner organizations in the areas of the public sector, the private sector and the social economy. Clear distribution of tasks, roles and functions This is based on the actual skills and the respective specialist knowledge. Ideally, the social economy takes on the role of implementation, the private sector the role of financing and the public sector the role of securing through demand. Clear common goals The partners set a common, clearly defined goal for the partnership. Mutual trust Particularly when providing so-called “core services” (that is, social services whose qualitative fulfillment is difficult to measure), the mutual trust between the partners contributes a great deal to the successful implementation of the partnership. Chemistry between the partners Practice shows that the “chemistry” between partners facilitates the establishment and successful continuation of the partnership.
II. Pooling resources . Each partner must define and disclose in advance the resources that he / she can bring into the partnership.	Creation of synergy effects through pooling of resources In negotiation processes, the specific resources of the partners are bundled in such a way that synergy potentials can be used in cooperation . The focus is on the achievement of mutually negotiated goals in which each partner finds himself / herself. In this way, synergy effects are made usable for those involved, which would not arise without a partnership. Appropriateness of resources and size of the partnership Resources for the partnership (human resources) must correspond to the size of the partnership. Sufficient time resources must be allocated for managing the partnership. Enlargement of the individual scope of action By sharing the opportunities and risks on the output side and the mix of resources brought in by the respective partners on the input side, the scope of action of the individual organizations increases. Proportionality of input and output The risk and the profit must be divided between the partners depending on the use of resources. Proportionality of input and output The risk and the profit must be divided between the partners depending on the use of resources.
III. Possibility of fulfilling individual benefit expectations depending on the company / organization . The prerequisite for this is that the company's individual benefit expectations are not mutually exclusive.	Risk sharing or risk reduction The business risk (economic and technological) and the profits are shared or reduced for the individual partners through participation in the partnership. An efficient exchange mode must be defined for the risks and profits that arise. Each participant assumes the role that is assigned to him in this partnership. The equivalence of the roles is not decisive as long as the partners are equal in their assigned role. Concrete need For each partner there must be a specific need for entering into a partnership.

Roles and functions in a PSPP

In a PSPP, three roles are predominantly performed:

1) Financing the infrastructure for the implementation of social products and services or financing the development of social products and services

2) Implementation (assumption of the carrier function: i.e. needs identification, idea generator, coordination from planning to construction and operation)

3) Demand: Securing the flow of payments through guaranteed purchase of products and services

All three roles can be performed by different partners. However, in each of the areas involved (public sector, private sector, social economy) there are different areas of competence and focal points of interest and thus there are different priorities in taking on these roles.

Starting conditions

Against the background of the explanations about the terminology of PPP and the quality model PSPP based on it, the condition for a PPP to become a PSPP is the willingness of all those involved to define and allow only these as solutions, goals and content within the framework of a cooperation what are the minimum of medium or long-term inventory. (A distinction should be made between this and the fact that the target must be achieved in the medium or long term: this is not meant here). This concerns both the goals themselves and the fact that those prerequisites and framework conditions are taken into account and created that can make the achievement of goals a medium-term and long-term existence.

This condition differs from a PPP from the fact that the contents of PSPP are contents and goals of the public sector (common good or general interest) that are not subject to the laws of supply and demand. Instead, these goals and contents lie in guaranteeing the agreed common good vis-à-vis civil society . Such socially agreed fundamental resolutions represent necessary and essential building blocks for a social peace through security and justice, which results from the fact that citizens of a society can establish and build up their individual livelihoods based on socially agreed achievements. This is a prerequisite for the prevention of disadvantages or life situations that lead to disadvantage.

In this sense, medium-term PSPP solutions and goals are based on the length of legislative periods of municipalities and states ; From a quantitative point of view, long-term means everything that is longer than medium-term (in the above-mentioned sense), from a qualitative point of view, everything that creates and secures the quality and existence of constitutional or statutory agreements - in the sense of the prevention or prevention of disadvantages or disadvantages Life situations.

procedure

At the beginning of a Public Social Private Partnership, a social economy company recognizes a social problem (for example, a disabled person care organization finds that many people with disabilities in rural regions are faced with the difficulty that their place of residence and possible workplace are too far apart) . An idea for solving the problem arises and the social economy company develops a social service based on its many years of experience in this area and its know-how, for which an infrastructure must be set up (for example, a supervised living space close to the workplace for disabled people, which also has the different needs depending on gender, age or cultural background). In order to be able to realize the implementation, the social economy company approaches a partner company that can take over the financing (e.g. a regional bank) and involves a public sector organization that is interested in providing the social service (e.g. the social welfare office responsible for disabilities or the responsible state authority). This ensures the flow of payments through the decrease in social benefits and thus enables more cost-effective financing by the private-sector partner company. The social economy company then plans the implementation, possibly forms a sponsorship partnership, builds the necessary infrastructure (the handicapped accessible and work-place residential building) and finally implements the social service (the care of the residents). In this exemplary representation, the timing and a certain distribution of roles were already visible. In the following, the phases of a PSPP are presented again as an overview.

1) Determination of needs In terms of the general objective of a PSPP, when determining the needs, care must be taken to ensure that characteristics that can cause or reinforce a disadvantage in a certain field are analyzed and taken into account.

2) idea

3) Development of social products and services

4) Establishing the financing partnership with organizations / companies in the private sector and the public sector

5) Planning the implementation

6) Establishing the infrastructure or the requirements for implementing the products and services

7) Implementation: Operation of the infrastructure and implementation of social services or offering of social products

financing

The classification of the models is based on PPP models, since forms of collaboration between two partners can be viewed as the starting point for forms of collaboration between three partners. The above presentation thus includes the models to be found in PPP practice, with the exception of the operational management and operational leasing model, since with these no additional positive effects are to be expected with the inclusion of a third partner and these are already at the lower limit with regard to the PPP area move realizable efficiency gains.

Financial instruments

The starting point for (real) factoring is a long-term contract concept between the municipality and a private person, on the basis of which the private person undertakes a public (partial) service, so that all PSPPs can be considered as an area of ​​application due to their secure payment flow ( long-term obligation ). Factoring is based on the fact that the private operating company or property company sells part of the future receivables from the contract with the municipality at their present value (minus a commission) to a factoring institute and uses the funds from the inflow of the present value of the receivables to finance the project so that own funds are only required to a small extent. (see Kirchhoff 1995). This is a considerable advantage, especially for medium-sized companies, in order to be able to survive against the financially strong large companies.

• Municipal guarantee

In addition to factoring by the private partner, in order to optimize the financing costs in many PSPP concepts, it is not uncommon for the private partner to obtain outside capital in the form of mortgage loans or long-term capital market funds, in addition to the borrower's collateral, to include a municipal guarantee .

• silent participation

With all forms of silent participation , capital is raised for a limited time by taking on a mostly purely profit-oriented silent partner (participation financing). (see Kirchhoff 1995).

• Public grants

In addition to capital market funds and equity capital, public financial aid in the form of low-interest loans or investment grants can be integrated into the models within the framework of certain models for communal socio-economic tasks. In a variety of ways, the federal government, the federal states and the European Union grant grants for the investigation, planning and implementation of communal socio-economic investments, provided that one of the various public financial aids is met (Höftmann 2001)

• Sponsorship

Sponsoring can be characterized as a business relationship that consists of performance and consideration (cf. Arnold, Maelicke 2003). The sponsor's performance consists in making resources available to the sponsored organization in the form of financial resources, material resources or services. In return, the sponsor receives certain rights to publicly present his commitment internally and externally within the framework of his communication policy. So he uses the sponsored organization or its services to design his own communication measures. Sponsoring is an exchange relationship that is intended to create benefits for both sides. The contractual fixing of performance and consideration is also to be seen as a constitutive feature of sponsoring. Both sides need to be aware of their contractual obligations. A written contract is not required, but recommended.

• Social bond issue

As a further additional component, however, the issue of a bond would also be conceivable. Investors could make an amount to finance PSPP projects by waiving interest in a certain amount, which is indirectly equivalent to a donation. In contrast to typical bonds, the interest rate of which is based on the creditworthiness of the company in question, and for social economic institutions also due to a certain minimum issue volume of around € 50 million or € 5 million for the newly developed SME bonds, social bonds bring through the investor-side interest waiver actually an advantage compared to the alternative loan financing. A successful example of this would be the ELAG social bond (Elisabeth Liegenschafts-Entwicklungs-Aktiengesellschaft). This company, founded by the Caritas of the Diocese of Linz and the KOOP Lebensraum Beteiligungs-AG, has a low-risk investment in its investment guidelines in the bond it issues, the charitable-social orientation and the investment in properties whose current income is at least equivalent to the Expect inflation rate, anchored as principles.

PSPP models

Service models

• Complex contracting out

Contracting-out is generally understood to mean the outsourcing, outsourcing and procurement of partial services of a public task by way of the award of contracts to private companies. It thus represents the public counterpart to the outsourcing practiced in the private sector for a long time in the context of focusing on core competencies (cf. Müller, Prankebenberg 1997).

Special forms of financing

• Leasing and fund leasing

The minimum requirements for municipal leasing resulting from the definition of PPP mean that not all leasing activities of the municipalities can also be referred to as PPP. In particular, large parts of equipment leasing, such as simple equipment rental without services, do not come under PPP. The leasing variants that belong to the special forms of financing are always a form of PPP if the investor identified by the competition also performs complementary services and takes on more extensive tasks in addition to taking on the pure financing function. In such cases, the private partner takes on essential service areas before, during and / or after the creation of a corresponding project. (cf. Höftmann 2001).

• Concession model

The concession model has extensive similarities in terms of concept and budget law to leasing or fund leasing, but all restrictions and delaying effects, in particular problems relating to tax and property law, are circumvented (cf. Rehm 1994). The focus of the design is on the waiver of tax advantages on the part of the project owner as well as the financier, so that no financial savings effects can be achieved with the concession model. The low implementation obstacles have their price and are reflected (compared to leasing) in higher annual rental rates (cf. Scheele 1993).

Operator models

• Operator model

The basic idea of ​​every operator model is that the municipality uses a private third party in the long term to fulfill one of its sovereign tasks, with the entire task being temporarily outsourced and sourced from third parties. In this way, the municipality can use private capital and know-how during the construction and operation phases as part of a temporary privatization without holding shares in the operating company. (see Rudolph, Büscher 1995).

• BOT model

Since operator models with a term of 20-30 years are characterized by their long-term nature and an early (re) transfer to the municipality cannot be achieved, the BOT models (Build, Operate, Transfer) have become a short-run version of the operator models with an average term of between three and ten years. (see Kirchhoff 1997). In this respect, it is essentially a transitional solution with private planning and creation as well as short-term private operation in the first comparatively risky (start-up) years, so that BOT models can also be called short-term operator models (cf. Höftmann 2001).

• Cooperation model

The basic idea of ​​a cooperation model is the establishment of a legal entity under private law (usually a GmbH), in which both the municipality and at least one private company participate directly or with an intermediary company. This mixed municipal-private sponsorship based on company law is the actual characteristic of these cooperation models that have existed for around 100 years, especially for monopoly control in the supply sector (cf. Hering, Matschke 1997), which is why they are also called mixed-economic companies.

implementation

Use

Use is always subjective, situation-dependent and context-bound. Depending on the company or organization, the project and the point in time, there is a different benefit. In contrast to a monetary gain, a benefit is qualitative.

The benefits individual partners derive from participating in a PSPP project therefore differ depending on the role they have assumed. The benefit aspects vary, whether someone works on the financing level, on the sponsorship level or on both levels. If a partner participates exclusively as a financier, the benefit is usually very easy to measure in monetary terms and less qualitative benefit aspects become effective.

Depending on the roles assumed, the companies or organizations participating in a PSP partnership can therefore derive different benefits from entering into the partnership.

Private sector

If the private sector takes on the role of financing, participation in a PSPP project can contribute to its corporate social responsibility (CSR).

If the participation of the private sector goes beyond a financial contribution and it also takes on tasks and functions in the context of implementation, the PSPP project can even become part of a corporate citizenship of the private company.

Public hand

The public sector is interested in the good, efficient and cost-saving performance of public tasks. She asks about social benefits. If she takes on the role of inquirer within the framework of the PSPP,

• On the one hand, due to the participation of companies / organizations in the social economy, it does not need to provide the technical experts for the coordination and implementation itself.

• On the other hand, by partnering with private, financing companies, the public sector does not have to pay for the financing of development and construction costs itself

• and liquidity bottlenecks that hinder developments in the social sector can be circumvented.

Social economy

The role of an implementer enables the social economy to:

• To develop and offer social services and products, as the PSP partnership provides funding for these services.

• The financing partnership creates the conditions for the social economy to be able to make long-term investments that are not possible simply by selling services and products to the public sector.

Further, depending on the organization involved, individual benefit aspects of a PSPP project can range from a joint public appearance, know-how transfer, cost and resource savings, development of new markets and tasks, increased employee satisfaction, adoption of new values ​​for the company / organization, Strengthening and enlarging the network up to a stronger regional anchoring range. All these benefit aspects can be assessed according to how relevant they are for the external appearance of the company or the organization, the satisfaction of the customers and how sustainable the benefit is for the company or the organization.

Before companies and organizations decide to enter into a partnership, they always ask themselves the question of the individual benefit that their own organization / company derives from the participation.

Since the qualitative benefit aspects are very high in social projects and these are particularly difficult to assess, there is an easy-to-use and efficient instrument, the benefit compass, developed by the development partnership PSPP. This benefit compass is used in the development phase of a partnership project to identify and assess the benefit of participating in PSPP projects for the individual company / organization and to present it clearly.

In the benefit compass, both qualitative and monetary benefit aspects are presented on the one hand in a descriptive and on the other hand in a quantified evaluative form. The focus is on the illustration of the qualitative benefit, i.e. that which is difficult or impossible to monetize. The individual benefit aspects are to be worked out or coordinated differently for each project, depending on the company / organization and depending on the role and function.

How it works is described in more detail in the manual for the utility compass. The Benefit Compass itself contains a more detailed description of possible benefit aspects.

Outlook: opportunities and potential

Taking into account the conditions, when PSPP is used, how and under which quality criteria, the implementation of a Public Social Private Partnership opens up great benefits both for the beneficiary persons (groups) themselves and for all participating organizations and companies. A PSPP can also take into account the needs of those disadvantaged people (groups) who have not been or not adequately taken into account up to now, or the range of services for the disadvantaged people (groups) is expanded. Private companies usually have a stronger focus on consumer needs. In the case of PSPP, this also applies to socio-economic companies, which, compared to non-socio-economic companies and organizations, have a stronger focus on the needs of clients. The solutions developed within the framework of PSPP can also be offered in the medium to long term and thus contribute to sustainable anchoring and structural change. For private or socio-economic companies or organizations, participation in PSPP enables them to expand their fields of business as well as the opportunity to appear as competent partners in both established and new fields. Social economy organizations and companies get the chance to make necessary long-term investments with the help of public-social-private partnerships, which would not be possible through a classic business relationship between the social economy and the public sector (purchase of social services by the public sector). The public sector, in turn, can use the expertise of social and private companies and organizations. This enables everyone involved to concentrate on their respective core competencies. This opens up the opportunity for the public sector to fulfill its responsibility for public services efficiently, cost-effectively and without delays caused by liquidity bottlenecks. In addition to the special benefits for disadvantaged people (groups), those positive aspects also come into play that also apply to "classic" PPPs (cf. Pölzl / Preisch 2003):

• Use of synergy effects through the mutual provision of information and skills.
• Opening of new financing options for the implementation of investment projects.
• Target-oriented division of tasks and functions leads to increased efficiency.
• The last two points mentioned produce acceleration effects.
• Lower risk for the individual participants by dividing the risks.

The opportunities that the implementation of Public Social Private Partnerships open up can best be exploited if the organizations involved are provided with the necessary know-how for implementation through professional support and advice. In Austria, PPP is already a relatively new field - this is also evident from the fact that there is neither a national “ PPP acceleration law ” like in Germany, nor PPP task forces for the professional establishment of public-private partnerships. The expansion through the qualitative element of explicitly social goals requires all the more competent support in order to implement the relatively complex project with high quality and successfully. Because not only purely commercial-private-sector access methods on the one hand and administrative-public ones on the other hand must be taken into account, but also the competencies with regard to social objectives and implementation must be introduced in a targeted and expert manner.

From a sociopolitical point of view, public social private partnerships open up new fields of application, not only for the social and private sector, but also for the public sector, precisely through the ideal-typical approach to determining needs in practice - through the socio-economic companies and organizations operating in the field. There is a chance that the development of social services will not only take place as a top-down process - by the public sector formulating the needs and awarding them, but that needs will also be formulated based on the social interests of civil society and these - the ones that have been created so far either not provided at all or purely privately - could be met in cooperation with the public sector. In order to take advantage of this opportunity, the public sector must show flexibility and willingness to innovate, and the political and legal framework must enable this bottom-up principle. In many social innovations, such as the Red Cross movement or the women's emancipation movement - to name just two, the initiative came from private or civil society activities and was only later taken up and supported by the public sector - or also influenced by the support.

literature

• Arnold, Ulli / Maelicke, Bernd, textbook on social economy, 2nd edition, Baden-Baden 2003
• Bastin, Johan: Public-Private Partnerships: A Review of International and Austrian Experience, In: Eilmansberger, Thomas; Holoubek, Michael ; Kalss, Susanne ; Lang, Michael; Lienbacher, Georg; Lurger, Brigitta; Potacs, Michael: Public Private Partnership, Ed .: Study Society for Economics and Law, Vienna 2003, pp. 1–25.
• Bertelsmann Stiftung, Clifford Chance Pünder, Initiative D21 (Ed.): Process Guide Public Private Partnership. A publication from the series PPP for Practice, 2003. (Bertelsmann 2003)
• Budäus, Dietrich (ed.): Forms of cooperation between state and market. Theoretical foundations and practical forms of Public Private Partnership, series of publications by the Society for Public Economy, issue 54, Baden-Baden 2006.
• Eschenbach, Rolf ; Müller, Christof; Gabriel, Thomas (Ed.): Privatization of Public Services: Assessment - Strategic Options - Economic Consequences , Vienna 1993.
• Evers, Adalbert; Rauch, Ulrich: New forms of cooperative development and sponsorship of social services. Research paper. University of Giessen, Faculty 09 Agricultural Sciences, Nutritional Sciences and Environmental Management, Institute for Household Economics and Consumption Research, Professorship for Comparative Health and Social Policy, Giessen 2001
• Hering, Thomas / Matschke, Manfred Jürgen: Communal organization and financing models, in BFuP, 49th year (1997), pp. 365-380.
• Höftmann, Björn: Public Private Partnership as an instrument for cooperative and cross-sector service provision, Lütjensee 2001
• Kirchhoff; Ulrich: Current organizational and financing instruments in the public infrastructure sector, In: Zimmermann, Gebhard (Hrsg.): New financing instruments for public tasks: An analysis in the area of ​​tension between the financial crisis and public interest, Baden-Baden 1997, pp. 93–123.
• Commission of the European Communities: Green Paper. On public-private partnerships and Community legislation on public contracts and concessions, Brussels 2004.
• Kukovetz, Brigitte; Leonhardt, Manfred; Loidl-Keil-Rainer: Public Social Private Partnership for the Realization of Social Services, In: kontraste, 02/07.
• Müller, Hans-Erich; Prangenberg, Arno, Outsourcing Management: Assessment of outsourcing and outsourcing decisions, Düsseldorf 1997. * Morschett, Dirk: Cooperations, alliances and networks. Basics - Approaches - Perspectives, Wiesbaden 2003. (Morschett 2003)
• Oppen, Maria; Sack, Detlef; Wegener, Alexander: Islands of Innovation in Corporatist Arrangements. Public private partnerships in the field of social services, WZB, Berlin 2003. (Oppen 2003) http://skylla.wz-berlin.de/pdf/2003/iii03-117.pdf
• “PPP in public building construction”, Vol. 1: Guideline, report on behalf of the German Federal Ministry for Transport, Building and Urban Development, August 2003. http://www.ppp-bund.de/hochbau.htm
• Preisch, Edith; Pölzl, Andreas: Public Private Partnership in Theory and Practice, Graz 2003.
• Rehm, Hannes: Models for the Financing of Municipal Investments by Private, in: Ipsen, Jörn (Ed.), Privatization of Public Tasks: Private Financing of Municipal Investments, Munich 1994 (1994b), pp. 93–114.
• Reinhold, Gerd (Ed.): Sociology Lexicon, Munich, Vienna, Oldenbourg 2000.
• Roggencamp, Sibylle: PPP - Development and functioning of cooperative arrangements between the public sector and the private sector, 1999. (Roggencamp 1999)
• Rudolph, Karl-Ulrich; Büscher, Eckehard: Private economic realization of wastewater disposal, in: Research Institute for Economic Constitution and Competition (ed.), Securing competition in the municipal sector: Papers of the Berlin Colloquium 1994 and a special event 1994, Cologne et al. 1995, pp. 61–70.
• Scheele, Ulrich: Privatization of Infrastructure: Possibilities and Alternatives, Cologne 1993.

Web links

• PSPP Website of the development partnership PSPP
• CorA - Corporate Accountability - Network for corporate responsibility

Individual evidence

1. ^ Public Social Private Partnership (PSPP) . pspp.at. Archived from the original on April 16, 2007. Retrieved September 23, 2019.