As citizens, we trust that our governments have an interest in improving our cities and the funds and the vision to do so. However, even if our governments have the interest, the funds, and the vision, they may not have the expertise or the resources. This is where public-private partnerships (PPPs or P3s) can help.

PPPs are partnerships between public sector entities and private sector entities on projects to provide a public service or build public infrastructure. For example, a partnership between a municipal government and a local civil engineering and construction firm to plan, design, and build a new highway overpass to increase traffic efficiency. Or, a partnership between a provincial government and a national telecommunications firm to design and build a new public safety radio network for emergency service providers. 

The characteristics of these partnerships are unique to each project and often exist on a sliding scale. For example, some project partnerships have more government control and oversight, while others have more private sector control and less government oversight. These characteristics depend on the nature of the project and the partnership, and they depend on what was agreed to by the parties. 

Warsen et al. distinguish between four types of PPP governance models:

1. Traditional public administration
2. New public management
3. Collaborative governance
4. Privatized governance

Some mistakenly assume that PPPs often result in a transfer of control over public infrastructure to private sector partners, but this is not accurate. While certain PPP projects have resulted in private sector partners controlling, owning, or restricting access to what was intended as public infrastructure (e.g., Highway 407 in Ontario), these outcomes are not inherent to PPPs themselves. Instead, they result from the specific terms and conditions negotiated between governments and private sector partners.

Those who support PPPs argue that they:

• Enable access to private sector expertise
• Allocate risks to the party best equipped to manage them
• Reduce financial burdens on governments
• Expedite project completion and implementation
• Stimulate local economic development
• Encourage innovative and flexible solutions

And those who oppose PPPs argue that they:

• Require a lot of time to navigate negations and contract management
• Can result in loss of government control over public infrastructure
• Prioritize profitability, leading to cost-cutting and lower quality
• Are not transparent—complex contracts can be obscure
• Depend on private sector health and stability
• Can result in governments bearing the costs of subpar outcomes

There is nothing inherently bad about PPPs. They are merely partnerships to ensure the successful completion and implementation of public service and public infrastructure projects—partnerships that bring together groups of people with the necessary skills and experiences. The concerns some people and organizations have with PPPs stem from cases where the project outcomes were not desirable or advantageous for the public.

But who is at fault for those undesirable outcomes?

A further discussion is necessary on what differentiates a PPP from a traditional public procurement model—where a government designs, finances, builds, and operates infrastructure projects directly or through contracts with private firms. Both models engage the private sector and, thus, could be argued to be partnerships between the public and private sectors. At what point, then, do these partnerships become PPPs?