Graeme Hodge

Nanotechnology and Public Interest Dialogue: Some International Observations

This article examines nanotechnology within the context of the public interest. It notes that though nanotechnology research and development investment totalled US

Reviewing Public–Private Partnerships: Some Thoughts on Evaluation

9.6 billion in 2005, the public presently understands neither the implications nor how it might be best governed. The article maps a range of nanotechnology dialogue activities under way within the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, and Australia. It explores the various approaches to articulating public interest matters and notes a shift in the way in which these governments, on the whole, appear to be attempting to manage nanotechnology “risks.” It argues that open and transparent policy deliberations and extensive public discourse will be pivotal to protecting the public interest, gaining public trust and acceptance of nanotechnologies. The article concludes that though governing emerging technologies in the public interest is not a new concept, nanotechnology does present additional challenges that must be addressed by the guardians of the public interest.

‘Governing’ nanotechnology without government?

This chapter aims to articulate some of the tensions existing in the task of evaluating public-private partnerships (PPPs) as an infrastructure delivery mechanism, and then to reconcile them. An effort is made to outline what is meant by the notion of evaluation, and what evaluation tasks are entailed. Conclusions are drawn as to the strengths of international PPP evaluations to date.

The problem of regulating sophisticated materials

The increasing commercialisation of products containing nanomaterials has been accompanied by growing societal concerns. These concerns have underpinned a debate over the degree to which governments should specifically ‘govern’ or regulate nanotechnology. This paper examines the way in which the private sector is developing innovative regulatory arrangements for nanotechnology. It commences with a theoretical review of potential regulatory tools, and then discusses how two multinational companies are developing their own regulatory mechanisms to guide the responsible development of nanotechnology. It concludes that whilst governments will no doubt play a crucial role in the regulation of the technology, nano-specific state-based regulation will probably only constitute part of an evolving regulatory web. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Risks in Public-Private Partnerships: Shifting, Sharing or Shirking?

As complex new materials such as nanoparticles increasingly make their way into commercial products, regulatory frameworks need to overcome a number of key challenges to remain fit for purpose.

On Public–Private Partnership Performance: A Contemporary Review

Public-private partnerships (PPPs) have now become a popular way of providing infrastructure. A commercial relationship between government and business is not necessarily a new phenomenon, but wholesale use by governments of long term, sophisticated contract techniques on private credit is. Better efficiency in infrastructure provision and strengthened monitoring and accountability are promised, along with stronger business and investor confidence. A major part of the forecast benefits from the private funding of public infrastructure arises through the transfer of risks from the public sector to private parties. This article aims to probe on an empirical basis the realities of risk transfers in PPPs and to compare this experience against both the rhetoric of project proponents and the formal contract conditions. Several conceptual issues are addressed and a case study 1

Rethinking public-private partnerships : strategies for turbulent times

used to illustrate some empirical experience on risk transfers under PPP arrangements Experience shows the extent to which risks were shifted or shared as planned, or whether governments ideologically predisposed to the adoption of PPPs shirked accountability for future risks by signing up to PPP deals favoring financiers. Huge financial resources and long term PPP contracts of up to several decades both make it critical to better understand the nature of risk transfers and the extent to which actual risk bearing experience differs from advocate rhetoric.

Are We Really the Prey? Nanotechnology as Science and Science Fiction

Private finance-based infrastructure public–private partnerships (P3s) are globally popular, including renewed interest in the United States, but their performance remains contested. This article explores the meaning of P3 and the notion of P3 success, and points to multiple interpretations of both. It proposes a new conceptual model of the P3 phenomenon, including five levels of meaning: project, delivery method, policy, governance tool, and cultural context. Numerous criteria exist on which the success of P3 might be judged. These are as oriented toward politics and governance as they are toward more traditional utilitarian policy goals concerned with project delivery, or value for money (VfM). Indeed, governments have dozens of different goals in mind. Given mixed international results to date for VfM, it is posited that to the extent that infrastructure P3s continue to show popularity, governments may stress P3 success more on the basis of political and governance strengths, than utilitarian characteristics.

Comparative Analyses of Infrastructure Public-Private Partnerships

1. Introduction: Public-Private Partnerships in Turbulent Times (Graeme Hodge and Carsten Greve) 2. The Impact of the Global Financial Crisis on Public-Private Partnerships: A UK Perspective (Cierran Connoly and Anthony Wall) 3. What return for Risk?: The Price of Equity Capital in Public-Private Partnerships (Mark Hellowell and Veronica Vecchi) 4. Mind the Gap: Accountability and Value for Money in Public-Private Partnerships in Ireland (Eoin Reeves) 5. Enhancing Innovation in Public Organizations through Public-Private Partnerships: The Role of Public Managers (Tamyko Ysa, Marc Esteve and Francisco Longo) 6. Incorporating Non-Profit Sector Perspectives in the Study of Public-Private Partnerships (Anna Amirkhanynan and Sarah Pettitjohn) 7. A Foucault Perspective on Public-Private Partnership Mega Projects (Sophie Sturup) 8. The Public Management of Public-Private Partnerships: U.S. City-Level Structures for Brownfield Cleanup and Redevelopment (Rob Alexander) 9. Beyond the Contract: The Challenge of Evaluating the Performance(s) of Public-Private Partnerships (Stephen Jeffares, Helen Sullivan and Tony Bovaird) 10. A Theory Driven Approach to Public-Private Partnerships: The Dynamics of Complexity and Control (Koen Verhoest, Joris Voets and Kit van Gestel) 11. Conclusions: Rethinking Public-Private Partnerships (Carsten Greve and Graeme Hodge)

Public–private partnership in developing and governing mega-projects

Popular culture can play a significant role in shaping the acceptance of evolving technologies, with nanotechnology likely to be a case in point. The most popular fiction work to date in this arena has been Michael Crichtons techno-thriller Prey, which fuses together nanotechnology science with science fiction. Within the context of Prey, this article examines the role that scientists and popular culture play in educating society, and one another, about emerging technologies. In di ferentiating fact from fiction, the article reflects on how such distinctions may be important in proactive public dialogue projects. The article concludes that popular culture will be a key factor in informing citizen beliefs about the coming nano-age. Accordingly, governments, in conjunction with the scientific community, will need to be proactive in distinguishing science fact from science fiction for the benefit of their citizens.