IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/urbstu/v39y2002i10p1865-1880.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparative Institutional Evaluation of Public-Private Partnerships in Dutch Urban Land-use and Revitalisation Projects

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Nijkamp

    (Department of SpatiaL Economics, Free University, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pnijkamp@feweb.vu)

  • Marc van der Burch

    (Department of SpatiaL Economics, Free University, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands, burch@dds.nl)

  • Gabriella Vindigni

    (University of Catania, Via Santa Sofia 98, 95123 Catania, Italy. vindigni@mbox.unict.it)

Abstract

In the spirit of the devolution of public policy, we have recently witnessed an increasing popularity of decentralised forms of decision-making in urban land-use policy, in which both local (or regional) authorities and the private sector play a more prominent joint role in the preparation and implementation of urban development projects. The paper describes the pathway to a more institutional multi-actor mode of urban land-use and revitalisation projects within the framework of deregulated land markets and maps out various relevant aspects of competitive land use. In particular, an attempt is made to identify the crucial `drivers' of this complex decision-making process in an urban context, against the background of revitalisation objectives for modern cities. The literature suggests, in particular, that the institutional constellation, the financial viability and the presence of spatial externalities may act as critical factors for public-private partnerships. This proposition is tested in the paper by means of a comparative study on nine carefully selected urban development projects—more specifically, nine types of public-private partnerships—in The Netherlands. After the design of a systematic database on these projects, a particular type of qualitative fuzzy classification analysis originating from artificial intelligence, known as rough set analysis, is deployed to assess and identify the most important factors that are responsible for successes and failures of recent development plans in Dutch cities. This approach allows us to pinpoint the most critical policy variables.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Nijkamp & Marc van der Burch & Gabriella Vindigni, 2002. "A Comparative Institutional Evaluation of Public-Private Partnerships in Dutch Urban Land-use and Revitalisation Projects," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 39(10), pages 1865-1880, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:39:y:2002:i:10:p:1865-1880
    DOI: 10.1080/0042098022000002993
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1080/0042098022000002993
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/0042098022000002993?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Maria Moschandreas, 1997. "The Role of Opportunism in Transaction Cost Economics," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(1), pages 39-58, March.
    2. Raymond J.G.M. Florax & Peter Nijkamp & Kenneth G. Willis (ed.), 2002. "Comparative Environmental Economic Assessment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1945.
    3. Sivitanidou, Rena, 1997. "Are Center Access Advantages Weakening? The Case of Office-Commercial Markets," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 79-97, July.
    4. Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65(2), pages 135-135.
    5. Cristoforo S. Bertuglia & Silvana Lombardo & Peter Nijkamp (ed.), 1997. "Innovative Behaviour in Space and Time," Advances in Spatial Science, Springer, number 978-3-642-60720-2, Fall.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christophe Crombez, 2004. "Introduction," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 16(3), pages 227-231, July.
    2. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 2002. "Political economics and public finance," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 24, pages 1549-1659, Elsevier.
    3. Kaivan Munshi & Mark Rosenzweig, 2008. "The Efficacy of Parochial Politics: Caste, Commitment, and Competence in Indian Local Governments," NBER Working Papers 14335, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Burkhard Schipper & Hee Yeul Woo, 2012. "Political Awareness and Microtargeting of Voters in Electoral Competition," Working Papers 124, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    5. Marco Faravelli & Randall Walsh, 2011. "Smooth Politicians And Paternalistic Voters: A Theory Of Large Elections," Levine's Working Paper Archive 786969000000000250, David K. Levine.
    6. Hank C. Jenkins-Smith & Neil J. Mitchell & Kerry G. Herron, 2004. "Foreign and Domestic Policy Belief Structures in the U.S. and British Publics," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(3), pages 287-309, June.
    7. Eric Kaufmann & Henry Patterson, 2006. "Intra‐Party Support for the Good Friday Agreement in the Ulster Unionist Party," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 54(3), pages 509-532, October.
    8. Micael Castanheira, 2003. "Why Vote For Losers?," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(5), pages 1207-1238, September.
    9. Peter J. Coughlin, 2015. "Probabilistic voting in models of electoral competition," Chapters, in: Jac C. Heckelman & Nicholas R. Miller (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Voting, chapter 13, pages 218-234, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Mihir Bhattacharya, 2019. "Constitutionally consistent voting rules over single-peaked domains," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 52(2), pages 225-246, February.
    11. Marc Henry & Ismael Mourifié, 2013. "Euclidean Revealed Preferences: Testing The Spatial Voting Model," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4), pages 650-666, June.
    12. , & ,, 2006. "Group formation and voter participation," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 1(4), pages 461-487, December.
    13. Dendi Ramdani & Arjen Witteloostuijn, 2012. "The Shareholder–Manager Relationship and Its Impact on the Likelihood of Firm Bribery," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 108(4), pages 495-507, July.
    14. Alan E. Wiseman, 2006. "A Theory of Partisan Support and Entry Deterrence in Electoral Competition," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 18(2), pages 123-158, April.
    15. Alessandro Olper & Johan Swinnen, 2013. "Mass Media and Public Policy: Global Evidence from Agricultural Policies," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 27(3), pages 413-436.
    16. Armèn Hakhverdian, 2009. "Capturing Government Policy on the Left–Right Scale: Evidence from the United Kingdom, 1956–2006," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 57(4), pages 720-745, December.
    17. Sven Banisch & Eckehard Olbrich, 2021. "An Argument Communication Model of Polarization and Ideological Alignment," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 24(1), pages 1-1.
    18. Robbett, Andrea & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2018. "Partisan bias and expressive voting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-120.
    19. Vincenzo Atella & Jay Coggins & Federico Perali, 2005. "Aversion to inequality in Italy and its determinants," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 2(2), pages 117-144, January.
    20. Hibbs, Douglas A, Jr, 2000. "Bread and Peace Voting in U.S. Presidential Elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 104(1-2), pages 149-180, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:39:y:2002:i:10:p:1865-1880. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/urbanstudiesjournal .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.