The term Public Private Partnership (PPP) is so elastic almost anything can be encompassed by it. In the latest stretch the New York Times refers to the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority (KABATA) as a "private-public partnership courting private investors for a toll driven, for-profit venture" ("Alaskan bridge projects resist earmarks purge" by William Yardley 2007-03-06)

It always seemed to us that KABATA was a wholly public and governmental toll authority - established in 2003 by the Alaska legislature it is by state law governed by a seven member board its members must include two local elected officials, two state commissioners and three local citizens appointed by the state governor. How could you get more purely governmental and public than that?

Ouchie couchie term

But the PPP term has an ouchie couchie appeal to it so a certain set of people think it's got such positive connotations that they'll try and stretch it around almost anything.

We've always disliked the term PPP because it completely distorts the meaning of partnership. A partnership is where risks and responsibilities of the partners are shared in common, whereas PPPs assign quite distinct risks and responsibilities to the public and private sides.

Toll concessions or other so-called PPPs are contractual relationships between distinct entities, whereas a real partnership involves people merging their interests and working within a single entity.

TOLLROADSnews 2007-03-08