英语翻译The Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration126Efforts to ClassifyAn early recognition of the problem,and an early attempt to classify,came from Linder (1999) of the University of Texas,Houston.His concernwas,however,with the semanti

英语翻译The Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration126Efforts to ClassifyAn early recognition of the problem,and an early attempt to classify,came from Linder (1999) of the University of Texas,Houston.His concernwas,however,with the semanti
英语翻译
The Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration
126
Efforts to Classify
An early recognition of the problem,and an early attempt to classify,
came from Linder (1999) of the University of Texas,Houston.His concern
was,however,with the semantics – the senses in which the publicprivate
descriptor is used – rather than with the actual organisational
and functional arrangements that attract that descriptor.He (1999:41-48)
identified six senses :
PPP as management reform;
PPP as problem conversion;
PPP as moral regeneration;
PPP as risk-shifting;
PPP as restructuring public service;
PPP as power-sharing.
Sorting out the Organisational and Functional Arrangements
It is apparent that various attempts to define PPP highlighted the
conceptual problem and pushed towards efforts to classify.Here Dutch
analysis has been prominent.For example,when Van Ham and Koppenjan
(2001:598) wrote of PPPs as outcomes of cooperative agreements to “jointly
develop products” and to “share risks,costs and resources”,they were
significantly limiting the field.Others assumed all partners would be
“principals” in the enterprise,but manifestly that was not so in many PFIstyle
infrastructure projects.So Klijn and Teisman (2005:98) distinguished
between contract (or concession) projects and organisational cooperation
projects; and van der Wel (2004) and Koppenjan (2005) between alliancemodel
and concession-model arrangements.

英语翻译The Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration126Efforts to ClassifyAn early recognition of the problem,and an early attempt to classify,came from Linder (1999) of the University of Texas,Houston.His concernwas,however,with the semanti
《亚太公共管理杂志》
126
分类工作
对该问题的早期认识和早期分类的尝试,是由休斯顿德克萨斯大学Linder（1999年）进行的.而他关注的是随着语义学（即将公私描述符运用其中的各种意境）、而不是与实际组织方面的安排、功能方面的安排,来引起那样的描述.他给定如下六种意境：
作为管理/经营改革的PPP；
作为问题转换的PPP；
作为道德重建（或：改良）的PPP；
作为风险转嫁的PPP；
作为公共服务调整（或：重组）的PPP；
作为权力共享的PPP.
区分组织安排、功能安排
显而易见的是,有各种各样的方式来定义PPP,这样的PPP既强调概念上的问题,又促成种种尝试来加以区分.这方面荷兰人的分析颇有卓见.譬如,Van Ham与Koppenjan（2001年：598页）就曾把各种PPP撰写成合作协议的多个结局,这些协议决定不但“共同研制产品”,而且“共担风险、共付成本、共有资源”,这一来明显确定了这一领域.其他学者则假设,所有合作伙伴都是企业责任方,但显然在众多PFI模式下的基础设施项目上却并非如此.故Klijn与Teisman（2005年：98页）将承包项目（或特许项目）、组织合作项目区分开；van der Wel （2004年）、Koppenjan（2005年）将联盟模式分类、特许模式分类视之为二.
供参.

亚太公共管理学报
尽力分类
尽早认识问题，尽早尝试分类，来自德克萨斯州休斯顿大学的的琳达这样认为。然而他的所关注的是随着语义，公众私下描述符的使用，而不是与实际组织和功能安排，来引起那样的描述。
确定了六个感官：
PPP作为管理改革;
PPP作为转换问题;
PPP作为道德再生;
PPP作为风险转移;
PPP作为结构调整的公共服务;

全部展开

亚太公共管理学报
尽力分类
尽早认识问题，尽早尝试分类，来自德克萨斯州休斯顿大学的的琳达这样认为。然而他的所关注的是随着语义，公众私下描述符的使用，而不是与实际组织和功能安排，来引起那样的描述。
确定了六个感官：
PPP作为管理改革;
PPP作为转换问题;
PPP作为道德再生;
PPP作为风险转移;
PPP作为结构调整的公共服务;
PPP作为分享权力。

收起