Because in the US, is is not a proven model. The vast majority of public-private partnerships really end up being "public eats the costs, but private entities win all the benefits". It's gotten to the point that the mere existence of the phrase "public-private partnership" is a red flag that something corrupt is happening. (If it was a good faith effort and all above board, then it would all be done publicly in the first place).
> it saves govts. from spending large money upfront and not only ensures that private corporations finish the projects but also makes them liable for quality as they are liable for future maintenance.
Sure, but it usually accomplishes this by transferring some amount of public assets over to the private corporation in the process, which is a net loss for everyone. It's a backhanded way of looting the public's funds under the veneer of "progress" and "cooperation".
Or for a simple analogy, public-private partnerships are usually the governmental version of a reverse mortgage.
Because in the US, is is not a proven model. The vast majority of public-private partnerships really end up being "public eats the costs, but private entities win all the benefits". It's gotten to the point that the mere existence of the phrase "public-private partnership" is a red flag that something corrupt is happening. (If it was a good faith effort and all above board, then it would all be done publicly in the first place).
> it saves govts. from spending large money upfront and not only ensures that private corporations finish the projects but also makes them liable for quality as they are liable for future maintenance.
Sure, but it usually accomplishes this by transferring some amount of public assets over to the private corporation in the process, which is a net loss for everyone. It's a backhanded way of looting the public's funds under the veneer of "progress" and "cooperation".
Or for a simple analogy, public-private partnerships are usually the governmental version of a reverse mortgage.