Caribbean L 12 ife, May 24–30, 2019 BQ
Government procurement option
ABUSED BY CLERGY
IN NEW YORK?
DO YOU KNOW THESE MEN?
David Carson
John F. Carson
Daniel Cassiero
Vincent Clyne
Charles Coen
Kevin Colleran
Eugene Connolly
Daniel Croston
Bernard Cullen
Donald Dickson
Edward Dobransky
If you have information regarding alleged abuse
or its cover-up involving these men, CONTACT US.
The NY Child Victims Act may be able to help you!
New York, NY 10019 646-835-2988
57 West 57th Street, 3rd Floor
es for users. PPP contracts
often undermine
the public interest in
other ways, with generous
host government incentives
and other privileges,
often compromising and
undermining the state’s
obligation to regulate in
the public interest. PPPs
can limit government
capacity to enact new legislation
and other policies
— such as strengthened
environmental or social
regulations — that might
adversely affect or constrain
investor interests.
PPPs – public
pain, private gain?
PPP contracts are typically
complex. Negotiations
are subject to commercial
confidentiality,
making it hard for civil
society and parliamentarians
to provide checks and
balances in the public and
national interest. Such
limited transparency significantly
increases the
likelihood of corruption
and undermines democratic
accountability.
It is important to establish
the circumstances
required to achieve efficiency
gains and to recognize
the longer-term
fiscal implications of PPPrelated
contingent liabilities.
Shifting public debt
to government guaranteed
debt does not really
reduce government debt
liabilities, but obscures
accountability as it is
taken off-budget and is no
longer subject to parliamentary,
let alone public
scrutiny.
Hence, PPPs are
more likely to be abused
because they are typically
‘off balance sheet’ so
that they do not show up
as government debt, giving
the illusion of ‘easy
money’ or credit. Despite
claims to the contrary,
PPPs are typically riskier
for governments than
for the private companies
involved, as the government
may be required to
step in to assume costs
and liabilities if things go
wrong.
PPPs also undermine
democracy and national
sovereignty as such
contracts tend not to be
transparent and subject
to unaccountable international
adjudication — due
to investor-state dispute
settlement (ISDS) commitments
— rather than
national or international
courts. Under World Bankproposed
PPP contracts,
for example, national governments
can even be
liable for losses due to
strikes by workers.
Government
procurement
One alternative, of
course, is government
or public procurement.
In many instances, PPPs
have become the most
expensive financing
option and much less
cost-effective than transparent
competitive government
procurement.
They cost governments
significantly more in the
long run than if the government
procures on an
open competitive basis,
or if projects are directly
financed by government
borrowings.
Continued from Page 10