Abstract
Public–private partnerships are merely defined as an institutionalized cooperation between the public administration and private companies, but may take very different settings. This paper uses the case of partnerships in the plant breeding sector to study the institutional evolution of such linkages. It is shown how corporatist exclusivity can enter such partnerships, as their setting can have different purposes and be used to transfer subsidies from the public to companies or professional associations through low prices for resources transferred to the sector. The inefficiencies connected with such rents and possible alternatives are outlined and conclusions are drawn for the institutional theory of organizations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bradford, N. (2003). Public–private partnership? Shifting paradigms of economic governance in Ontario. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 36, 1005–1033.
Buse, K., & Walt, G. (2000). Global public–private partnerships: part I—a new development in health? Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 78(4), 16–24.
Buse, K., & Walt, G. (2002). Globalisation and multilateral public–private health partnerships: Issues for health policy. In K. Lee, K. Buse, & S. Fustukian (Eds.), Health policy in a globalising world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Delmer, D. P., Nottenburg, C., Graff, G. D., & Bennett, A. B. (2003). Intellectual property resources for international development in agriculture. Plant Physiology, 133, 1666–1670.
Dommen, E. (1997). Paradigms of governance and exclusion. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 35(3), 485–494.
Farazmand, A. (2002). Emergent theories of organization: An overview and analysis. In A. Farazmand (Ed.), Modern organizations: Theory and practice. London: Praeger.
Graff, G. D., Cullen, S. E., Bradford, K. J., Zilberman, D., & Bennett, A. B. (2003). The public private structure of intellectual property ownership in agricultural biotechnology. Nature Biotechnology, 21(9), 989–995.
Greve C., & Ejersbo, N. (2003). When public–private partnerships fail—the extreme case of the NPM-inspired local government of Farum in Denmark. http://busieco.samnet.sdu.dk/politics/nkk/papers/Papers/Carstengreve.pdf (April 11th, 2013).
Heisey, P. W., Srinivasan, C. S., & Thirtle, C. (2001). Public sector plant breeding in a privatizing world. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 772. Washington: USDA/ERS.
Henrichsmeyer, W., & Witzke, H. P. (1994). Agrarpolitik, Band 2: Bewertung und Willensbildung. Stuttgart.
Klijn, E. H., & Teiseman, G. R. (2005). Public–private partnerships as the management of co-product: Strategic and institutional obstacles in a difficult marriage. In G. Hodge & C. Greve (Eds.), The challenges of public private partnerships—learning from international experience. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Krishna, V. V., & Qaim, M. (2007). Estimating the adoption of Bt eggplant in India: who Benefits from public–private partnership? Food Policy, 32(5–6), 523–543.
Lim, M.-K. (2004). Shifting the burden of health care finance. Health Policy, 69(1), 83–92.
Linder, S. H. (1999). Coming to terms with the public–private partnership. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(1), 35–51.
Lindner, B. (2000). Prospects for public plant breeding in a small country. Amherst: University of Massachusets.
Miraftab, F. (2004). Public–private partnerships—the Trojan Horse of neoliberal development? Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24(1), 89–101.
Müller, D. C. (2003). Public choice III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nerlove, M. (1958). The dynamics of supply. New York: John Hopkins Press.
Ngok, M. (2012). Eclectic corporatism and state interventions in post-colonial Hong-Kong. In S. W. K. Chiu & W. S. Lun (Eds.), Repositioning the Hong Kong Government. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Olsen, M. (1970). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Peters, P. G. (2010). The politics of bureaucracy (6th ed.). London: Routledge.
Schmitter, P. C. (1974). Still a century of corporatism? Review of Politics, 36.
Schwartz, H. (2010). Small states in the rear-view mirror: legitimacy in the management of economy and society. European Political Science, 9(2), 365–374.
Spielman, D. J., & von Grebmer, K. (2006). Public–private partnerships in international agricultural research: an analysis of constraints. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(2), 291–300.
Stephenson, M. O. (1991). Whither the public–private partnership. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 27(1), 109–127.
Thirtle, C., Bottomley, P., Palladino, P., & Schimmelpfennig, D. (1995). The rise and fall of public sector plant breeding in the UK: A recursive model of basic and applied research, and diffusion. Reading: University.
Thorhallson, B., & Kattel, R. (2013). Neo-liberal small states and economic crisis: lessons for democratic corporatism. Journal of Baltic Studies. doi:10.1080/01629778.2012.719306
Wallace, T. D. (1958). Measures of social costs of agricultural programs. Journal of Farm Economics, 44(4), 580–597.
Wettenhall, R. (2003). The rhetoric and reality of public–private partnerships. Public Organization Review, 3(1), 77–107.
Wicki, W. (2011). The benefits of public–private partnership: An example of collaboration of public research with a small and medium enterprise in Switzerland. Presentation at the UPOV Seminar, April 12th 2011, Geneva.
Zimmer, A. (1999). Corporatism revisited—the legacy of history and the German nonprofit sector. Voluntas, 10(1), 37–49.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mann, S. A Comparative Study of Institutionalizing Public Plant Breeding. Public Organiz Rev 14, 373–383 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-013-0224-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-013-0224-0