Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public-private partnerships (P3s) encompass a broad range of commercial and financial activity involving state engagement of for-profit firms to either provide or partially finance publicly prescribed services through long-term contracts. Following Marx’s analysis of commodities, P3s can also be understood as a fetish - objects considered valuable because of the imaginary social relations that they imply as opposed to their usefulness. In this case, it refers to the transformation of instruments for meeting public obligations into some form or another of private property. It must be acknowledged that states have long employed P3 arrangements to provide instruments needed to meet their obligations. However, the scope of activities which governments are willing to consider open to P3s has grown to unprecedented levels. So eager are states to do deals and so prominent are such deals in their financial rhetoric, that P3s can now also be considered a fetish in the second sense of the word : Some thing or some activity that people have an irrational desire to have or to do. Most political-economy studies of P3s have focused on this rhetoric. They are attempting to understand the trend by relating this fetish to the political ideological agenda of neoliberalism. While valuable, this concentration has caused an equally critical question to be neglected. Why would investors want to take part in P3s ? The paper argues that to understand the P3 fetish we have to consider the dilemma facing pension fund managers during the late 1990s. An imbalance in supply and demand for high quality bonds and dividend paying stocks emerged due to declining public debts, management practices at large corporations, and an increasingly aging population. P3s provided a solution to this dilemma. The evaporation of this economic context and a growing public awareness of the costs of these deals likely mean that P3s will lose their status as a fetish in both senses of the word.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".