Public-Private-People Partnership Model (P4) requires Comprehensive Public Awareness

Hon’ble Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh Shri Nara Chandrababu Naidu has been continuously reiterating the importance of the 4P model for inclusive development. This model is being used in various countries of the world. The concept of Public-Private-Citizen Partnership (PPPP) emerged as a way to address the issues related to public-private partnership by bringing the common citizens (people) into the partnership along with public and private partnerships. There is no single model or definition for the concept of transparency, its principles can be adopted in different ways individually.

Generally, 4P-approaches focus on developing effective, open planning processes through private participation and citizen involvement. The methods of stakeholder involvement are derived from the law, local, national planning cultures. Thus, it is difficult to influence individual planning. The model emphasizes this importance by focusing on the built-in imbalance in terms of influence between private and public participation, and by creating awareness, finding ways to address the differences in resources and influence.

The Nordic countries such as Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, as well as the Faroe Islands, Greenland, etc., emphasize the importance of citizen participation in their planning laws and policies. At the same time, they are constantly developing new models to involve private companies more in planning processes through various types of public-private partnerships and collaborative methods. Typically, the cooperation of city administrations with companies on the one hand and citizen participation on the other are discussed separately, but they are both expected to influence the same planning process. Public policy experts Higdem and Hansen point out how public-private partnerships and citizen participation are based on different principles of thinking. Public-private partnerships are based on the idea of network governance, formalized by negotiated agreements.

Citizen participation, in turn, is organised from the top down. The principles of hierarchical governance are based on the idea of providing the opportunity to “make one’s voice heard”. The imbalance between private and public influence is also affected by the temporal gap between public-private partnerships and public participation. Binding agreements between the public and private may explain the development principles at the beginning of the project, but public participation processes often take place later. The lack of public input at the beginning of the planning processes risks increasing concerns about the economic considerations on the cost of creating liveable urban environments based on the needs of local communities, and the financial sustainability of the project.

But what challenges can it address and what potential this new concept has? Research reviewed as part of the Baltic Urban Lab of the Central Baltic Interreg project (INTERREG) shows that there are many challenges in the current ways of combining public-private partnerships and citizen participation. For example, critics and researchers have often emphasized how public-private partnerships between private entities such as city governments, landowners, and developers limit transparency in decision-making and public participation.

The P4 model promotes sustainable inclusive growth by empowering households with access to essential resources. By integrating people in public-private partnerships, it bridges resources, promotes opportunities, and promotes equitable prosperity. It identifies the five capitals—human, social, physical, economic, and natural—that are gaps in opportunity. It addresses them through targeted interventions and collaborative projects. Advanced digital infrastructure facilitates artificial connections (AI connections). It identifies household growth potential with the goal of inclusive development and improved living standards across India.

The 4P model is a secure digital platform to facilitate connections between private entities, including companies, non-resident Indians (NRIs), individual contributors, specific projects, or geographic areas. This collaboration not only improves tangible assets like infrastructure and physical resources but also promotes intangible outcomes like skill development, leadership development, and community engagement. By focusing on holistic development, the 4P model aims to raise the standard of living of families, ensuring that everyone benefits from the nation’s progress and no one is left behind. This comprehensive innovative partnership model is poised to revolutionize how we approach our socio-economic development.

Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu has been giving priority to the ‘P4’ model, which stands for public-private-public partnership, in his administration. He expressed concern over the concentration of wealth in India. He said that by following this model, the bottom 10% and bottom 20% of the society should contribute to the progress. Reiterating the state government’s goal of achieving zero poverty, he emphasized that the P4 model has been adopted to realize this. While releasing the Swarna Andhra Vision-2047 document, he stressed that the 4P model is key to achieving this goal. “We are working to brighten the lives of the people through welfare, development and good governance.

In addition, the Chief Minister announced that a portal will soon be launched to receive public suggestions related to the 4P policy for 30 days. “Let us achieve the goal of zero poverty with people’s participation. I appeal to everyone to come forward in the process of taking the Telugu community to a higher place globally, so that a healthy, happy and developed Andhra Pradesh can be achieved,” he said. Pointing out that the reforms implemented in the united Andhra Pradesh state since 1995 have transformed the lives of lakhs of people, Naidu said that the Public-Private Partnership (P3) model introduced then as part of the economic reforms has created significant employment and wealth.

Despite some shortcomings such as potential for high costs, public control, lack of transparency, uneven distribution of benefits, digital illiteracy, lack of proper training of the executive machinery, political and legal risks, lack of awareness of beneficiaries about the programmes, schemes, policies, etc., this model has been useful for the economic development of the states and the country.