So far, we have discussed governments and the private sector as the principal partners in our PPP negotiations. But there are many other institutions and venues that act as intermediaries, secondary partners, or even facilitators in a public-private partnership. Multilaterals-such as the World Bank and the World Health Organization-will often play a significant role in shaping and facilitating PPP policy.
These organizations, like governments, are highly cautious about conflicts of interest. Some even have policies that explicitly prohibit engagement when a conflict of interest is present.
Thus, in engaging with these influential institutions, it is crucial that professionals be prepared to manage conflicts. As we've discussed, problem-solving in PPPs is often a matter of solving someone else's problem, even as you solve your own. This is especially true for multilaterals, who are fearful of the political repercussions of an appearance of impropriety.
We can see this dynamic at play in the Lesotho Hospital Case Study. Backed by the International Finance Corporation and the World Bank, the project was highly sensitive to conflict of interest issues, and both of these top-tier multilaterals were highly protective of their legitimacy. Recall that the contract relied on a set of highly-specific performance metrics. While these served to ensure that risk and opportunity were apportioned efficiently, they also served a second purpose: fostering legitimacy. By creating such a rigid and specific set of metrics, the project ensured that backers like the World Bank and the IFC would be able to demonstrate to critics exactly how the project was designed, and how the public stood to benefit. In a word, the metrics were a form of transparency. And though the project did face criticism-something we will discuss in future chapters-the critiques were, notably, not centered on conflicts of interest.