Search

Public-Private Partnership (PPP) is a broad term which covers a comprehensive range of private involvement in the provision of public services or services of general social interest, and involves quite a wide range of cooperation between the public and private sectors. In the broadest sense, it pertains also to privatisation, although in fact in the view of experts in the field this is a misconception, since the private sector does not buy an asset, but rather ‘purchases a stream of services under specified conditions’ (Grimsey and Lewis 2004, 6). This may also include private financing of public infrastructure, although the emphasis is on the private provision of services which may, of course, also involve construction. Participation of a private party in the project design, construction and management of project delivery and the collection of financial streams (including risk bearing) is a distinctive feature of PPP versus the traditional procurement type of contractual agreements.

Many individuals operate outside the acceptable parameters of sexual practice in society. However, few things provoke as much public outrage as sexual offences against children. There is considerable social interest in paedophile activity, demonstrated by the widespread media coverage of child pornography, child sex-murders and celebrity child molesters. In 2005, pop star Michael Jackson was acquitted following charges of molesting a thirteen-year-old boy and broadcaster Jonathan King was released from prison after serving three and a half years for sexually assaulting five boys. Incidents of gross indecency with a child are allegedly on the increase with 1,942 cases reported to the police in 2004 compared to 1,880 in 2003 (Recorded Crime Data: UK, Home Office Research Development Statistics, 2004).

Examination of several aspects of Adventist theology has revealed that contemporary theologians, faced with theological and pragmatic dilemmas, have striven to find the reasons for the church’s existence. The longer they perceived the delay of the parousia, the more prominent the Master’s command, ‘Occupy till I come’, became. In this chapter the reasons for renewed social interest among the church’s leaders and theologians will be traced, by focusing on the historical development of general contemporary Adventist theology in the second half of the twentieth century.

The reality of a double shift of approach in matters of social concern became obvious from the study of such human rights issues as racism and gender inequality. This can be seen from original, if peripheral, involvement with issues of social justice and human rights among the pioneers of the church, through indifference to social matters in the mid-history of the Seventh-day Adventist church, to the situation now where social justice and equality have become prominent towards the end of the twentieth century. The reasons for this change are not so obvious. Therefore we shall now attempt to explore why there has been renewed social interest among the church’s scholars. Chapter 6 examines this through the study of important themes of Adventism, while the focus of Chapter 7 is more on the historical development (and liberation) of contemporary Adventist theology, especially from World War II to the present day.

The indicators of enterprise performance which were in use before the adoption of profit (Ch. ib, pp. 4–9) were specialized yardsticks, which often produced conflicting effects, contrary to social interest. The most distinguishing feature of the profit criterion is that it is the most comprehensive of all possible criteria or, as it is described in the Socialist countries, a ‘synthetic’ indicator. It takes account of both the input and output sides. It can be quantified and expressed as a common denominator for a variety of economic effects. It can be employed not only in its absolute form (the profit mass) but also as a relative indicator (a rate of return). Its applicability is universal, whether in industry, agriculture, trade or ‘nonproductive’ services (finance, insurance, housing administration, entertainment).

One of the ideals postulated in Marxian ideology was the principle of the distribution of personal income — ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’.1 Marx believed that in a communist society the workers would rid themselves of greed and acquisitive ambitions, and instead they would be responding only to ‘superior’ motives so that there would be a complete identification of personal and social interest. In his view the gulf between white-collar and blue-collar workers and between managerial and operative functions would disappear, and so would money — the breeder of egoism and contradictions.