NATOSource is proudly sponsored by EADS North America

New Atlanticist
National Interests
- Afghanistan
- Albania
- Armenia
- Australia
- Austria
- Azerbaijan
- Belarus
- Belgium
- Bosnia-Herzegovina
- Brazil
- Britain
- Bulgaria
- Canada
- Chad
- China
- Congo (DRC)
- Croatia
- Cyprus
- Czech Republic
- Denmark
- Egypt
- Estonia
- Finland
- France
- Georgia
- Germany
- Greece
- Hungary
- Iceland
- India
- Indonesia
- Iran
- Iraq
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Japan
- Jordan
- Kazakhstan
- Kosovo
- Kyrgyzstan
- Latvia
- Lebanon
- Lithuania
- Luxembourg
- Libya
- Macedonia
- Malta
- Montenegro
- Morocco
- Netherlands
- North Korea
- Norway
- Pakistan
- Philippines
- Poland
- Portugal
- Qatar
- Romania
- Russia
- Saudi Arabia
- Serbia
- Slovakia
- Slovenia
- Somalia
- South Africa
- South Korea
- Spain
- Sudan
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Syria
- Taiwan (ROC)
- Tajikistan
- Tunisia
- Turkey
- U.A.E.
- U.S.
- Ukraine
- Uzbekistan
- Yemen
The 21st Century Force Multiplier: Public—Private Collaboration
Jorge Benitez | March 29, 2012From James Stavridis and Evelyn N. Farkas, the Washington Quarterly: The government and private sector collaborate on a voluntary basis in many small and medium-sized ways to respond to natural and man-made disasters, prevent cyber or terrorist attacks, or to exchange information about the political—business environment in countries of interest. These efforts range from ad hoc to enduring, but rarely do government and private sector actors work together to identify common objectives and design government programs or business plans that are mutually supportive, leveraging one another to achieve a greater goal such as political stability or economic development.
By far, the biggest obstacle to public—private collaboration is the mindset, mainly on the government side. It takes extra energy and effort on the part of government officials to consider how to leverage the private sector. Corporations and non-profits are more accustomed to seeking interaction with governments, but too few really creative actors yet exist. Public—private advisors need to work extra hard to overcome the institutional mindset within the government and force officials at all levels to consider how they might work with outside parties. To most government employees, public—private collaboration seems either ‘‘nice to have,’’ at most suited only to humanitarian efforts, or ‘‘too hard’’ because of legitimate legal and ethical concerns. The legal restrictions, especially those aimed at preventing preferential treatment, reinforce a general reluctance to get creative with outside actors.
As a result, the most important conclusion to draw after about half a decade of working to promote public—private collaboration is that people need a strategy, framework, and process for designing and implementing it. First and foremost, public—private efforts must be prioritized and coordinated within agencies and across the government. Officials dedicated to public—private partnerships should work together to build strong relationships as opposed to individual projects with outside actors and society writ-large. Second, public—private initiatives should be designed with both partners present at the inception of policy, program, or business design. Finally, public—private collaboration should be recognized and accommodated by laws and regulations which provide greater flexibility to partner and clarity to both sides about what manner of collaboration is permissible and desirable.
For the national security community, priorities include stability operations, non-proliferation, energy protection, cyber security, and better business practices. As the National Security Strategy stated, ‘‘There must be opportunities for individuals and the private sector to play a major role in addressing common challenges whether supporting a nuclear fuel bank, promoting global health, fostering entrepreneurship, or exposing violations of universal rights. In the 21st century, the ability of individuals and nongovernmental actors to play a positive role in shaping the international environment represents a distinct opportunity for the United States.’’
Harnessing the know-how and resources of corporations, universities, research institutions, and charitable as well as development organizations is and will be critical to maintaining U.S. policy innovation and effectiveness. Just as we need to invest in education and research to cultivate national competitiveness, we need to build relationships leveraging private sector expertise and capabilities to enhance both global development and U.S. national security.
Admiral James Stavridis is the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) and Commander, U.S. European Command (EUCOM). Evelyn N. Farkas is his Senior Advisor for Public-Private Partnership.
NATOSource

The daily news of the world's most powerful alliance.
The views expressed in NATOSource are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.
Follow on Twitter: @NATOSource
"I am an enormous fan of NATOSource. I use it virtually every day, because it provides a wide variety of views, a solid base of factual knowledge, and keeps me in touch with the world of NATO."
Admiral James Stavridis, (Ret,), former SACEUR

(Graphics: Deutsche Welle and Reuters)
Most Popular NATOSource Posts
Key Issues
- Alliance Unity
- Allied Command Operations
- Allied Command Transformation
- Article 5
- Burden Sharing
- Capabilities Gap
- Chicago Summit
- Congress
- CSTO
- Cyber Threats
- Defense Spending
- Energy Security
- EU
- High North
- Intelligence
- ISAF
- Missile Defense
- NATO Defense Ministerials
- NATO Exercises
- NATO Ministerials
- NATO Operations
- NATO Partnerships
- NATO Response Force
- Nuclear Weapons
- OSCE
- Piracy
- R2P
- SACEUR
- SACT
- Secretary General
- Smart Defense
- Special Forces
- Strategic Concept
- Terrorism
- Transatlantic Relations
- United Nations
- Weapon Systems
TransAtlantic Links
Media Links
- Associated Press
- Baltic Times
- Brussels blog
- Deutsche Welle
- Economist
- EU Observer
- European Voice
- Financial Times
- Guardian
- Hurriyet Daily News
- International Herald Tribune
- Kathimerini
- Kyiv Post
- Le Monde Diplomatique
- Moscow Times
- New York Times
- Newsweek
- Prague Daily Monitor
- Radio Free Europe
- Reuters
- Ria Novosti
- Russia Today
- Slovak Spectator
- Spiegel
- St. Petersburg Times
- Sur
- Telegraph
- Times (London)
- Today's Zaman
- Wall Street Journal
- Washington Post
- Xinhua
- American Enterprise Institute (AEI), United States
- Aspen Institute, United States
- Atlantic Council, United States
- Brookings Institution, United States
- Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, United States
- Cato Institute, United States
- Center for a New American Security (CNAS), United States
- Center for International Relations (CIR), Poland
- Center for Security Studies (CSS), Switzerland
- Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), United States
- Center for Transatlantic Relations, United States
- Cicero Foundation, Netherlands
- Council on Foreign Relations, United States
- Danish Institute of International Studies (DIIS), Denmark
- EU Institute for Security Studies, France
- European Council on Foreign Relations, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Spain, UK
- European Institute, United States
- Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique (FRS), France
- French Institute of International Relations (IFRI), France
- Fundacion para el Análisis y los Estudios Sociale (FAES), Spain
- German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP), Germany
- German Marshall Fund of the United States, United States
- Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos (GEES), Spain
- Heritage Foundation, United States
- Hoover Institution, United States
- Institut de Relations Internationales et Stratégiques (IRIS), France
- Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis (IFPA), United States
- Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), Germany
- Instituto Affari Internazionali (IAI), Italy
- International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), United Kingdom
- Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, Germany
- Lemnitzer Center, United States
- Marshall Center, Germany
- NATO Defense College
- Netherlands Institute of International Relations (Clingendael), Netherlands
- Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI), Norway
- RAND, United States
- Real Instituto Elcano, Spain
- Ridgway Center, United States
- Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), United Kingdom
- Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), United Kingdom
- Schuman Center (RSCAS), Italy
- Security & Defence Agenda (SDA), Belgium
- Strategy International (SI), Greece
- U.S. Institute of Peace, United States
- Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, United States

