Public-private partnerships on cyber security: a practice of loyalty

被引:22
作者
Christensen, Kristoffer Kjaergaard [1 ]
Petersen, Karen Lund [2 ,3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Copenhagen, Dept Polit Sci, Copenhagen, Denmark
[2] Univ Copenhagen, MSO, Copenhagen, Denmark
[3] Ctr Adv Secur Theory, Copenhagen, Denmark
[4] Copenhagen Sch Secur Studies, Copenhagen, Denmark
关键词
CORPORATE SECURITY; ACTOR-NETWORK; RESPONSIBILITY; POLITICS;
D O I
10.1093/ia/iix189
中图分类号
D81 [国际关系];
学科分类号
030207 ;
摘要
The governance of cyber-security risks is seen as increasingly important to the security of the nation. However, cyber-security risks are characterized by a fundamental uncertainty, which poses a great challenge to their governance and calls for new modes of organizing security politics. Public-private partnerships (PPPs) are often seen as the answer to this challenge by enhancing flexibility and robustness through knowledge-sharing. Engaging with the literature on PPPs and the Danish practice on cyber security, we show how PPPs involve controversies over different threat realities of cyber security. This plays out as controversies over what is considered threatened, the scope of the issue and the kind of expertise to be mobilized. Arguing that PPPs on security are not defined narrowly by short-sighted strategic self-interest but also loyalty and commitment, we suggest that the innovative potential of such PPPs lie not in a possible consensus on a common purpose and threat reality, but in the ability to embrace divergent definitions and approaches to cyber security. Acknowledging the corporate interests and loyalty, we suggest a move towards the notion of partnering through dissent.
引用
收藏
页码:1435 / +
页数:20
相关论文
共 50 条
[41]   Public-private entanglements: consultant use by local planning authorities in England [J].
Wargent, Matthew ;
Parker, Gavin ;
Street, Emma .
EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES, 2020, 28 (01) :192-210
[42]   Old Wine in New Bottles? The Legitimation and Delegitimation of UN Public-Private Partnerships for Sustainable Development from the Johannesburg Summit to the Rio+20 Summit [J].
Backstrand, Karin ;
Kylsater, Mikael .
GLOBALIZATIONS, 2014, 11 (03) :331-347
[43]   Private security beyond private military and security companies: exploring diversity within private-public collaborations and its consequences for security governance [J].
Bures, Oldrich ;
Carrapico, Helena .
CRIME LAW AND SOCIAL CHANGE, 2017, 67 (03) :229-243
[44]   Technics of Labor: Productivism, Expertise, and Solid Waste Management in a Public-Private Partnership [J].
Butt, Waqas H. .
ANTHROPOLOGY OF WORK REVIEW, 2020, 41 (02) :108-118
[45]   Beyond the Shadow State: The Public-Private Food Assistance System as Networked Governance [J].
Rosenthal, Amy ;
Newman, Kathe .
URBAN AFFAIRS REVIEW, 2019, 55 (05) :1433-1455
[46]   Spatial shifts in migration governance: Public-private alliances in Swedish immigration administration [J].
Axelsson, Linn ;
Pettersson, Nils .
ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING C-POLITICS AND SPACE, 2021, 39 (07) :1529-1546
[47]   (Post-)crisis policing, public health and private security: the COVID-19 pandemic and the private security sector [J].
Leloup, Pieter ;
Cools, Marc .
POLICING & SOCIETY, 2022, 32 (06) :748-763
[48]   Public-Private Partnershipping as a Tool of Government: Exploring its Determinants Across German States [J].
Mause, Karsten ;
Krumm, Thomas .
GERMAN POLITICS, 2011, 20 (04) :527-544
[49]   Patent Incentives, Technology Markets, and Public-Private Bio-Medical Innovation Networks in Brazil [J].
Ryan, Michael P. .
WORLD DEVELOPMENT, 2010, 38 (08) :1082-1093
[50]   Intelligence expertise in the age of information sharing: public-private 'collection' and its challenges to democratic control and accountability [J].
Petersen, Karen Lund ;
Tjalve, Vibeke Schou .
INTELLIGENCE AND NATIONAL SECURITY, 2018, 33 (01) :21-35