Municipal Unions and Privatization

Chandler, Timothy D.; Feuille, Peter

doi:10.2307/976632

Cited by 58 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Because public services are labor intensive, many of the savings from privatization are due to reductions in wages and benefits to labor, often resulting in the loss of primary sector job ladders for women and minorities (Hebdon, 1995). Local employment effects are important externalities of community concern, and union opposition to contracting is a frequent result (Chandler and Feuille, 1991;Ferris, 1986).…”

Section: Privatization and Inter-municipal Cooperation-competitive Almentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The ICMA surveys measure inter-municipal cooperation but not governmental entrepreneurship or reverse privatization. Those few studies that acknowledge the reverse privatization phenomenon have not included it in their analysis (Chandler and Feuille, 1991;Kodrzycki, 1998). An exception is the paper by Lopez-de-Silanes, Shleifer, and Vishny (1997) that identifies a process of "switching" services back and forth between public and private sector providers by county.…”

Section: Limitations Of Available Data Sources On Governmental Restrumentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Given strong union opposition to privatization (Chandler and Feuille, 1991;CSEA, 1995;Ferris, 1986), the union variable is expected to have a negative effect on decisions to privatize but not necessarily on other restructuring alternatives that have no negative effect on public employment.…”

Section: Independent Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Local Government Restructuring: Privatization and Its Alternatives

Warner

Hebdon

2001

J Policy Anal Manage

242

193

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Local government restructuring should no longer be viewed as a simple dichotomy between private and public provision. A 1997 survey of chief elected township and county officials in New York shows that local governments use both private and public sector mechanisms to structure the market, create competition, and attain economies of scale. In addition to privatization and inter-municipal cooperation, two alternative forms of service delivery not previously researched-reverse privatization and governmental entrepreneurship-are analyzed here. Logistic regression on the 201 responding governments differentiates the decision to restructure from the level and complexity of restructuring. Results confirm that local governments are guided primarily by pragmatic concerns with information, monitoring, and service quality. Political factors are not significant in the restructuring process and unionization is only significant in cases of simple restructuring (privatization or cooperation used alone). Fiscal stress is not a primary motivator, but debt limits are associated with more complex forms of restructuring. Restructuring service delivery requires capacity to take risks and is more common among experienced local officials in larger, higher-income communities. Restructuring should be viewed as a complex, pragmatic process where governments combine public and private provision with an active role as service provider and market player. © 2001 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.

show abstract

Section: Privatization and Inter-municipal Cooperation-competitive Almentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Limitations Of Available Data Sources On Governmental Restrumentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Local Government Restructuring: Privatization and Its Alternatives

Warner

Hebdon

2001

J Policy Anal Manage

242

193

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A basic supposition of the privatization literature (Chandler & Feuille, 1991;Donahue, 1989;Ferris & Grady, 1986;Megginson & Netter, 2001;Savas, 1987) is that privatization decisions at the state level are influenced by the financial health of the state. This rings true for the decision to consider privatization as an alternative in this state infrastructure program.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Privatization In State Agencies

Morris

Travis

2003

Public Works Management & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the question of why state governments choose to privatize goods and services. After reviewing the literature, to explore the question, the authors devised their own model of state privatization. Although the existing literature describes in great detail the benefits and disadvantages of privatization at all levels of government, it does not address why governments privatize. Using the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program, the authors test their model of privatization use by state government using political, economic, and administrative variables. They find support for political and cultural influences and state economic conditions as explanations for why privatization is chosen as an option by state governments.

show abstract

“…We also include strength of public employee unions to control for its impact on contracting out government functions. Through political lobbying, court actions, and collective bargaining, public employee unions are able to influence government contracting decisions (Chandler and Feuille 1991;Ferris and Graddy 1986). The strength of public employee unions in each state is measured by the percent of public employees who are covered by a collective bargaining agreement in 2009, based on the estimates from the Union Membership and Coverage Database (www.…”

Section: Control Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Governing Diversity: The Impact of Social Heterogeneity on Human Service Delivery

2015

Public Organiz Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The social environment in which government is embedded has wide implications for public administration. The increasing social heterogeneity in the United States poses various puzzles for the governance structure in public human service programs. Apart from major political and policy changes, contracting out service delivery is considered to be a more appropriate managerial response. Therefore, social heterogeneity in a jurisdiction would be positively associated with the use of contractual networks in service delivery. Using data from a national survey of human service contracting, this study finds that states with higher degrees of social heterogeneity use service contractual networks more often. This further highlights the imperative of capacity building for public administrators when using contractual networks.

show abstract

Municipal Unions and Privatization

Cited by 58 publications

References 0 publications

Local Government Restructuring: Privatization and Its Alternatives

Local Government Restructuring: Privatization and Its Alternatives

Privatization In State Agencies

Governing Diversity: The Impact of Social Heterogeneity on Human Service Delivery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About