Private Contracting and Citizen Attitudes Toward Local Government

Abstract

Lawmakers use privatized service delivery to simultaneously maintain low taxes while also satisfying citizen demands for high-quality public goods and services. However, what effect does private contracting have on people’s attitudes toward local government? I design a survey experiment that tests how public–private collaborations alter how people attribute responsibility to government for the successes and failures of the delivery of goods and services. I show that private contracting makes it less likely that people will connect public services to government, which erodes their evaluations of government performance and the feeling that local government represents their interests. Moreover, I show that citizens are also more likely to blame local government for private service delivery failures than they are to praise it for private service delivery successes. This asymmetry in responsibility attribution makes it difficult for local governments to build support among its citizens when it relies on private contracting.

The political consequences of corporate donations for public service provision

“…Work on rebel groups by Loyle et al (2022) and Loyle et al (2023) questions whether our focus on the state as the default provider may be misguided. In the context of firms specifically, Dawkins (2021) finds that government contracting-companies delivering a service that is funded by governments-can reduce citizen buy-in, creating a situation where people blame governments for failures and do not believe the government to be accountable.…”

“…Some companies also explicitly partner with governments, through public-private partnerships (PPPs), to provide services, especially infrastructure (such as roads and bridges). In other instances, there is private contracting contracting, in which a company is contracted and paid by the government to provide a service (Dawkins, 2021).…”

“…All three of these are examples of public services that are provided by local governments with the aid of a financial or in-kind donation from a private company. These kinds of corporate donations may help cities struggling with budget cuts, alongside other strategies such as outright privatization of service delivery and inter-municipal cooperation (see, e.g., Kim and Warner, 2016; Dawkins, 2021). Yet there are reasons to believe these donations may not be strictly beneficial, because although they may help cities financially, it is unclear if, or how, these kinds of contributions affect the residents of the municipalities that receive them.…”

“…Accessed 25 January 2023. https://www.cvshealth.com/impact/healthy-community/ourgiving/community-grants.html. 6 This is almost the exact mirror image of Dawkins (2021): he theorizes about privatization, in which services are provided (or funded) by the government but delivered by a private company, whereas I am theorizing about where the provision or funding is by the company, but the delivery is by the government.…”

Public Perception of the Hungarian Local Government Reform

“…During the research the following literature was used:Dollery et al, 2006;Aaberge & Langorgen, 2006;Agranoff, 2014;Bjørnå & Jenssen, 2006;Bordogna & Neri, 2014;Brackertz, 2013;Bulmer, 2015;Callanan, 2011;Chan, 2019;Chen et al, 2010;Cuadrado-Ballesteros et al, 2013;Dawkins, 2021;Devereux & Weisbrod, 2006;Falleth & Hovik, 2009;Gawłowski & Paweł, 2019;Giannoccaro et al, 2008;Hardell et al, 2020;James, 2011;Kadirbeyoğlu & Sümer, 2012;Kákai, 2019;Keivani et al, 2001;Kudo, 2015;Milán-García et al, 2021;Mina & Surugiu, 2013;Murphy et al, 2011;Narbón-Perpiná & De Witte, 2018;Nurse, 2015;Powell et al, 2019;Reddick et al, 2022;Reid, 2012;Sellers & Lidström, 2007;Suditu et al, 2014;Tamás, 2014;Tarditi, 2020;Vincent-Jones, 2002;Watt, 2006;Wilson, 2003. …”