Re-municipalization of public services: trend or hype?

Abstract

Re-municipalization is part of a broader set of reverse privatization reforms. We argue the term re-municipalization lacks conceptual clarity, confusing municipal level reversals from national ones, new service delivery from reversals, and mixed market positions from full public control. This conceptual confusion makes measurement of re-municipalization difficult. While more case studies are being discovered, quantitative time series studies do not show remunicipalization is increasing. Much case study based research argues remunicipalization is politically transformative, but quantitative research generally finds re-municipalization to be part of a pragmatic market management process, a position confirmed by the papers in this special issue. Policy Highlights• Re-municipalization is as an important trend in public service delivery. • Re-municipalization is primarily a pragmatic process of market management. • Case studies show remunicipalization can be politically transformative.Since the 1980s, the scholarship analysing the ongoing reform of public services has overwhelmingly focused on the shift of these services to the private sector, that is, on their privatization. Attention, above all, has been paidin this by now vast body of literatureto the determinants (Clifton, Comín, and Díaz-

Government choice between contract termination and contract expiration in re-municipalization: a case of historical recurrence?

“…Renewed emphasis on market failures has led to support for re-municipalization policies. However, more time is required to allow a fuller assessment of whether this renewed impetus is merely hype or a trend (Clifton et al, 2019).…”

“…Until recently, a lack of detailed data has hampered empirical evaluation of the diffusion, drivers, types and performance of re-municipalization measures. Clifton et al (2019) observe the difficulties with quantifying the extent of remunicipalization as the concept is not clearly defined and longitudinal data are scarce. They note that such data have only been recorded for the US by Warner and Hefetz (2020), who used national survey data to show trends of contracting out and contracting in over time.…”

Efficiency of capital formation of utility enterprises: the case of Ukraine

“…However, the authors support the need to privatize companies because the state is a less efficient owner due to monitoring problems, as well as the environment in which state-owned companies operate, as measured by soft budget constraints or barriers to competition. DOI: 10.14807/ijmp.v12i3.1501 It is important the experience of countries that initially preferred the private ownership of enterprises operating in the housing and utility sphere, but eventually carried out reprivatization (re-municipalization) due to the results of privatized enterprises did not meet the expectations of local authorities and the community (Wagner & Berlo, 2015;Clifton et al, 2019). Examples of such countries are the United States and Germany (energy companies), France (water supply and sewerage), the Netherlands and Spain (waste disposal services).…”

Does public ownership of utilities matter for local government water policies?

“…The understanding that privatization does not result in cost savings, has led to global interest in re-municipalization in water (Clifton et al, 2019;McDonald, 2018;Kishimoto and Petitjean, 2017). Private concessions are longstanding in France, but the process of re-municipalization of water has been most aggressive there, as localities believe they can serve their communities more efficiently with public ownership (Chong et al, 2015;Hall et al, 2013).…”