What brings the state back in? An examination of contracting reversal

Abstract

PurposeIn recent years, there is a steady increase of studies documenting the emergence of “contracting back-in” in many countries around the world, that is, governments bringing previously contracted services back in-house and once again relying on public employees to deliver these services. Through a survey of the academic discourse on contracting back-in, this manuscript describes the phenomenon of contracting back-in and discusses its implications for “bringing the state back in”.Design/methodology/approachThe manuscript conducts a systematic review of existing literature on contracting back-in with a focus on the scope and rationale of contracting back-in.FindingsThe existing literature demonstrates that contracting back-in is often as common as contracting out and can be found in a variety of countries and across different service areas. Existing studies also suggest that contracting back-in is driven by a mix of managerial, political, and environmental factors. The rise of contracting back-in could imply a revival of the administrative state in public governance and a more dynamic, potentially more complicated, system of public service delivery.Originality/valueThe manuscript contributes to the special issue on “bringing the state back in” through the lens of government contracting. It adds a number of implications to the discussion on the emergence of the “new” administrative state and strategies to reinvent it.

Abolishing the Act on System of Choice in Swedish eldercare: on arguments and replacements in the municipalities

“…This result supports previous research on re-municipalization showing that ideology can indeed be an important driver in privatization but largely lacks significance in re-municipalization (e.g., Jansson et al. , 2021; see Hung and Lu, 2022). It means that drivers of re-municipalization in this case of social services do not deviate from technical services as have been suggested by other scholars (e.g., Petersen et al.…”

“…Previous research on re-municipalization has mainly dealt with the sectors of energy, waste and water, as well as public transportation. Less research has dealt with social services (Hung and Lu, 2022). One reason might be that in many countries, unlike in Sweden, the municipalities' role in social services is limited.…”

“…However, in some cases, the public sector regains ground in the ownership or provision. Therefore, lately, another trend has received attention, described as backsourcing (Young and Macinati, 2012;Thakur-Wernz, 2019;Berlin et al, 2022Berlin et al, , 2023, insourcing (Damanpour et al, 2020), reverse privatization (Hefetz and Warner, 2004;Warner, 2008;Warner and Hefetz, 2012), contracting back-in (Hung and Lu, 2022), or-in the case of most relevance here since we are dealing with the local levelre-municipalization (Hall et al, 2013;B€ onker et al, 2016;Wollman, 2018;Clifton et al, 2021;Voorn et al, 2021).…”

A replication of “Contracting out: For What? With Whom?”

“…In 12 of 25 services analyzed, partnerships with other governments account for more than 50% of the total contracts, and only one service area (trash collection) has experienced an overall decrease in the use of government‐to‐government contracts. Government‐to‐government contracting could be an alternative to insourcing, re‐municipalization, or contracting reversal (Albalate et al, 2022; Campos‐Alba et al, 2021; Damanpour et al, 2020; Hefetz & Warner, 2007; Hung & Lu, 2022; Lamothe et al, 2008; Warner & Aldag, 2021; Warner & Hefetz, 2012). Jurisdictions that lack the capacity to provide certain services directly but want to reestablish public control over a service area may decide to contract out with other governments instead (Brown, 2008; Hefetz & Warner, 2007).…”