Changing Public-Private Sector Relations: A Look at the United States

Abstract

One of the distinctive elements that accounts for the dynamism and innovative capacity of America's political institutions is the use of private organizations to accomplish public purposes. The nation has found it useful to contract out for services when bureaucratic obstacles thwart new policy objectives. Yet in recent years the country has seemed to lack exactly the qualities of dynamism, vitality, and innovative capacity in the public sector, in business, and in the voluntary sector that we have most cherished. The blame for this, in the view of some observers, rests with the blurring of the boundaries between public and private sectors that has characterized the postwar period. This article explores the paradoxical shift in attitudes on public-private sector relations against the background of contemporary ideological trends. The arguments for either a massive shifting of functions to private contractors or for the federal government to reabsorb major activities now carried out by contractors are equally unconvincing. The problem is to make the present system of shared responsibility among government, business, and the voluntary sector work more effectively, not to experiment with ideological solutions that would rear-range the nation's political and institutional landscapes.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

1. Samuel P. Huntington , “Paradigms of American Politics: Beyond the One, the Two, and the Many,” Political Science Quarterly, 89(1):1-26 (Mar. 1974).

2. Louis Hartz , The Liberal Tradition in America (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1962); Bernard Bailyn , The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967); James Young , The Washington Community (New York: Columbia University Press, 1966).

W. P. Shively , “The Development of Party Identification Among Adults: Exploration of a Functional Model,” American Political Science Review, 73(4):1039-1054 (Dec. 1979); P. E. Converse and G. B. Markus , “Plus ca Change: The New CPS Election Study Panel,” American Political Science Review, 73(1):32-49 (Mar. 1979).

4. Elmer B. Staats , “Governmental Performance in Perspective: Achievements and Challenges,” in Improving the Accountability and Performance of Government, eds. Bruce L.R. Smith and James D. Carroll (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1982), pp. 19-34.

5. Harold L. Wilensky and Charles N. Lebeaux , Industrial Society and Social Welfare (New York: Free Press, 1965), p. xiv; Harold L. Wilensky , The Welfare State and Equality: Structural and Ideological Roots of Public Expenditures (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975).

Lester M. Salamon , “Rethinking Public Administration: Third Party Government and the Changing Forms of Government Action,” Public Policy, 29(3):255-275 (Summer 1981).

7. Theodore J. Lowi , The End of Liberalism: Ideology, Policy, and the Crisis of Public Authority (New York: W. W. Norton, 1969), p. 46.

8. The high point of our self-confidence was perhaps reached when fine tuning of the economy was a popular concept. See Walter Heller , New Dimensions of Political Economy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966).

9. Edward F. Denison , Accounting for Slower Economic Growth: The United States in the 1970's (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1979).

10.

10. Report on Non-Departmental Public Bodies, CMND 7977 (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Jan. 1980).

11.

11. See the excellent argument of Yair Aharoni , The No-Risk Society (Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, 1981).

12.

12. See Waldemar A. Nielsen , The Endangered Sector (New York: Columbia University Press, 1980).

13.

13. Fred Greenstein , The Hidden Hand Presidency (New York: Basic Books, 1982).

14.

14. Ronald Smothers , “State-Run Residences for Retarded Reported Inferior and More Costly,” New York Times, 29 Aug. 1982, p. 1.

15.

15. Chalmers Johnson , MITI and the Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial Policy, 1925-1972 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1982).