Use of quasi-markets for provision of public goods requires clear property rights, a predictable adjudication process, and low transaction costs. These may be undermined by new restrictions on government action found in the new generation of free trade agreements. These trade agreements privilege foreign over domestic investors, replace public courts with private arbitration, supplant traditional standards for legislation by requirements to be “least trade restrictive,” and forward a new definition of “takings” that requires governmental compensation for lost potential profits from regulatory action. These features undermine the governance structure necessary to reduce transaction costs of delivering complex public services through private contracts.
American International Automobile Dealers Association. (2004, July 13). Trade agreement trade-offs. Retrieved September 11, 2004, from http://www.aiada.org/article.asp?id=19680
2.
Ambrogi, T.E. (2002). Fast track to disaster for the world's poor. The Witness Magazine.
3.
Amended statement of claim under the arbitration rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law and the North American Free Trade Agreement: United Parcel Service of America, Inc. v. Government of Canada. (2001, November 30). Retrieved March 22, 2005 , from http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/tna-nac/documents/statement_claim.pdf
4.
Amin, A., & Hausner, J. (1997). Beyond market and hierarchy: Interactive governance and social complexity. Lyme, NH: Edward Elgar.
5.
Appleton, B. (1994). Navigating NAFTA: A concise user's guide to the North American Free Trade Agreement. Rochester, NY: CarswellThomson Professional Publishing.
6.
Bennett, R. (1990). Decentralization, intergovernmental relations and markets: Towards a post-welfare agenda? In R. Bennett (Ed.), Decentralization, local governments and markets: Towards a post-welfare agenda (pp. 1-26). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
7.
Bernstein, D.E. (2004). The story of Lochner v. New York: Impediment to the growth of the regulatory state. In M. C. Dorf (Ed.), Constitutional law stories. New York: Foundation Press.
8.
Blanchard, L., Hinman, C., & Wong, W. (1998). Market-based reforms in government: Toward a social subcontract?Administration & Society, 30(56), 483-512.
9.
Bottari, M., & Wallach, L. (2001). NAFTA Chapter 11 investor-to-state cases: Bankrupting democracy. Washington, DC: Public Citizen.
10.
Boyne, G. (1998). Public choice theory and local government: A comparative analysis of the UK and the USA. New York: St. Martin's Press.
11.
Briffault, R. (2000). Localism and regionalism. Buffalo Law Review, 48(1), 1-30.
12.
Callies, D. L. (Ed.). (1996). Takings: Land development conditions and regulatory takings after Dolan and Lucas. Chicago: American Bar Association State and Local Government Law Section.
13.
Canadian Union of Public Employees. (2001). Dollars and democracy: Canadians pay the price of privatization. Ottawa, Canada: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cupe.ca/issues/privatization/arp/default.asp
14.
Coase, R.H. (1952). The nature of the firm. In G. J. Stigler & K. E. Boulding (Ed.), Readings in price theory. Chicago: R. D. Irwin.
15.
Coase, R.H. (1960). The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3, 1-44. Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602 (1993).
16.
Dalton, R.E. (1999). United States. In M. Leigh & L. B. Ederington (Eds.), National treatment law and practice. Washington, DC: American Society of International Law.
17.
Dannin, E. (2006). Red tape or accountability: Privatization, publicization, and public values. Cornell Journal Law andPublic Policy, 15, 1111.
18.
Dobbin, M. (2001). NAFTA's big brother, the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas and the threat of NAFTA-style investor-state rules. Retrieved from www.canadians.org/publication/publications-main.html
Eggers, W., & O'Leary, J. (1995). Revolution at the roots. New York: The Free Press.
21.
Epstein, R.A. (1985). Takings: Private property and the power of eminent domain. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
22.
Feldman, M.A., & Khademian, A.M. (2001). Principles for public management practice: From dichotomies to interdependence. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 14(3), 339-361.
23.
Ferris, J.M. (1986). The decision to contract out: An empirical analysis . Urban Affairs Quarterly, 22(2), 289-311.
24.
General Agreement on Trade in Services. (1995 ). Official text. World Trade Organization. Retrieved from www.wto.org/englis/tratop_e/serv_e/gatsintr_e.htm
25.
Gordon, M.C. (2001). Democracy's new challenge: Globalization, governance, and the future of American federalism. New York: Demos.
26.
Greider, W. (2001a, April 30). Sovereign corporations. The Nation . Retrieved from http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010430&s=greider
27.
Greider, W. (2001b, October 15). The Right and US trade law: Invalidating the 20th century. The Nation, pp. 21-29.
28.
Gullo, K. (2002, April 17). Oil refineries found liable in MTBE case. TheHouston Chronicle.
29.
Hefetz, A., & Warner, M. (2004). Privatization and its reverse: Explaining the dynamics of the government contracting process. Journal of Public Administration, Research and Theory, 14(2), 171-190.
30.
Hefetz, A., & Warner, M.E. (in press). Beyond the market vs. planning dichotomy: Understanding privatisation and its reverse in U.S. cities. Local Government Studies.
31.
Henig, J. (1989-1990). Privatization in the United States: Theory and practice. Political Science Quarterly, 104(4), 649-670.
32.
Hirsch, W. (1995). Contracting out by urban governments: A review . Urban Affairs Review, 30(3), 458-472.
33.
Intergovernmental Policy Advisory Committee. ( 2004). Letter to United States Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick dated April 2, 2004. Retrieved from http://ustr.gov/assets/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Morocco_FTA/Reports/asset_upload_file444_3120.pdf
34.
Kay, J. ( 2002, April 17). Two oil giants deceived public on MTBE's hazards, jury finds. San Francisco Chronicle.
35.
Kendall, D.T., Dowling, T.J., & Schwartz, A.W. (2000). Takings litigation handbook: Defending takings challenges to land use regulations. Cincinnati, OH: American Legal Publishing Corp.
36.
Lazar, L. (2000, Winter). Dispute resolution: Secret corporate weapon?Journal of Global Financial Markets. Retrieved from www.sachnoff.com/publications/articles/nafta.htm
37.
Liptak, A. (2004, April 18). NAFTA tribunals stir U.S. worries. New York Times.
38.
Longworth, R.C. (2001, July 2-16). Government without democracy. The American Prospect, 12(12). Retrieved from http://prospect.org/print/V12/12/longworth-r.html
39.
Lowery, D. (1998). Consumer sovereignty and quasi-market failure . Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), 137-172.
40.
Mann, H., & von Moltke, K. (1999). NAFTA's Chapter 11 and the environment [Working paper]. Canada: International Institute for Sustainable Development.
41.
McCain, M., & Coffey, C. (2004, November). Open letter to Minister Ken Dryden and provincial/territorial social development ministers. Distributed at Child Care for a Change Conference, Manitoba, CA.
42.
Mehta, S. (2002, April 20). Phaseout cost in billions, analyst says . Los Angeles Times, p. B12.
43.
Methanex Statement of Claim. (1999, December 3). In the matter of a claim under Chapter 11, section A of the North American Free Trade Agreement and in the matter of an arbitration under UNCITRAL arbitration rules between Methanex Corporation and the United States of America represented by the Department of State. Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/8772.pdf
44.
Meyerson, H. (2002, June 17). Senatorial heresy: The Democrats rethink free trade. American Prospect, 13(11).
45.
Moe, R.C. (1987). Exploring the limits of privatization. Public Administration Review, 47(6), 453-460.
46.
National Association of Counties. (1999, June 30). Testimony of NACo vice-president Javier Gonzales to the House Committee on Government Reform, Washington, D.C.
47.
National Conference of State Legislatures. ( 2002, August 22). Letter to Gloria Blue, executive secretary of the U.S. trade representative.
48.
National League of Cities. (2002). National Municipal Policy and Resolution Section 3.01 (C) Competitiveness, International Trade and Municipalities. Washington, DC : Author.
49.
Nelson, M.A. (1997). Municipal government approaches to service delivery: An analysis from a transactions cost perspective. Economic Inquiry, 35(1), 82-96.
50.
North American Free Trade Agreement. (1994 ). Retrieved from http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/nafta/naftatce.asp
51.
Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Prager, J. (1994). Contracting out government services: Lessons from the private sector. Public Administration Review, 54(2), 176-184.
54.
Rhodes, R.A.W. (1996). New governance: Governing without government. Political Studies, 44, 652-667.
55.
Salamon, L. (2002). The new governance and the tools of public action: An introduction. In The tools of government: A guide to the new governance (pp. 1-47). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
56.
Savas, E.S. (2000). Privatization and public-private partnerships . New York: Chatham House.
57.
Schamis, H. (2002). Re-forming the state: The politics of privatization in Latin America and Europe. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
58.
Schweke, W., & Stumberg, R. (2000). The emerging constitution: Why local governments could be left out. Public Management(US), 82(1), 4-11.
59.
Sclar, E. (2000). You don't always get what you pay for: The economics of privatization. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
60.
Shrybman, S. (2004). Legal opinion: Establishing a national system of early learning and child care in light of Canada's obligations under NAFTA and theWTO. Toronto, Ontario: Sach, Goldblatt and Mitchell, Barrister and Solicitors.
61.
Staley, S., & Scarlett, L. (1997). Market oriented planning: Principles and tools . Los Angeles: Reason Public Policy Institute.
62.
Statement of Administrative Action. Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Pub. L. 103-465,108 Stat. 4809 (1994), 19 USC 3512(c)(i).
63.
Stokes, B. (2001, March 26). Talk about unintended consequences!National Journal, p. 1592.
64.
Sullivan, H.J. (1987). Privatization of public services: A growing threat to constitutional rights. Public Administration Review, 47(6), 461-467.
65.
Svara, J.H. (1998). The politics-administration dichotomy model as aberration. Public Administration Review, 58(1), 51-58.
66.
Thompson, D. (2005, February 22). California sacred lands law triggers $50 million NAFTA claim. Sacramento, CA: Associated Press.
67.
Tiebout, C. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64, 416-424.
68.
Tietenberg, T. (1992). Environmental and natural resource economics (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
69.
Trelease, R. (1971). Federal-state relations in water law (Legal Study No. 5, Report NWC-L-71-014). Arlington, VA: National Water Commission National Technical Information Service.
70.
Tysoe, Honorable Justice. (2001). The United Mexican States v. Metalclad. Full Reasons for Judgment. Retrieved December 18, 2006, from http://www.canadianliberty.bc.ca/nafta/mexico_vs_metalclad.html
71.
United States v. Loewen Group, Civil Action No. 98 0815, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9472; 1998-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P72,151, April 15, 1998, Decided, April 15, 1998, Filed.
72.
U.S. Department of State. (2003, December 10). Glamis Gold Ltd. v. United States of America: Notice of arbitration . Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/s/l/c10986.htm
73.
U.S. Department of State. (2005). In the matter of an international arbitration under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Uncitral Arbitration Rules between Methanex Corporation and the United States of America, final award of the tribunal . Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/51052.pdf
74.
U.S. Trade Representative. (2002, July 1). United States announces proposals for liberalizing trade in services: U.S. leadership spurs momentum to fulfill Doha Agenda [Press release]. Retrieved from http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-ec0660.html
75.
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 384 (1926).
76.
Wallach, L., & Sforza, M. (1999). Whose trade organization? Corporate globalization and the erosion of democracy. Washington, DC: Public Citizen.
77.
Warner, M.E., & Gerbasi, J.C. (2004a). Is there a democratic deficit in the free trade agreements? What local governments should know. Public Management , 86(2), 16-21.
78.
Warner, M.E., & Gerbasi, J.C. (2004b). Rescaling and reforming the state under NAFTA: Implications for subnational authority. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28(4), 853-873.
79.
Warner, M.E., & Hebdon, R. (2001). Local government restructuring: Privatization and its alternatives. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management , 20(2), 315-336.
80.
Warner, M.E., & Hefetz, A. (2001). Privatization and the market role of government [Briefing paper]. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved from http://government.cce.cornell.edu/doc/pdf/marketstruct.pdf
81.
Warner, M.E., & Hefetz, A. (2002a). Applying market solutions to public services: An assessment of efficiency, equity and voice. Urban Affairs Review, 38(1), 70-89.
82.
Warner, M.E., & Hefetz, A. (2002b). The uneven distribution of market solutions for public goods. Journal of Urban Affairs, 24(4), 445-459.
83.
Warner, M.E., & Hefetz, A. (2003). Rural-urban differences in privatization: Limits to the competitive state. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 21(5), 703-718.
84.
Warner, M.E., & Hefetz, A. (in press). Managing markets for public service: The role of mixed public/private delivery of city services. Public Administration Review.
85.
Webster, C.J. (1998). Public choice, Pigouvian and Coasian planning theory. Urban Studies, 35(1), 53-75.
86.
Williamson, O.E. (1996). The mechanisms of governance. New York: Oxford University Press.
87.
World Trade Organization Working Party on Professional Services. (1998, November 30). Disciplines on domestic regulation in the accountancy sector (S/WPPS/4, No. 98-4905). Retrieved from http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/pres98_e/prl18_e.htm
