Market forces provide a foundation for the expectations of efficiency in contracting out. However, often the lack of competition in particular industries creates powerful companies that are able to negotiate contracts in their favor, reducing improved performance for government agencies. To study how market power influences performance in service delivery in the transit industry, we examine individual contracts as our unit of analysis. We hypothesize that a vendor’s market power directly influences an individual contract’s operational efficiency. We find that the lack of competition in the execution of contracts is an important determinant of agency performance.
AllisonP. (2009). Fixed effects regression models, quantitative applications in the social sciences series. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2.
BerechmanJ.GiulianoG. (1984). Analysis of the cost structure of an urban bus transit property. Transportation Research Part B, 18, 273-287.
3.
BlauP. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.
4.
BrownT.PotoskiM.Van SlykeD. (2006). Managing public service contracts: Aligning values, institutions, and markets. Public Administration Review, 66, 323-331.
5.
ChadwickE. (1859, September). Results of different principles of legislation and administration in Europe; of competition for the field, as compared with competition within the field, of service. Journal of Statistical Society of London, 22, 381-420.
6.
DemsetzH. (1968). Why regulate utilities?Journal of Law & Economics, 11(1), 55-65.
7.
EmersonR. M. (1962, February). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27, 31-41.
8.
GilbertX.StrebelP. (1987). Strategies to outpace the competition. Journal of Business Strategy, 8(1), 28-36.
9.
HartO.MooreJ. (1988). Incomplete contracts and negotiation. Econometrica, 56, 755-785.
10.
HilbeJ. (2011). Negative binomial regression. Cambridge University Press.
11.
IsekiH. (2008). Economies of scale in bus transit service in the USA: How does cost efficiency vary by agency size and level of contracting?Transportation Research Part A, 42, 1086-1097.
12.
LelandS.SmirnovaO. (2009). Reassessing privatization strategies 25 years later: Revisiting Perry and Babitsky’s comparative performance study of urban bus transit services. Public Administration Review, 69, 855-867.
13.
LelandS.SmirnovaO. (2010). Understanding local government’s decision to contract out for transit. Paper Presented at the 2009 Association of Budgeting and Financial Management Conference, Washington, DC.
14.
MaskinE.TiroleJ. (1999). Unforeseen contingencies and incomplete contracts. The Review of Economic Studies, 66, 83-114.
15.
McAfeeR. P.McMillanJ. (1987a). Auctions and bidding. Journal of Economic Literature, 25, 699-738.
16.
McAfeeR. P.McMillanJ. (1987b). Auctions with entry. Economics Letters, 22, 343-347.
17.
McGrathM. (2000). Product strategy for high-technology company. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
NorthD. (1990). A transaction cost theory of politics. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2, 355-367.
21.
OlivierJ.NorbergM. M. (2010). Positively skewed data: Revisiting the Box-Cox Power transformation. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 68-75.
22.
PerryJ.BabitskyT. (1986). Comparative performance in urban bus transit: Assessing privatization strategies. Public Administration Review, 46, 57-66.
23.
ProvanK. G.SkinnerS. J. (1989, March). Interorganizational dependence and control as predictors of opportunism in dealer-supplier relations. The Academy of Management Journal, 32, 202-212.
24.
RejaR. (1999). The economies and politics of contracting out with the private sector: Evidence from the US transit industry. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
25.
SavasE. S. (1987). Privatization: The key to better government. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
26.
SavasE. S. (2000). Privatization and public private partnerships. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Press.
27.
SavasE. S. (2005). Privatization in the city: Successes, failures, lessons. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
28.
SmirnovaO.LelandS.JohnsonG. (2008). Popular, but more influential? A test of whether special purpose governments affect federal transit financing. Municipal Finance Journal, 28(4), 43-61.
29.
StockJ. H.WatsonM. W. (2010). Introduction to econometrics (3rd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
30.
Van SlykeD. (2003). The mythology of privatization in contracting for social services. Public Administration Review, 63, 296-315.
31.
WhitfordA. B. (2007). Designing markets: Why competitive bidding and auctions in government often Fail To Deliver. Policy Studies Journal, 35, 61-85.
32.
WilliamsonO. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. New York, NY: Free Press.
33.
WilliamsonO. E. (1991a, June). Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 269-296.
34.
WilliamsonO. E. (1991b). Strategizing, economizing, and economic organization. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 75-94.
35.
ZulloR. (2008). Transit contracting reexamined: Determinants of cost efficiency and resource allocation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 495-515.
