This article deals with contracting out of civil science and technology services. Implementation of Canadian government programs in conservation and renewable energies is analyzed, as are characteristics ofpublic sector demand in relation to the choice of contractors. Data show that public and nonprofit sectors benefit most from contracts, even though the manufacturing sector originally was the targeted clientele. This is explained,first, by public sector demand that did not correspond to research and development done by firms and, second, by the fact that public sector and nonprofit organizations are in afavorable position to obtain contracts due to closer relations with public organizations. The contracting out policy has contributed to the development of organizations that share common characteristics with the public sector
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bennett, J. T. , & DiLorenzo, T. J. (1989). Unfair competition: The profits of nonprofits. Lanham, MD: Hamilton.
2.
Butler, S. M. (1985). Privatizing federal spending: A strategy to eliminate the deficit. New York: Universe Books.
3.
Charles E. Napier Company Ltd. (1986). Socio-economic impact of the S&Tcontracting-out policy. Ottawa: Author.
4.
Cordell, A. J. , & Gilmour, J. (1980). The role andfunction of government laboratories and the transfer of technology to the manufacturing sector. Ottawa: Science Council.
5.
Dalpέ, R. , & Anderson, F. (1995). National priorities in academic research: Strategic research and contracts in renewable energies. Research Policy, 24, 563-581.
6.
Danhof, C. H. (1968). Government contracting and technological change. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
7.
DeHoog, R. (1984). Contracting outfor human services. Albany: State University of New York Press.
8.
Ferris, J. , & Graddy, E. (1986). Contracting out: For what? With whom?Public Administration Review, 46, 332-344.
9.
Florestano, P. S. , & Gordon, S. B. (1980). Public vs. private: Small government contracting with the private sector. Public Administration Review, 40, 29-34.
10.
Gingras, Y. , & Dalpe, R. (1993). Energy R&D policy in Canada. In J. de la Mothe & P. Dufour, Science and technology in Canada (pp. 162-180). London: Longman.
11.
Groupe de travail charge de l'examen des programmes. (1985). Programmes d'acquisitions du gouvernement, "Mieux d6penser " Ottawa: Author.
12.
Grubb, M. J. (1990). The Cinderella options: A study of modernized renewable energy technologies. Energy Policy, 18, 711-725.
13.
Harrison, K. , & Stanbury, W. T. (1990). Privatization in British Columbia: Lessons from the sale of government laboratories. Canadian Public Administration, 33(2), 165-197.
14.
Hirsch, W. Z. (1995). Contracting out by urban governments: A review. Urban Affairs Review, 30, 458-472.
15.
Kettl, D. F (1993). Sharing power: Public governance and private markets. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
16.
Maupin, J. R. (1989). The political economy of privatization. Ph.D. thesis, Arizona State University.
17.
Meyboom, P. (1974). In-house vs. contractual research: The federal make-or-buy policy. Canadian Public Administration, 17, 563-585.
18.
Ministry of State, Science, and Technology . (1975). The make-or-buy policy, 1973-1975. Ottawa: Author.
19.
Ministry of State, Science, and Technology . (1982). Evaluation of contracting-out policy. Ottawa: Author.
20.
Moe, R. C. (1987). Exploring the limits of privatization. Public Administration Review, 47, 453-460.
21.
Morgan, D. R. , & England, R. E. (1988). The two faces of privatization. Public Administration Review, 48, 979-987.
22.
National Research Council . (1986). Alternative energy technology in Canada: NRC's energy R&D program, 1975-1985. Ottawa: Author.
23.
Newell, S. , & Clark, P. (1990). The importance of extra-organizational networks in the diffusion and appropriation of new technologies. Knowledge, 12(2), 199-212.
24.
Ostrom, V. , & Ostrom, E. (1977). Public goods and public choices. In E. S. Savas (Ed.), Alternatives for delivering public services (pp. 7-49). Boulder, CO: Westview.
25.
Salamon, L. M. (1989). Beyond privatization: The tools of government action. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
26.
Savas, E. S. (1977). The organization and efficiency of solid waste collection. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
27.
Savas, E. S. (1982). Privatizing the public sector: How to shrink government. Chatham, England: Chatham House.
28.
Science Council . (1968). Towards a national science policy for Canada. Report No. 4. Ottawa: Queen's Printer.
29.
Sharkansky, I. (1980). Policy making and service delivery on the margins of government: The case of contractors. Public Administration Review, 40(2), 116-123.
30.
Smith, S. , & Lipsky, M. (1993). Nonprofits for hire: The welfare state in the age of contracting. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31.
Special Committee on Science Policy . (1970). A science policy for Canada (Vol. 1). Ottawa: Information Canada.
32.
Starr, S. H. (1987). The limits of privatization. In S. H. Hanke (Ed.), Prospects for privatization (pp. 124-137). New York: Academy of Political Science.
33.
Stein, R. M. (1990). Urban alternatives: Public andprivate markets in the provision of local services. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
34.
Supapol, A. B. (1990). The commercialization of government-sponsored technologies: Canadian evidence. Research Policy, 19, 369-378.
35.
Supapol, A. B. , & McFetridge, D. G. (1982). An analysis of the federal make-or-buy policy. Ottawa: Economic Council of Canada.
Van de Ven, A. H. , & Garud, R. (1989). A framework for understanding the emergence of new industries. Research on Technological Innovation, Management and Policy, 4, 195-225.
38.
Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.
