As privatization of municipal service becomes commonplace, empirical evidence is necessary to ensure that services delivered are equitable and responsive to all citizens. This article looks specifically at social equity measures in municipal service privatization. Using panel data analysis with survey data from a large southwest city, it examines how privatization affects citizens’ reported quality ratings of solid waste service in communities of different ethnicities. The findings show that customers of privately delivered services generally report lower ratings than publicly delivered services; and in Latino-concentrated areas, these ratings are significantly lower. This article closes with policy suggestions to address the lack of attention to social equity measures in evaluation efforts of current service privatization practices.
BrownKarinCoulterPhilip B.1983. Subjective and objective measures of police service delivery. Public Administration Review43: 50–58.
2.
BrownTrevor L.PotoskiMatthewVan SlykeDavid M.2006. Managing public service contracts: Aligning values, institutions, and markets. Public Administration Review66:323–31.
3.
BelGermaFagedaXavierWarnerMildred E.2010. Is private production of public services cheaper than public production? A meta-regression analysis of solid waste and water services. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management29:553–77.
4.
BrunetJames R.2006. Measuring social equity performance in the criminal justice system. Paper presented at the Fifth Social Equity Leadership Conference, Omaha, NE.
5.
CharbonneauEtienneRiccucciNorma M.Van RyzinGregg G.HolzerMarc. 2009. The self-reported use of social equity indicators in urban police departments in the United States and Canada. State and Local Government Review41:95–107.
6.
ChitwoodStephen R.1974. Social equity and social service productivity. Public Administration Review34:29–35.
7.
ColeLukeFosterSheila R.2000. From the ground up: Environmental racism and the rise of the environmental justice movement. New York: New York University Press.
8.
CronbachLee J.1987. Statistical tests for moderator variables: Flaws in analyses recently proposed. Psychological bulletin102:414–31.
9.
DenhardtKathryn G.1991. Unearthing the moral foundations of public administration: Honor, benevolence, and justice. In Ethical frontiers in public management, ed. BowmanJ. S., 91–109. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
10.
FredericksonH. George. 2005. The state of social equity in American public administration. National Civic Review94:31–38.
11.
FredericksonH. George. 2010. Social equity and public administration: Origins, developments and applications. Armonk, NY: M.C. Sharpe.
12.
GoodenSusanJonesDaleMartinKasey J.BoydMarcus. 2009. Social equity in local emergency management planning. State and Local Government Review41:1–12.
13.
GuyMary E.McCandlessSean A.2012. Social equity: Its legacy, its promise. Public Administration Review20:1–9.
14.
JenningsEdward T.Jr. 1991. Public choice and the privatization of government: Implications for public administration. In Public management: The essential readings, ed. OttJ. S.HydeA. C.ShafritzJ. M., 113–29. Chicago: Lyceum Books.
15.
HaqueM. Shamsul. 1996. Public service under challenge in the age of privatization. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration9:186–216.
16.
HenigJeffrey R.HamnettChrisFeigenbaumHarvey B.1988. The politics of privatization: A comparative perspective. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration1:442–68.
17.
KellyJanet M.2005. The dilemma of the unsatisfied customer in a market model of public administration. Public Administration Review65:76–84.
18.
MarloweJulia. 1985. Private versus public provision of refuse removal service: Measures of citizen satisfaction. Urban Affairs Quarterly20:355–63.
19.
MelosiMartin. 2005. Garbage in the cities: Refuse, reform, and the environment. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
20.
MorganDavid R.EnglandRobert E.1988. The two faces of privatization. Public Administration Review48:979–87.
21.
Norman-MajorKristen. 2011. Balancing the 4 Es: Or can we achieve social equity in public administration. Journal of Public Affairs Education17:233–52.
22.
PaganoMichael. 1999. Metropolitan limits: Intrametropolitan disparities and governance in U.S. laboratories of democracy. In Governance and opportunity in metropolitan America, ed. AltshulerA.MorrillW.WolmanH.MitchellF., 253–95. Washington, DC: National Academy.
23.
SavasE. S.1977. Policy analysis for local government: Public vs. private refuse collection. Policy Analysis3:49–74.
24.
SclarElliott D.2000. You don’t always get what you pay for: The economics of privatization. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
25.
SolbergerMartin. 2011. Demeaning the data in panel-cointegration models to control for cross-sectional dependencies. Economics Letters110:252–54.
26.
SpinaSteven F.2013. Addressing remnants of the past: Proactive responses to equity issues in public administration. State and Local Government Review45:98–107.
27.
SvaraJamesBrunetJames R.2005. Social equity is a pillar of public administration. Journal of Public Affairs Education11:253–58.
28.
SzeJuliePrakashSwati. 2004. Human genetics, environment, and communities of color: Ethical and social implications. Environmental Health Perspectives112:740–45.
29.
VogelRonald K.HarriganJohn J.2007. Political change in the metropolis. 8th ed. New York: Pearson-Longman.
30.
WardJames D.2008. Privatization and social equity: A research note. Journal of Public Affairs Education14:111–14.
31.
WarnerMildred E.2012a. Does local government size matter? Privatization and hybrid systems of local service delivery. ICPP Working Paper 12-12. Atlanta: Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
32.
WarnerMildred E.2012b. Privatization and urban governance: The continuing challenges of efficiency, voice and integration. Cities29:38–43.
33.
WilliamsOliver P.1967. Lifestyle values and political decentralization in metropolitan areas. Southwest Social Science Quarterly48:299–310.
34.
WoodCurtis. 2006. Scope and patterns of metropolitan governance in Urban America: Probing the complexities in the Kansas City region. American Review of Public Administration36:337–53.
35.
WooldridgeBlueGoodenSusan. 2009. The epic of social equity: Evolution, essence and emergence. Administrative Theory and Praxis31:222–34.
36.
YoungGarry. 2006. A practical guide to multiplicative interaction variables in policy research. http://www.pptuu.com/show_482300_1.html. (accessed February 14, 2013).
