Practitioners often face the challenge of structuring privatized arrangements to best deliver public services. Despite the literature's focus on contracting, there are 10 different service arrangements that can be used to deliver services. Each arrangement balances the strengths of the public and private sectors in different ways. Selecting one of these arrangements for a specific situation can be challenging, and practitioners must understand what they gain and lose with each arrangement. This article proposes a typology of service arrangements based on the dimensions of accountability and competition. Practitioners can use this tool to structure privatized arrangements that best maximize the values of accountability and competition within a particular situation.
Ammons, D., & Hill, D. (1995). The viability of public-private competition as a long-term service delivery strategy. Public Productivity and Management Review, 19, 12-24.
2.
Barnekov, T., & Raffel, J. (1990). Public management of privatization. Public Productivity and Management Review, 14, 135-152.
3.
Beinecke, R., & DeFillippi, R. (1999). The value of the relationship model of contracting in social services reprocurements and transitions: Lessons from Massachusetts. Public Productivity and Management Review , 22, 490-501.
4.
Breaux, D., Duncan, C., Keller, C., & Morris, J. (2002). Welfare reform, Mississippi style: Temporary assistance for needy families and the search for accountability. Public Administration Review, 62, 92-103.
5.
DeHoog, R. (1990). Competition, negotiation, or cooperation. Administration and Society, 22, 317-340.
6.
Denhardt, J., & Denhardt, R. (2002). The new public service: Serving, not steering . Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
7.
Dicke, L., & Ott, S. (1999). Public agency accountability in human services contracting. Public Productivity and Management Review, 22, 502-516.
8.
Donahue, J. (1989). The privatization decision: Public ends, private means. New York: Basic Books.
9.
Finley, L. (1989). Alternative service delivery, privatization, and competition. In L. Finley (Ed.), Public sector privatization (pp. 3-12). New York: Quorum Books.
10.
Greenough, G., Eggum, T., Ford, U., Grigg, N., & Sizer, E. (1999). Public works delivery systems in North America: Private and public approaches, including managed competition. Public Works Management & Policy, 4, 41-49.
11.
Heilman, J., & Johnson, G. (1992). The politics and economics of privatization. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
12.
Hodge, G. (2000). Privatization. Boulder, CO : Westview Press.
13.
Johnston, J., & Romzek, B. (1999). Contracting and accountability in state Medicaid reform: Rhetoric, theories, and reality. Public Administration Review, 59, 383-399.
14.
Kettl, D. (1987). Government by proxy: (Mis)managing federal programs . Washington, DC: CQ Press.
15.
Kettl, D. (1993). Sharing power: Public governance and private markets . Washington, DC: Brookings Institution .
16.
Kettl, D.F. (2003). Contingent coordination: Practical and theoretical puzzles for homeland security. American Review of Public Administration , 33, 253-277.
17.
Manchester, L. (1989). Alternative service delivery approaches and city service planning. In L. Finley (Ed.), Public sector privatization (pp. 13-23). New York: Quorum Books.
18.
Marini, F. (Ed.). (1972). Toward a new public administration. Scranton, PA: Chandler.
19.
Moe, R. (1987). Exploring the limits of privatization. Public Administration Review, 47, 453-460.
20.
Morgan, D. (1992). The pitfalls of privatization: Contracting without competition. American Review of Public Administration, 22, 251-269.
21.
Morris, J. (1997). The distributional impacts of privatization in national water quality policy. Journal of Politics, 59, 56-72.
22.
Morris, J. (1999). Defining privatization: A response to Dominy. Public Works Management & Policy, 4, 152-155.
23.
Morris, J. (2007). Government and market pathologies: The case of prison privatization. Politics and Policy, 35, 318-341.
24.
Romzek, B., & Johnston, J. (2005). State social services contracting: Exploring the determinants of effective contract accountability. Public Administration Review, 65, 436-449.
25.
Savas, E.S. (1989). A taxonomy of privatization strategies. Policy Studies Journal, 18, 343-355.
26.
Savas, E.S. (2000). Privatization and public-private partnerships . New York: Chatham House.
27.
Schiesl, M.J. (1982). The politics of contracting: Los Angeles county and the Lakewood Plan, 1954-1962. Huntingdon Library Quarterly , 45, 227-243.
28.
Schlossberg, M. (2004). Coordination as a strategy for serving the transportation disadvantaged: A comparative framework of local and state roles. Public Works Management & Policy, 9, 132-144.
29.
Sclaar, E.D. (2000). You don't always get what you pay for: The economics of privatization. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
30.
Smith, S., & Smyth, J. (1996). Contracting for services in a decentralized system . Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6, 277-296.
31.
Van Slyke, D. (2003). The mythology of privatization in contracting for social services. Public Administration Review, 63, 296-314.
32.
Van Slyke, D., & Hammonds, C. (2003). The privatization decision: Do public managers make a difference? American Review of Public Administration , 33, 146-163.
33.
Walls, M. (2005). How local governments structure contracts with the private firms: Economic theory and evidence on solid waste and recycling contracts. Public Works Management & Policy, 9, 206-222.
34.
Wilson, W. (1887). The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2, 197-222.
