Contracting is often discussed as a cutback mechanism for public managers. The empirical evidence indicates that there are little savings in contracting out due to transaction costs. Public transit agencies exhibit path-dependent behavior; there are tangible conversion costs that may preclude changing the provision of services. As such, public managers should consider the provision of services very carefully as it may set an agency on a long-term trajectory that will be difficult to change due to both conversion and transaction costs.
BaronD. (1989). Service induced campaign contributions and the electoral equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 104, 45-72.
2.
CoxW.KrausJ.MundleS. (1997, May29). Competitive contracting of transit services: Denver experience. 5th Conference on Competition and Ownership in Land Passenger Transport, Leeds, UK.
3.
FuchsE.AdlerS.MitchellL. (2000). Win, place, show: Public opinion polls and campaign contributions in New York City elections. Urban Affairs Review, 35, 479-501.
4.
Gomez-IbanezJ. A.MeyerJ. (1993). Going private: The international experience with transport privatization. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
5.
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.
6.
LelandS.SmirnovaO. (2013, October). National survey of transit agencies: Fiscal climate effects. Washington, DC: Association for Budgeting and Financial Management presentation.
7.
MortonR.CameronC. (1992). Elections and the theory of campaign contributions: A survey and critical analysis. Economics & Politics, 4, 79-108.
8.
NorthD. (1990). A transaction cost theory of politics. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2, 355-367.
9.
PerryJ.BabitskyT. (1986). Comparative performance in urban bus transit: Assessing privatization strategies. Public Administration Review, 46, 57-66.
10.
PiersonP. (2004). Politics and time: History, institutions and social analysis. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.
11.
RejaR. (1999). The economies and politics of contracting out with the private sector: Evidence from the US transit industry (Working paper). Washington, DC: The World Bank.
12.
SavasE. S. (2005). Privatization in the city: Successes, failures, lessons. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
13.
SteinL. (1994). Privatization, work-force cutbacks, and African-American municipal employment. The American Review of Public Administration, 24, 181-191.
14.
ThompsonL.EllingR. C. (2000). Mapping patterns of support for privatization in the mass public: The case of Michigan. Public Administration Review, 60, 338-348.
15.
Transportation Research Board. (2001). Contracting for bus and demand response services: A survey of U.S. practices and services (Special Report 258).Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press.
16.
WarnerM.HebdonR. (2001). Local government restructuring: Privatization and its alternatives. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20, 315-336.
17.
WinstonC.ShirleyC. (1998). Alternative route: Towards efficient urban transportation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
18.
ZulloR. (2008). Transit contracting reexamined: Determinants of cost efficiency and resource allocation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 495-515.
