Increased expectations for municipalities to provide services, a push for updating and maintaining the services already provided, and simultaneous dealing with strained budgets and less federal funding opportunities have led some communities to adopt alternative service for delivery of public works systems. This research project creates a new data set of localities and investigates what characteristics increase the likelihood a political subdivision will choose an alternative service delivery system for what was a traditionally in-house public service. Testing three hypotheses, findings indicate need for expertise does not play a role in service delivery choices.
AvellanedaC. N.GomesR. C. (2015). Is small beautiful? Testing the direct and nonlinear effects of size on municipal performance. Public Administration Review, 75, 137-149. doi:10.1111/puar.12307
3.
BelG.BrownT.MarquesR. C. (2013). Public–private partnerships: Infrastructure, transportation and local services. Local Government Studies, 39, 303-311.
4.
BelG.WarnerM. (2008). Does privatization of solid waste and water services reduce costs? A review of empirical studies. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 52, 1337-1348.
5.
BerriosR. (2006). Government contracts and contractor behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 63, 119-130.
6.
BloomfieldP. (2006). The challenging business of long-term public-private partnerships: Reflections on local experience. Public Administration Review, 66, 400-411.
7.
BrownT. L.PotoskiM. (2003). Contract-Management Capacity in Municipal and County Governments. Public Administration Review, 63, 153-164.
8.
BrownT. L.PotoskiM. (2006). Contracting for management: Assessing management capacity under alternative service delivery arrangements. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25, 323-346.
9.
CowderyK. G. W. (2000). Public-private partnerships in providing water and wastewater utility service: The trend toward privatization in Florida. Florida Bar Journal, 74(9), 38-45.
10.
ForrerJ.KeeJ. E.NewcomerK. E.BoyerE. (2010). Public-private partnerships and the public accountability question. Public Administration Review, 70, 475-484.
11.
GerberE.HallC.HinesJ. R. (2004). Privatization: Issues in local and state service provision (Policy Report No. 1). Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy, University of Michigan.
12.
GibsonB.WallaceC. Y.SturgillR. E. (2015). Synthesis of public-private partnerships: Potential issues and best practices for program and project implementation and administration (Kentucky Transportation Center Research Report No. 1488). Retrieved from https://uknowledge.uky.edu/ktc_researchreports/1488
13.
GilroyL.StewartA. (2016). Annual privatization report 2016: Local privatization. Los Angeles, CA: Reason Foundation.
14.
GriggN. S. (2012). Water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure management. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.
15.
GuevaraA. (2015). Public-private partnerships: An innovative solution for a declining infrastructure. The Urban Lawyer, 47(2), 309-337.
16.
HardingD. J.FoxC.MethaJ. D. (2002). Studying rare events through qualitative case studies: Lessons from a study of rampage school shootings. Sociological Methods Research, 31, 174-217.
17.
HeilmanJ. G.JohnsonG. W. (1992). The politics and economics of privatization: The case of wastewater treatment. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
18.
Here Is Your Indiana Government, 2015-2016. (2015). Indiana Chamber of Commerce. Indianapolis, IN: McGraw-Hill.
19.
HodgeG. A.GreveC. (2007). Public-private partnerships: An international performance review. Public Administration Review, 67, 545-558.
20.
HoraJ. J.HeiselC. J. (2016). Water and wastewater. In PalusC. K.DilworthR. (Eds.), The CQ press guide to urban politics and policy in the United States (pp. 429-436). Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press.
21.
HoraJ. J.SchreiberK. (2016). Hora–Schreiber Indiana Wastewater Dataset: “Indiana combined Sewer overflows.”Indiana Department of Environmental Management. Retrieved from http://www.in.gov/idem/cleanwater/pages/cso/
Intergovernmental Committee on Urban and Regional Research. (2016). Alternative service delivery in Canadian municipalities. Toronto, Ontario: ICURR.
26.
IvackoT.HornerD. (2014). Most Michigan local officials are satisfied with their privatized services, but few seek to expand further (Michigan Public Policy Survey). Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
27.
JoaquinM. E.GreitensT. J. (2012). Contract management capacity breakdown? An analysis of U.S. local governments. Public Administration Review, 72, 807-816.
28.
KentC. A.WootenS. P. (1987). Privatization: The entrepreneurial response. In KentC. (Ed.), Entrepreneurship and the privatizing of government (pp. 145-157). New York, NY: Quorum.
29.
KettleD. F. (1993). Sharing power: Public governance and private markets. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
30.
KettleD. F. (2002). The transformation of governance: Public administration for twenty-first century America. Baltimore, MA: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
31.
KlijnE.TeismanG. (2003). Institutional and strategic barriers to public-private partnership: An analysis of Dutch cases. Public Money & Management, 23, 137-146.
32.
KwakY. H.ChihY.IbbsW. (2009). Towards a comprehensive understanding of public private partnerships for infrastructure development. California Management Review, 51(2), 51-78.
33.
LandersJ. (2004). Evaluating public-private partnerships: Wastewater treatment plant operators have a lot to consider when partnering with a private firm. Washington, DC: Hanley-Wood.
34.
MaysS.RoyP. (1999). Creating public-private partnerships in wastewater treatment. Oak Brook, IL: Cahners.
MullinM. (2009). Governing the tap: Special district governance and the new local politics of water. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37.
National Conference of Public Private Partnerships Bootcamp. (2016a). 7 keys to success. Washington, DC: The National Council for Public-Private Partnerships.
38.
National Conference of Public Private Partnerships Bootcamp. (2016b). Market trends. Washington, DC: The National Council for Public-Private Partnerships.
39.
OhemengF. K.GrantJ. K. (2008). When markets fail to deliver: An examination of the privatization and de-privatization of water and wastewater services delivery in Hamilton, Canada. Canadian Public Administration, 51, 475-499.
40.
Pew Research Center. (2015). Public’s policy priorities reflect changing conditions at home and abroad. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
41.
Price Waterhouse Coopers. (2010, June). Public private partnerships: The US perspective. London, UK: Price Waterhouse Coopers.
ReinhardtW. G. (2011). PPPs and public works financing (Speech). Tampa, Florida. National Council of Public Private Partnerships.
44.
Report of the President’s Commission on Privatization. (1988). Privatization: Toward more effective government. Washington, DC: President’s Commission on Privatization.
45.
ReynaersA.-M. (2014). Public values in public–private partnerships. Public Administration Review, 74, 41-50.
46.
RiccioL. J. (2014). Commentary: Public-private partnerships: Pitfalls and possibilities. Public Administration Review, 74, 50-51. doi:10.1111/puar.12169
47.
RourkeF. E. (1984). Bureaucracy, politics, and public policy (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
48.
Ruiz-VillaverdeA.González-GómezF.Picazo-TadeoA. J. (2013). Public choice of urban water service management: A multi-criteria approach. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 29, 385-399.
SavasE. S. (2000). Privatization and public private partnerships. New York, NY: Chatham House.
51.
SharmaS.NayakS. (2013). Public-private community partnerships: An isodynamic model in water management. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 26, 135-145.
52.
SiemiatyckiM. (2009). Delivering transportation infrastructure through public-private partnerships: Planning concerns. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76, 43-58.
United States. (2010). Wastewater infrastructure financing: Stakeholder views on a national infrastructure bank and public-private partnerships: Report to the ranking member, committee on transportation and infrastructure, house of representatives. Washington, DC: U.S. Govt. Accountability Office.
WarnerM.HebdonR. (2001). Government restructuring: Privatization and its alternatives. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20, 315-336.
65.
WettenhallR. (2003). The rhetoric and reality of public-private partnerships. Public Organization Review, 3, 77-107.
66.
World Bank. (2007). Public-private partnership units: Lessons for their design and use in infrastructure. Washington, DC: Author.
67.
ZeemeringE. S. (2017). Why terminate? Exploring the end of interlocal contracts for police services in California cities. The American Review of Public Administration. April3, 2017. doi:10.1177/0275074017701224.
68.
ZhangX. (2006). Public clients’ best value perspectives of public private partnerships in infrastructure development. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132, 107-114. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:2(107)
