Perceptions,Realities,and Euphemisms: Community Choices of In-House Service Provision or Alternative Service Delivery

Abstract

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.

Keywords

service delivery public–private partnership local public administration expertise

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

2016 Annual Report. (2016). Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission. Retrieved from http://www.in.gov/iurc/

Avellaneda

C. N.

Gomes

R. 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

Bel

Brown

Marques

R. C.

(2013). Public–private partnerships: Infrastructure, transportation and local services. Local Government Studies, 39, 303-311.

Bel

Warner

(2008). Does privatization of solid waste and water services reduce costs? A review of empirical studies. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 52, 1337-1348.

Berrios

(2006). Government contracts and contractor behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 63, 119-130.

Bloomfield

(2006). The challenging business of long-term public-private partnerships: Reflections on local experience. Public Administration Review, 66, 400-411.

Brown

T. L.

Potoski

(2003). Contract-Management Capacity in Municipal and County Governments. Public Administration Review, 63, 153-164.

Brown

T. L.

Potoski

(2006). Contracting for management: Assessing management capacity under alternative service delivery arrangements. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25, 323-346.

Cowdery

K. 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.

Forrer

Kee

J. E.

Newcomer

K. E.

Boyer

(2010). Public-private partnerships and the public accountability question. Public Administration Review, 70, 475-484.

11.

Gerber

Hall

Hines

J. 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.

Gibson

Wallace

C. Y.

Sturgill

R. 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.

Gilroy

Stewart

(2016). Annual privatization report 2016: Local privatization. Los Angeles, CA: Reason Foundation.

14.

Grigg

N. S.

(2012). Water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure management. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.

15.

Guevara

(2015). Public-private partnerships: An innovative solution for a declining infrastructure. The Urban Lawyer, 47(2), 309-337.

16.

Harding

D. J.

Fox

Metha

J. D.

(2002). Studying rare events through qualitative case studies: Lessons from a study of rampage school shootings. Sociological Methods Research, 31, 174-217.

17.

Heilman

J. G.

Johnson

G. 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.

Hodge

G. A.

Greve

(2007). Public-private partnerships: An international performance review. Public Administration Review, 67, 545-558.

20.

Hora

J. J.

Heisel

C. J.

(2016). Water and wastewater. In Palus

C. K.

Dilworth

(Eds.), The CQ press guide to urban politics and policy in the United States (pp. 429-436). Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press.

21.

Hora

J. J.

Schreiber

(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/

22.

IndexMundi, Indiana Median Household Income, 2009-2013 by County. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/indiana/median-household-income

23.

Indiana County Codes. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.15q.net/inco.html

24.

Indiana General Assembly Session. (2017). Indiana code. Retrieved from http://iga.in.gov/legislative/laws/2016/ic/

25.

Intergovernmental Committee on Urban and Regional Research. (2016). Alternative service delivery in Canadian municipalities. Toronto, Ontario: ICURR.

26.

Ivacko

Horner

(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.

Joaquin

M. E.

Greitens

T. J.

(2012). Contract management capacity breakdown? An analysis of U.S. local governments. Public Administration Review, 72, 807-816.

28.

Kent

C. A.

Wooten

S. P.

(1987). Privatization: The entrepreneurial response. In Kent

(Ed.), Entrepreneurship and the privatizing of government (pp. 145-157). New York, NY: Quorum.

29.

Kettle

D. F.

(1993). Sharing power: Public governance and private markets. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

30.

Kettle

D. F.

(2002). The transformation of governance: Public administration for twenty-first century America. Baltimore, MA: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

31.

Klijn

Teisman

(2003). Institutional and strategic barriers to public-private partnership: An analysis of Dutch cases. Public Money & Management, 23, 137-146.

32.

Kwak

Y. H.

Chih

Ibbs

(2009). Towards a comprehensive understanding of public private partnerships for infrastructure development. California Management Review, 51(2), 51-78.

33.

Landers

(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.

Mays

Roy

(1999). Creating public-private partnerships in wastewater treatment. Oak Brook, IL: Cahners.

35.

Measuring Rurality. (2007, January). In context, digital connections, 8. Retrieved from https://pcrd.purdue.edu/files/media/Measuring-Rurality.pdf

36.

Mullin

(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.

Ohemeng

F. K.

Grant

J. 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.

42.

Pula

(2017). Building-up: How states utilize public private partnerships for social & vertical infrastructure. National Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/building-up-how-states-utilize-public-private-partnerships-for-public-multi-sector-vertical-infrastructure.aspx

43.

Reinhardt

W. 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.

Reynaers

A.-M.

(2014). Public values in public–private partnerships. Public Administration Review, 74, 41-50.

46.

Riccio

L. J.

(2014). Commentary: Public-private partnerships: Pitfalls and possibilities. Public Administration Review, 74, 50-51. doi:10.1111/puar.12169

47.

Rourke

F. E.

(1984). Bureaucracy, politics, and public policy (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

48.

Ruiz-Villaverde

González-Gómez

Picazo-Tadeo

A. J.

(2013). Public choice of urban water service management: A multi-criteria approach. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 29, 385-399.

49.

Russell

J. D.

Bostrom

(2016). Federalism, Dillon rule and home rule. American Legislative Exchange Council. Retrieved from https://www.alec.org/publication/acce-home-rule/

50.

Savas

E. S.

(2000). Privatization and public private partnerships. New York, NY: Chatham House.

51.

Sharma

Nayak

(2013). Public-private community partnerships: An isodynamic model in water management. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 26, 135-145.

52.

Siemiatycki

(2009). Delivering transportation infrastructure through public-private partnerships: Planning concerns. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76, 43-58.

53.

State Population Totals Tables: 2010-2016. (2017). United States Census Bureau. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/demo/popest/state-total.html

54.

Stone

S. B.

(2010). Home rule in the Midwest. Indiana University Public Policy Institute.

55.

Tomz

Wittenberg

King

(2003). Clarify: Software for interpreting and presenting statistical results. Journal of Statistical Software, 8(1), 1-30.

56.

Torrisi

(2009). Public infrastructure: Definition, classification and measurement issues. Economics, Management and Financial Markets, 4, 100-124.

57.

Trautman

(2016). Small-town policy makers. Public Administration Review, 76, 221-224.

58.

Types of Partnerships—NCPPP. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.ncppp.org/ppp-basics/types-of-partnerships/

59.

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.

60.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2002). Government organization: 2002 census of governments: Vol. 1(1), government organization. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/gc021x1.pdf

61.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2017). National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs). Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/npdes/combined-sewer-overflows-csos

62.

U.S. States by Size. (2017). Worldatlas. Retrieved from http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/usabysiz.htm

63.

Waldorf

B. S.

(2017). What is rural and what is urban in Indiana? Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University. Retrieved from https://pcrd.purdue.edu/files/media/What-is-Rural-and-What-is-Urban-in-Indiana.pdf

64.

Warner

Hebdon

(2001). Government restructuring: Privatization and its alternatives. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20, 315-336.

65.

Wettenhall

(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.

Zeemering

E. S.

(2017). Why terminate? Exploring the end of interlocal contracts for police services in California cities. The American Review of Public Administration. April 3, 2017. doi:10.1177/0275074017701224.

68.

Zhang

(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)