Applying Market Solutions to Public Services

By M. Warner, A. Hefetz. 2002

210 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Political Science and International Relations, Public Administration

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0086c7b97c6247217d0c957e7fd9f346c4a55320

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Political Science and International Relations

In Public Administration

Citations in the corpus

Municipal Service Provision Choices within a Metropolitan Area (2005, background): “As Warner and Hefetz (2002) point out, in 1992 the response rate to the International City/”
Neoliberalism and the geographies of marketization (2016, background): “In earlier and related work, Warner and Hefetz (2002) contrast the benefits of markets with those of ‘regionalism’, by which they mean the economies of scale derived from the regional and urban organization of public services.”
WHY DO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS PRIVATIZE THE PROVISION OF WATER SERVICES? EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM SPAIN (2011, background): “The presence of powerful business groups and a well-structured and influential business network could be related to a greater tendency to privatize public services (Morgan et al. 1988; Warner and Hefetz, 2002).”
Does privatization of solid waste and water services reduce costs? A review of empirical studies (2008, background): “We also see inter-municipal cooperation to gain economies of scale (Bel and Costas, 2006; Warner and Hefetz, 2002).”
Collusion in the Dutch waste collection market (2007, result): “This hypothesis is consistent with findings for the USA, where levels of inter-municipal cooperation are much higher for small municipalities (Warner & Hefetz, 2002 ).”
Does Cooperation Reduce Service Delivery Costs? Evidence from Residential Solid Waste Services (2014, background): “The empirical literature suggests, as discussed above, that inter-municipal cooperation may be seen as an alternative (albeit compatible) to privatization for smaller municipalities with fewer potential external contractors (Warner and Hefetz, 2002, 2003; Bel and Costas 2006).”
Why do local governments privatise public services? A survey of empirical studies (2007, background): “Modern studies for the US tend to analyse such hypotheses less often, but some studies still find significant influence from unions (Warner & Hebdon, 2001 ; Levin & Tadelis, 2005 ) or high-income households (Warner & Hefetz, 2002 ).”
Privatization and Its Reverse: Explaining the Dynamics of the Government Contracting Process (2004, background): “A recent study measuring citizen voice and privatization found that governments engaging in higher levels of privatization gave more attention to technical efficiency measures but not to citizen voice (Warner and Hefetz 2002).”
Managing Markets for Public Service: The Role of Mixed Public–Private Delivery of City Services (2008, methodology): “Indeed, analysis of the 1992 and 1997 ICMA data showed that increased use of for profit contracting was not associated with increased attention to citizen voice (Warner & Hefetz, 2002).”
Insourcing and Outsourcing (2012, background): “…may not enhance opportunities for citizen engagement unless city managers give D ow nl oa de d by [ C or ne ll U ni ve rs ity ] at 1 4: 14 1 3 Se pt em be r 20 12 explicit attention to creating such avenues for public engagement (Andrews & Entwistle, 2010; Lowery, 1998; Warner & Hefetz, 2002).”
Factors explaining inter-municipal cooperation in service delivery: a meta-regression analysis (2016, background): “Suburbs, as similar sized localities in the metropolitan region, offer the most attractive market for cooperation (Warner and Hefetz 2002; Joassart-Marcelli and Musso 2005; Hefetz, Warner, and Vigoda-Gadot 2012).”
Beyond the market versus planning dichotomy: Understanding privatisation and its reverse in US cities (2007, methodology): “We construct a voice index derived from managers' answers to ten questions regarding citizen engagement in the process of service delivery based on an index used by Warner and Hefetz ( 2002b ).”