Rural—Urban Differences in Privatization: Limits to the Competitive State

By M. Warner, A. Hefetz. 2003

134 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Political Science and International Relations, Public Administration

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2ad3d284314a26fb47aec534c476bfb79dd771e7

How researchers see this paper

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

In Economics and Econometrics

1. M. Warner
2. G. Bel
3. Xavier Fageda
4. A. Hefetz
5. M. Mur
6. E. Vigoda-Gadot
7. Elbert Dijkgraaf
8. Raymond Gradus

In Political Science and International Relations

1. M. Warner
2. G. Bel
3. Xavier Fageda
4. A. Hefetz
5. E. Vigoda-Gadot
6. Elbert Dijkgraaf
7. Raymond Gradus
8. M. Mur

In Public Administration

1. G. Bel
2. M. Warner
3. Xavier Fageda
4. A. Hefetz
5. Elbert Dijkgraaf
6. Raymond Gradus
7. E. Vigoda-Gadot
8. M. Mur

Citations in the corpus

• Factors explaining inter-municipal cooperation in service delivery: a meta-regression analysis (2016, background): “Cooperation is also high in rural areas, which lack private market alternatives (Warner and Hefetz 2003; Warner 2006; Mohr, Deller, and Halstead 2010) and may use cooperation to gain market power (Bel, Fageda, and Mur 2013, 2014).”
• Privatization and Intermunicipal Contracting: The US Local Government Experience 1992–2007 (2012, methodology): “Prior research on the ICMA data shows that privatization is most common among suburbs (Joassart-Marcelli and Musso, 2005; Warner, 2006; 2009; Warner and Hefetz, 2002a; 2002b; 2003).”
• 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).”
• Collusion in the Dutch waste collection market (2007, background): “In the USA, a recent paper shows that reverse privatisation occurs regularly (Hefetz & Warner, 2004).”
• COMPETITION OR MONOPOLY? COMPARING PRIVATIZATION OF LOCAL PUBLIC SERVICES IN THE US AND SPAIN (2008, background): “This is similar to the US where levels of public production are highest for rural municipalities (see Warner and Hefetz 2003, and Warner 2006 for more detail).”
• Managing Markets for Public Service: The Role of Mixed Public–Private Delivery of City Services (2008, background): “Places with professional management and monitoring systems are more likely to contract out (Hefetz & Warner, 2004), as are richer, suburban places compared to rural places (Warner, 2006; Warner & Hefetz, 2003).”
• Beyond the market versus planning dichotomy: Understanding privatisation and its reverse in US cities (2007, background): “In rural peripheral regions, at the other end of the scale, markets for public goods are limited so the market mechanism is less reliable (e.g. government may be the only available provider) (Kodrzycki, 1994; Warner, 2006; Warner & Hefetz, 2003).”
• Market‐based Governance and the Challenge for Rural Governments: US Trends (2006, methodology): “Building upon a discriminant analysis first conducted by (Warner and Hefetz 2003) for the 1992 and 1997 surveys, this paper adds the 2002 data to look at differences over time.”