Privatization and Its Reverse: Explaining the Dynamics of the Government Contracting Process

By A. Hefetz, M. Warner. 2004

554 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Public Administration, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9caebbd66eea101a100d50c56e3ffe1736454a95

How researchers see this paper

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

In Public Administration

1. G. Bel
2. M. Warner
3. Xavier Fageda
4. A. Hefetz
5. Elbert Dijkgraaf
6. Raymond Gradus
7. Jered B. Carr
8. Carolyn J. Heinrich

In Strategy and Management

1. M. Warner
2. Xavier Fageda
3. G. Bel
4. A. Hefetz
5. Jered B. Carr
6. Carolyn J. Heinrich
7. Elbert Dijkgraaf
8. Raymond Gradus

Citations in the corpus

• Beyond the market versus planning dichotomy: Understanding privatisation and its reverse in US cities (2007, methodology): “This technique is explained in more detail in Hefetz and Warner's work ( 2004 ).”
• Incentives and their dynamics in public sector performance management systems (2010, background): “underestimated in the past ( Hefetz & Warner, 2004; Heinrich & Choi, 2007).”
• Private finance for public goods: social impact bonds (2013, background): “…local services contracting has shown lack of cost savings (Bel, Fageda, and Warner 2010), lower rates of consumer satisfaction (Clifton and Diaz-Fuentes 2010), and erosion in service quality, which has led to high rates of contract reversals (Hefetz and Warner 2004, 2007; Warner and Hefetz 2012).”
• What Have We Learned about the Performance of Council‐Manager Government? A Review and Synthesis of the Research (2015, background): “This same question was examined by Hefetz et al. (2014) and also showed that the presence of substantial transaction risks did not lead to different decisions in council-manager and mayor-council governments.”
• Contracting for Government Services: Theory and Evidence from U.S. Cities (2010, unknown): “, Hefetz and Warner [2004] and references therein).”
• Why do local governments privatise public services? A survey of empirical studies (2007, background): “18 Recent studies show that reverse privatisation may be an emerging issue in countries like the US (Hefetz & Warner, 2004, 2007) and Canada (Hebdon & Jalette, 2007).”
• Cream Skimming, Parking, and Other Intended and Unintended Effects of High-Powered, Performance-Based Contracts (2013, background): “In some settings, this has led to a retraction of performance-based contract incentives, with governments reverting to fixed-payment schemes for private providers or even contracting back in (Hefetz & Warner, 2004).”
• Collusion in the Dutch waste collection market (2007, background): “A possible explanation is that initial savings offered by privatisation are disappearing over time; this seems to be especially true for small municipalities (e.g. Hefetz & Warner, 2004).”
• Is private production of public services cheaper than public production? A meta-regression analysis of solid waste and water services (2010, methodology): “Transaction costs have been used to explain government choice in the decision to contract out (Nelson, 1997; Sclar, 2000; Hefetz & Warner, 2004, 2007).”
• Market‐based Governance and the Challenge for Rural Governments: US Trends (2006, background): “…need for strong managerial capacity, the ability to structure the market to ensure competition among alternative suppliers, and the need for monitoring to ensure service quality and attention to public values (Sclar 2000, Nelson 1997, Lowery 1998, Hefetz and Warner 2004, Brown and Potoski 2003).”