The Mythology of Privatization in Contracting for Social Services

By D. V. Slyke. 2003

486 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Finance, Public Administration, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d670881469f92059c810f8d29e9e0911a6414bb3

How researchers see this paper

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

In Finance

1. David M. van Slyke
2. Matthew Potoski
3. T. Brown
4. C. Hammonds
5. A. Brooks
6. D. V. Slyke

In Public Administration

1. Matthew Potoski
2. T. Brown
3. D. V. Slyke
4. David M. van Slyke
5. C. Hammonds
6. A. Brooks
7. M. Warner
8. G. Bel

In Sociology and Political Science

1. David M. van Slyke
2. Matthew Potoski
3. T. Brown
4. C. Hammonds
5. A. Brooks
6. D. V. Slyke
7. Othmar Lehner
8. Pamala Wiepking

Citations in the corpus

• Agents or Stewards: Using Theory to Understand the Government-Nonprofit Social Service Contracting Relationship (2006, background): “…problem for government agencies is having too few personnel with contract management and policy and program expertise to manage the contract process (Kelman 2002a; Meyers, Glaser, and MacDonald 1998; Milward and Provan 2000; Romzek and Johnston 2002; Smith and Smyth 1996; Van Slyke 2003).”
• The Privatization Decision (2003, background): “…capacity (Beinecke & DeFillippi, 1999; DeHoog, 1985; Donahue, 1989; Gooden, 1998; Haque, 2001; Johnston & Romzek, 1999; Kettl, 1993; Lawther, 1999; Light, 1999; Milward & Provan, 2000; R. C. Moe, 1996; Morgan, 1992; Prager & Desai, 1996; Smith & Lipsky, 1993; Van Slyke, 2003; Wallin, 1997).”
• TRANSACTION COSTS AND CONTRACTING: The Practitioner Perspective (2005, background): “All of the state and county managers in Van Slyke’s study highlighted the absence of competition in the marketplace; in fact, only four of the five county agencies in his sample even used a competitive bidding process.”
• Why do People Give? (2005, background): “Government has had more resources to direct at alleviating individual and community need, and this has resulted in additional opportunities for nonprofit organizations to receive public funding for programs and service delivery ( Van Slyke, 2003 ).”