Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Determinants of Outsourcing in U.S. Municipalities: Evidence from a Municipal Spatial Network Analysis

  • Published:
Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The use of outsourcing/privatization in the public sector has been steadily increasing for the past several decades. The trend is evident in all levels of governments around the world, and the U.S. is no exception. Although scholars from numerous disciplines have searched for causes of this trend, no consensus has been reached in the literature. This paper advances these efforts by identifying determinants of outsourcing in U.S. municipalities using spatial network analysis. We incorporate a spatial aspect to explore outsourcing decisions, which is a different approach from much of the literature. Empirical results indicate that a local government’s outsourcing decision is affected by nearby local jurisdictions. Additional findings indicate that external stakeholders’ involvement contributes to the use of outsourcing, whereas having a limited supply of service providers impedes it.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This assumption will be tested later in the paper.

References

  • Ammons, D. N. (2003). Urban services. In J. P. Pelissero (Ed.), Cities, politics, and policy a comparative analysis. CQ Press.

  • Beck, N., Gleditsch, K. S., & Beardsley, K. (2006). Space is more than geography: using spatial econometrics in the study of political economy. International Studies Quarterly, 50(1), 27–44. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2478.2006.00391.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bel, G., & Costas, A. (2006). Do public sector reforms get rusty? Local privatization in Spain. Journal of Policy Reform, 9(1), 1–24. doi:10.1080/13841280500513084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bel, G., & Fageda, X. (2008). Reforming the local public sector: economics and politics in privatization of water and solid waste. Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 11(1), 45–65. doi:10.1080/17487870802134884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bel, G., & Mur, M. (2009). Intermunicipal cooperation, privatization and waste management costs: evidence from rural municipalities. Waste Management, 29(10), 2772–2778. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2009.06.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bish, R. L., & Ostrom, V. (1973). Understanding urban government: Metropolitan reform reconsidered. Washington: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouché, V., & Volden, C. (2011). Privatization and the diffusion of innovations. The Journal of Politics, 73, 428–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyne, G. A. (1998). The determinants of variations in local service contracting - Garbage in, garbage out? Urban Affairs Review, 34(1), 150–163. doi:10.1177/107808749803400107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, S. M. (2005). Interdependent and domestic foundations of policy change: the diffusion of pension privatization around the world. International Studies Quarterly, 49(2), 273–294. doi:10.1111/j.0020-8833.2005.00345.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R. D. (1995). Party cleavages and welfare effort in the American States (VOL 89, PG 23, 1995). American Political Science Review, 89(4), 996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. L., & Potoski, M. (2003). Managing contract performance: a transaction costs approach. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 22(2), 275–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. L., Potoski, M., & Van Slyke, D. M. (2008). Changing modes of service delivery: how past choices structure future choicesĀ. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26, 127–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dilger, R. J., Moffett, R. R., & Struyk, L. (1997). Privatization of municipal services in america's largest cities. Public Administration Review, 57(1).

  • Drukker, D. M., Prucha, I. R., & Raciborski, R. (2011) Maximum-likelihood and generalized spatial two-stage least-squares estimators for a spatial-autoregressive model with spatial-autoregressive disturbances. Working paper, University of Maryland, Department of Economics, http://econweb.umd.edu/~prucha/Papers/WP_spreg_2011.pdf

  • Dubin, J. A., & Navarro, P. (1988). How markets for impure public goods organize: the case of household refuse collection. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 4, 217–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez, S., Ryu, J. E., & Brudney, J. L. (2008). Exploring variations in contracting for services among American local governments: do politics still matter? American Review of Public Administration, 38(4), 439–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, E., Shipan, C. R., & Volden, C. (2008). The diffusion of policy diffusion research. Unpublished paper

  • Greene, J. D. (2002). Cities and privatization : Prospects for the new century. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Head, B. W. (2008). Wicked problems in public policy. Public Policy, 3(2), 101.

  • Hebdon, R., & Jalette, P. (2008). The restructuring of municipal services: a Canada-United States comparison. Environment and Planning C Government Policy, 26(1), 144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hefetz, A., & Warner, M. (2004). Privatization and its reverse: explaining the dynamics of the government contracting process. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(2), 171–190. doi:10.1093/jopart/muh012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hefetz, A., & Warner, M. (2007). Beyond the market versus planning dichotomy: understanding privatisation and its reverse in US cities. Local Government Studies, 33(4), 555–572. doi:10.1080/03003930701417585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hefetz, A., & Warner, M. E. (2011). Contracting or public delivery? The importance of service, market and management characteristics. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. doi:10.1093/jopart/mur006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hefetz, A., & Warner, M. E. (2012). Contracting or public delivery? The importance of service, market, and management characteristics. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(2), 289–317. doi:10.1093/jopart/mur006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hefetz, A., Warner, M. E., & Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2012). Privatization and intermunicipal contracting: the US local government experience 1992–2007. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30(4), 675–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henig, J. R. (1990). Privatization in the United-States - theory and practice. Political Science Quarterly, 104(4), 649–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelejian, H. H., & Prucha, I. R. (1998). Generalized spatial two-stage least squares procedure for estimating a spatial autoregressive model with autoregressive disturbances. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 17(1), 99–121. doi:10.1023/a:1007707430416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kodrzycki, Y. K. (1994). Privatization of local public services: Lessons for New England. New England Economic Review(May), 31–46.

  • Levi-Faur, D. (2003). The politics of liberalisation: privatisation and regulation-for-competition in Europe’s and Latin America’s telecoms and electricity industries. European Journal of Political Research, 42(5), 705–740. doi:10.1111/1475-6765.00101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, J., & Tadelis, S. (2010). Contracting for government services: theory and evidence from U.S. Cities*. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 58(3), 507–541. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6451.2010.00430.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meseguer, C. (2004). What role for learning? The diffusion of privatisation in OECD and Latin American Countries. Journal of Public Policy, 24(3), 299–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, D. R. (1988). The decision to contract out city services: a further explanation. Political Research Quarterly, 41(2), 363–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, D. R., & England, R. E. (1988). The two faces of privatization. Public Administration Review, 48(6), 979–987.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, A. C., & Foster, K. A. (1999). Metropolitan governance structure and income growth. Journal of Urban Affairs, 21(3), 309–324. doi:10.1111/0735-2166.00019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savas, E. S. (2000). Privatization and public-private partnerships. New York: Chatham House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, C. (2011). What drives the diffusion of privatization policy? Evidence from the telecommunications sector. Journal of Public Policy, 31(1), 95–117. doi:10.1017/s0143814x11000018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiebout, C. M. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. The Journal of Political Economy, 64, 416–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobler, W. (1970). A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Economic Geography, 46, 234–40.

  • Walls, M., Macauley, M., & Anderson, S. (2005). Private markets, contracts, and government provision what explains the organization of local waste and recycling markets? Urban Affairs Review, 40(5), 590–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner, M., & Hebdon, R. (2001). Local government restructuring: Privatization and its alternatives. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20(2), 316–336.

  • Warner, M. E., & Hefetz, A. (2012). Insourcing and outsourcing the dynamics of privatization among US Municipalities 2002–2007. Journal of the American Planning Association, 78(3), 313–327. doi:10.1080/01944363.2012.715552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, Kansas State University, Waters Hall 228E, Manhattan, KS, 66506, USA

    Zhiwei Zhang

  2. Kentucky Transportation Center, University of Kentucky, 176 Raymond Building, Lexington, KY, 40506, USA

    Bryan Gibson

Authors
  1. Zhiwei Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bryan Gibson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhiwei Zhang.

Appendix A: ICMA ASD Survey Response Rate

Appendix A: ICMA ASD Survey Response Rate

Population Group

 Over 1,000,000

9

2

22.2 %

 500,000–1,000,000

23

7

30.4 %

 250,000–499,999

36

10

27.8 %

 100,000–249,999

179

80

44.7 %

 50,000–99,999

410

132

32.2 %

 25,000–49,999

782

238

30.4 %

 10,000–24,999

1,825

497

27.2 %

 5,000–9,999

497

135

27.2 %

 2,500–4,999

480

143

29.8 %

Geographic Region

 Northeast

1,157

232

20.1 %

 North-Central

1,207

390

32.3 %

 South

1,138

351

30.8 %

 West

739

271

36.7 %

Geographic division

 New England

444

98

22.1 %

 Mid-Atlantic

713

134

18.8 %

 East North-Central

851

260

30.6 %

 West North-Central

356

130

36.5 %

 South Atlantic

504

180

35.7 %

 East South-Central

239

48

20.1 %

 West South-Central

395

123

31.1 %

 Mountain

220

83

37.7 %

 Pacific Coast

519

188

36.2 %

Metro status

 Central

539

168

31.2 %

 Suburban

2,636

778

29.5 %

 Independent

1,066

298

28.0 %

Form of government

 Mayor-council

1,639

327

20.0 %

 Council-manager

2,303

856

37.2 %

 Commission

88

17

19.3 %

 Town meeting

160

34

21.3 %

 Repre. town meeting

51

10

19.6 %

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, Z., Gibson, B. Determinants of Outsourcing in U.S. Municipalities: Evidence from a Municipal Spatial Network Analysis. Appl. Spatial Analysis 10, 253–269 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12061-016-9182-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12061-016-9182-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation