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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bish, R. L., & Ostrom, V. (1973). Understanding urban government: Metropolitan reform reconsidered. Washington: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
Bouché, V., & Volden, C. (2011). Privatization and the diffusion of innovations. The Journal of Politics, 73, 428–442.
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.
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.
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.
Brown, T. L., & Potoski, M. (2003). Managing contract performance: a transaction costs approach. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 22(2), 275–297.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Henig, J. R. (1990). Privatization in the United-States - theory and practice. Political Science Quarterly, 104(4), 649–670.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Morgan, D. R. (1988). The decision to contract out city services: a further explanation. Political Research Quarterly, 41(2), 363–372.
Morgan, D. R., & England, R. E. (1988). The two faces of privatization. Public Administration Review, 48(6), 979–987.
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.
Savas, E. S. (2000). Privatization and public-private partnerships. New York: Chatham House.
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.
Tiebout, C. M. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. The Journal of Political Economy, 64, 416–424.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
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
About this article
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12061-016-9182-6