Public Choice

, Volume 139, Issue 1–2, pp 105–119 | Cite as

Factors explaining local privatization: a meta-regression analysis

  • Germà Bel
  • Xavier Fageda


This paper aims at explaining the differences in the results of empirical studies of motivations for local privatization by undertaking a meta-regression. Our results suggest that fiscal constraints and interest groups were especially relevant in the early studies of the US, which considered several services. Further, studies that focus on one service capture the influence of scale economies more accurately. Finally, our results show that small towns are more affected by fiscal and political factors, while ideology plays a major role for European and large cities. Thus, no clear conclusions emerge from this literature because the findings of each study are sensitive to its characteristics.


Meta-regression analysis Privatization Contracting-out Local governments 

JEL Classification

L33 R51 H72 C25 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abreu, M., de Groot, H. L. F., & Florax, R. J. G. M. (2005). A meta-analysis of β-convergence: the legendary 2%. Journal of Economic Surveys, 19, 389–420. Google Scholar
  2. Bel, G., & Costas, A. (2006). Do public sector reforms get rusty? Local privatization in Spain. Journal of Policy Reform, 9, 1–24. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bel, G., & Fageda, X. (2007). Why do local governments privatize local services? A survey of empirical studies. Local Government Studies, 33, 517–534. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bel, G., & Fageda, X. (2008). Local privatization, intermunicipal cooperation, transaction costs and political interests: evidence from Spain. Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 11, 45–65. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bel, G., & Miralles, A. (2003). Factors influencing privatization of urban solid waste collection in Spain. Urban Studies, 40, 1323–1334. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bel, G., & Miralles, A. (2006). Political and economic determinants of public services financing (Working Paper). Universitat de Barcelona. Google Scholar
  7. Bel, G., & Warner, M. (2008, in press). Does privatization of solid waste and water services reduce costs? A review of empirical studies. Resources, Conservation & Recycling. Google Scholar
  8. Benton, J. E., & Menzel, D. C. (1992). Contracting and franchising county services in Florida. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 27, 436–456. Google Scholar
  9. Brown, T., Potosky, M., & Slyke, D. V. (2008). Changing modes of service delivery: costs and constraints. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26, 127–143. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chandler, T. D., & Feuille, P. (1994). Cities, unions, and the privatization of sanitation services. Journal of Labor Research, 15, 53–71. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Christoffersen, H., & Paldam, M. (2003). Markets and municipalities: a study of the behavior of the danish municipalities. Public Choice, 114, 79–102. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dijkgraaf, E., & Gradus, R. H. J. M. (2007). Collusion in the Dutch waste collection market. Local Government Studies, 33, 573–588. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dijkgraaf, E., Gradus, R. H. J. M., & Melenberg, B. (2003). Contracting out refuse collection. Empirical economics, 28, 553–570. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Domberger, S., & Jensen, P. (1997). Contracting out by the public sector: theory, evidence, prospects. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 13, 67–78. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Donahue, J. D. (1989). The privatization decision. Public ends, private means. New York: Basic Books. Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Feldman, T. R. (1986). Efficiency and the provision of municipal services. Harvard University: Unpublished doctoral thesis. Google Scholar
  18. Ferris, J. M. (1986). The decision to contract out: an empirical analysis. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 22, 289–311. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ferris, J., & Graddy, E. (1988). Production choices for local government services. Journal of Urban Affairs, 10, 273–289. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ferris, J., & Graddy, E. (1994). Organizational choices for public service supply. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 10, 126–141. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. García-Quevedo, J. (2004). Do public subsidies complement business R&D?: a meta-analysis of the econometric evidence. Kyklos, 57, 87–102. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Geys, B. (2006). Explaining voter turnout: a review of aggregate-level research. Electoral Studies, 25, 637–663. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Greene, J. D. (1996). Cities and privatization: examining the effects of fiscal stress, location, and wealth in medium-sized cities. Policy Studies Journal, 24, 135–144. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hebdon, R., & Jalette, P. (2008). The restructuring of municipal services: a Canada–United States Comparison. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26, 144–158. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hirsch, W. Z. (1995). Factors important in local governments’ privatization decisions. Urban Affairs Review, 31, 226–243. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hodge, G. A. (2000). Privatization. An international review of performance. Boulder: Press Westview. Google Scholar
  27. Kodrzycki, Y. K. (1998). Fiscal pressures and the privatization of local services. New England Economic Review, January/February, 39–50. Google Scholar
  28. Levin, J., & Tadelis, S. (2008, in press). Contracting for government services: theory and evidence from US cities. Journal of Industrial Economics. Google Scholar
  29. Longhi, S., Nijkamp, P., & Poot, J. (2005). A meta-analytic assessment of the effect of immigration on wages. Journal of Economic Surveys, 19, 451–477. Google Scholar
  30. López-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1997). Privatization in the United States. Rand Journal of Economics, 28, 447–471. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Martínez Rodríguez, J. (2004). Los determinantes de la contratación externa de servicios municipales en España. Murcia: Asociación Murciana de Ciencia Regional. Google Scholar
  32. McGuire, R. A., Ohsfeldt, R. L., & Van Cott, T. N. (1987). The determinants of the choice between public and private production of publicly funded service. Public Choice, 54, 211–230. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ménard, C., & Saussier, S. (2000). Contractual choice and performance: the case of water supply in France. Revue d’Économie Industrielle, 92, 385–404. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Miralles, A. (2008, in press). A duration model analysis of privatization of municipal water services in Spain. Revista de Economía Aplicada. Google Scholar
  35. Miranda, R. A. (1994). Explaining the privatization decision among local governments in the United States. Research in Urban Policy, 5, 231–274. Google Scholar
  36. Morgan, D. R., Hirlinger, M. W., & England, R. E. (1988). The decision to contract out city services: a further explanation. Western Political Quarterly, 41, 363–372. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mur, M. (2008). Contratación externa de servicios locales en Aragón: Residuos sólidos y distribución de agua. Universidad de Zaragoza: Unpublished doctoral thesis. Google Scholar
  38. Nelson, M. A. (1997). Municipal government approaches to service delivery: an analysis from a transaction cost perspective. Economic Inquiry, 35, 82–96. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Niskanen, W. A. (1971). Bureaucracy and representative government. Chicago: Aldine. Google Scholar
  40. Ohlsson, H. (2003). Ownership and production costs: choosing between public production and contracting-out in the case of Swedish refuse collection. Fiscal Studies, 24, 451–476. Google Scholar
  41. Perard, E. (2007). Water supply: Public or private? An approach based on costs of funds, transaction costs, efficiency and political costs. Paper presented at The role of the state in public service delivery conference. Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, September 2007. Google Scholar
  42. Rose, A. K., & Stanley, T. D. (2005). A meta-analysis of the effect of common currencies on international trade. Journal of Economic Surveys, 19, 347–365. Google Scholar
  43. Stanley, T. D. (2001). Wheat from chaff: meta-analysis as quantitative literature review. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15, 131–150. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stanley, T. D. (2005a). Integrating the empirical tests of the natural rate hypothesis: a meta-regression analysis. Kyklos, 58, 611–634. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stanley, T. D. (2005b). Beyond publication bias. Journal of Economic Surveys, 19, 309–345. Google Scholar
  46. Stanley, T. D. (2008). Meta-regression methods for detecting and estimating empirical effects in the presence of publication selection. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 70, 103–127. Google Scholar
  47. Stanley, T. D., & Jarrell, S. B. (1989). Meta-regression analysis: a quantitative method of literature surveys. Journal of Economic Surveys, 3, 54–67. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stein, R. M. (1990). Urban Alternatives. Public and private markets in the provision of local services. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Google Scholar
  49. Stevens, B. J. (1978). Scale, market structure, and the cost of refuse collection. Review of Economics and Statistics, 60, 438–448. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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, 590–613. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Warner, M., & Bel, G. (2008). Competition or monopoly? Comparing privatization of local public services in the US and Spain. Public Administration, 86, 723–735. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Warner, M. E., & Hebdon, R. (2001). Local government restructuring: privatization and its alternatives. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20, 315–336. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Warner, M., & Hefetz, A. (2002). Applying market solutions to public services: an assessment of efficiency, equity and voice. Urban Affairs Review, 38, 70–89. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zullo, R. (2005). Determinants of public service privatization and inter-municipal contracting (Working Paper). University of Michigan. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economic PolicyUniversity of BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Barcelona Graduate School of EconomicsBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations