Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Civic government or market-based governance? The limits of privatization for rural local governments

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Thomas Lyson argued that civic markets were possible and could have positive impacts on rural development. Increasingly local governments are being forced into market-based governance regimes of privatization, decentralization and free trade. This article explores the impacts of these trends on rural local governments in the US. These market trends can erode civic foundations, but recent data show local governments are balancing markets with civic concerns and giving increased attention to citizen interests in the service delivery process.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The ICMA surveys are conducted every five years and cover all counties with more than 25,000 population and cities over 10,000 population. In addition, a sample is drawn from one in eight cities and counties from 2,500 to 9,999 population and from those under 2,500 (total sample frame in 1997: 4,952). Roughly a third of all governments contacted respond (31% for 1992, 32% for 1997, and 24% for 2002). Cities (which include villages, towns, and townships) vastly outnumber counties, but counties are more heavily represented among the rural respondents. Of the roughly 1,200 to 1,400 responding governments in any given year, roughly 350 are non-metropolitan.

  2. This web-based survey was sent to all city managers for whom ICMA had email addresses. 164 municipalities responded and these governments are representative of the sample responding to the ICMA 2002 alternative service delivery survey. The metro status breakdown of respondents is 41 metro core, 87 suburb, 36 independent rural.

  3. State aid and local government expenditures are deflated using the GDP Implicit Price Deflator for state and local government expenditures. 2002 = 100 is the base year (Economic Report of the President 2005).

  4. Earlier analysis suggested rural areas would increase their use of inter-municipal cooperation as this ‘public’ market would be more accessible (Warner 2003). However, the 2002 survey shows rural use of cooperation dropped as for other metropolitan types (Warner 2006).

Abbreviations

NAFTA:

North American free trade agreement

GATS:

General agreement on trade in services

MBTE:

A gasoline additive

ICMA:

International City/County Management Association

GEM:

Generalized estimation model

References

  • Bel, Germà, and Mildred E. Warner. 2008a. Local privatization and costs: A review of empirical evidence. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 26 (1): 104–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bel, Germà, and Mildred E. Warner. 2008b. Does privatization of solid waste and water services reduce costs? A review of empirical studies. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 52: 1337–1348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyne, George A. 1998. The determinants of variations in local service contracting—garbage in, garbage out? Urban Affairs Review 34 (1): 150–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, Neil. 2004. New state spaces: Urban governance and the rescaling of statehood. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, David L., and Mildred E. Warner. 1991. Persistent low-income nonmetropolitan areas in the United States: Some conceptual challenges for policy development. Policy Studies Journal 19 (2): 22–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, David, and Louis Swanson. 2003. Challenges for rural America in the twenty-first century. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • City/County Data Book. 1994. Regional economic information system. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia. http://fisher.lib.Virginia.EDU/ccdb/. Accessed 6 October 2008.

  • Clark, Helen. 2005. Patterson oration: Helen Clark speaks at ANSSOG. Transcript from 6 May 2004. Carlton, Australia: Australian and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG). http://www.anzsog.edu.au/images/docs/news/Patterson_Oration.pdf. Accessed 6 October 2008.

  • Cohen, John M., and Stephen B. Peterson. 1999. Administrative decentralization: Strategies for developing countries. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press and United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, Steve. 2007. Politics and markets: The case of UK municipal waste management. Paper presented at the Association of Public Policy and Management conference, Washington, DC.

  • Denhardt, J.V., and R.B. Denhardt. 2003. The new public service: Serving, not steering. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewees, Sarah, Linda Labao, and Louis E. Swanson. 2003. Local economic development in an age of devolution: The question of rural localities. Rural Sociology 68 (2): 182–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donahue, John D. 1997. Disunited states. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Economic Report of the President. 2005. Table B-7: Chain-type price indexes for gross domestic product, 1959–2004 Government consumption expenditures and gross investment/State and Local. In Economic Report of the President, 219. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.

  • Entwistle, T. 2005. Why are local authorities reluctant to externalise (and do they have good reason)? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 23 (2): 191–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frug, Gerald E. 1999. City making: Building communities without building walls. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • WTO. 1995. General agreement on trade in services. Geneva, Switzerland: World Trade Organization. http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/26-gats.pdf. Accessed 6 October 2006.

  • Gerbasi, Jennifer, and Mildred E. Warner. 2007. Privatization, public goods and the ironic challenge of free trade agreements. Administration and Society 39 (2): 127–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, Mark. 1985. Economic action, social structure and embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology 91: 481–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hefetz, Amir, and Mildred E. Warner. 2004. Privatization and its reverse: Explaining the dynamics of the government contracting process. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 14 (2): 171–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hefetz, Amir, and Mildred E. Warner. 2007. Beyond the market vs. planning dichotomy: Understanding privatisation and its reverse in US cities. Local Government Studies 33 (4): 555–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hipp, Magdalena, and Mildred E. Warner. 2008. Market forces for the unemployed? Training vouchers in Germany and the US. Social Policy and Administration: An International Journal of Policy and Research 42 (1): 77–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, W.Z. 1995. Factors important in local governments’ privatization decisions. Urban Affairs Review 31 (2): 226–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International City County Management Association. 1992, 1997 and 2002. Survey of alternative service delivery. Washington, DC: ICMA.

  • International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). 2001. Public rights, public problems: A guide to NAFTA’s controversial chapter on investor rights. Winnipeg: IISD and World Wildlife Fund.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jessop, Bob. 1997. The entrepreneurial city: Re-imaging localities, redesigning economic governance or restructuring capital. In Transforming cities: Contested governance and new spatial divisions, ed. Nick Jewson and Susanne MacGregor, 28–41. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Kenneth W., John P. Pelissero, David B. Holien, and Michael T. Maly. 1995. Local government fiscal burden in nonmetropolitan America. Rural Sociology 60 (3): 381–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, M.B. 2001. The price of citizenship: Redefining America’s welfare state, 1st ed. New York: Metropolitan Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kodrzycki, Yolanda K. 1994. Privatization of local public services: Lessons for New England. New England Economic Review, May/June: 31–46.

  • Lobao, Linda, Jamie Rulli, and Lawrence A. Brown. 1999. Macro-level theory and local-level inequality: Industrial structure, institutional arrangements, and the political economy of redistribution, 1970 and 1990. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 89 (4): 571–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowery, David. 1998. Consumer sovereignty and quasi-market failure. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 8 (2): 137–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyson, Thomas A. 2004. Civic agriculture: Reconnecting farm, food, and community. Medford, M: Tufts University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyson, Thomas A., and Charles Tolbert. 1993. Small manufacturing and civic welfare in nonmetropolitan counties: A regional comparison. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLeod, Gordon. 2001. New regionalism reconsidered: Globalization and the remaking of political economic space. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 50 (2): 804–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nalbandian, John. 2005. Professionals and the conflicting forces of administrative modernization and civic engagement. American Review of Public Administration. 35 (4): 311–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niskanen, William. 1971. Bureaucracy and representative government. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oates, W.E. 1998. The economics of fiscal federalism and local finance. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, David E., and Ted Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming government. MA: Addison-Wesley. Reading.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powers, E.T. 2000. Block granting welfare: Fiscal impact on the states. Economic Development Quarterly 14 (4): 323–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prud’homme, R. 1995. The dangers of decentralization. The World Bank Research Observer 10 (2): 201–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeder, R., and A. Jansen. 1995. Rural government—Poor counties, 1962–1987. Rural Development Research Report # 88. Washington, DC: USDA, ERS, RED.

  • Sager, Tore. 2002. Deliberative planning and decision making: An impossibility result. Journal of Planning Education and Research 21: 367–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savas, Emmanuel S. 2000. Privatization and public–private partnerships. Chatham, NY: Chatham House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweke, William, and Robert Stumberg. 2000. The emerging constitution: Why local governments could be left out. Public Management (US) 82 (1): 4–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sclar, Elliot. 2000. You don’t always get what you pay for: The economics of privatization. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swyngedouw, Erik. 1997. Neither global nor local: ‘Globalization’ and the politics of scale. In Spaces of globalization: Reasserting the power of the local, ed. Kevin R. Cox, 137–166. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiebout, Charles. 1956. A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy 64 (5): 416–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tolbert, Charles M., Thomas A. Lyson, and Michael D. Irwin. 1998. Local capitalism, civic engagement, and socioeconomic well-being. Social Forces 77 (2): 401–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1992, 1997, 2002. Census of governments: State and local government finances, Individual unit file. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce. http://www.census.gov/govs/www/estimate.html. Accessed 6 October 2008.

  • U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1999. Metropolitan areas and components. Released September 1996, Revised April 1999. http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/metro-city/93mfips.txt. Accessed 6 October 2008.

  • U.S. Department of State. 2005. In the matter of an international arbitration under chapter 11 of the North American free trade agreement and the uncitral arbitration rules between Methanex Corporation and The United States of America, Final Award of the Tribunal. US Department of State: Washington DC. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/51052.pdf. Accessed 6 October 2008.

  • Warner, Mildred E. 2001. State policy under devolution: Redistribution and centralization. National Tax Journal Vol LIV (3): 541–556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner, Mildred E. 2003. Local governance: From competition to cooperation. In Challenges for rural America in the twenty-first century, ed. David Brown and Louis Swanson, 252–261. College Station, PA: Penn State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner, Mildred E. 2006. Market-based governance and the challenge for rural governments: U.S. trends. Social Policy and Administration: An International Journal of Policy and Research 40 (6): 612–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner, Mildred E. 2008. Reversing privatization, rebalancing government reform: markets, deliberation and planning. Policy and Society 27 (2) .

  • Warner, Mildred E., and Germà Bel. 2008. Competition or monopoly? Comparing US and Spanish privatization. Public Administration: An International Quarterly 86 (3): 723–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner, Mildred E., Anna Belajova, Maria Fazikova, and Andrea Siebenmanova. 1999. Local government and rural development in the Visegrad: Challenges and opportunities. In Rural development in central and eastern Europe, ed. David Brown and Anna Bandlerova, 181–189. Nitra, Slovakia: Slovak Agricultural University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner, Mildred E., and Jennifer Gerbasi. 2004. Rescaling and reforming the state under NAFTA: Implications for subnational authority. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 28 (4): 853–873.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner, Mildred E., and Amir Hefetz. 2002a. Applying market solutions to public services: An assessment of efficiency, equity and voice. Urban Affairs Review 38 (1): 70–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner, Mildred E., and Amir Hefetz. 2002b. The uneven distribution of market solutions for public goods. Journal of Urban Affairs 24 (4): 445–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner, Mildred E., and Amir Hefetz. 2003. Rural–urban differences in privatization: Limits to the competitive state. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 21 (5): 703–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner, Mildred E., and Amir, Hefetz. 2004. Pragmatism over politics: alternative service delivery in local government, 1992–2002. In The Municipal Year Book 2004, 8–16 Washington, DC: International City County Management Association.

  • Warner, Mildred E., and Amir Hefetz. 2008. Managing markets for public service: The role of mixed public/private delivery of city services. Public Administration Review 68 (1): 150–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner, Mildred E., and James E. Pratt. 2005. Spatial diversity in local government revenue effort under decentralization: A neural network approach. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 23 (5): 657–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner, Mildred E., and Sally Shortall. 2008. Growth coalitions and rural development policy in the EU and the US. EuroChoices 7(3) Point de Vue.

  • Weinstein, Deborah. 1998. Race to the bottom: Plummeting welfare caseloads in the south and the nation. Washington, DC: Children’s Defense Fund.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to editors Marygold Walsh-Dilley, Emme Edmunds, and Max Pfeffer, of this special issue honoring the Work of Thomas Lyson and to the helpful comments from two anonymous reviewers. I would also like to thank Evelina Moulder and the Cornell Survey Research Center for help with the 2007 survey, Jinwoo Kwon and Joe Rukus for help with the graphs, and Francoise Vermeylen and Amir Hefetz for help with the statistical analyses presented in this paper. This research was supported in part by the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, National Research Initiative Grant # NYC-121524.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of City and Regional Planning, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

    Mildred E. Warner

Authors
  1. Mildred E. Warner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mildred E. Warner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Warner, M.E. Civic government or market-based governance? The limits of privatization for rural local governments. Agric Hum Values 26, 133–143 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-008-9181-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-008-9181-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation