Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Accountability in the Context of Privatisation Policy Implementation

  • Living reference work entry
  • Latest version View entry history
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of the Public Servant

  • 102 Accesses

Abstract

Accountability is a complex term to define, covering various ideals of efficiency and effectiveness against which public managers are assessed. Furthermore, the concept is always evolving: gauging and ensuring public servants are accountable to multiple, and often competing norms is a challenging process. Privatization has gained popularity as a solution to the perceived ineffectiveness of the government. Ironically, the involvement of the private sector in implementing public policies also draws attention to the complexities of accountability. This chapter explores the academic literature of these crosscutting issues. The findings are organized into three parts: (1) an overview of privatization, (2) accountability issues in the context of privatization, and (3) recommendations for public institutions/administrators to handle accountability issues. Three types of accountability issues are identified: blurred accountability, goal conflict, and monitoring. To ensure nongovernmental providers satisfy the public’s preferences, public authorities have to be active players in these processes instead of passive bystanders, that is, players who equip themselves with expertise and capacity in public management and maintain an ongoing dialogue with nongovernmental partners.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Acar, M., C. Guo, and K. Yang. 2008. Accountability when hierarchical authority is absent: Views from public-private partnership practitioners. The American Review of Public Administration 38 (1): 3–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amirkhanyan, A.A. 2011. What is the effect of performance measurement on perceived accountability effectiveness in state and local government contracts? Public Performance & Management Review 35 (2): 303–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Athias, L. 2013. Local public-services provision under public–private partnerships: Contractual design and contracting parties incentives. Local Government Studies 39 (3): 312–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldino, D., M. Drum, and B. Wyatt. 2010. The privatization of prisoner transfer services in western Australia. What can we learn from the Ward case? Australian Journal of Public Administration 69 (4): 418–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnekov, T.K., and J.A. Raffel. 1990. Public management of privatization. Public Productivity & Management Review 14: 135–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benish, A. 2014. The public accountability of privatized activation – The case of Israel. Social Policy and Administration 48 (2): 262–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benish, A., and D. Levi-Faur. 2012. New forms of administrative law in the age of third-party government. Public Administration 90 (4): 886–900.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergsteiner, H., and G.C. Avery. 2008. A generic multiple constituency matrix: Accountability in private prisons. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19 (3): 631–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertelli, A.M., and C.R. Smith. 2009. Relational contracting and network management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 20 (suppl_1): i21–i40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bevir, M. 2011. Governance and governmentality after neoliberalism. Policy & Politics 39 (4): 457–471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovens, M. 2005. 8.1 The concept of public accountability. In The Oxford handbook of public management, 182–208. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2007. Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal 13 (4): 447–468.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010. Two concepts of accountability: Accountability as a virtue and as a mechanism. West European Politics 33 (5): 946–967. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2010.486119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bovens, M., T. Schillemans, and P.T. Hart. 2008. Does public accountability work? An assessment tool. Public Administration 86 (1): 225–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovens, M., R.E. Goodin, and T. Schillemans. 2014. The Oxford handbook public accountability. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breaux, D.A., C.M. Duncan, C.D. Keller, and J.C. Morris. 2002. Welfare reform, Mississippi style: Temporary assistance for needy families and the search for accountability. Public Administration Review 62 (1): 92–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brodkin, E.Z. 2011. Policy work: Street-level organizations under new managerialism. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21 (suppl_2): i253–i277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, K.N. 2013. We the people, constitutional accountability, and outsourcing government. Industrial Law Journal 88 (4): 1347–1403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, S.M. 1986. Privatizing federal services: A primer. Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carboni, J. 2015. Governance and contracting. In Government contracting: A public solutions handbook, 137–147. New York: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin, R. 2013. Prison privatization and why transparency matters to public administrators. From PA Times. http://www.afscmeinfocenter.org/privatizationupdate/2013/03/prison-privatization-and-why-transparency-matters-to-public-administrators.htm#.XV-naehKiUl.

  • Chrystal, K.A., and R. G. Lipsey. 1997. Economics for business and management. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Considine, M. 2002. The end of the line? Accountable governance in the age of networks, partnerships, and joined-up services. Governance 15 (1): 21–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, L. 1990. The ethereal hand: Organizational economics and management theory. Academy of Management Review 15 (3): 369–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubnick, M. 2005. Accountability and the promise of performance: In search of the mechanisms. Public Performance & Management Review 28 (3): 376–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubnick, M.J. 2007. Sarbanes-Oxley and the search for accountable corporate governance. GovNet eJournal 1 (2): 140–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubnick, M.J., and H.G. Frederickson. 2014a. Accountable governance: Problems and promises. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014b. The challenge of multiple accountability: Does redundancy lead to overload? In Accountable governance, ed. Thomas Schillemans and Mark Bovens, 35–53. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014c. The tangled web of accountability in contracting networks: The case of welfare reform. In Accountable Governance, ed. Barbara S. Romzek, 54–73. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • EssaysUK. 2018, November. Relational contracts: Advantages and disadvantages. Retrieved from https://www.ukessays.com/essays/economics/relational-contract.php?vref=1

  • Forrer, J., J.E. Kee, K.E. Newcomer, and E. Boyer. 2010. Public-private partnerships and the public accountability question. Public Administration Review 70 (3): 475–484.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederickson, H.G. 1996. Comparing the reinventing government movement with the new public administration. Public Administration Review 56 (3): 263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilman, M.E. 2001. Legal accountability in an era of privatized welfare. California Law Review 89: 569.

    Google Scholar 

  • Girth, A.M. 2012. A closer look at contract accountability: Exploring the determinants of sanctions for unsatisfactory contract performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 24 (2): 317–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossi, G., and A. Thomasson. 2015. Bridging the accountability gap in hybrid organizations: The case of Copenhagen Malmö Port. International Review of Administrative Sciences 81 (3): 604–620.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, L., and F. Longva. 2014. Contracting accountability in network governance structures. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management 11 (2): 92–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heilman, J.G., and G.W. Johnson. 1992. The politics and economics of privatization: The case of wastewater treatment. Tuscaloosa: University Alabama Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isaksson, D., P. Blomqvist, and U. Winblad. 2018. Privatization of social care delivery–how can contracts be specified? Public Management Review 20 (11): 1643–1662.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jantz, B., T. Klenk, F. Larsen, and J. Wiggan. 2018. Marketization and varieties of accountability relationships in employment services: Comparing Denmark, Germany, and Great Britain. Administration and Society 50 (3): 321–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, G.W., and D.J. Watson. 1991. Privatization: Provision or production of services? Two case studies. State & Local Government Review 23: 82–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, J.M., and B.S. Romzek. 1999. Contracting and accountability in state Medicaid reform: Rhetoric, theories, and reality. Public Administration Review 59: 383–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kearns, K.P. 1994. The strategic management of accountability in nonprofit organizations: An analytical framework. Public Administration Review 54: 185–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1998. Institutional accountability in higher education: A strategic approach. Public Productivity & Management Review 22: 140–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kettl, D.F. 1993. Sharing power: Public governance and private markets. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. The job of government: Interweaving public functions and private hands. Public Administration Review 75 (2): 219–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klingner, D.E., J. Nalbandian, and B.S. Romzek. 2002. Politics, administration, and markets: Conflicting expectations and accountability. The American Review of Public Administration 32 (2): 117–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knill, C., and D. Lehmkuhl. 2002. Private actors and the state: Internationalization and changing patterns of governance. Governance 15 (1): 41–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolderie, T. 1986. The two different concepts of privatization. Public Administration Review 46: 285–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koppell, J.G. 2005. Pathologies of accountability: ICANN and the challenge of “multiple accountabilities disorder”. Public Administration Review 65 (1): 94–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J.S., and P.E. Tetlock. 1999. Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin 125 (2): 255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, J., and S. Tadelis. 2010. Contracting for government services: Theory and evidence from US cities. The Journal of Industrial Economics 58 (3): 507–541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsky, M., and S.R. Smith. 1993. Nonprofits for hire: The welfare state in the age of contracting. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopez-de-Silane, F., A. Shleifer, and R.W. Vishny. 1995. Privatization in the united states (No. w5113). National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/papers/w5113.pdf

  • Martin, M.H., and A. Halachmi. 2012. Public-private partnerships in global health: Addressing issues of public accountability, risk management and governance. Public Administration Quarterly 36: 189–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milward, H.B., and K.G. Provan. 2000. Governing the hollow state. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10 (2): 359–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, J.C. 1997. Prison privatization in Mississippi: Government failure, market failure, or both. In annual meetings of the Southeastern Conference on Public Administration, September (pp. 24–26).

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, J.C. 2007. Government and market pathologies of privatization: The case of prison privatization. Politics & Policy 35 (2): 318–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulgan, R. 2000. ‘Accountability’: An ever-expanding concept? Public Administration 78 (3): 555–573.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2006. Government accountability for outsourced services. Australian Journal of Public Administration 65 (2): 48–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Toole, L.J., Jr. 2000. Different public managements? Implications of structural context in hierarchies and networks. In Advancing public management: New developments in theory, methods, and practice, 19–32. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, D., and T. Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing Government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector from schoolhouse to statehouse. City Hall to Pentagon. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palatiello, J., and A. Stuart. 2017. Annual privatization report 2017: Federal Government Privatization. https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/files/annual_privatization_report_2017_federal_privatization.pdf

  • Papadopoulos, Y. 2007. Problems of democratic accountability in network and multilevel governance. European Law Journal 13 (4): 469–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C., and P. Hupe. 2011. Talking about government: The role of magic concepts. Public Management Review 13 (5): 641–658.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romzek, B.S., and J.M. Johnston. 2005. State social services contracting: Exploring the determinants of effective contract accountability. Public Administration Review 65 (4): 436–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romzek, B.S., K. LeRoux, and J.M. Blackmar. 2012. A preliminary theory of informal accountability among network organizational actors. Public Administration Review 72 (3): 442–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sands, V. 2006. The right to know and obligation to provide: Public-Private partnerships, public knowledge, public accountability, public disenfranchisement and prisons cases. UNSW Law Journal 29 (3): 334–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savas, E.S. 1987. Privatization: The key to better government. Chatham: Chatham House.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2000. Privatization and public-private partnerships. New York: Chatham House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schillemans, T. 2016. Calibrating Public Sector Accountability: Translating experimental findings to public sector accountability. Public Management Review 18 (9): 1400–1420.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaoul, J., A. Stafford, and P. Stapleton. 2012. Accountability and corporate governance of public-private partnerships. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 23 (3): 213–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, A. 2017. Annual privatization report 2017: State Government Privatization. https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/files/annual_privatization_report_2017_state_privatization.pdf.

  • Thomann, E., E. Lieberherr, and K. Ingold. 2016. Torn between state and market: Private policy implementation and conflicting institutional logics. Policy and Society 35 (1): 57–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomann, E., P. Hupe, and F. Sager. 2018. Serving many masters: Public accountability in private policy implementation. Governance 31 (2): 299–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, D.F. 1980. Moral responsibility of public officials: The problem of many hands. American Political Science Review 74 (4): 905–916.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trailer, J., P. Rechner, and R. Hill. 2004. A compound agency problem: An empirical examination of public-private partnerships. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge 5 (1/2): 308–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Slyke, D.M. 2003. The mythology of privatization in contracting for social services. Public Administration Review 63 (3): 296–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhoest, K., and P. Mattei. 2010. Special Issue on ‘Welfare governance reforms and effects in the Post-Golden Age’, 163–171. London: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vincent-Jones, P. 2005. Citizen redress in public contracting for human services. The Modern Law Review 68 (6): 887–924.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, T.K. 2013. Impacts of the hollow state on organizational practices and individual attitudes in the federal government. (Doctoral dissertation), Florida State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wedel, J.R. 2004. Blurring the state-private divide: flex organisations and the decline of accountability. In Globalisation, poverty and conflict, ed. Spoor M, 217–235. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willems, T., and W. Van Dooren. 2011. Lost in diffusion? How collaborative arrangements lead to an accountability paradox. International Review of Administrative Sciences 77 (3): 505–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012. Coming to terms with accountability: Combining multiple forums and functions. Public Management Review 14 (7): 1011–1036.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, K. 2012. Further understanding accountability in public organizations: Actionable knowledge and the structure–agency duality. Administration and Society 44 (3): 255–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, K., and G. VanLandingham. 2012. How hollow can we go? A case study of the Florida’s efforts to outsource oversight of privatized child welfare services. The American Review of Public Administration 42 (5): 543–561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, M., and J. Sun. 2012. Outsourcing in municipal governments: Experiences from the United States and China. Public Performance & Management Review 35 (4): 696–726.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Service, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA

    Lien Nguyen

  2. Pennsylvania, USA

    Pragati Rawat

  3. Department of Political Science, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA

    John C. Morris

Authors
  1. Lien Nguyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pragati Rawat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John C. Morris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lien Nguyen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, Acton, ACT, Australia

    Helen Sullivan

  2. UNSW Australia, Campbell, ACT, Australia

    Helen Dickinson

  3. College of Asia and the Pacific, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia

    Hayley Henderson

Section Editor information

  1. University of New South Wales, Canberra, Australia

    Helen Dickinson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Nguyen, L., Rawat, P., Morris, J.C. (2020). Accountability in the Context of Privatisation Policy Implementation. In: Sullivan, H., Dickinson, H., Henderson, H. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of the Public Servant. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03008-7_24-2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03008-7_24-2

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03008-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-03008-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Political Science and International StudiesReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Chapter history

  1. Latest

    Accountability in the Context of Privatisation Policy Implementation
    Published:
    12 September 2020

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03008-7_24-2

  2. Original

    Accountability in the Context of Private Policy Implementation
    Published:
    27 March 2020

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03008-7_24-1

Search

Navigation