No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Local Government Contracting with The Private Sector
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 May 2017
Extract
A contemporary exploration of the concept of “private sector delivery of public services” is necessitated by the fiscal “facts of life” prevalent in most local jurisdictions today. Documentation of the mounting costs of local government is readily available. All informed projections suggest that because of inflation and increased labor costs, this spiralina increase will not level off in the near future.
- Type
- Symposia
- Information
- Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , Spring 1982 , pp. 75 - 81
- Copyright
- Copyright © Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association
Footnotes
The material on which this presentation is based comes from three separate pieces of research: “Public vs. Private: Small Government Contracting with the Private Sector,” by Florestano and Stephen B. Gordon, Public Administration Review, Jan./Feb. 1980, Vol. 40, No. 1; “A Survey of City and County Use of Private Contracting,” by Florestano and Gordon, The Urban Interest, Spring 1981, Vol. 3, No. 1; and an unpublished manuscript, “County and Municipal Use of Private Contracting for Public Service Provision,” by Florestano. The material was used in this fashion because of the interest of the conference attendees in small jurisdictions and in those in the Northeast.
References
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Profile of County Government. M-72, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1971.Google Scholar
Ahlbrandt, Roger H. Jr. “Implications of Contracting for a Public Service,” Urban Affairs Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 3 (March 1974), p. 355Google Scholar
Bish, Robert L. and Ostrom, Vincent. Understanding Urban Government: Metropolitan Reform Reconsidered. Domestic Affairs Study No. 20 (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, December 1973) p. 94.Google Scholar
Break, George. Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations in the United States, (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1967).Google Scholar
Coleman, William G. Comments reported in Fiscal Relations in the American Federal System, Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, Ninety-fourth Congress, First Session, July, 1975.Google Scholar
Fisk, Donald M., Kiesling, Hert J. and Muller, Thomas. Private Provision of Public Services: An Overview (Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 1977).Google Scholar
Lindblom, Charles E. “The Science of Muddling Through,” Public Administration Review 19 (Spring, 1959), 79–88; The Policy Making Process (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1968).Google Scholar
Phares, Donald. “Assignment of Functions: An Economic Framework,” in Government Functions and Processes: Local and Areawide, Volume IV of Substate Regionalism and the Federal System (Washington, DC: Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, February 1974).Google Scholar
Savas, E. S. Evaluating the Organization of Service Delivery: Solid Waste Collection and Disposal (New York: Center for Government Studies, Graduate School of Business, Columbia University, 1976).Google Scholar
Wildavsky, Aaron. The Politics of the Budgetary Process (Boston: Little, Brown, 1964).Google Scholar
Zimmerman, Joseph F. “Intergovernmental Service Agreements and Transfer of Functions,” in Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Substate Regionalism at the Federal System, Vol. III: Challenge of Local Government Reorganization (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974).Google Scholar
Zimmerman, Joseph F. “Meeting Service Needs Through Intergovernmental Agreements,” The Municipal Yearbook, 1973, (Washington, DC: International City Management Association, 1974, and op. cit.).Google Scholar