000			02033naa a2200193uu 4500
001			8408
003			OSt
005			20190211154445.0
008			021119s2005 xx ||||gr |0|| 0 eng d
100	1		_aWARNER, Mildred _911186
245	1	0	_aLocal government restructuring : _bprivatization and its alternatives
260			_c2001
520	3		_aLocal government restructuring should no longer be viewed as a simple dichotomy between private and public provision. A 1997 survey of chief elected township and country officials in New York shows that local governments use both private and public sector mechaninsm to structure the market, create competititon, and attain economies of scale. In addtition to privatization and inter-municipal cooperation, two alternative forms of service delivery not previously researched - reverse privatization and governmental entrepreneurship - are analyzed here. Logistic regression on the 201 responding governemtns differentiates the decision to restructure from the level and complexity of restructuring. Results confirm that local governments are guided primarily by pragmatic concerns with information, monitoring, and service quality. Political factors are not significant in the restructuring process and unionization is only significant in cases of simple restructuring (privatization or cooperation used alone). Fiscal stress is not a primary motivator, but debt limits are associated with more complex forms of restructuring. restructurig service delivery requires capacity to take risks and is more common among experienced local officials in larger, higher-income communities. Restructuring should be viewed as a complex, pragmatic process where governments combine public and private provision with an active role as service provider and market player
700	1		_aHEBDON, Robert _917694
773	0	8	_tJournal of Policy Analysis and Management _g20, 2, p. 315-336 _d, 2001 _w
942			_cS
998			_a20021119 _bCassio _cCassio
998			_a20060614 _b1553^b _cQuiteria
999			_aConvertido do Formato PHL _bPHL2MARC21 1.1 _c8554 _d8554
041			_aeng