Search results

Local governments in the twenty‐first century face challenges regarding service delivery, finance, the workforce, and citizen engagement. While privatization was a major innovation in the last decades of the twentieth century, lack of costs savings and the loss of public values in market provision are prompting reversals in privatization, increases in regulation, and new approaches to government enterprise. The twenty‐first century must focus on rebuilding the capacity of local governments to finance critical infrastructure, attract and retain a skilled labor force, and engage citizen in designing innovative solutions to address public problems. Innovations in public service delivery will move beyond public private partnerships to models that more effectively balance accountability, equity, and efficiency concerns.

AbstractThe last decades of the 20th century witnessed a profound experiment to increase the role of markets in local government service delivery. However, that experiment has failed to deliver adequately on efficiency, equity or voice criteria. This has led to reversals. But this reverse privatization process is not a return to the direct public monopoly delivery model of old. Instead it heralds the emergence of a new balanced position which combines use of markets, deliberation and planning to reach decisions which may be both efficient and more socially optimal.

AbstractPrivatization and decentralization represent market‐based approaches to government. Designed to increase efficiency and responsiveness of government, these approaches also limit the potential for redistribution. A key question is: how will rural governments compete in such a market‐based system? Will they be favoured, as their reliance on market provision for public goods is higher due to the smaller number of services provided by government? Or will they be less able to compete due to the costs of sparsity, which may make them less attractive to market suppliers? Data from the United States covering the period 1992–2002, show that rural areas are not favoured by either of these trends – privatization or decentralization. Managerial weakness does not explain the shortfall. Rural areas are not as attractive to market suppliers and thus are disadvantaged under market‐based service delivery approaches. Although national policy continues to advance a privatization agenda, policy‐makers should be concerned about the uneven impacts of such market‐based approaches.

What leads to more age-friendly cities: professional management, passive gender representation in management, or active public engagement? In a survey of 1,378 local governments, age-friendly features were measured in the community comprehensive plan, zoning codes, and economic development plan. Gender representation does not distinguish level of age-friendly planning, but public engagement promotes age-friendly practices in all three areas: comprehensive plans, zoning, and economic development plans. Structural equation models find professionalism and public engagement matter more than gender representation in management, as they promote active representation, which leads to more age-friendly practices.

Abstract
What factors explain the divergence between returns to labour and overall productivity across US counties? We model the role of power at the subnational state level: Republican partisan control, corporate lobbying (measured by ALEC-sponsored bills) and labour power (unionisation). We find where state policy is captured by corporate interests, this undermines inclusive growth. Our hierarchical models use 2012 data for county areas in the continental USA and find labour returns are higher in states with more unionisation, but lower in states with Republican control and more corporate penetration of state legislatures. Labour and local government power have limited effect.