Suchergebnisse

Artiklen præsenterer resultaterne af en komparativ analyse af den nationale understøttelse af offentlige-private partnerskaber (OPP) på tværs af 20 europæiske lande med varierende OPP-erfaring. Baseret på en gennemgang af litteraturen defineres tre elementer som centrale for national understøttelse af OPP: politisk opbakning, reguleringsmæssige rammer og institutionel understøttelse. I analysens første del gennemføres en sammenlignende analyse af den politiske, reguleringsmæssige og institutionelle understøttelse af OPP på tværs af de 20 lande. Det danner grundlag for at identificere ligheder og forskelle samt gruppere landene i forhold til national understøttelse af OPP. I analysens anden del gennemføres en eksplorativ analyse af sammenhængen mellem national understøttelse og den faktiske udbredelse af OPP opgjort som omfanget og størrelsen af OPP-projekter i landene.

The article comparatively examines national support for public-private partnerships (PPPs) across 20 European countries with varying PPP-experience. Three elements are defined as central to national support for PPPs: political, regulatory and institutional support. The first part of the analysis comparatively examines the political, regulatory and institutional support for PPPs across the countries. This forms the basis for identifying similarities and differences and grouping of the countries in relation to national support for PPPs. The second part of the analysis presents an exploratory analysis of the relationship between national support and the uptake of PPPs measured as the number and capital value of PPP projects in the 20 countries.

The article comparatively examines national support for public-private partnerships (PPPs) across 20 European countries with varying PPP-experience. Three elements are defined as central to national support for PPPs: political, regulatory and institutional support. The first part of the analysis comparatively examines the political, regulatory and institutional support for PPPs across the countries. This forms the basis for identifying similarities and differences and grouping of the countries in relation to national support for PPPs. The second part of the analysis presents an exploratory analysis of the relationship between national support and the uptake of PPPs measured as the number and capital value of PPP projects in the 20 countries.

The utilization of the public-private partnership (PPP) model as a means of delivering various types of asset-based public services and infrastructure is often seen in academic research as part of a globally spread public management reform trend. This view is often suggested with reference to the staggering amount of attention and public money, which is now being dedicated to the formation of PPPs worldwide. This article, however, proceeds from the observation that if we look beyond the reports from a small handful of primarily Anglo-Saxon countries, which have so far attracted widespread attention in the PPP literature, we observe a much more divergent and heterogeneous pattern in various national governments' policy and regulation for PPP and the amount of actually implemented PPP projects. By comparing the initiatives taken by the Irish government, which has embraced PPPs, with those of the Danish government, which has been PPP sceptic, the article draws on two in-depth country case studies to examine how and why PPPs developed so differently in the two countries. The research illustrates that whereas PPPs in Denmark have been subject to a loosely organized institutional framework with a number of fundamental policy and regulation issues being either unresolved or not very supportive to the uptake of PPPs, Ireland, on the other hand, now presides over one of the most ambitious PPP programs in the world, with major policy, regulation and procurement functions centralized within the Ministry of Finance and the Treasury. As research on PPPs continues to proliferate, this article illustrates that academic PPP literature would benefit from adopting a more explicit comparative focus to account for these significant comparative differences in national governments' PPP approaches.

This article extends previous research on public-private partnerships (PPPs), which has primarily been case study or national context oriented, by examining how these PPPs are regulated in the framework of the European Union (EU). While a number of partnership models have been identified in the academic literature, this study focuses on three significant types of PPP: the contract-PPP, the concession-PPP, and the institutional-PPP. Based on a notion of the EU as a meta-governance framework that guides, steers, and controls PPP activity at national, sector, and project level, the article draws a number of lessons on the EU's role in regulating the formation phase of PPP. The research demonstrates that this meta-governance framework provides the EU with no direct regulations for the use of the PPP model in the 27 member states, but two sets of regulations which apply if a public authority decides to sign a PPP deal. As the EU hitherto has engaged in regulation of PPP at a somewhat abstract and conceptual level, national and local public administrations are given considerable room for manoeuvre to craft regulations and policies to support or hinder uptake of PPPs. More recently, however, the Commission has raised its stakes by launching a European Partnership Excellence Centre to support policy learning, the spread of best practice, and PPP expert networks.

Scandinavian welfare states are undergoing a gradual transformation towards a more market-based mode of public service delivery. The results of these marketization reforms are, however, insufficiently documented in terms of their consequences for the price and quality of welfare services. This article presents the findings of a systematic review of Danish and Swedish experiences with private provision of welfare services within three areas: home care for the elderly, provision of child care, and the operation of nursing homes. The research shows that there is no general evidence in support of improved cost effectiveness or enhanced service quality within these three welfare areas. A part of the reason for this is that many studies are characterized by lack of data and insufficient methodological designs. The article concludes that more and better studies are needed in order to broaden the evidence base and inform future policy-making on marketization in general and within the welfare areas in particular.

AbstractAfter decades of private companies delivering public services, governments are increasingly using a mix of outsourcing and insourcing to provide services. With insourcing, governments replace market competition with public monopoly and concentrated private ownership with more dispersed public ownership. Despite these fundamental changes in competition and ownership, little is known theoretically and empirically about how insourcing affects employees. This study uses high‐quality, individual‐level Danish register data to examine how insourcing affects employees overall and among employees of different gender and age. The analysis shows that insourcing significantly and positively affects short‐ and intermediate‐term work income and employment. Moreover, moderation analyses suggest that insourcing is particularly beneficial for female, younger, and older employees. These findings have important implications for policy makers, as they provide insights into longstanding questions about insourcing in public administration and reveal how estimating total insourcing costs should include employee consequences, especially for female and younger/older employees.

Forvaltningsforskningen befinder sig i et krydspres mellem international publicering og relevans for dansk forvaltningspraksis. Det krydspres kommer både til udtryk ved besættelse af stillinger på universiteterne og ved uddeling af midler fra offentlige og private forskningsfonde. Samtidig forventer mange, at der vil komme større fokus på såkaldt dobbelt impact, hvor forskere og universiteter både måles på at publicere i højt anerkendte tidsskrifter og på at skabe viden, der kan anvendes i praksis. Denne artikel diskuterer muligheder, gevinster og udfordringer ved et styrket samarbejde mellem forskning og praksis i offentlig forvaltning. Artiklen fokuserer især på nogle af de gevinster, som et tættere samarbejde med praksis kan indebære, men den diskuterer også en række udfordringer og barrierer for at etablere et tættere samspil mellem forskning og praksis.

Public administration research is in a cross-pressure between relevance for the international research community and for Danish practice. This cross-pressure is particularly evident in hiring of new academic staff and the distribution of grants from public and private research funds. It is generally expected that there will be more focus on so-called double impact, where researchers and universities are measured on publication in prestigious journals as well as generation of knowledge with practical use. This article discusses opportunities, gains and challenges of strengthened collaboration between research and practice in public administration. The article particularly focuses on some of the potential gains from closer collaboration and discusses a number of challenges and barriers to establishing closer collaboration between research and practice.

AbstractThis article presents the results of a systematic review of international studies on economic and quality effects of contracting out published in the period from 2000 to 2014. We conducted a comprehensive search of the literature and identified 49 relevant studies. There are three main findings of the systematic review: (1) cost savings documented in international contracting out literature have been decreasing over time; (2) cost savings have been much greater in technical services than in social services; and (3) economic effects have been twice as large in Anglo‐Saxon countries compared with other countries. With regard to measuring the effect of contracting out on service quality, which is a vital component of any service delivery arrangement, very few studies assess this issue in a comprehensive manner. There is also a significant lack of studies that include measures of transaction costs, thereby making it difficult to evaluate the impact of contracting out on overall cost‐effectiveness of public service delivery. We conclude that generalization of effects from contracting out should be made with caution and are likely to depend, among other things, on the transaction costs characteristics of the service, the market situation and the institutional/regulatory setting.