Suchergebnisse

Abstract  As globalization weakens the role of the nation state, increased theoretical and practical attention is being focused on community level action, especially on the role of social capital. Proponents of social capital have placed primary emphasis on voluntary associations. This paper looks at the role the state can play in building social capital. The historical nature of social capital in the community, the organizational structure of governmental intermediaries, and the design of specific program interventions condition social capital building. Hierarchical governmental intermediaries are contrasted with participatory community based initiatives. Three key factors: autonomy, linkage and returns on investment for both intermediaries and participating residents, are shown to affect social capital construction.

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.