Parkinson's law and the New Public Management? Contracting determinants and service-quality consequences in public education

Why is contracting used more frequently under some circumstances than others? What is its impact on spending for core mission and on service quality? These questions are explored with data from more than 1,000 Texas school districts. The evidence for a recent three-year period shows that contracting is negatively related to spending on school districts' central task and is not positively associated with district performance. Why, then, do districts contract? While several variables are associated with the degree of contracting, the most interesting is the relative size of a district's bureaucratic staff. Furthermore, the relationship between contracting and bureaucracy is reciprocal: Each is associated with subsequent growth in the other. The dynamic suggests an updated version of Parkinson's law. These findings indicate the need for researchers to probe the causes and consequences of contracting more thoroughly to help public managers assess this important option.

[1]  Mark Schneider,et al.  Choosing Schools: Consumer Choice and the Quality of American Schools , 2000 .

[2]  Kenneth J. Meier,et al.  BUREAUCRACY AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE: CAUSALITY ARGUMENTS ABOUT PUBLIC SCHOOLS , 2000 .

[3]  Jocelyn M. Johnston,et al.  Contracting and Accountability in State Medicaid Reform: Rhetoric, Theories, and Reality , 1999 .

[4]  E. Savas,et al.  Privatization and Public-Private Partnerships , 1999 .

[5]  George A. Boyne,et al.  The Determinants of Variations in Local Service Contracting , 1998 .

[6]  M. Brown,et al.  A "Smarter, Better, Faster, and Cheaper" Government: Contracting and Geographic Information Systems , 1998 .

[7]  H. George Frederickson,et al.  The spirit of public administration , 1996 .

[8]  Donald F. Kettl,et al.  Sharing Power: Public Governance and Private Markets , 1993 .

[9]  J. O'Toole.  Public and private management of wastewater treatment: A comparative study , 1991 .

[10]  J. Donahue.  The Privatization Decision: Public Ends, Private Means , 1991 .

[11]  Gene V. Glass,et al.  Politics, Markets, and America's Schools , 1990 .

[12]  C. Hsiao.  Analysis of Panel Data , 1989 .

[13]  L. O'toole.  GOAL MULTIPLICITY IN THE IMPLEMENTATION SETTING: SUBTLE IMPACTS AND THE CASE OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT PRIVATIZATION1 , 1989 .

[14]  E. Savas,et al.  Privatization: The Key to Better Government , 1989, American Political Science Review.

[15]  Walter N. Thurman,et al.  Chickens, Eggs, and Causality, or Which Came First? , 1988 .

[16]  C. Northcote Parkinson,et al.  Parkinson's Law and Other Studies in Administration , 1957 .

[17]  Geert Bouckaert,et al.  Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis , 2004 .

[18]  P. Light,et al.  The True Size of Government , 1999 .

[19]  Maurice W. Scherrens.  Maximizing Service Provider Relationships: Best Practices through Blended Management. , 1999 .

[20]  Louis C. Gawthrop.  Public Service and Democracy: Ethical Imperatives for the 21st Century , 1998 .

[21]  Clarence N. Stone.  Changing urban education , 1998 .

[22]  R. Dilger,et al.  Privatization of Municipal Services in America's Largest Cities , 1997 .

[23]  Stephen J. Rimmer,et al.  Competitive Tendering and Contracting in the Public Sector: A Survey , 1994 .

[24]  R. Stein.  Arranging City Services , 1993 .

[25]  R. Stein.  Urban alternatives : public and private markets in the provision of local services , 1992 .