Allocations among programs having counteractive outcomes

Difficulties have been encountered in attempting to apply benefit-cost analysis to the problem of determining resource allocations among social programs, especially when there are multiple outcomes associated with each of the programs. Further complications result when program outcomes are characterized as counteractive: a specific allocation of resources to a program is likely to achieve a favorable impact regarding certain objectives while that allocation is also likely to have an unfavorable impact regarding other objectives. A model which promises to be useful in determining optimal resource allocations among programs having counteractive outcomes is presented. Two steps are required for the use of the model: (1) values, reflecting priorities, need to be assigned to the various objectives that programs are intended to accomplish and (2) an ensemble of probabilistic functions relating resources to program outcomes needs to be specified and combined to reflect the value of an ensemble of programs. In addition to determining optimal resource allocations, the model provides insights into the consequences of resource decisions based on noneconomic considerations. An example illustrates the major features of the model.     

Besprechungen

Ohne Zusammenfassung     

The New Public Management, Homeland Security, and the Politics of Civil Service Reform

This article examines the George W. Bush administration's efforts to apply New Public Management reforms to the Department of Homeland Security. The primary focus is the administration's attempt to implement the law. The managerial strategy that Department of Homeland Security and Office of Personnel Management executives used to carry out the law in the massive new department receives attention, with a special focus on the approach used in dealing with the federal courts. The article suggests five general lessons concerning civil service deregulation at the federal level. The case reaffirms the notion that successful administrative reform requires a keen appreciation for the politics that shape it.     

When markets fail to deliver: An examination of the privatization and de‐privatization of water and wastewater services delivery in Hamilton,Canada

Abstract: The emergence of the “New Public Management” (NPM) and its faith in markets led governments to search for alternative methods in the delivery of public services. One of the most popular methods was privatization. The rationale behind the choice of privatization is based on what Charles Wolf describes as “non‐market failure.” This article argues that the market may not be as efficient as its proponents have asserted, especially when there is a monopoly over service delivery. This has been the case in many municipalities, in some developed countries, where privatization of water service delivery has reverted to public delivery. Using the City of Hamilton's experience with its water and wastewater services as an example, the authors' finding is that the nature of the good to be delivered is essential in determining whether the “market” or the “public” provides the best method of service delivery. Sommaire : L'émergence de la Nouvelle gestion publique (NGP) et sa foi dans les marchés ont conduit les gouvernements à rechercher des méthodes de rechange pour la prestation des services publics. L'une des méthodes les plus populaires est la privatisation. La justification du choix de la privatisation est fondée sur ce que Charles Wolf décrit comme un ≪“échec du non marché”≫. L'article fait valoir que le marché pourrait ne pas être aussi efficace que ses adeptes l'ont prétendu, en particulier lorsqu'il existe un monopole dans la prestation des services. Cela fut le cas dans de nombreuses municipalités de certains pays développés, où la privatisation de la prestation de leurs services en eau est repassée à la prestation publique. En prenant comme exemple l'expérience de la ville d'Hamilton concernant ses services d'approvisionnement en eau et d'évacuation des eaux usées, l'article conclut que la nature du produit à livrer est déterminante pour savoir si c'est le “marché” ou le “public” qui fournit la meilleure méthode de prestation de services.