IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eub/ecoecr/v2y2016i2p3-26.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Outsourcing vs decentralisation: A comparative analysis in Central and Eastern Europe

Author

Listed:
  • Marius Constantin PROFIROIU

    (Bucharest University of Economic Studies-Romania)

  • Septimiu Rares SZABO

    (Management Doctoral School, Administration and Public Management Faculty, Bucharest University of Economic Studies)

Abstract

Outsourcing and decentralisation are two of the major practices associated with New Public Management. While applied differently, similar objectives are pursued in both cases, including reducing the size of the public sector in order to generate public savings, creating a competitive behaviour at the local level with a customer orientation approach, increasing the efficiency of the public sector or reducing red tape. On top of all, both practices imply that a one-size does not fit all. There are continuous debates in some parts of Central and Eastern Europe on whether outsourcing and/or decentralisation could be considered viable solutions for ensuring a smooth transfer of responsibility for delivering certain public services, from the central level of administration to sub-national institutions or non-governmental entities without, however, challenging the ultimate authority of the central government. These discussions are particularly sensitive in those unitary states that are facing strong demands from the sub-national level for more devolved power, authority or responsibilities. Scholars have frequently analysed outsourcing and decentralisation either separately or together with other practices associated with New Public Management. Consequently, there is a limited amount of comparative research in relation with the two. The research focus in this paper is twofold. In the first part of the research we thoroughly analyse the concepts of outsourcing and decentralisation. Building on this, in the second part of the paper we compare the two practices against each other focusing on their economic and financial impact, their qualitative impact and their political impact. The research aims to complement previous studies which have assessed these two practices either individually or against different criteria. After an in-depth assessment of both practices, we propose to answer three questions related to the possible effects of outsourcing and decentralisation on the public budget, on the quality of the public service and on the political dimension. The results of the research suggest that outsourcing can generate a reduction of public spending and a quality increase in the public sector only when the state follows transparent and competitive public procurement procedures. Decentralisation on the other hand can generate public savings in the long term without, however, guaranteeing an increase of quality in the public sector delivery. Finally, results suggest that especially in the unitary states neither decentralisation nor outsourcing can significantly lower the demands for more autonomy transferred from the central level. Consequently, if planned thoroughly and implemented transparently, both processes could be viable solutions in Central and Eastern Europe.

Suggested Citation

  • Marius Constantin PROFIROIU & Septimiu Rares SZABO, 2016. "Outsourcing vs decentralisation: A comparative analysis in Central and Eastern Europe," Eco-Economics Review, Ecological University of Bucharest, Economics Faculty and Ecology and Environmental Protection Faculty, vol. 2(2), pages 3-26, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:eub:ecoecr:v:2:y:2016:i:2:p:3-26
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ueb.ro/RePEc/eub/ecoecr/2016v2/eer2016v2a01.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Helen Simpson, 2009. "Productivity In Public Services," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(2), pages 250-276, April.
    2. Wassenaar, M.C. & Dijkgraaf, E. & Gradus, R.H.J.M., 2007. "Contracting out: Dutch municipalities reject the solution for the VAT-distortion," Serie Research Memoranda 0003, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    3. G. Gulsun Arikan, 2004. "Fiscal Decentralization: A Remedy for Corruption?," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 11(2), pages 175-195, March.
    4. George A. Boyne, 1996. "Scale, Performance And The New Public Management: An Empirical Analysis Of Local Authority Services," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(6), pages 809-826, November.
    5. Joaquin Sevilla, 2006. "Accountability and Control of Public Spending in a Decentralised and Delegated Environment," OECD Journal on Budgeting, OECD Publishing, vol. 5(2), pages 7-21.
    6. Anwar Shah & Theresa Thompson & Heng-fu Zou, 2004. "Decentralising the public sector: The Impact of Decentralisation on Service Delivery, Corruption, Fiscal Management and Growth in Developing and Emerging Market Economies: A Synthesis of Empirical Evi," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 2(01), pages 10-14, October.
    7. Boardman, Anthony E & Vining, Aidan R, 1989. "Ownership and Performance in Competitive Environments: A Comparison of the Performance of Private, Mixed, and State-Owned Enterprises," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 32(1), pages 1-33, April.
    8. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. Williamson, Oliver E, 1979. "Transaction-Cost Economics: The Governance of Contractural Relations," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 22(2), pages 233-261, October.
    10. Enikolopov, Ruben & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2007. "Decentralization and political institutions," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(11-12), pages 2261-2290, December.
    11. Jing Jin & Chunli Shen & Qian Wang & Heng-fu Zou, 2012. "Decentralization in China," CEMA Working Papers 546, China Economics and Management Academy, Central University of Finance and Economics.
    12. A Patterson & P L Pinch, 1995. "‘Hollowing out’ the Local State: Compulsory Competitive Tendering and the Restructuring of British Public Sector Services," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 27(9), pages 1437-1461, September.
    13. Cabral, Sandro & Lazzarini, Sergio G. & Azevedo, Paulo F., 2011. "Private Entrepreneurs In Public Services: A Longitudinal Examination Of Outsourcing and Statization Of Prisons," Insper Working Papers wpe_242, Insper Working Paper, Insper Instituto de Ensino e Pesquisa.
    14. Roy Bahl & Jorge Martinez-Vazquez, 2013. "Sequencing Fiscal Decentralization," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 14(2), pages 641-687, November.
    15. Williamson, Oliver E, 1999. "Public and Private Bureaucracies: A Transaction Cost Economics Perspective," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 306-342, April.
    16. Fisman, Raymond & Gatti, Roberta, 2002. "Decentralization and corruption: evidence across countries," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(3), pages 325-345, March.
    17. Germà Bel & Mildred Warner, 2008. "Challenging Issues in Local Privatization," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 26(1), pages 104-109, February.
    18. Steven W. Hays & Richard C. Kearney, 1997. "Riding the crest of a wave: the national performance review and public management reform," International Journal of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 11-40.
    19. Treisman, Daniel, 2000. "The causes of corruption: a cross-national study," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 399-457, June.
    20. International Monetary Fund, 2001. "Fiscal Decentralization and Governance: A Cross-Country Analysis," IMF Working Papers 2001/071, International Monetary Fund.
    21. Paul H. Jensen & Robin E. Stonecash, 2005. "Incentives and the Efficiency of Public Sector‐outsourcing Contracts," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(5), pages 767-787, December.
    22. José M. Alonso & Judith Clifton & Daniel Díaz-Fuentes, 2015. "Did New Public Management Matter? An empirical analysis of the outsourcing and decentralization effects on public sector size," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(5), pages 643-660, May.
    23. Anwar Shah, 2006. "Corruption and Decentralized Public Governance," Chapters, in: Ehtisham Ahmad & Giorgio Brosio (ed.), Handbook of Fiscal Federalism, chapter 19, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    24. Silverman, J.M., 1992. "Public Sector Decentralization; Economic Policy and Sector Investment Programs," Papers 188, World Bank - Technical Papers.
    25. Jeffry M. Netter & William L. Megginson, 2001. "From State to Market: A Survey of Empirical Studies on Privatization," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 39(2), pages 321-389, June.
    26. Charles M. Tiebout, 1956. "A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 64, pages 416-416.
    27. Domberger, Simon & Jensen, Paul, 1997. "Contracting Out by the Public Sector: Theory, Evidence, Prospects," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(4), pages 67-78, Winter.
    28. Anwar Shah & Theresa Thompson & Heng-fu Zou, 2004. "Decentralising the public sector: The Impact of Decentralisation on Service Delivery, Corruption, Fiscal Management and Growth in Developing and Emerging Market Economies: A Synthesis of Empirical Evi," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 2(1), pages 10-14, October.
    29. Axel Dreher, 2006. "Power to the People? The Impact of Decentralization on Governance," KOF Working papers 06-121, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.
    30. Tugrul Gurgur & Anwar Shah, 2014. "Localization and corruption: panacea or pandora's box?," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 15(1), pages 109-136, May.
    31. Unknown, 2005. "Forward," 2005 Conference: Slovenia in the EU - Challenges for Agriculture, Food Science and Rural Affairs, November 10-11, 2005, Moravske Toplice, Slovenia 183804, Slovenian Association of Agricultural Economists (DAES).
    32. John Vickers & George Yarrow, 1991. "Economic Perspectives on Privatization," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(2), pages 111-132, Spring.
    33. Satu Kahkonen & Anthony Lanyi, 2001. "Decentralization and Governance : Does Decentralization Improve Public Service Delivery?," World Bank Publications - Reports 11382, The World Bank Group.
    34. Simon Domberger & Stephen Rimmer, 1994. "Competitive Tendering and Contracting in the Public Sector: A Survey," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(3), pages 439-453.
    35. Sergio Fernandez & Craig R. Smith & Jeffrey B. Wenger, 2007. "Employment, privatization, and managerial choice: Does contracting out reduce public sector employment?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(1), pages 57-77.
    36. Paul H. Jensen & Robin E. Stonecash, 2004. "The Efficiency of Public Sector Outsourcing Contracts: A Literature Review," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2004n29, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    37. Trevor L. Brown & Matthew Potoski, 2003. "Managing contract performance: A transaction costs approach," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(2), pages 275-297.
    38. Jens Lundsgaard, 2002. "Competition and Efficiency in Publicly Funded Services," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 331, OECD Publishing.
    39. Christian R. Ahlin, 2001. "Corruption: Political Determinants and Macroeconomic Effects," Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers 0126, Vanderbilt University Department of Economics.
    40. Falleti, Tulia G., 2005. "A Sequential Theory of Decentralization: Latin American Cases in Comparative Perspective," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 99(3), pages 327-346, August.
    41. repec:ces:ifodic:v:2:y:2004:i:1:p:14567690 is not listed on IDEAS
    42. Bortolotti, Bernardo & Fantini, Marcella & Siniscalco, Domenico, 2001. "Privatisation: politics, institutions, and financial markets," Emerging Markets Review, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 109-137, June.
    43. Rhys Andrews & Steven Van de Walle, 2013. "New Public Management and Citizens' Perceptions of Local Service Efficiency, Responsiveness, Equity and Effectiveness," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(5), pages 762-783, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anisah Alfada, 2019. "Does Fiscal Decentralization Encourage Corruption in Local Governments? Evidence from Indonesia," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-14, July.
    2. Michael A. Nelson, 2013. "Corruption and the size of local governments: are they related?," Chapters, in: Santiago Lago-Peñas & Jorge Martinez-Vazquez (ed.), The Challenge of Local Government Size, chapter 4, pages 83-120, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Anwar Shah, 2014. "Decentralized Provision of Public Infrastructure and Corruption," International Center for Public Policy Working Paper Series, at AYSPS, GSU paper1418, International Center for Public Policy, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    4. Nadia Fiorino & Emma Galli & Fabio Padovano, 2013. "Do fiscal decentralization and government fragmentation affect corruption in different ways? Evidence from a panel data analysis," Chapters, in: Santiago Lago-Peñas & Jorge Martinez-Vazquez (ed.), The Challenge of Local Government Size, chapter 5, pages 121-147, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Andreas Kyriacou & Oriol Roca sagalés, 2009. "Fiscal descentralization and the quality of government: evidence from panel data," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 189(2), pages 131-155, June.
    6. Anwar Shah & Theresa Thompson & Heng-fu Zou, 2004. "Decentralising the public sector: The Impact of Decentralisation on Service Delivery, Corruption, Fiscal Management and Growth in Developing and Emerging Market Economies: A Synthesis of Empirical Evi," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 2(01), pages 10-14, October.
    7. Keith Blackburn & Gareth Downing, 2015. "Deconcentration, Corruption and Economic Growth," Centre for Growth and Business Cycle Research Discussion Paper Series 209, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    8. Fan, C. Simon & Lin, Chen & Treisman, Daniel, 2009. "Political decentralization and corruption: Evidence from around the world," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(1-2), pages 14-34, February.
    9. Anwar Shah, 2006. "Corruption and Decentralized Public Governance," Chapters, in: Ehtisham Ahmad & Giorgio Brosio (ed.), Handbook of Fiscal Federalism, chapter 19, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Lessmann, Christian & Markwardt, Gunther, 2010. "One Size Fits All? Decentralization, Corruption, and the Monitoring of Bureaucrats," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 631-646, April.
    11. Roberto Dell’Anno & Désirée Teobaldelli, 2015. "Keeping both corruption and the shadow economy in check: the role of decentralization," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 22(1), pages 1-40, February.
    12. repec:ces:ifodic:v:2:y:2004:i:1:p:14567690 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Emilie Caldeira & Martial Foucault & Grégoire Rota-Graziosi, 2014. "Does Decentralization Facilitate Access to Poverty-Related Services? Evidence from Benin," NBER Chapters, in: African Successes, Volume I: Government and Institutions, pages 57-102, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Nadia Fiorino & Emma Galli & Fabio Padovano, 2015. "How long does it take for government decentralization to affect corruption?," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 273-305, August.
    15. Stefan Voigt & Lorenz Blume, 2012. "The economic effects of federalism and decentralization—a cross-country assessment," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 151(1), pages 229-254, April.
    16. Anwar Shah & Theresa Thompson & Heng-fu Zou, 2004. "Decentralising the public sector: The Impact of Decentralisation on Service Delivery, Corruption, Fiscal Management and Growth in Developing and Emerging Market Economies: A Synthesis of Empirical Evi," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 2(1), pages 10-14, October.
    17. Alonso, José M. & Clifton, Judith & Díaz-Fuentes, Daniel, 2017. "The impact of government outsourcing on public spending: Evidence from European Union countries," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 333-348.
    18. Wang, Zhiguo & Ma, Liang, 2012. "New Development of Fiscal Decentralization in China," MPRA Paper 36918, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Amir HEFETZ & Mildred E. WARNER, 2010. "Dynamics of service provision: service, market and place characteristics," Departmental Working Papers 2010-33, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    20. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/7o52iohb7k6srk09ni5kl0m3m is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Freille, Sebastian & Haque, Mohammad Emranul & Kneller, Richard Anthony, 2007. "Federalism, decentralisation and corruption," MPRA Paper 27535, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    22. Tristan Canare, 2021. "Decentralization and Development Outcomes: What Does the Empirical Literature Really Say?," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 237(2), pages 111-151, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    decentralisation; NPM; outsourcing; privatisation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • A10 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - General
    • H10 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eub:ecoecr:v:2:y:2016:i:2:p:3-26. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Antoniade Ciprian Alexandru (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.ueb.ro/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.