IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v43y1984i1p25-43.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public versus private economic activity: A new look at school bus transportation

Author

Listed:
  • Robert McGuire
  • T. COTT

Abstract

Thomas Borcherding (1977), in commenting on the public-versus-private literature, offered the generalization that removal of an activity from the private to the public sector will double its unit costs of production. The results of this paper obviously are not consistent with Borcherding's ‘rule of two’ generalization. At the same time, however, the 12% cost-per-mile differential in favor of private ownership indicated by the results for the overall sample is not a trivial sum in absolute terms. The cost-per-mile differences in favor of private buses contained in the five trip groups are not trivial either, nor is the direct evidence from the 82 joint systems. In attempting to assess the results, much depends on the perspective against which they are judged. Several factors suggest themselves concerning the ‘smallness’ of the differential. First, school bus transportation is a part of the education budget. Despite the lack of incentives implicit in public ownership, competition within the educational bureaucracy for a limited budget can result in ‘abnormally’ low cost public ownership. Second, and related to the first, is the fact that public and private ownership are in close proximity to each other — sometimes within the same school district. This proximity may lead to additional competitive pressures on public ownership. That school district residents can relocate based on school transportation considerations adds to this competitive pressure. To the extent that these first and second factors account for the smallness of the differential, our statistical results are consistent with the hypothesis that it is not public ownership per se that produces more costly public operations but, rather, the lack of effective competition. Third, although the contracting system is administered through open, competitive bidding, the district administrator responsible for the process has no direct claim on a dollar saving realized by the process. One would think that actual bid prices might be lower if the administrator's incentive to secure a lower bid price were greater. Finally, note that school bus transportation is technologically simple. Thus, private owners have less room to be innovative and entrepreneurial, meaning a reduced differential between public and private ownership. On the other side of the ledger, it remains that private ownership appears less costly. To explain the estimated cost differences in this study in an economic sense is to explain where the lack of incentive effects in public ownership find their outlets in terms of higher costs. Two primary factors appear to be responsible for the ‘largeness’ of the cost differential. First, as stated earlier, district-owned buses in Indiana are newer than contractor-owned buses. Capital costs related to public ownership — forgone interest income and economic depreciation — are, therefore, greater than these costs for private ownership. To the extent that this newer age structure is not indicative of higher quality output, it follows that school district officials, who do not have a direct claim on the benefits of economizing on capital, are providing higher capital cost transportation. Second, trip lengths for district-owned buses are shorter than the trip lengths of contractors. With declining cost per mile as trip length increases, shorter trip lengths imply higher cost per mile. Again, district officials and public bus drivers have less incentive to efficiently design bus routes served by district-owned buses; whereas one would expect the input of private contractors to impact favorably on the design of private routes. Even though the results of this study do not support the Borcherding generalization, they are still strong enough to have important public policy implications. The fact that almost 70% of school buses in the United States are district owned and to the extent that Indiana cost experience approximates that of the other states, substantial dollar savings could result from privatizing the provision of school bus transportation. Copyright Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1984

Suggested Citation

  • Robert McGuire & T. COTT, 1984. "Public versus private economic activity: A new look at school bus transportation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 25-43, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:43:y:1984:i:1:p:25-43
    DOI: 10.1007/BF00137903
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF00137903
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF00137903?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Caves, Douglas W & Christensen, Laurits R, 1980. "The Relative Efficiency of Public and Private Firms in a Competitive Environment: The Case of Canadian Railroads," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 88(5), pages 958-976, October.
    2. James Bennett & Manuel Johnson, 1979. "Public versus private provision of collective goods and services: garbage collection revisited," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 55-63, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Robert McGuire & Robert Ohsfeldt & T. Cott, 1987. "The determinants of the choice between public and private production of a publicly funded service," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 54(3), pages 211-230, August.
    2. Owen Thompson, 2011. "The estimated cost impact of privatizing student transportation in Minnesota school districts," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 146(3), pages 319-339, March.
    3. McCullough, Gerard J. & Lazarus, Sheryl S., 2004. "Pupil Transportation: The Impact Of Market Structure On Efficiency In Rural, Suburban, And Urban School Districts In Minnesota," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20204, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    4. Wei, Zuobao & Varela, Oscar, 2003. "State equity ownership and firm market performance: evidence from China's newly privatized firms," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 65-82, May.
    5. Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki, 1998. "Privatization of nippon telegraph and telephone: Was it a good policy decision?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(1), pages 45-61, May.
    6. E. Bruce Hutchinson & Leila J. Pratt, 2007. "Is Contracting Out Government Services the Great Panacea? Evidence from Public School Transportation in Louisiana," Journal of Private Enterprise, The Association of Private Enterprise Education, vol. 23(Fall 2007), pages 67-83.
    7. Andersson, Fredrik & Jordahl, Henrik, 2011. "Outsourcing Public Services: Ownership, Competition, Quality and Contracting," Working Paper Series 874, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    8. Villalonga, Belen, 2000. "Privatization and efficiency: differentiating ownership effects from political, organizational, and dynamic effects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 43-74, May.
    9. Robert A. Mcguire & Robert Ohsfeldt, 1986. "Public versus Private Water Delivery: A Critical Analysis of a Hedonic Cost Approach," Public Finance Review, , vol. 14(3), pages 339-350, July.
    10. Willner, Johan, 2001. "Ownership, efficiency, and political interference," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 723-748, November.

    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. Bozec, Richard, 2004. "L’analyse comparative de la performance entre les entreprises publiques et les entreprises privées : le problème de mesure et son impact sur les résultats," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 80(4), pages 619-654, Décembre.
    2. Ghosh, Madanmohan & Whalley, John, 2008. "State owned enterprises, shirking and trade liberalization," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 1206-1215, November.
    3. AfDB AfDB, 1997. "Working Paper 35 - Privatization of Public Enterprises in Zambia: An Evaluation of the Policies, Procedures and Experiences," Working Paper Series 2173, African Development Bank.
    4. Villalonga, Belen, 2000. "Privatization and efficiency: differentiating ownership effects from political, organizational, and dynamic effects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 43-74, May.
    5. Robert A. Mcguire & Robert Ohsfeldt, 1986. "Public versus Private Water Delivery: A Critical Analysis of a Hedonic Cost Approach," Public Finance Review, , vol. 14(3), pages 339-350, July.
    6. Ariyo, Ademola & Jerome, Afeikhena, 1999. "Privatization in Africa: An appraisal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 201-213, January.
    7. STEVEN C. DELLER & David G. Hinds & Donald L. Hinman, 2001. "Local Public Services in Wisconsin: Alternatives for Municipalities with a Focus on Privatization," Wisconsin-Madison Agricultural and Applied Economics Staff Papers 441, Wisconsin-Madison Agricultural and Applied Economics Department.
    8. David H. Good, 1992. "Productive Efficiency and Contract Management: Some Evidence From Public Transit Agencies," Public Finance Review, , vol. 20(2), pages 195-215, April.
    9. Yarmukhamedov, Sherzod & Smith, Andrew S.J. & Thiebaud, Jean-Christophe, 2020. "Competitive tendering, ownership and cost efficiency in road maintenance services in Sweden: A panel data analysis," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 194-204.
    10. Schmidt, Klaus-Dieter, 1998. "Privatization and local government reform in Germany: A slow train," Kiel Working Papers 891, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    11. Jason Coupet & Abagail McWilliams, 2017. "Integrating Organizational Economics and Resource Dependence Theory to Explain the Persistence of Quasi Markets," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-13, August.
    12. John Vickers & George Yarrow, 1991. "Economic Perspectives on Privatization," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(2), pages 111-132, Spring.
    13. James Peoples & Bin Wang, 2007. "Privatization and Labor Cost Savings: Evidence from Health Care Services," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 35(2), pages 145-157, June.
    14. Sanghamitra Das & Kala Krishna & Sergey Lychagin & Rohini Somanathan, 2013. "Back on the Rails: Competition and Productivity in State-Owned Industry," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 136-162, January.
    15. Álvarez, María José & González de la Fe, Pedro, 1998. "Las cuentas de las privatizaciones: el caso de Seat," DEE - Documentos de Trabajo. Economía de la Empresa. DB 6398, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía de la Empresa.
    16. Luisa Affuso & Alvaro Angeriz & Michael Pollitt, 2009. "The Impact of Privatisation on the Efficiency of Train Operation in Britain," Working Papers 28, Queen Mary, University of London, School of Business and Management, Centre for Globalisation Research.
    17. J. David Brown & John S. Earle & Solomiya Shpak & Volodymyr Vakhitov, 2019. "Is Privatization Working in Ukraine?," Comparative Economic Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Association for Comparative Economic Studies, vol. 61(1), pages 1-35, March.
    18. Bogart, Dan & Chaudhary, Latika, 2015. "Off the rails: Is state ownership bad for productivity?," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 997-1013.
    19. Ian Keay & Kris Inwood, 2006. "Assessing Economic Performance Among North American Manufacturing Establishments, 1870/71: Data, Methodology And Measurement Issues," Working Paper 1030, Economics Department, Queen's University.
    20. Andrea Boitani & Marcella Nicolini & Carlo Scarpa, 2013. "Do competition and ownership matter? Evidence from local public transport in Europe," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(11), pages 1419-1434, April.

    More about this item

    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:kap:pubcho:v:43:y:1984:i:1:p:25-43. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.