IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i13p7560-d843974.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public, Private, or Inter-Municipal Organizations: Actors’ Preferences in the Swiss Water Sector

Author

Listed:
  • Eva Lieberherr

    (Institute for Environmental Decisions, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland)

  • Karin Ingold

    (Institute of Political Science and Oeschger Center of Climate Change Research, University of Bern, 3012 Bern, Switzerland
    Department of Environmental Social Science, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland)

Abstract

To improve sustainable service provision, the public sector has been repeatedly subject to administrative reforms. Yet, the question arises of which types of organizations might be preferred. To address this, we systematically analyze which water supply organizations decision-makers and stakeholders, across different levels of government in Switzerland, prefer. We find that the actors prefer public organizations that involve coordination between municipalities and reject private organizations. Distinguishing between different actor levels reveals a distinct pattern, mainly related to the level of responsibility: the national (confederation) and regional (cantonal) actors only prefer coordination across municipalities, where local politicians lose a degree of control. In contrast, the local actors prefer those organizations where they can maintain democratic control the most. However, such organizations are not expected to perform sustainably, mainly because of lengthy decision-making processes, lack of access to external funds, and short-term financial planning. We, thus, conclude that, at the local level, there is potentially a trade-off between democratic values and performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Eva Lieberherr & Karin Ingold, 2022. "Public, Private, or Inter-Municipal Organizations: Actors’ Preferences in the Swiss Water Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-12, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:13:p:7560-:d:843974
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/13/7560/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/13/7560/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bel, Germà & Warner, Mildred, 2008. "Does privatization of solid waste and water services reduce costs? A review of empirical studies," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 52(12), pages 1337-1348.
    2. Eva Lieberherr, 2016. "Trade-offs and Synergies: Horizontalization and legitimacy in the Swiss wastewater sector," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(3), pages 456-478, March.
    3. Hugo Consciência Silvestre & Rui Cunha Marques & Ricardo Corrêa Gomes, 2018. "Joined-up Government of utilities: a meta-review on a public–public partnership and inter-municipal cooperation in the water and wastewater industries," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(4), pages 607-631, April.
    4. Cheng, Kuo-Tai, 2013. "Governance mechanisms and regulation in the utilities: An investigation in a Taiwan sample," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 17-22.
    5. Martin Schmidt, 2014. "Regional governance vis-a-vis water supply and wastewater disposal: research and applied science in two disconnected fields," Water International, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(6), pages 826-841, October.
    6. John M Bryson, 2004. "What to do when Stakeholders matter," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 21-53, March.
    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. Bert George, 2017. "Does strategic planning ‘work’ in public organizations? Insights from Flemish municipalities," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(7), pages 527-530, November.
    2. Martin Luštický & Martin Musil, 2016. "Stakeholder-Based Evaluation of Tourism Policy Priorities: The Case of the South Bohemian Region," Acta Oeconomica Pragensia, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2016(3), pages 3-23.
    3. Jolanta MAJ, 2015. "Diversity Management’S Stakeholders And Stakeholders Management," Proceedings of the INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 9(1), pages 780-793, November.
    4. Franco-Trigo, L. & Fernandez-Llimos, F. & Martínez-Martínez, F. & Benrimoj, S.I. & Sabater-Hernández, D., 2020. "Stakeholder analysis in health innovation planning processes: A systematic scoping review," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(10), pages 1083-1099.
    5. Kik, M.C. & Claassen, G.D.H. & Meuwissen, M.P.M. & Smit, A.B. & Saatkamp, H.W., 2021. "Actor analysis for sustainable soil management – A case study from the Netherlands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    6. Mark K. McBeth & Donna L. Lybecker & James W. Stoutenborough, 2016. "Do stakeholders analyze their audience? The communication switch and stakeholder personal versus public communication choices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(4), pages 421-444, December.
    7. Christophe Favoreu & David Carassus & Christophe Maurel, 2015. "Strategic management in the public sector: a rational, political or collaborative approach? [Le management stratégique en milieu public : approche rationnelle, politique ou collaborative ?]," Post-Print hal-02152509, HAL.
    8. Sandra Ricart & Antonio M. Rico-Amorós, 2022. "Can agriculture and conservation be compatible in a coastal wetland? Balancing stakeholders’ narratives and interactions in the management of El Hondo Natural Park, Spain," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 589-604, June.
    9. Ashton W. Merck & Khara D. Grieger & Alison Deviney & Anna-Maria Marshall, 2023. "Using a Phosphorus Flow Diagram as a Boundary Object to Inform Stakeholder Engagement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-10, July.
    10. Ogunlowo, Olufemi O. & Bristow, Abigail L. & Sohail, M., 2017. "A stakeholder analysis of the automotive industry's use of compressed natural gas in Nigeria," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 58-69.
    11. Austen Agata, 2012. "Stakeholders management in public hospitals in the context of resources," Management, Sciendo, vol. 16(2), pages 217-230, December.
    12. Sandra Ricart & Anna Ribas & David Pavón, 2016. "Qualifying irrigation system sustainability by means of stakeholder perceptions and concerns: lessons from the Segarra‐Garrigues Canal, Spain," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 40(1-2), pages 77-90, February.
    13. Cathy Macharis & Peter Nijkamp, 2013. "Multi-actor and multi-criteria analysis in evaluating mega-projects," Chapters, in: Hugo Priemus & Bert van Wee (ed.), International Handbook on Mega-Projects, chapter 11, pages 242-266, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Maciej Dobrzyñski & Krzysztof Dziekoñski & Arkadiusz Jurczuk, 2015. "Stakeholders Mapping - A Case Of International Logistics Project," Polish Journal of Management Studies, Czestochowa Technical University, Department of Management, vol. 11(2), pages 17-26, June.
    15. Mbéguéré, M. & Gning, J.B. & Dodane, P.H. & Koné, D., 2010. "Socio-economic profile and profitability of faecal sludge emptying companies," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 54(12), pages 1288-1295.
    16. Szymaniec-Mlicka Karolina, 2016. "Impact of strategic orientation adopted by an organisation on its performance, as shown on the example of public healthcare entities," Management, Sciendo, vol. 20(2), pages 278-290, December.
    17. Morris, Jonathan & McGuinness, Martina, 2019. "Liberalisation of the English water industry: What implications for consumer engagement, environmental protection, and water security?," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 1-1.
    18. Carolus, Johannes Friedrich & Hanley, Nick & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Pedersen, Søren Marcus, 2018. "A Bottom-up Approach to Environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 282-295.
    19. Mingers, John, 2011. "Soft OR comes of age--but not everywhere!," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 729-741, December.
    20. Marco Taliento, 2022. "The Triple Mission of the Modern University: Component Interplay and Performance Analysis from Italy," World, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-24, July.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:13:p:7560-:d:843974. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.