Long Live Marketization for Local Public Spaces: A Study of Scandinavian Managers’ Satisfaction with Private Provider Performance

《Long Live Marketization for Local Public Spaces: A Study of Scandinavian Managers’ Satisfaction with Private Provider Performance》

打印

作者: Andrej Christian Lindholst

来源: URBAN AFFAIRS REVIEW,Vol.59,Issue1,P.

语言: 英文

关键字

作者单位

摘要: IntroductionMost local governments hold responsibilities for the provision of urban public space such as parks, greenspaces, squares and roads/streets to serve a diverse range of local needs and uses distributed across a number of stakeholders and interests (Carmona 2010). Undertaking of maintenance operations is critical for upholding attractive and functional public spaces within the urban fabric–or at least for upholding standards and meeting expectations outlined or agreed upon by the involved stakeholders (Dempsey and Burton 2012; Lindholst et al. 2015). Under the influx of wider reform pushes, neoliberal politics and national policies many local governments have since the 1980s challenged and increasingly shifted away from traditional state-centered models for organizing maintenance responsibilities through the introduction of market-centered management models (Carmona, De Magalhães and Hammond 2008; De Magalhães and Carmona 2006; Lindholst 2020; Randrup, Lindholst and Dempsey 2020). A key assumption for the shift has been the general idea inherent in the new public management (NPM) reform agenda that governments can improve performance of service delivery by capitalizing on competitive markets (e.g., Dehoog 1990; Hood 1991; Walsh 1995)–an idea that Kettl (1993) labelled the “competition prescription.”However, discussions in the literature and evidence have increasingly contested the use of traditional market-centered models and the underlying rationale of the competition prescription. On the one hand, multiple studies find that the introduction of market-centered models for organizing maintenance of public space in several national contexts has resulted in substantial cost savings (Lindholst 2017). On the other hand, the literature delivers a substantial critique by highlighting that market-centered models have led to substantial losses of social and recreational qualities (e.g., Dempsey and Burton 2012; Jones 2000) and are likely to produce ‘vicious cycles’ with multiple negative outcomes (Randrup, Lindholst and Dempsey 2020). Furthermore, some research indicates that salient outcomes across local governments present a diverse and multi-dimensional mix of negative and positive outcomes, the balance of which is only poorly understood (Lindholst et al. 2017). Critiques of traditional market-centered models have also called attention to and raised hopes for newer ideas of partnerships and collaboration as alternative approaches for organizing market-centered models within public space management (e.g., Lindholst 2009; Randrup, Lindholst and Dempsey 2020) and beyond (e.g., Donahue and Zeckhauser 2012; Vincent-Jones 2007). More broadly, critiques of market-centered models and developments within some local services have raised discussions about whether a new shift toward re-municipalization is emerging and replacing the movement toward market-centered models seen in the 1980s and 1990s (Clifton et al. 2019; Wollmann and Marcou 2010; Wollmann, Koprić and Marcou 2016). Finally, these discussions are connected to critiques and dismissal of the NPM and a shift in reform orientation toward other and newer models (e.g., Christensen and Lægreid 2017; Dunleavy et al. 2006). Some research, however, finds that local governments’ choice of service provider are balanced over time and based on a pragmatism mainly driven by (dis)satisfaction with cost and quality levels of incumbent service providers (Kim and Warner 2016; Warner and Aldag 2019). In light of such discussions and developments, research has been called for that tries to understand better the contexts and contingencies under which different market-centered models lead to more favorable outcomes (Lindholst 2017). Such calls bring attention to a multitude of arguments beyond economic reasoning that contribute to our understanding of variations in outcomes. Notably, the literature has harnessed multiple arguments rooted in a mix of economic, contractual, sociological and administrative-organizational reasoning to highlight contingencies with a likely bearing on variations in the performance of market-centered models (Brown, Potoski and Van Slyke 2006; Donahue 1989; Fernandez 2009; Kettl 1993; Kuhlmann and Wollmann 2019; Lamothe and Lamothe 2010; Lamothe, Lamothe and Feiock 2008; Lindholst, Petersen and Houlberg 2020; Warner 2006).This article contributes to discussions in the literature on the contested status of market-centered models for public space management by developing a contextualized contingency perspective and providing an empirical test of implications in a study of Scandinavian local managers’ satisfaction with the performance of private providers engaged for maintaining local parks/green spaces and streets/roads. The study relies upon comparable survey-data collected in 2014–16 from managers with responsibilities for local parks/green spaces and streets/roads in Scandinavian local governments. The design enables a study that across three country contexts tests (1) whether local managers are more satisfied than dissatisfied with private provider performance, and (2) the national, managerial and urban contingencies upon which local managers’ satisfaction are likely to depend. Altogether eight hypotheses guide the study.The first part of the article outlines the background and theoretical arguments on the performance of market-centered models for organizing maintenance services, and provides a set of arguments on why local managers’ satisfaction with private provider performance varies. The second part describes the study's methods and data. The third part presents results, discusses implications and draws up conclusions.