Search results

Privatization continues to receive serious consideration at the federal, state, and local government levels. The most frequent reason cited for privatizing services is to reduce the size and cost of government. While many government entities have privatized services, it is often up to academic researchers to determine if the goals of privatization have been realized and to shed light on the organizational and service characteristics that make it more likely that the results of privatizing a particular service will be positive. This paper seeks to provide a background to those researchers interested in examining the privatization of government services. The paper reviews and synthesizes prior privatization research and discusses future research directions.

This research uses data from 2,470 not-for-profit-organizations (NFPOs) to examine the impact of organization size, risk, and complexity on monitoring costs in the NFP sector. OLS regression analysis indicate that monitoring costs are higher for (a) larger NFPOs, (b) NFPOs subject to the Single Audit Act, 8 NFPOs having larger amounts of assets tied up in receivables and inventories, (d) NFPOs spending a larger percentage of their expenses on program support services, and (e) NFPOs providing higher compensation to their officers and directors. In addition, some NFPOs such as schools and hospitals are associated with higher monitoring costs.

This paper investigates residential sanitation collection (RSC) pricing under two different service delivery arrangements: (1) the municipal RSC arrangement where municipal employees collect residential refuse, and (2) the contract RSC arrangement where private sector firms, under contract with a municipality, collect residential refuse. The results of the study indicate that municipal RSC prices are significantly higher than contract RSC prices. Furthermore, municipal RSC prices exhibit greater variability than contract RSC prices. These findings suggest that contract pricing is consistent with pricing in a competitive market.

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) creates rights for covered employees, defines conduct that violates those rights, and deems that conduct an unfair labor practice. But while given broad remedial powers under the Act, the Board's options were curtailed by the Supreme Court's limit on the use of deterrence as an express remedial justification. The Board was left with a strongly make-whole, i.e., ex-post, focus to undo the consequences of a violation.

Put differently, the current NLRA remedies reflect a pay-or-play philosophy. The goal is restoration after the fact, using ex-post remedies to give parties the benefit or status quo that they expected. An actor willing to pay may use a cost–benefit analysis and strategically choose to violate the Act, accepting the make-whole remedies later. But the Act created ex-ante statutory rights, not agreed-upon contractual terms. By statutory enactment, employees are given something of value deemed worthy of protection. Assigning value to compliance with the law in the first instance not only prevents sometimes irreparable harm but also reaffirms the inherent value of the right itself.

The impact of the Board's limited remedies is therefore a broad value-driven one. Without ex-ante deterrence, the available ex-post make-whole remedial options make a normative statement about individuals' rights under the Act: those rights may not be inherently worth enough to incentivize legal compliance. The make-whole focus can imply that financial compensation for the portion of harm that can be calculated and “undoing” some nonfinancial effects is sufficient. There is little drive to deter infringement before the fact. By examining the remedial philosophy behind contrasting approaches in the common law of torts and contract, this Article asserts that the current remedial strictures and framework undermine both the Act and the worth of its rights in the eyes of the public and the employees who hold them.

Communications regarding this column should be addressed to Mrs. Cheney, Peabody Library School, Nashville, Tenn. 37203. Mrs. Cheney does not sell the books listed here. They are available through normal trade sources. Mrs. Cheney, being a member of the editorial board of Pierian Press, will not review Pierian Press reference books in this column. Descriptions of Pierian Press reference books will be included elsewhere in this publication.

This issue is a selected bibliography covering the subject of leadership.

It has often been said that a great part of the strength of Aslib lies in the fact that it brings together those whose experience has been gained in many widely differing fields but who have a common interest in the means by which information may be collected and disseminated to the greatest advantage. Lists of its members have, therefore, a more than ordinary value since they present, in miniature, a cross‐section of institutions and individuals who share this special interest.

Throughout human history and around the world, co-sleeping was the context for human evolutionary development. Currently, most of the world’s peoples continue to practice co-sleeping with infants, but there is increasing pressure on families in the West not to co-sleep. Research from anthropology, family studies, medicine, pediatrics, psychology, and public health is reviewed through the lens of a developmental theory to place co-sleeping within a developmental, theoretical context for understanding it. Viewing co-sleeping as a family choice and a normative, human developmental context changes how experts may provide advice and support to families choosing co-sleeping, especially in families making the transition to parenthood. During this transition, many decisions are made by parents “intuitively” (Ball, Hooker, & Kelly, 1999), making understanding the developmental consequences of some of those choices even more important. In Western culture, families are making “intuitive” decisions that research has shown to be beneficial, but families are not receiving complete messages about benefits and risks of co-sleeping. Co-sleeping can be an important choice for families as they make the life-changing transition to parenthood, if individualized messages about safe infant sleep practices (directed toward their individual family circumstances) are shared with them.