Alternative Service Delivery Arrangements in Local Municipalities in Israel: A Case Study

DOI: 10.4236/cus.2013.13006   PDF   HTML     2,635 Downloads   4,997 Views  


The adoption of alternative service delivery arrangements (ASDAs) is not a new phenomenon in Israeli local government. The current study is based on empirical quantitative research which examined the effect of economic and political factors on the scope of privatization and alternative service delivery arrangements (ASDAs) in local municipalities in Israel. The “economic constraint” model and the “political choice” model served as the theoretical framework for examining considerations underlying service privatization. The contribution of the current study to previous literature on ASDAs is in examining the effect of moderator variables on the scope of privatization (SOP). A study of 29 services in 106 local mu- nicipalities in Israel indicated that political factors have a dominant effect on the scope of privatization in local municipalities while the effect of economic factors is small and statistically insignificant. The following variables were found to have a statistically significant effect on the scope of privatization: number of employees, age of local municipality, employee costs and characteristics of the head of the local municipality.

Share and Cite:

Sarig, E. (2013) Alternative Service Delivery Arrangements in Local Municipalities in Israel: A Case Study. Current Urban Studies, 1, 48-58. doi: 10.4236/cus.2013.13006.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Asher, H. B. (1983). Voting behavior research in the 1980s: An examination of some old and new problem areas. In A. W. Finifter (Ed.), Political science: The state of the discipline (pp. 339-388). Washington DC: American Political Science Association.
[2] Banfield, E. C. (1980). America’s cities enter a crucial decade. Chicago Tribune.
[3] Battaglio, R., & Legge, J. (2008). Citizen support for hospital privatization: A hierarchical cross-national analysis. Public Organization Review, 8, 17-36. doi:10.1007/s11115-007-0045-0
[4] Bel, G., & Fageda, X. (2007). Why do local governments privatise public services? A survey of empirical studies. Local Government Studies, 33, 517-534. doi:10.1080/03003930701417528
[5] Bel, G., & Fageda, X. (2008). Reforming the local public sector: Economics and politics in privatization of water and solid waste. Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 11, 45-65. doi:10.1080/17487870802134884
[6] Bel, G., & Fageda, X. (2009). Factors explaining local privatization: A meta-regression analysis. Public Choice, 139, 105-119. doi:10.1007/s11127-008-9381-z
[7] Ben-Elia, N. (1990). Privatization of municipal services: Evaluation, planning, policy analysis. Hebrew: Center for Municipal Policy.
[8] Ben-Elia, N. (1996). Organizational reorientation and learning in Israeli local government: The role of market type mechanisms. In N. BenElia (Ed.), Strategic changes and organizational reorientations in local government: A cross national perspective. London: Macmillan.
[9] Ben-Elia, N. (1999). Government finance and the fiscal crisis in Israeli local authorities. Jerusalem: The Floersheimer Institute for Policy Studies (Hebrew).
[10] Ben-Elia, N. (2004). The fourth generation: New local government in Israel. Jerusalem: The Floersheimer Institute for Policy Studies (Hebrew).
[11] Blank, Y. (2004). The place of locality: Local government law, decentralization and unique space in Israel. Laws, 197-299 (Hebrew).
[12] Bish, R. L. (1971). The public economy of metropolitan areas. Chicago, IL: Markham Rand McNally.
[13] Blackstone, E. A., & Hakim, S. (1997). Private ayes: A tale of four cities. American City & County, 112, 4-12.
[14] Boeker, W. (1997). Executive migration and strategic change: The effect of top manager movement on product-market entry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 236-213. doi:10.2307/2393919
[15] Boyne, G. A. (1998). Bureaucratic theory meets reality: Public choice and service contraction in US local government. Public Administration Review, 58, 474-484. doi:10.2307/977575
[16] Coyle, C. (1994). Introduction. In C. Coyle (Ed.), Research in urban policy: Vol. 5: Local administration in the policy process: An international perspective (pp. 7-23). Greenwich, CT and London: JAI Press.
[17] David, I. (1987). Privatization in America. Washington DC: Touche Ross.
[18] Del Bello, A. (1987). Privatization as partnership: Refine, explore, extend. Financier, 11, 14-19.
[19] Deri, D. (1999). Local government: De facto decentralization. In D. Nachmias, & G. Menachem (Eds.), Public policy in Israel. Jerusalem: The Israel Democracy Institute (Hebrew).
[20] Dye, T. R., & Garcia, J. A. (1978). Structure, function, and policy in American cities. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 14, 103-123. doi:10.1177/107808747801400105
[21] Elkin, S. L. (1987). City and regime in the American republic. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
[22] Feiock, R. C. (2001). Service contracting and alternative service delivery: Theory and practice. In K. Liou (Ed.), Hand book of public management practice and reform (pp. 561-572). New York: Marcel Deker.
[23] Femandez, J., Ryu, J. E., & Brudney, J. L. (2008). Exploring variations in contracting for services among american local governments: Do politics still matter? American Review of Public Administration, 38, 439. doi:10.1177/0275074007311386
[24] Ferris, J. M. (1986). The decision to contract out: An empirical analysis. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 22, 289-311. doi:10.1177/004208168602200206
[25] Ferris, J. M., & Graddy, E. (1986). Contracting out: For what? With whom? Public Administration Review, 46, 332-344. doi:10.2307/976307
[26] Foster, G. (1990). HMG’s tender trap. Management Today, 42-43.
[27] Greene, J. D. (1999). Privatization popular among local government. Montana Business Quarterly, 37, 17-20.
[28] Haque, S. M. (1996). Private service under challenge in the age of privatization. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 9, 186-216. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0491.1996.tb00238.x
[29] Hasson, S., & Hazan, A. (1997). Municipal-private partnership: Opportunities and risks. Jerusalem: The Floersheimer Institute for Policy Studies (Hebrew).
[30] Hecht, A. (2003). Local leadership leading to change: Another way is possible. Success in local authorities. Jerusalem: The Center for Social Policy Studies in Israel.
[31] Hefetz, A., & Warner, M. (2007). Beyond the market versus planning dichotomy: Understanding privatization and its reverse in US cities. Local Government Studies, 33, 555-572. doi:10.1080/03003930701417585
[32] Hefetz, A., & Warner, M. (2004). Privatization & its reverse: Explaining the dynamics of the government contraction process. Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, 171-190. doi:10.1093/jopart/muh012
[33] Heinelt, H., Razin, E., & Zimmermann, K. (2010) Metropolitan governance—A new topic and an old debate.
[34] Henig, J. R., & Holyoke, T. T. (2003). Privatization, politics, and urban services: The political behavior of charter schools. Journal of Urban Affairs, 25, 37-54. doi:10.1111/1467-9906.00004
[35] Higgins, R. (1989). Alternative service delivery in local government. In T. N. Clark, W. Lyons, & M. R. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Research in urban policy: A research annual (pp. 93-108). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
[36] Higgins, P., & Ian, R. (2002). No room for manoeuvre: Does ‘best value’ provide a better deal for workers in UK local government? Society in Transition, 33, 266-277. doi:10.1080/21528586.2002.10419065
[37] Horkin, A., Katz, Y., & Mevorach, B. (1998). Local hero: The election to local municipalities in Israel in the era of direct elections. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University (Hebrew).
[38] Judd, D. R. (1988). The politics of American cities: Private power and public policy (3rd ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
[39] Katz, Y., & Mevorach, B. (1990). Local autonomy in the age of local government privatization. Paper presented at the Ninth National Conference on Local Government and Administration, Jerusalem.
[40] Kelleher, C. A., & Yackee, S. W. (2009). A political consequence of contraction: Organized interests and state agency decision making. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 579-602.
[41] Kinder, D. R. (1981). Presidents, prosperity and public opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 45, 1-21. doi:10.1086/268631
[42] Kirlin, J., Ries, J., & Sonenblum, S. (1977). Alternatives for delivering public services. Boulder, Col.: Westview Press.
[43] Knox, P. L. (1988). Public-private cooperation: A review of experience in the US. Cities, 5, 340-346. doi:10.1016/0264-2751(88)90024-8
[44] Korosec, R. (1997). Toward a new understanding of alternative service delivery: Why do local governments decide to contract out? Southeastern Political Review, 25, 325-338. doi:10.1111/j.1747-1346.1997.tb00842.x
[45] Kramer, G. H. (1983). The ecological fallacy revisited: Aggregate versus individual-level findings on economics and elections, and sociotropic voting. American Political Science Review, 77, 92-111. doi:10.2307/1956013
[46] Kuhlmann, S. (2008). Reforming local public services: Trends and effects in Germany and France. Public Management Review, 10, 573-596. doi:10.1080/14719030802264234
[47] Lamothe, S., Meeyoung, L., & Feiock, R. (2008). Examining local government service delivery arrangements over time. Urban Affairs Review, 44, 27-56. doi:10.1177/1078087408315801
[48] McIntosh, I., & Broderick, J. (1996). Neither one thing nor the other’: Compulsory competitive tendering and southburgh cleansing services. Work, Employment & Society, 10, 413-430.
[49] Megginson, W. L., & Better, J. M. (2001). From state to market: A survey of empirical studies on privatization. Journal of Economic Literature, 39, 321-389.
[50] Melcher, R. (1994). Ironing the wrinkles out of privatization. Businessweek, 122.
[51] Miller, M. (1987). Doing more with less: Is privatization the answer? Ohio CPA Journal, 46, 57-58.
[52] Miranda, R. A. (1994). Explaining the privatization decision among local governments in the United States. In C. Coyle (Ed.), Research in urban policy: Vol. 5: Local administration in the policy process: An international perspective (pp. 231-274). Greenwich, CT and London: JAI Press.
[53] Miranda, R. A., & Lerner, A. (1995). Bureaucracy, organizational redundancy, and the privatization of public services. Public Administration Review, 55, 193-200. doi:10.2307/977185
[54] Mizrahi, S., & Medani, A. (2003). Public policy and human rights. Politika—The Israeli Journal of Political Science and International Relations, 10, 14-20.
[55] Morgan, D. R., Hirlinger, M. W., & England, R. E. (1988). The decision to contract out city services: A further explanation. Western Political Quarterly, 41, 363-372. doi:10.2307/448543
[56] Morgan, D. R., Meyer, M. W., & England, R. E. (1981). Alternatives to municipal service delivery: A four-state comparison. Southern Review of Public Administration, 5, 184-199.
[57] Nachmias, D., Danon-Kremzin, M., & Yironi, A. (1997). Structural reform in Israel’s public sector. Jerusalem: The Israel Democracy Institute (Hebrew).
[58] Ohemeng, F. K., & Grant, J. K. (2008). When markets fail to deliver: An examination of the privatization and de-privatization of water and wastewater services delivery in Hamilton, Canada. Canadian Public Administration, 51, 475-499. doi:10.1111/j.1754-7121.2008.00034.x
[59] Osborn, R. N., Jauch, L. R., Martin, T. N., & Glueck, W. F. (1981). The event of ceo succession, performance, and end environmental conditions. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 183-191. doi:10.2307/255833
[60] Osborn, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992) Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. New York: Penguin Books.
[61] Peterson, P. E. (1981). City limits. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226922645.001.0001
[62] Poole, R. W. (1987). Privatizing city services: The efficiencies of the private sector. Vital Speeches of the Day, 53, 588-590.
[63] Pouder, R. W. (1996). Privatizing services in local government: An empirical assessment of efficiency and institutional explanations. Public Administration Quarterly, 20, 103-126.
[64] Razin, E. (2003). Local government reform in Israel: Between centralization and decentralization, between traditionalism and modernity. Jerusalem: The Floersheimer Institute for Policy Studies (Hebrew).
[65] Reca, J. V., & Zieg, K. C. (1995). Privatization: An analysis of contracting out of government-provided services. National Contract Management Journal, 26, 51-64.
[66] Rozevich, S. (1984). A municipal business cycle in Israel. Quarter to an Economic, 31, 123. (Hebrew)
[67] Rozevich, S. (1987). The aspect of the annual deficit of the local municipality. Quarter to an Economic, 33, 133. (Hebrew).
[68] Samuel, Y. (1990). Organizations: Characteristics, structures and processes. Haifa: Zmora-Bitan and Haifa University Press (Hebrew).
[69] Savas, E. S. (1987). Privatization: The key to better government. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
[70] Shaw, E. (2003). Privatization by stealth? The Blair government and public-private partnerships in the National Health Service. Contemporary Politics, 9, 277-292. doi:10.1080/1356977032000146051
[71] Soleil, C., Racine, C., & P. Jalette. (2007). What have unions to do with reverse privatization? Journal of Collective Negotiations, 31, 303. doi:10.2190/CN.31.4.b
[72] Sonenblum, S., Kirlin, J. J., & Ries, J. C. (1977). How cities provide services: The effects of alternative structures. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Press.
[73] Stein, R. M. (1990). Urban alternatives: Public and private markets in the provision of local services. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
[74] Stevens, B. J. (1978). Scale, market structure and the cost of refuse collection. Review of Economics and Statistics, 60, 438-448. doi:10.2307/1924169
[75] Stone, C. (1989). Regime politics: Governing Atlanta 1946-1988. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.
[76] Thompson, S. (1992). Privatization-possibly positive politics. American City & County, 107, 45-47.
[77] Tiebout, C. M. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64, 416-424. doi:10.1086/257839
[78] Titheridge, A. (1998). Innovation must be encouraged. Beacon Focus (LGC), 27, 29.
[79] Torgovnik, E. (1994). The politics of urban planning policy in Israel. Jerusalem: Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (Hebrew).
[80] Warner, M. (2009). Civic government of market-based governance? The limits of privatization for rural local governments. Agriculture and Human Values, 26, 133-143. doi:10.1007/s10460-008-9181-6
[81] Warner, M., & Hebdon, R. (2001). Local government restructuring: Privatization and its alternatives. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20, 315-336. doi:10.1002/pam.2027
[82] Warner, M. E., & Hefetz, A. (2008). Managing markets for public service: The role of mixed public-private delivery of city services. Public administration review, 68, 155-166. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00845.x
[83] Wilkins, J. K. (2003). Conceptual and practical considerations in alternative service delivery. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 69, 173-189.
[84] Wong, K. K. (1988). Economic constraint and political choice in urban policymaking. American Journal of Political Science, 32, 1-18. doi:10.2307/2111307

comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2020 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.