The emergence of the “New Public Management” (NPM) and its faith in markets led governments to search for alternative methods in the delivery of public services. One of the most popular methods was privatization. The rationale behind the choice of privatization is based on what Charles Wolf describes as “non‐market failure.” This article argues that the market may not be as efficient as its proponents have asserted, especially when there is a monopoly over service delivery. This has been the case in many municipalities, in some developed countries, where privatization of water service delivery has reverted to public delivery. Using the City of Hamilton's experience with its water and wastewater services as an example, the authors' finding is that the nature of the good to be delivered is essential in determining whether the “market” or the “public” provides the best method of service delivery. Sommaire : L'émergence de la Nouvelle gestion publique (NGP) et sa foi dans les marchés ont conduit les gouvernements à rechercher des méthodes de rechange pour la prestation des services publics. L'une des méthodes les plus populaires est la privatisation. La justification du choix de la privatisation est fondée sur ce que Charles Wolf décrit comme un ≪“échec du non marché”≫. L'article fait valoir que le marché pourrait ne pas être aussi efficace que ses adeptes l'ont prétendu, en particulier lorsqu'il existe un monopole dans la prestation des services. Cela fut le cas dans de nombreuses municipalités de certains pays développés, où la privatisation de la prestation de leurs services en eau est repassée à la prestation publique. En prenant comme exemple l'expérience de la ville d'Hamilton concernant ses services d'approvisionnement en eau et d'évacuation des eaux usées, l'article conclut que la nature du produit à livrer est déterminante pour savoir si c'est le “marché” ou le “public” qui fournit la meilleure méthode de prestation de services.

The New Public Management emerged in the 1980s, and with it, alternative service delivery (ASD) mechanisms, which removed service delivery from the public bureaucracy and separated policy making from policy implementation. Most western governments implemented measures including privatization or contracting out of service delivery to the private sector. By the mid-1990s, many governments started reversing ASD policies and sought new ways to deliver services, leading to a mixed model approach to service delivery, which combines the benefits of the public and private sectors. We examine the adoption of the model in the Canadian municipalities of Hamilton and Ottawa to determine if and how it enhances competition, cost-savings, efficiency, effectiveness, and good governance in the delivery of public services, during an era of fiscal constraint. Our findings indicate the model is better in enhancing the five variables when compared to solely public or private services delivery.Sommaire : La Nouvelle gestion publique a vu le jour dans les années 1980 et avec elle, les mécanismes de la diversification des modes de prestation des services (DMPS), qui ont retiré la prestation de services de la bureaucratie publique et ont séparé l'élaboration des politiques de la mise en oeuvre des politiques. La plupart des gouvernements occidentaux ont mis en oeuvre des mesures, entre autres la privatisation ou la sous-traitance de la prestation de services au secteur privé. Vers le milieu des années 1990, de nombreux gouvernements ont commencé à annuler les politiques de la DMPS et à chercher de nouvelles méthodes de prestation de services, ce qui a donné lieu à une approche de modèle mixte pour la prestation de services, laquelle combine les avantages des secteurs public et privé. Nous examinons l'adoption du modèle dans les municipalités canadiennes d'Hamilton et Ottawa afin de déterminer si et comment ce dernier améliore la concurrence, les économies de coûts, l'efficience, l'efficacité et la bonne gouvernance dans la prestation des services publics, en période de compression budgétaire. Nos conclusions indiquent que ce modèle parvient le mieux à rehausser les cinq variables lorsqu'on le compare à la prestation des services uniquement publique ou privée.

The last few years have witnessed significant attempts by a number of municipalities across the globe to reverse private sector involvement in water services delivery to citizens, with examples across North America, Europe, as well as in some developing countries. What makes this reversal of private sector participation in water services delivery baffle many is that, in the not too distance past, private sector involvement in water delivery was touted as a better service delivery option for municipalities. It was seen as a panacea for the perceived inefficiency, ineffectiveness, and unaccountable nature of the public sector. Why are municipalities deprivatizing their water services delivery? Did the promises of privatization fail? This article argues that the privatization of water services delivery was based on the (false) premise of the market being more efficient and effective, which would enable governments to save costs and lead to the emergence of a competitive environment in a monopolistic industry. It seems, therefore, that the private sector failed in no uncertain terms with respect to its promises to deliver. This argument will be supported using two cases drawn from Canada and the United States.

No abstract

No abstract