The Proper Scope of Government: Theory and an Application to Prisons
Надлежащие пределы деятельности государства: теория и применение к тюрьмам
1997-11-01
SCID: 54.1/f37fsyfz
Discuss with AI
contracting outgovernment service provisionincomplete contractsnoncontractible qualityprison privatization
Figures from the paper
Abstract (AI)
When should a government provide a service in-house, and when should it contract out provision? We develop a model in which the provider can invest in improving the quality of service or reducing cost. If contracts are incomplete, the private provider has a stronger incentive to engage in both quality improvement and cost reduction than a government employee has. However, the private contractor's incentive to engage in cost reduction is typically too strong because he ignores the adverse effect on noncontractible quality. The model is applied to understanding the costs and benefits of prison privatization.
Key Findings
1
Private contractors typically reduce costs excessively because they ignore the resulting adverse effects on noncontractible service quality.
2
Private providers have stronger incentives than government employees to improve service quality and reduce costs when contracts cannot specify all dimensions.
3
The framework is applied to evaluate the costs and benefits of privatizing prisons.
4
The model identifies when governments should provide services in-house versus contract them out under incomplete contracts.
Research Object
government provision and private contracting of prison services
Research Subject
the comparative incentives, costs, and benefits of in-house versus contracted service provision under incomplete contracts, including effects on noncontractible quality and cost reduction
Publication Details
Publication Date
1997-11-01
Journal
Publisher
ISSN
Open access PDF
Access Type
Author Information
Download PDF
Subscribe to digest