Advertisement

Conclusion and Public Policy Recommendation: Efficiency Improvement Through Managerial Approach and Accountability Mechanisms

Chapter
  • 141 Downloads
Part of the Public Administration, Governance and Globalization book series (PAGG, volume 19)

Abstract

In this chapter we discuss how to improve the efficiency of decentralization reforms. There is potential in the area of politicians’ and civil servants’ accountability and also in the effective implementation of ideas dealing with efficient management of public administration. We also must deal with information asymmetry and rational inattention.

References

  1. Agasisti T, Dal Bianco A, Griffini M (2015) The public sector fiscal efficiency in Italy: the case of Lombardy municipalities in the provision of the essential public services. Technical Report no. 691, Società Italiana di Economia Pubblica, Università di Pavia, PaviaGoogle Scholar
  2. Ainsworth S, Hardy C, Harley B (2005) Online consultation: e-democracy and e-resistance in the case of the development gateway. Manage Commun Q 19(1):120–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balaguer-Coll TM, Prior D (2009) Short- and long-term evaluation of efficiency and quality. An Application to Spanish municipalities. Appl Econ 41(23):2991–3002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balaguer-Coll TM, Prior D, Tortosa-Ausina E (2010) Decentralization and efficiency of local government. Ann Regional Sci 45(3):571–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bartoš V, Bauer M, Chytilová J et al (2016) Attention discrimination: theory and field experiments with monitoring information acquisition. Am Econ Rev 106(6):1437–1475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bason Ch (2010) Leading public sector innovation: co-creating for a better society. The Policy Press, BristolCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bel G, Warner ME (2015) Inter-municipal cooperation and costs: expectations and evidence. Public Admin 93(1):52–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bel G, Fageda X, Mur M (2012) Does cooperation reduce service delivery costs? Evidence from residential solid waste services. J Publ Adm Res Theor 24(1):85–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Benito B, Bastida F, García JA (2010) Explaining differences in efficiency: an application to Spanish municipalities. J Appl Econ 42(4):515–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bobonis GJ, Fuertes LRC, Schwabe R (2016) Monitoring corruptible politicians. Am Econ Rev 106(8):2371–2405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boetti L, Piacenza M, Turati G (2012) Decentralization and local governments’ performance: how does fiscal autonomy affect spending efficiency? FinanzArchiv 68(3):269–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bönisch P, Haug P, Illy A et al (2011) Municipality size and efficiency of local public services: does size matter? IWH Discussion Paper no. 18/2011, Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH), HalleGoogle Scholar
  13. Borge L-E, Falch T, Tovmo P (2008) Public sector efficiency: the roles of political and budgetary institutions, fiscal capacity, and democratic participation. Public Choice 136(3):475–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Borins SF (ed) (2008) Innovations in government: research, recognition, and replication. Brookings Institution Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  15. Bovaird T, Loeffler E (2015) Coproducing public services with users, communities, and the third sector. In: Perry JL, Christensen RK (eds) Handbook of public administration, 3rd edn. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 235–250Google Scholar
  16. Brandsen T, Johnston K (2018) Collaborative governance and the third sector: something old, something new. In: Ongaro E, van Thiel S (eds) The Palgrave handbook of public administration and management in Europe, 1st edn. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 311–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bryson JM, Crosby CB, Bloomberg L (2014) Public value governance: moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Admin Rev 74(4):445–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dan S, Pollit C (2015) NPM can work: an optimistic review of the impact of new public management reforms in Central and Eastern Europe. Public Manag Rev 157(9):1305–1332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. De Borger B, Kerstens K (1996a) Cost efficiency of Belgian local governments: a comparative analysis of FDH, DEA, and econometric approaches. Reg Sci Urban Econ 26(2):145–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. De Borger B, Kerstens K (1996b) Radial and nonradial measures of technical efficiency: an empirical illustration for Belgian local governments using an FDH reference technology. J Prod Anal 7(1):41–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Doumpos M, Cohen S (2014) Applying data envelopment analysis on accounting data to assess and optimize the efficiency of greek local governments. Omega 46:74–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Drew J, Kortt MA, Dollery B (2015) What determines efficiency in local government? A DEA analysis of NSW local government. Econ Pap 34(4):243–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Election Bench (2019) About project. Available online at: http://www.volebnilavicka.cz
  24. European Commission (2009) European eParticipation: summary Report. Available via https://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=1499
  25. Eurostat (2019) Government finance statistics. European Commission, Eurostat, Luxembourg. Available via https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/government-finance-statistics. Accessed 28 Oct 2019
  26. Geys B, Moesen W (2009) Measuring local government technical (in)efficiency: an application and comparison of FDH, DEA, and econometric approaches. Public Perform Manag 32(4):499–513Google Scholar
  27. Grossman PJ, Mavros P, Wassmer RW (1999) Public sector technical inefficiency in large U.S. Cities. J Urban Econ 46(2):278–299Google Scholar
  28. Jetmar M (2015) Meziobecní spolupráce: inspirativní cesta jak zlepšit služby veřejnosti. Svaz měst a obcí České republiky, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  29. Kim S, Kim HJ, Lee H (2009) An institutional analysis of an e-government system for anti-corruption: the case of OPEN. Gov Inform Q 26(1):42–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Maćkowiak B, Matějka F, Wiederholt M (2018) Dynamic rational inattention: analytical results. J Econ Theory 176:650–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miles I (2013) Public service innovation: what messages from the collision of innovation studies and services research? In: Osborne SP, Brown L (eds) Handbook of innovation in public services. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 72–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mulgan G, Albury D (2003) Innovation in the public sector. Strategy Unit, Cabinet Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Orviská M, Čaplánová A, Medved J et al (2006) A cross-section approach to measuring the shadow economy. J Policy Model 28(7):713–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Osborne SP (ed) (2010) The new public governance? Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance, Routletge, OxonGoogle Scholar
  35. Osborne SP, Radnor Z, Nasi G (2013) A new theory for public service management? Towards a service-dominant approach. Am Rev Public Adm 43(2):135–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ostrom E (1999) Crossing the great divide: coproduction, synergy, and development. In: McGinnis MD (ed) Polycentric governance and development: readings from the workshop in political theory and policy analysis. University of Michigan Press, MichiganGoogle Scholar
  37. Pacheco F, Sanchez R, Villena M (2014) A longitudinal parametric approach to estimate local government efficiency. Technical Report no. 54918, Munich University Library, MunichGoogle Scholar
  38. Palguta J, Pertold F (2017) Manipulation of procurement contracts: Evidence from the introduction of discretionary thresholds. Am Econ J-Econ Polic 9(2):293–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Peréz-Lopéz G, Prior D, Zafra JL (2015) Rethinking new public management delivery forms and efficiency: long-term effects in Spanish local government. J Publ Adm Res Theor 25(4):1157–1183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Persson A, Rothstein B, Teorell J (2013) Why anticorruption reforms fail—systemic corruption as a collective action problem. Governance 26(3):449–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Plaček M, Schmidt M, Ochrana F, Půček M (2016) Impact of selected factors regarding the efficiency of public procurement (the Case of Czech republic) with emphasis of decentralization. Ekonomický časopis, SAP—Slovak Academic Press 64(1):22–36.Google Scholar
  42. Plaček M, Půček M, Ochrana F (2019a) Identifying corruption risk: a comparison of Bulgaria and the Czech Republic. J Comp Policy Anal 21(4):366–384Google Scholar
  43. Plaček M, Špaček M, Ochrana F et al (2019b) Does excellence matter? National quality awards and performance of Czech municipalities. J East Eur Manag Stud 24(4):589–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Porcelli F (2014) Electoral accountability and local government efficiency: quasi-experimental evidence from the Italian health care sector reforms. Econ Gov 15(3):221–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Randma-Liiv T, Drechsler W (2017) Three decades, four phases: public administration development in Central and Eastern Europe, 1989–2017. Int J Public Sector Manag 30(6–7):595–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Soukopová J, Vaceková G (2018) Internal factors of intermunicipal cooperation: what matters most and why? Local Gov Stud 44(1):105–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Soukopová J, Vaceková G, Klimovský D (2017) Local waste management in the Czech Republic: limits and merits of public-private partnership and contracting out. Util Policy 48:201–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Špaček D (2016) Public management—v teorii a praxi. C. H. Beck, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  49. Šťastná L, Gregor M (2015) Public sector efficiency in transition and beyond: evidence from Czech local governments. Appl Econ 47(7):680–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Steiner J, Stewart C, Matějka F (2017) Rational inattention dynamics: inertia and delay in decision-making. Econometrica 85(2):521–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Strokosh K (2013) Co-production and innovation in public services: can co-production drive innovation? In: Osborne SP, Brown L (eds) Handbook of innovation in public services. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 375–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tavares AF (2018) Municipal amalgations and their effects: a literature review. Misc Geogr 22(1):5–15Google Scholar
  53. Tu X (2015) Empowering citizens in public services: a systematic review of co-production cases. Paper presented at 2015 IRSPM Conference, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, 30.3.–1.4. 2015Google Scholar
  54. van Dijk JAGM (ed) (2010) Study on the Social Impact of ICT. Topic Report 3 (D7.2). University of Siegen. Siegen. Available via http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/document.cfm?action=display&doc_id=673
  55. Verschuere B, Brandsen T, Pestoff V (2012) Co-production: the state of the art in research and the future agenda. Voluntas 23(4):1083–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Voorberg WH, Bekkers VJJM, Tummers LG (2015) A systematic review of co-creation and coproduction: embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Manag Rev 17(9):1333–1357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Yusfany A (2015) The efficiency of local governments and its influence factors. Int J Technol Enhanc Emerg Eng Res 4(10):219–241Google Scholar
  58. Zafra-Gómez JL, Prior D, Plata-Díaz AM et al (2013) Reducing costs in times of crisis: delivery forms in small and medium sized local governments’ waste management services. Public Admin 91(1):51–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Charles UniversityPragueCzech Republic
  2. 2.Charles UniversityPragueCzech Republic
  3. 3.College of Regional DevelopmentPragueCzech Republic
  4. 4.Masaryk UniversityBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations