Public Law Limitations on Privatization of Government Functions

Paul R. Verkuil
{"title":"Public Law Limitations on Privatization of Government Functions","authors":"Paul R. Verkuil","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.681517","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article asks whether privatization has become so successful as to challenge inherent limits on private control of public functions. It reviews the history of the public-private distinction and explores constitutional limits on the exercise of public power in private hands, including important new scholarship on the nondelegation and exclusive delegation doctrines. The connection of due process to delegation is emphasized, especially procedural controls as accountability mechanisms for overseeing privatized activities. At the statutory level, the largely overlooked potential of the Subdelegation Act to limit as well as sanction delegations to public officials is elaborated. The current OMB A-76 process is addressed in detail. Holding public/private competitions over outsourced government functions is reviewed and its process deficiencies are highlighted. Under current interpretations, the basic question of what inherent government functions agencies cannot privatize is lost in the overall mandate to engage in competitive sourcing. Enhanced procedures for administrative review of this process, including a greater role for the Government Accountability Office (GAO), are recommended. Indeed, the article suggests that the A-76 process encapsulates the public-private debate in such a comprehensive way that the administrative law community can help reshape or rebalance that debate by reforming the process itself.","PeriodicalId":82179,"journal":{"name":"North Carolina law review","volume":"84 1","pages":"397"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.681517","citationCount":"17","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"North Carolina law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.681517","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

Abstract

This article asks whether privatization has become so successful as to challenge inherent limits on private control of public functions. It reviews the history of the public-private distinction and explores constitutional limits on the exercise of public power in private hands, including important new scholarship on the nondelegation and exclusive delegation doctrines. The connection of due process to delegation is emphasized, especially procedural controls as accountability mechanisms for overseeing privatized activities. At the statutory level, the largely overlooked potential of the Subdelegation Act to limit as well as sanction delegations to public officials is elaborated. The current OMB A-76 process is addressed in detail. Holding public/private competitions over outsourced government functions is reviewed and its process deficiencies are highlighted. Under current interpretations, the basic question of what inherent government functions agencies cannot privatize is lost in the overall mandate to engage in competitive sourcing. Enhanced procedures for administrative review of this process, including a greater role for the Government Accountability Office (GAO), are recommended. Indeed, the article suggests that the A-76 process encapsulates the public-private debate in such a comprehensive way that the administrative law community can help reshape or rebalance that debate by reforming the process itself.
公法对政府职能私有化的限制
这篇文章的问题是,私有化是否已经如此成功,以至于挑战了私人控制公共职能的固有限制。它回顾了公私区分的历史,并探讨了在私人手中行使公共权力的宪法限制,包括关于非授权和排他性授权理论的重要新学术。强调了正当程序与授权的联系,特别是程序控制作为监督私有化活动的责任机制。在法定一级,详细阐述了《分组授权法》在限制和制裁向公职人员授权方面基本上被忽视的潜力。详细讨论了当前OMB A-76流程。检讨外判政府职能的公营/私营竞争,并指出其程序上的不足。根据目前的解释,在进行竞争性采购的总体任务中失去了机构不能私有化的固有政府职能的基本问题。建议加强对这一进程的行政审查程序,包括让政府问责局发挥更大的作用。事实上,这篇文章认为a -76程序以一种全面的方式概括了公私辩论,行政法社区可以通过改革程序本身来帮助重塑或重新平衡这场辩论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书