Privatizing Welfare Services最新文献

筛选

英文中文

Quasi-Markets 准市场

Privatizing Welfare Services Pub Date : 2021-01-11 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198867210.003.0002

Mårten Blix, Henrik Jordahl

引用次数: 0

Public Opinion 公众舆论

Privatizing Welfare Services Pub Date : 2021-01-11 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198867210.003.0007

Mårten Blix, Henrik Jordahl

{"title":"Public Opinion","authors":"Mårten Blix, Henrik Jordahl","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198867210.003.0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198867210.003.0007","url":null,"abstract":"The steady privatization of welfare service production has been a longstanding source of political conflict and debate. For-profit providers have met particularly harsh resistance from the left and only mild support from the right. Public opinion is largely skewed against private providers and affects the welfare sector by influencing implemented and expected regulation. In addition to the left–right divide, opinions on private production are split in several other ways. Notably, elected politicians are more supportive of privatization than the voters. The Social Democrats have been a dominant force in Sweden and have long been split on how to address privatization. The party contains a vocal left-wing with ideological objections that wants to stop and reverse course. Another wing of the party is more market-oriented and in some circumstances in favour of choice and competition. A key finding is that public opinion is fairly negative towards for-profit providers, while simultaneously very supportive of opportunities to choose between providers. To an astounding extent, people tend to overestimate the profits of private providers. As a result, the negative opinion against for-profit providers is partly based on misperceptions. Transparency and information are fundamental underpinnings for the public support of privatization.","PeriodicalId":257707,"journal":{"name":"Privatizing Welfare Services","volume":"2673 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127920749","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Summary and Conclusions 总结与结论

Privatizing Welfare Services Pub Date : 2021-01-11 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198867210.003.0008

Mårten Blix, Henrik Jordahl

{"title":"Summary and Conclusions","authors":"Mårten Blix, Henrik Jordahl","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198867210.003.0008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198867210.003.0008","url":null,"abstract":"Despite political controversy, the growth of private providers has been steady since the 1990s. The Swedish municipalities have often been more practically inclined—willing to experiment and adopt what works. The expansion of private provision has increased choice opportunities, accessibility, and in many cases service quality. The benefits have mostly been accomplished without increasing costs, although there are examples, including care of the disabled, of spiralling total costs. User choice is popular, but its impact on total costs needs to be handled. A complication is that there must be some excess capacity for user choice to have economic consequences for the providers. Market design and regulation are crucial for the functioning of quasi-markets. Private and public providers should receive the same treatment when it comes to permissions, financing, inspections, and audits. As another general policy conclusion, we emphasize a resolute focus on quality control. This is most evident in education—where there is need for external restrictions on grades or a return to traditional final, and centralized, exams. The soft aspects of quality should not be neglected. An important lesson when it comes to management is that the same management practices that are successful in the private sector work in the public sector too. Entry barriers can be useful in quasi-markets by dissuading unwanted providers and incentivizing the serious ones. The Swedish experiment with quasi-markets and privatized service production provides a rich experience for other countries to determine what works as well as what pitfalls to avoid.","PeriodicalId":257707,"journal":{"name":"Privatizing Welfare Services","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115162211","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0