Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The involvement of private actors (non-profit and/or for-profit) in public service provision has a lot of consequences and implications not only for users and service providers, but also for government. This article explores the consequences for the relations within public-private service provision networks, by focusing on the governance regime of childcare in Flanders. Our case analysis clearly shows that public-private service provision networks may threaten the transparency of the service provision field for users, and challenge the role of the oversight authority, often requiring a two-level steering of the service provision field: a direct steering of individual service providers and the network and/or market steering of the whole service provision field (in a community or region). Governance regimes comprising service providers of different sectors may complicate this kind of network steering, as there seem to exist at least six relationships within such networks. Furthermore, we noticed that service providers may face conflicting (public) accountabilities.

Keywords

accountability contracting out implementation networks outsourcing service delivery

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anheier

(2006) Nonprofit Organizations. Theory, Management, Policy. London: Routledge.

Bradach

Eccles

(1991) Price, Authority and Trust: From Ideal Types to Plural Forms. In: Thompson

Levacevic

Mitchell

(eds). Markets, Hierarchies and Networks: The Coordination of Social Life. London: SAGE.

Brandsen

Pestoff

(2006) Co-Production, the Third Sector and the Delivery of Public Services: An Introduction. Public Management Review 8(4): 591–596.

Defourny J and Pestoff V (2008) Images and Concepts of Third Sector in Europe. Working Paper no.08/02, EMES European Research Network.

Eikenberry

Kluver

(2004) The Marketization of the Nonprofit Sector: Civil Society at Risk?. Oxford: Blackwell.

Heinrich

Lynn

(2000) Governance & Performance: New Perspectives. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Leat

(1988) The Voluntary Sector and Accountability. London: NCVO.

Loffler

(2009) Public Governance in a Network Society. In: Bovaird

Loffler

(eds). Public Management and Governance. London: Routledge.

Market Analysis & Synthesis (2007a) Analysis of the search of parents for a child care place. Final report for Kind en Gezin.

10.

Market Analysis & Synthesis (2007b) Analysis of the admission policies of recognised day centres and family carers. Final report for Kind en Gezin.

11.

Ouchi

(1991) Markets, Bureaucracies and Clans. In: Thompson

Levacevic

Mitchell

(eds). Markets, Hierarchies and Networks: The Coordination of Social Life. London: SAGE.

12.

Pestoff

(2006) Citizens and Co-production of Welfare Services: Childcare in Eight European Countries. Public Management Review 8(4): 503–520.

13.

Pollitt

Bouckaert

(2000) Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

14.

Prentice

(2006) Childcare, Co-production and the Third Sector in Canada. Public Management Review 8(4): 521–536.

15.

Salamon LM and Anheier HK (Eds) (1997) Defining The Nonprofit Sector: A Cross-national Analysis (Johns Hopkins NonProfit Sector Series). Manchester: University Press.

16.

Schillemans T (2007) Accountability in the shadow of power. Horizontal accountability of autonomous agencies. Den Haag: Lemma.

17.

Van de Donk W (2008) Societal governance: Sector or idea. Cahier School voor Social Profit Management.

18.

Verhoest

Vervloet

Bouckaert

(2003) Government, market or non-profit. Ghent: Academia Press.

19.

Verschuere B (2006) Autonomy & Control in Arm's Length Public Agencies: Exploring the Determinants of Policy Autonomy. Doctoral dissertation, K.U.Leuven.

20.

Verschuere

De Rynck

(2009) Direction without authority, governing without power? Co-operation between local governments and the private sector. Res Publica: Belgian Journal of Political Science 51(3): 351–376.