Public values and sector service delivery preferences: Public preferences on contracting from simple to complex human services

• Published date: 01 September 2024
• Author: Jaclyn Piatak,Colt Jensen
• Date: 01 September 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13794

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Public values and sector service delivery preferences:

Public preferences on contracting from simple to complex

human services

Jaclyn Piatak

1

| Colt Jensen

2

1

Department of Political Science & Public

Administration, University of North Carolina at

Charlotte, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA

2

School of Public & International Affairs,

University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA

Correspondence

Jaclyn Piatak, UNC Charlotte, Political Science &

Public Administration, 9201 University City Blvd.,

Charlotte, NC 28223, USA.

Email: jpiatak@charlotte.edu

Abstract

Nonprofit and for-profit providers play an increasing role in public service delivery,

but we know little about what shapes public service delivery preferences. Respond-

ing to calls to put the “public”back in public values theory, we examine the influ-

ence of public values on sector service delivery preferences for government,

nonprofit, or for-profit delivery across six service areas ranging from simple services

such as trash collection to complex services such as child welfare. We find equity pre-

dicts a preference for government service delivery across areas, while efficiency cor-

responds to a preference for for-profit service delivery. Nonprofit sector preferences

varied across service areas; equity corresponds to simple services such as street main-

tenance, whereas effectiveness corresponds to complex human services such as

elder care. Public administrators should be cognizant of the public value trade-offs

that underlie sector preferences for public services to design and implement service

arrangements in line with the preferences of the public they serve.

Practitioner Points

•Policymakers and decision-makers are often faced with conflicting values, such

as in deciding whether public services should be delivered by the government

or a for-profit or nonprofit organization, where core public values, such as

equity, should be considered.

•People who value equity prefer government provision of public services across a

range of areas from simple services, such as street maintenance, to complex

human services.

•Meanwhile, placing greater importance on efficiency in government decision-

making corresponds to a preference for the for-profit sector.

•Preferences for the nonprofit sector corresponded to different public values

across service areas. Equity corresponded to the nonprofit sector for simple ser-

vices, while effectiveness corresponded to the nonprofit sector for complex

human services such as child welfare.

•Service delivery decisions involve normative trade-offs between competing pub-

lic values.

INTRODUCTION

In today’s age of conflicting values and increasing polariza-

tion, understanding the role of public values in shaping

preferences for public service delivery is vital. Public

administration is inherently value-laden, and bureaucracy is

not neutral (Gooden, 2015; Portillo et al., 2022). This can be

seen with the rise of contracting out public service delivery

to third-party providers due to movements such as New

Public Management (NPM) (Hood, 1991; Lapuente & Van

Received: 23 February 2023 Revised: 30 August 2023 Accepted: 12 December 2023

DOI: 10.1111/puar.13794

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium,

provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

© 2024 The Authors. Public Administration Review published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Public Administration.

948 Public Admin Rev. 2024;84:948–965.

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/puar

de Walle, 2020), fiscal constraints from economic crises

(Bel & Warner, 2015), and partisan preferences (Obinger

et al., 2014). While scholars call for the balancing of values

such as equity and efficiency in contracting (Brown

et al., 2006;Leland&Thurmaier,2014) and have examined

contacting across sectors, suggesting nonprofits may have

more aligned values (Brunjes, 2023; Witesman & Fernandez,

2013), what areas do the public view as core to government

and what values shape those preferences?

Public values are vital in policymaking and decision-

making, especially when the policies in question have the

potential to decide which sector should be responsible for a

service area and decisions on whether to contract out public

services. Jørgensen and Rutgers (2015) described how these

are “public management and public policymaking are about

establishing, following, and realizing public values, so we

should take them as a starting point rather than as a mar-

ginal consideration”(p. 4). While much of the contracting

and privatization literature draws upon principal-agent the-

ory to focus on efficiency, competition, and cost savings

(e.g., Hood, 1991; Savas, 1987), a fuller range of public values

and their trade-offs should be considered in policymaking

and decision-making. Our research seeks to uncover some

of the regime values, or the salient values held by the public

that serves as the normative foundation of a political entity

(Rohr, 1989), to provide insights into society’s expectations

of government (Strauss, 2021). Responding to calls for

greater attention to the public in public values research

(Nabatchi, 2012), we examine the public value perceptions

of the public and how they relate to public service delivery

preferences across sectors—government, nonprofit, and

for-profit, an area where public values may conflict. Draw-

ing upon public value research (Jørgensen &

Bozeman, 2007; Nabatchi, 2018; Rosenbloom, 1983)and

the pillars of public administration (Frederickson, 2015;

Guy & McCandless, 2012;Norman-Major,2011), we examine

how the importance of core public administration values—

equity, efficiency, effectiveness, professionalism, and

representation—influence public preferences for which sec-

tor should provide a given service.

However, service delivery areas vary in terms of com-

plexity from simple services such as trash collection and

street maintenance to complex human services such as

child welfare and workforce development. Services vary by

service characteristics, such as distance from the technical

core (Thompson, 1967) and the asset specificity or ease of

adapting a service from one context to another, as well as

the availability of sufficient providers and market competi-

tion (e.g., Girth et al., 2012;O’Regan & Oster, 2000;Petersen

et al., 2019; Piatak & Pettijohn, 2021a,2021b). The federal

government restricts agencies from contracting “inher-

ently governmental functions,”that is, “an activity that is

so intimately related to the public interest as to mandate

performance by government personnel”(OMB Circular

A-76, 1999). Policymakers and decision-makers must con-

sider what functions are core to government (e.g., Sasse

et al., 2019) and the level of public interest in service deliv-

ery (Hefetz & Warne r, 2012). Therefore, we examine six

service areas ranging in complexity and normative

assessments of inherently governmental functions that are

often examined in public administration research: trash

collection, street maintenance, prisons, child welfare, elder

care, and workforce development.

Drawing upon original survey questions on a national

public opinion survey in the USA, we examine the influ-

ence of core public values in public administration—

equity, efficiency, effectiveness, representation, and profes-

sionalism on public preferences for government, for-profit,

or nonprofit provision across six areas, ranging from simple

services such as trash collection and street maintenance to

complex human services such as prisons, childcare ser-

vices, elderly programs, and workforce development.

Our study has several implications for research and

practice. First, understanding people’s preferences for

contracting public services may help guide contracting

decisions. Public services can be provided by government

or private providers, both for-profit and nonprofit organi-

zations. While scholars have raised the need to consider

whether there is public interest in service delivery

(Hefetz & Warner, 2012), our findings delve deeper offer-

ing insight both into public sector preferences as well as

the relative importance of public values across a range of

service areas. Therefore, we offer a normative consider-

ation of public preferences and values in contracting deci-

sions beyond transaction costs.

Second, understanding the public values that corre-

spond to service delivery preferences across service areas

can assist policymakers and decision-makers in assessing

value trade-offs. People’s preferences for contracting public

services are influenced by the importance they place on

different public values. We extend public values theory by

moving beyond the identification stage and examining the

role of the public in public values research (Nabatchi, 2012).

To our knowledge, this is the first study to empirically

examine the relationship between public values and

contracting. Lastly, we contribute to research on sector dif-

ferences in providing insights on how public values corre-

spond to preferences for government, nonprofit, or for-

profit service delivery. Findings have implications for our

understanding of sector differences and expectations.

We begin with a discussion of contracting and public

values that is followed by our hypotheses on how

public values may shape service delivery preferences across

sectors—government, nonprofit, and for-profit. Next, we

discuss our methodology, present and discuss the results,

and then conclude with a discussion of the findings and

implications.

THEORETICAL STARTING POINTS

Public service delivery and contracting

Public services are increasingly provided by nonprofit and

for-profit providers as governments contract out public

services (e.g., Brown et al., 2018; Brudney et al., 2005;

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW 949