Bilodeau, N., Laurin, C. & Vining, A. (2007):
Choice of Organizational Form Makes a Real Difference": The Impact of Corporatization on Government Agencies in Canada
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2007 17(1):119-147
Please note: This page may contain data in Norwegian that is not translated to English.
Type of publication:
Tidsskriftsartikkel
Link to publication:
http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/17/1/119
Link to review:
http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/17/1/119
Number of pages:
29
Language of publication:
Engelsk
Country of publication:
UK
NSD-reference:
2710
This page was last updated:
14/9 2007
Affiliations related to this publication:
- Regjering
- Stat
Publikasjonens datagrunnlag:
- Kvantitativ
- Case studie
- Komparativ over tid
Land som er gjenstand for studien:
- Canada
Verkemiddel i den konstituerande styringa:
- 1.1 Organisering generelt
- 1.2 Endring i tilknytningsform
- 1.4 Finansiering
Verkemiddel i den operative styringa av ststlege verksemder:
- 2.1 Formell styringsdialog
Studieoppdrag:
- Forskning
Studietype:
- Effektstudie/implikasjoner/resultater
Type effekt:
- Kostnadseffektivitet
- Samfunnseffektivitet
- Verdimessige effektar
Sektor (cofog):
- Staten generelt
Summary:
The new public management includes a portfolio of prescriptions that involve reconfiguring the boundaries of government agencies. One form of reconfiguration is corporatization. Corporatization creates separate agencies that have a contractlike relationship with a ministry or oversight agencies. Corporatization usually comprises a portfolio of changes that attempt to make agencies more "businesslike." Although corporatization is now popular with governments around the world, there is little empirical evidence on its performance impact. This article analyzes 11 corporatizations in Canada by the federal and Québec governments. We first present hypotheses based on principal-agent theory concerning the potential impact of corporatization. For each agency, we compare the behavior and performance for 3 years prior to corporatization to the 3 years subsequent to corporatization. The aggregate results suggest that the introduction of corporatization did alter behavior on a number of dimensions. The results show that output and revenues increased, the revenues-to-expenditures coverage gap narrowed, and cost-efficiency and employee productivity improved following corporatization. Most of these changes were statistically significant.