The efficiency and effectiveness of municipally owned corporations: a systematic review

Figures & data

Table 1. Production by enterprise and bureaucracy compared.

	Provision by
	MOC	Bureaucracy
Legal status	Corporation	Government
Governed under	Multiple options	Public municipal law
Organisation form	Single-purpose	Multi-purpose
Governed by	Appointed executive board	Local bureaucracy
Funded through	User fees	Taxes
Cooperative flexibility	High	Medium

Table 2. The eighteen PA journals by SJR ranking.

Journal	SJR
Administrative Science Quarterly	10.565
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory	5.400
Educational Administration Quarterly	2.945
Public Administration Review	2.530
Governance	2.126
Journal of European Public Policy	1.975
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management	1.843
American Review of Public Administration	1.699
International Public Management Journal	1.696
Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy	1.568
Journal of Public Relations Research	1.544
Public Administration	1.460
Regulation and Governance	1.437
Review of Public Personnel Administration	1.376
Policy Studies Journal	1.299
Human Resources for Health	1.193
Journal of Information Technology and Politics	1.092
Review of Policy Research	1.058

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of included studies.

Period	Studies
2001–2005	3
2006–2010	8
2011–2015	10
Country
Spain	5
Italy /The Netherlands /Portugal	3
USA	2
Others	1 each
Industry
Refuse collection	14
Transit	9
Water management	8
Urban services /health services	2
Type
Single-owned	15
Shared public–private	11
Joint public–public	8
Methodology
Regression	14
Case study	6
Other	1
Journal
Public Administration	4
Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics	3
Local Government Studies	3
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory	3
Others	1 each (8 total)

Table 4. Efficiency of MOCs.

Citation	Country /Form /Sector	Method (sample)	Findings
Albalate et al. (2012)	Spain /Singular /Bus services	Case study (1 metropole)	Singular MOCs are inefficient when not exposed to competitive pressures.
Bel and Fageda (2006)	Spain /Joint /Waste collection, water distribution	Regression (540–548 localities)	Cooperation between small localities through a joint MOC reduces costs.
Bognetti and Robotti (2007)	Italy /Singular, Mixed /Various	Regression (2003 MOCs)	Mixed MOCs are more efficient than singular MOCs.
Bourdeaux (2013)	USA /Singular /Landfill, incinerator siting, development	Case study (8 cases)	MOCs have a more professional focus but are more prone to conflict.
Cuadrado-Ballesteros, García-Sánchez, and Prado-Lorenzo. (2012)	Spain /Singular, Mixed /Various	Regression (9,000–9,100 people)	Singular MOCs are judged more positively than bureaucracy in health, transit, and trade services. Mixed MOCs do well for water services.
Da Cruz and Marques (2011)	Portugal /Singular, Joint /Water	Mixed methods (20 firms)	Singular MOCs performed badly in Portugal, particularly because they lacked real autonomy.
Da Cruz and Marques (2012)	Portugal /Mixed /Various	Case study (4 firms)	Mixed MOCs often fail because of goal conflict and the incumbent partner’s bargaining power.
Dijkgraaf and Gradus (2003)	The Netherlands /Joint /Refuse collection	Regression (85 municipalities)	Joint MOCs outperform bureaucracy as well as private firms when exposed to competition.
Dijkgraaf and Gradus (2007)	The Netherlands /Joint /Refuse collection	Regression (453 municipalities)	Joint MOCs do as well as private firms. Costs go down when they are exposed to competition.
Dijkgraaf and Gradus (2008)	The Netherlands /Joint /Refuse collection	Regression (491 municipalities)	In localities where MOCs competed with private firms for contracts, prices went down.
Filippini and Prioni (2003)	Switzerland /Singular, Mixed /Bus services	Regression (34 firms)	Mixed MOCs are more cost efficient than regular MOCs are.
Garrone, Grilli, and Rousseau (2013)	Italy /Single, Joint, Mixed /Various	Regression (27 multi-utilities)	Mixed MOCs are efficient. Joint MOCs are not. Autonomy creates problems.
Marques and Berg (2011)	Portugal /Mixed /Water distribution	Case study (2 municipalities)	Mixed MOCs show potential for efficiency gains, but also often bring contract failure.
Marra (2007)	Italy /Mixed /Water distribution	Regression (40 basin plants)	Mixed MOCs have lower operating costs, attract more private capital.
Ohlsson (2003)	Sweden /Singular /Refuse collection	Regression (150 firms)	Singular MOCs were slightly more cost-efficient than private firms in Swedish refuse collection.
Pérez-López, Prior, and Zafra-Gómez (2015)	Spain /Singular, Mixed /Various	Regression (1,058 municipalities)	Mixed MOCs were they only delivery mode to contribute to efficiency both before and during the financial crisis.
Roy and Yvrande-Billon (2007)	France /Mixed /Transit operation	Regression (165 networks)	Mixed MOCs do worse in technical efficiency than in-house or private modes of production/
Sørensen (2007)	Norway /Singular, Joint /Refuse collection	Regression (269–412 MOCs)	Joint MOCs have problems with goal conflict, monitoring. These drawbacks outweigh scale benefits.
Swarts and Warner (2014)	Germany /Singular, Mixed /Bus services	Case study (1 metropole)	Singular and mixed MOCs both reduce labour costs and make monitoring easier, but singular MOCs are less likely to fail.
Zafra-Gómez et al. (2013)	Spain /Mixed, Joint /Refuse collection	Regression (923 municipalities)	Joint MOCs increase efficiency among small localities.
Zullo (2008)	USA /Singular /Bus services	Regression (508 agencies)	Industries where singular MOCs are used for all elements of service provision are more efficient than where only used for parts.

Albalate, D., G. Bel, and J. Calzada. 2012. “Governance and Regulation of Urban Bus Transportation: Using Partial Privatization to Achieve the Better of Two Worlds.” Regulation & Governance 6 (1): 83–100. doi:10.1111/j.1748-5991.2011.01120.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bel, G., and X. Fageda. 2006. “Between Privatization and Inter-Municipal Cooperation: Small Municipalities, Scale Economies, and Transaction Costs.” Urban Public Economics Review 6: 13–31.

 Google Scholar

Bognetti, G., and L. Robotti. 2007. “The Provision of Local Public Services through Mixed Enterprises: The Italian Case.” Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 78 (3): 415–437. doi:10.1111/apce.2007.78.issue-3.

 Google Scholar

Bourdeaux, C. 2013. “Politics versus Professionalism: The Effect of Institutional Structure on Democratic Decision-Making in a Contested Policy Arena.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18 (3): 349–373. doi:10.1093/jopart/mum010.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cuadrado-Ballesteros, B., I.-M. García-Sánchez, and J.-M. Prado-Lorenzo. 2012. “Effects of Different Modes of Local Public Services Delivery on Quality of Life in Spain.” Journal of Cleaner Production 37: 68–81. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.06.008.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Da Cruz, N. F., and R. C. Marques. 2011. “The Viability of Municipal Companies in the Provision of Urban Infrastructure Services.” Local Government Studies 37 (1): 93–110. doi:10.1080/03003930.2010.548551.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Da Cruz, N. F., and R. C. Marques. 2012. “Mixed Companies and Local Governance: No Man Can Serve Two Masters.” Public Administration 90 (3): 737–758. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.02020.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dijkgraaf, E., and R. H. J. M. Gradus. 2003. “Cost Savings of Contracting Out Refuse Collection.” Empirica 30 (2): 149–161. doi:10.1023/A:1024175730230.

 Google Scholar

Dijkgraaf, E., and R. H. J. M. Gradus. 2007. “Collusion in the Dutch Waste Collection Market.” Local Government Studies 33 (4): 573–588. doi:10.1080/03003930701417601.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dijkgraaf, E., and R. H. J. M. Gradus. 2008. “Institutional Developments in the Dutch Waste-Collection Market.” Environment and Planning C 26 (1): 110–126. doi:10.1068/c0636.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Filippini, M., and P. Prioni. 2003. “The Influence of Ownership on the Cost of Bus Service Provision in Switzerland: An Empirical Illustration.” Applied Economics 35 (6): 683–690. doi:10.1080/0003684032000056788.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Garrone, P., L. Grilli, and X. Rousseau. 2013. “Management Discretion and Political Interference in Municipal Enterprises: Evidence from Italian Utilities.” Local Government Studies 39 (4): 514–540. doi:10.1080/03003930.2012.726198.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Marques, R. C., and S. Berg. 2011. “Public-Private Partnership Contracts: A Tale of Two Cities with Different Contractual Arrangements.” Public Administration 89 (4): 1585–1603. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01944.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Marra, A. 2007. “Internal Regulation by Mixed Enterprises: The Case of the Italian Water Sector.” Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 78 (2): 245–275. doi:10.1111/apce.2007.78.issue-2.

 Google Scholar

Ohlsson, H. 2003. “Ownership and Production Costs: Choosing between Public Production and Contracting-Out in the Case of Swedish Refuse Collection.” Fiscal Studies 24 (4): 451–476. doi:10.1111/j.1475-5890.2003.tb00091.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pérez-López, G., D. Prior, and J. L. Zafra-Gómez. 2015. “Rethinking New Public Management Delivery Forms and Efficiency: Long-Term Effects in Spanish Local Government.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 25 (4): 1157–1183. doi:10.1093/jopart/muu088.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Roy, W., and A. Yvrande-Billon. 2007. “Ownership, Contractual Practices and Technical Efficiency: The Case of Urban Transport in France.” Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 41 (2): 257–282.

 Google Scholar

Sørensen, R. J. 2007. “Does Dispersed Public Ownership Impair Efficiency? the Case of Refuse Collection in Norway.” Public Administration 85 (4): 1045–1058. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00681.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Swarts, D., and M. E. Warner. 2014. “Hybrid Firms and Transit Delivery: The Case of Berlin.” Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 85 (1): 127–146. doi:10.1111/apce.12026.

 Google Scholar

Zafra-Gómez, J. L., D. Prior, A. M. Plata Díaz, and A. M. López-Hernández. 2013. “Reducing Costs in Times of Crisis: Delivery Forms in Small and Medium Sized Local Governments’ Waste Management Services.” Public Administration 91 (1): 51–86. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.02012.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zullo, R. 2008. “Transit Contracting Reexamined: Determinants of Cost Efficiency and Resource Allocation.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18 (3): 495–515. doi:10.1093/jopart/mum024.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar