4.4 Article

Should We Change the Way We Think About Market Performance When It Comes to Quasi-Markets? A New Framework for Evaluating Public Service Markets

期刊

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW
卷 82, 期 5, 页码 897-901

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/puar.13392

关键词

-

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [LP170100550]
  2. Australian Research Council [LP170100550] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The paper proposes a framework to diagnose different quasi-market problems and offers solutions for them. Practitioners need to recognize that quasi-markets require intervention in order to meet policy goals.
Markets are increasingly used by governments to deliver social services, underpinned by the belief that they can drive efficiency and quality. These 'quasi-markets' require on-going management to ensure they meet policy goals, and address issues of market inequity. This has seen debates emerge around 'market stewardship' and 'market shaping' that center on how best to manage markets toward optimal policy outcomes. At present, there is a significant gap in both literature and practice with regard to what types of actions are most effective for market stewardship. In this article, we outline a framework that helps diagnose different quasi-market problems. We delineate two dimensions of public service quasi-markets-sufficiency and diversity-using the example of a disability personalization market to show how this framework can unpack different types of quasi-market states. Lastly, we outline the types of interventions that might be adopted to help deal with ineffective quasi-markets. Practitioner Points Market mechanisms are increasing being used by governments around the world to drive innovation and efficacies. Increasingly it is being recognized that these markets need intervention in order to meet policy goals. This paper provides a framework for conceptualizing types of market problems, and offers solutions for the scenarios outlined.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据