Current Trends in Public Sector Research. Proceedings of the 24th International Conference

Kapitola

Abstrakt

Most of the developed countries have implemented new principles of public sector reform – new approaches to the management of the public sector. A major feature of the new public management (NPM) is the introduction of market type mechanisms (MTM) to the running of public service organizations: the marketization of the public service. The marketization of public services aims at a continuous increase in public expenditure efficiency, continual improvements in public services quality, the implementation of the professional management tools in the public sector, and last but not least, charge for public services. Price of public services in mainstream economics theory is connected with preference revelation problem. Economic models explain the relationship between consumer behavior (revealed preferences) and the value of public goods, and thus determine the value of the goods themselves. The aim of the paper is to determine the success of the community model of public service delivery based on the demonstrated preferences of individuals in the consumption of public services / public goods. The direct way of determining the preferences of individuals was used in this paper (willigness to pay and willigness to accept). These preferences will be identified based on the crowdfunding campaign as an example of community model of public goods provision by using survey experiment method. The willingness of individuals to pay is dependent on the individual's relationship with the organisation, the organisation's employees, or sympathise with those for whom the collection is, for whom the project is designed.

Klíčová slova

Cooperation; Public service delivery; Preferences; Willingness to pay


Reference

[1] ANDREONI, J. 1995. Warm-Glow versus Cold-Prickle: The Effects of Positive and Negative Framing on Cooperations In Experiments. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(1): 1-21.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2118508

 

[2] ANREONI, J., KOESSLER, A., SERRA-GARCIA, M. 2018. Who gives ? On Empathy and Impulsiveness. EconStor Preprints 194100, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3266607

 

[3] ARIELY, D., KREISLER, J. 2018. Psychológia peňazí: Akých omylov sa dopúšťame pri uvažovaní o peniazoch a ako útrácať rozumnejšie. Praha: Premedia.

 

[4] ARROW, K. J. 1962. Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources to Invention. In National Bureau of Economic Research (eds). The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors. New York: Princeton University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400879762-024

 

[5] BAETHGE, C., BÆKGAARD, M., BLOM-HANSEN, J., WOLF, P. 2015. Conducting Experiments in Public Management Research: A Practical Guide. International Public Management Journal, 18(2):323-342.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2015.1024905

 

[6] BARGH, J. A. - GOLLWITZER, P. M. - LEE-CHAI, A. - BARNDOLLAR, K. - TRÖTSCHEL, R. 2001. The automated will: nonconscious activation and pursuit of behavioral goals. Journal of personality and social psychology, 81(6): 1014-1027.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1014

 

[7] BECKER, G. S. 1997. Teorie preferencí. Praha: Liberální institut.

 

[8] BEKKERS, R., WIEPKING, P. 2010. A Literature Review of Empirical Studies of Philanthropy: Eight Mechanisms That Drive Charitable Giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5):924-973.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764010380927

 

[9] BOUCKAERT, G., POLLITT, CH. 2000. Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis. Long range planning, 33(6):881-884.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(00)00083-2

 

[10] BROOKS, A. C. 2003. Religious Faith and Charitable Giving. Policy Review, 121: 39-48

 

[11] CARPENTER, J. P., MYERS, C. K. 2010. Why volunteer? Evidence on the role of altruism, image, and incentives. Journal of Public Economics, 94(11-12): 911-920.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.07.007

 

[12] CONSIDINE, M., LEVIS, J. M., ALEXANDER, D. 2009. Networks, innovation and public policy: Politicians, bureaucrats and the pathways to change inside government. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

 

[13] CIALDINI, R. B. 2009. Influence. The psychology of persuasion. HarperCollins e-books.

 

[14] CULLIS, J., JONES. P. 1998. Public finance and public choice, 2nd ed, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 

[15] DAFOE, A., ZHANG, B., CAUGHEY, D. 2015. Confounding in survey experiments. Draft. Presentation at the annual meeting of The Society for Political Methodology. Available on http://www.sas.rochester.edu/psc/polmeth/papers/confounding.pdf

 

[16] DENHARDT, R. B. 2008. Theories of public organisation, 5th ed, Belmont: Thomson-Wadsworth.

 

[17] DOLAN, P., HALLSWORTH, M., HALPERN, D., KING., D., VLAEV, I. 2012. Influencing behaviour: the mindspace way. Journal of Economic Psychology; 33(1):264-277.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.10.009

 

[18] DUQUETTE, N. J. 2016. Do tax incentives affect charitable contributions? Evidence from public charities' reported revenues. Journal of Public economics, 137: 51-69.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2016.02.002

 

[19] GALLOUJ, F. 2000. Innovation in services and the attendant myths. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 31(2):137-154.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-5357(01)00126-3

 

[20] GRUNER, K. E., HOMBURG, CH. 2000. Does Customer Interaction Enhance New Product Success? Journal of Business Research, 49(1):1-14.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00013-2

 

[21] HAVENS, J. J., HERLIHY, M. A. O., SCHERVISH. P. G. 2006. Charitable giving: How much, by Whom, to What, and How? In POWELL, W. W., STEINBERG, R. (eds). The Non-profit Sector: A research Handbook. Yale Press.

 

[22] HUGHES, P. N., LUKSETICH, W. A. 1999. The Relationship Among Funding Sources for Art and History Museums. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 10(1):21-37.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.10103

 

[23] JAMES, O., JILKE, S. R., Van RYZYN, G. G. 2017. Experiments in Public Management Research: Challenges and Contributions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316676912

 

[24] KOCHER, M. G. - MARTINSSON, P. - MATZAT, D. - WOLLBRANT, C. 2011. The role of beliefs, trust, and risk in contributions to a public good, Working Paper, University of Gothenburg.

 

[25] LANDRY, C., LANGE, A., LIST, J., PRICE, M. K., RUPP, N. G. 2006. Toward an understanding of the economics charity: Evidence from a field experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, roč. 121(2): 747-782.
https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2006.121.2.747

 

[26] LANE, J. E. 2000. New Public Management. London: Rout ledge Taylor Francis Group.

 

[27] MARX, J., CARTER, V. 2014. Factors Influencing U.S. Charitable Giving during the Great Recession: Implications for Nonprofit Administration. Administrative Sciences, 4(3):350-372.
https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci4030350

 

[28] MUTZ, D. C. 2011. Population-Based Survey Experiments. Princeton : Princeton University Press.
https://doi.org/10.23943/princeton/9780691144511.001.0001

 

[29] OLAGOKE, A. 2011. What motivates people to volunteer? The case of volunteer AIDS caregivers in faith-based organizations in KwaZulu-Natal South Africa. Helth policy and planning, 26(1): 53-62.
https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czq019

 

[30] POLLIT, CH., BOUCKAERT, G. 2011. Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis new public management, governance, and the neo-weberian state, 3rd ed, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 

[31] ROMNEY-ALEXANDER, D. 2002. Payroll Giving in the UK: Donor Incentives and Influences on Giving Behaviour. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7(1):84-92
https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.169

 

[32] SIMON, A. F. 1997. Television news and international earthquake relief. Journal of Communication, 47(3): 82-93.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1997.tb02718.x

 

[33] THALER, R., SUNSTEIN, C. R. 2010. Nudge (Šťouch): jak postrčit lidi k lepšímu rozhodování o zdraví, majetku a štěstí. Zlín: Kniha Zlín.

 

[34] THORNTON, R. L. 2008. The demand for, and impact of, learning HIV status. American Economic Review, 98(5):1829-1863.
https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.98.5.1829