ABSTRACT
The notion that competition in the delivery of a public service is beneficial to the citizen-consumer, while self-evident in a common-sense sort of way, and theoretically sound for all but natural monopolies, is sometimes viewed with suspicion or hostility by practicing public servants. In periodic competition, or temporary monopoly, an exclusive contract or franchise of limited duration is awarded—;;on a competitive basis—;;by the community to a private firm. The survey found that 21 percent of communities in metropolitan areas utilize such "contract collection". This finding supports the contention of Niskanen, Downs, Tullock, Savas, and others, that government bureaucracy as monopoly providers of public services are inefficient. The City of Minneapolis eschews the role of a model, and its officials make no effort to proselytize or to claim universal applicability of their approach. The chapter shows the city-provided statistics on the relative performance of municipal and contract collection.
