Taylor-Gooby, P. (2000). Knights, knaves, and gnashers: Professional values and private dentistry. Journal of Social Policy, 29, pp. 375-95.
The argument over privatization has been carried on from many points of view, but one phenomenon that has been recently noted and identified is the "publicization" of privatized services (Sellers, 2003, p. 618). In brief, private firms that undertake to provide services previously provided by public agencies tend to take on many of the characteristics of those agencies, particularly in their sensitivity to and influence by political forces. Their operations are liable to be subjective to minute scrutiny and regulation by public authorities. This denies them much of the flexibility attributed to the private sector. It may also in practice shield them in some degree from competitive pressures, since any competitor for their contracts must accept the same degree of scrutiny and regulation.
Sheaff, R. (1997). Marketization, managers and moral strain: Chairman, directors and public service ethos in the National Health Service. Public Administration, 75, pp. 189-206.
What, however, does actual examination indicate about differences between public and private management, and the presumed greater difficulties of the former? One study (Boyne, 2002) considered a variety of widely argued differences between public and private management. These differences can be distinguished as external differences, resulting from the environment in which public agencies operate, and internal differences, resulting from the structure of public agencies.
Select Committee on Public Administration (2002). Seventh Report: The Public Ethos. London: HMSO.