Loading…

Privatization as Delegation

Recent expansions in privatization of government programs mean that the constitutional paradigm of a sharp separation between public and private is increasingly at odds with the blurred public-private character of modern governance. While substantial scholarship exists addressing the administrative...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Columbia law review 2003-10, Vol.103 (6), p.1367-1502
Main Author: Metzger, Gillian E.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c316t-7bec586ee52c0cec0b0850ec8f7ff129e66797a0574d713d4d370f8550723d543
cites
container_end_page 1502
container_issue 6
container_start_page 1367
container_title Columbia law review
container_volume 103
creator Metzger, Gillian E.
description Recent expansions in privatization of government programs mean that the constitutional paradigm of a sharp separation between public and private is increasingly at odds with the blurred public-private character of modern governance. While substantial scholarship exists addressing the administrative and policy impact of expanded privatization, heretofore little effort has been made to address this disconnect between constitutional law and new administrative reality. This Article seeks to remedy that deficiency. It argues that current state action doctrine is fundamentally inadequate to address the constitutional challenge presented by privatization. Current doctrine is insufficiently keyed to the ways that privatization involves delegation of government power, and simultaneously fails to allow governments sufficient flexibility in structuring public-private relationships. This Article proposes instead a new constitutional analysis of privatization that reformulates state action in private delegation terms. Under the proposed analysis, the critical question is whether delegations of authority to private entities are adequately structured to enforce constitutional constraints on government power. Central to this approach is the recognition that mechanisms other than directly subjecting private entities to constitutional scrutiny can satisfy the demands of constitutional accountability, and can do so without intruding unduly on government regulatory prerogatives. Where such mechanisms are lacking, however, grants of government authority to private entities represent unconstitutional delegations. To implement this approach, the Article advocates a two-step inquiry that first singles out private delegations creating agency relationships between private entities and the government for special scrutiny, and then asks whether adequate alternative accountability mechanisms exist.
doi_str_mv 10.2307/3593390
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_37789170</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>3593390</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>3593390</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c316t-7bec586ee52c0cec0b0850ec8f7ff129e66797a0574d713d4d370f8550723d543</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1z09LAzEQBfAcFKyt-AG89CB62jpJNjvJUWr9AwU96Dmk2Yls2TY12Qr66V3dXj0Mw4MfDx5j5xxmQgLeSGWkNHDERgAcCm6UPmGnOa-hz0qLEbt4Sc2n65rv_uJ26vL0jlp6_0sTdhxcm-ns8Mfs7X7xOn8sls8PT_PbZeElr7oCV-SVroiU8ODJwwq0AvI6YAhcGKoqNOhAYVkjl3VZS4SglQIUslalHLOroXeX4seecmc3TfbUtm5LcZ-tRNSGI_TweoA-xZwTBbtLzcalL8vB_g62h8G9vBzkOncx_ct-ABzFUsc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>37789170</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Privatization as Delegation</title><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Ultimate</source><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><creator>Metzger, Gillian E.</creator><creatorcontrib>Metzger, Gillian E.</creatorcontrib><description>Recent expansions in privatization of government programs mean that the constitutional paradigm of a sharp separation between public and private is increasingly at odds with the blurred public-private character of modern governance. While substantial scholarship exists addressing the administrative and policy impact of expanded privatization, heretofore little effort has been made to address this disconnect between constitutional law and new administrative reality. This Article seeks to remedy that deficiency. It argues that current state action doctrine is fundamentally inadequate to address the constitutional challenge presented by privatization. Current doctrine is insufficiently keyed to the ways that privatization involves delegation of government power, and simultaneously fails to allow governments sufficient flexibility in structuring public-private relationships. This Article proposes instead a new constitutional analysis of privatization that reformulates state action in private delegation terms. Under the proposed analysis, the critical question is whether delegations of authority to private entities are adequately structured to enforce constitutional constraints on government power. Central to this approach is the recognition that mechanisms other than directly subjecting private entities to constitutional scrutiny can satisfy the demands of constitutional accountability, and can do so without intruding unduly on government regulatory prerogatives. Where such mechanisms are lacking, however, grants of government authority to private entities represent unconstitutional delegations. To implement this approach, the Article advocates a two-step inquiry that first singles out private delegations creating agency relationships between private entities and the government for special scrutiny, and then asks whether adequate alternative accountability mechanisms exist.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0010-1958</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2307/3593390</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Columbia University School of Law</publisher><subject>Accountability ; Administrative law ; Authority ; Constitutional law ; Contracts ; Delegation of authority ; Government ; Government policy ; Government programs ; Law ; Medicaid ; Medicare ; Power ; Prisons ; Privacy rights ; Privatization ; Public assistance programs ; Public-private partnership ; State actions ; U.S.A</subject><ispartof>Columbia law review, 2003-10, Vol.103 (6), p.1367-1502</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2003 Directors of The Columbia Law Review Association, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c316t-7bec586ee52c0cec0b0850ec8f7ff129e66797a0574d713d4d370f8550723d543</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,33201</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Metzger, Gillian E.</creatorcontrib><title>Privatization as Delegation</title><title>Columbia law review</title><description>Recent expansions in privatization of government programs mean that the constitutional paradigm of a sharp separation between public and private is increasingly at odds with the blurred public-private character of modern governance. While substantial scholarship exists addressing the administrative and policy impact of expanded privatization, heretofore little effort has been made to address this disconnect between constitutional law and new administrative reality. This Article seeks to remedy that deficiency. It argues that current state action doctrine is fundamentally inadequate to address the constitutional challenge presented by privatization. Current doctrine is insufficiently keyed to the ways that privatization involves delegation of government power, and simultaneously fails to allow governments sufficient flexibility in structuring public-private relationships. This Article proposes instead a new constitutional analysis of privatization that reformulates state action in private delegation terms. Under the proposed analysis, the critical question is whether delegations of authority to private entities are adequately structured to enforce constitutional constraints on government power. Central to this approach is the recognition that mechanisms other than directly subjecting private entities to constitutional scrutiny can satisfy the demands of constitutional accountability, and can do so without intruding unduly on government regulatory prerogatives. Where such mechanisms are lacking, however, grants of government authority to private entities represent unconstitutional delegations. To implement this approach, the Article advocates a two-step inquiry that first singles out private delegations creating agency relationships between private entities and the government for special scrutiny, and then asks whether adequate alternative accountability mechanisms exist.</description><subject>Accountability</subject><subject>Administrative law</subject><subject>Authority</subject><subject>Constitutional law</subject><subject>Contracts</subject><subject>Delegation of authority</subject><subject>Government</subject><subject>Government policy</subject><subject>Government programs</subject><subject>Law</subject><subject>Medicaid</subject><subject>Medicare</subject><subject>Power</subject><subject>Prisons</subject><subject>Privacy rights</subject><subject>Privatization</subject><subject>Public assistance programs</subject><subject>Public-private partnership</subject><subject>State actions</subject><subject>U.S.A</subject><issn>0010-1958</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2003</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1z09LAzEQBfAcFKyt-AG89CB62jpJNjvJUWr9AwU96Dmk2Yls2TY12Qr66V3dXj0Mw4MfDx5j5xxmQgLeSGWkNHDERgAcCm6UPmGnOa-hz0qLEbt4Sc2n65rv_uJ26vL0jlp6_0sTdhxcm-ns8Mfs7X7xOn8sls8PT_PbZeElr7oCV-SVroiU8ODJwwq0AvI6YAhcGKoqNOhAYVkjl3VZS4SglQIUslalHLOroXeX4seecmc3TfbUtm5LcZ-tRNSGI_TweoA-xZwTBbtLzcalL8vB_g62h8G9vBzkOncx_ct-ABzFUsc</recordid><startdate>20031001</startdate><enddate>20031001</enddate><creator>Metzger, Gillian E.</creator><general>Columbia University School of Law</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20031001</creationdate><title>Privatization as Delegation</title><author>Metzger, Gillian E.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c316t-7bec586ee52c0cec0b0850ec8f7ff129e66797a0574d713d4d370f8550723d543</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2003</creationdate><topic>Accountability</topic><topic>Administrative law</topic><topic>Authority</topic><topic>Constitutional law</topic><topic>Contracts</topic><topic>Delegation of authority</topic><topic>Government</topic><topic>Government policy</topic><topic>Government programs</topic><topic>Law</topic><topic>Medicaid</topic><topic>Medicare</topic><topic>Power</topic><topic>Prisons</topic><topic>Privacy rights</topic><topic>Privatization</topic><topic>Public assistance programs</topic><topic>Public-private partnership</topic><topic>State actions</topic><topic>U.S.A</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Metzger, Gillian E.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>Columbia law review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Metzger, Gillian E.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Privatization as Delegation</atitle><jtitle>Columbia law review</jtitle><date>2003-10-01</date><risdate>2003</risdate><volume>103</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1367</spage><epage>1502</epage><pages>1367-1502</pages><issn>0010-1958</issn><abstract>Recent expansions in privatization of government programs mean that the constitutional paradigm of a sharp separation between public and private is increasingly at odds with the blurred public-private character of modern governance. While substantial scholarship exists addressing the administrative and policy impact of expanded privatization, heretofore little effort has been made to address this disconnect between constitutional law and new administrative reality. This Article seeks to remedy that deficiency. It argues that current state action doctrine is fundamentally inadequate to address the constitutional challenge presented by privatization. Current doctrine is insufficiently keyed to the ways that privatization involves delegation of government power, and simultaneously fails to allow governments sufficient flexibility in structuring public-private relationships. This Article proposes instead a new constitutional analysis of privatization that reformulates state action in private delegation terms. Under the proposed analysis, the critical question is whether delegations of authority to private entities are adequately structured to enforce constitutional constraints on government power. Central to this approach is the recognition that mechanisms other than directly subjecting private entities to constitutional scrutiny can satisfy the demands of constitutional accountability, and can do so without intruding unduly on government regulatory prerogatives. Where such mechanisms are lacking, however, grants of government authority to private entities represent unconstitutional delegations. To implement this approach, the Article advocates a two-step inquiry that first singles out private delegations creating agency relationships between private entities and the government for special scrutiny, and then asks whether adequate alternative accountability mechanisms exist.</abstract><pub>Columbia University School of Law</pub><doi>10.2307/3593390</doi><tpages>136</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0010-1958
ispartof Columbia law review, 2003-10, Vol.103 (6), p.1367-1502
issn 0010-1958
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_37789170
source EBSCOhost Business Source Ultimate; International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)
subjects Accountability
Administrative law
Authority
Constitutional law
Contracts
Delegation of authority
Government
Government policy
Government programs
Law
Medicaid
Medicare
Power
Prisons
Privacy rights
Privatization
Public assistance programs
Public-private partnership
State actions
U.S.A
title Privatization as Delegation
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-06T23%3A34%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Privatization%20as%20Delegation&rft.jtitle=Columbia%20law%20review&rft.au=Metzger,%20Gillian%20E.&rft.date=2003-10-01&rft.volume=103&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1367&rft.epage=1502&rft.pages=1367-1502&rft.issn=0010-1958&rft_id=info:doi/10.2307/3593390&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E3593390%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c316t-7bec586ee52c0cec0b0850ec8f7ff129e66797a0574d713d4d370f8550723d543%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=37789170&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=3593390&rfr_iscdi=true