FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1574249723> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1574249723 startingPage "1693" @default.
• W1574249723 abstract "Is conventional public service being swept away by a tidal wave of outsourcing? If replacement by private providers is eroding public employment, how (if at all) should the interests of government workers, and government employment as part of America's social landscape, be considered as factors in the debate about privatization? This essay engages these two questions--the first with some specificity, the second far more tentatively. IS PRIVATIZATION SHRINKING THE PUBLIC WORKFORCE? The rhetoric of opponents and enthusiasts alike suggests a major siege on public employment as an institution. Gerald W. McEntee and William Lucy of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) warn of a coordinated campaign to privatize government at every level [that] far exceeds anything we've seen in the (1) At the other end of the ideological spectrum, the Reason Public Policy Institute declared triumphantly that privatization moves ahead in breadth and depth and is thriving in the United States. (2) Such organizations issue regular publications packed with examples (which are, respectively, denounced or celebrated) of services formerly provided by public workers being shifted to private delivery. One might infer, from the volume and tenor of talk about privatization, that American public employment (at least as we know it) is on the verge of withering away. As a preliminary to any inquiry into the effect of outsourcing on public employment, it is useful to get a sense of the current status of the government workforce. The question of whether public jobs are many or few turns out to be far more complex than is commonly supposed. The following section calibrates the scale of public employment from several perspectives, including relative to the past, scaled to the size of the population and workforce, and relative to public spending. As of 1999--the most recent year for which complete Census Bureau data are available--there were roughly 20 million government workers. (3) Around 2.8 million of these were civilians working for the federal government, of which the largest group (876 thousand) consisted of postal workers, and the second-largest (713 thousand) were civilians involved in national defense and international affairs. (4) The federal government also employed 1.4 million uniformed military personnel. (5) The states, in the aggregate, employed somewhat more people than the federal government: 4.8 million overall, of which 2 million were involved in higher education. (6) The local government workforce exceeded federal and state combined, at 10.7 million. (7) More than half of these (5.7 million) worked in primary and secondary education. (8) The remaining 5 million local government workers were scattered across a score of categories, with no single category except police services claiming more than half a million. (9) Is 20 million public workers a big or small number? An obvious point of reference is the total count of American workers, which was approximately 135 million at the end of 1999, (10) making public employment 15 percent of the total. But this is only useful for assessing whether is contributing to a downward spiral of government employment by reference to the past. Figure 1 traces the number of government workers (on a full-time equivalent basis) from 1948 to 1998. Public employment roughly tripled over that half-century, but by no means smoothly. There were sharp surges in net hiring (in the early 1950s, late 1960s, and late 1980s) alternated with plateaus of little growth, and the public payroll has been close to steady since around 1990. This simple headcount of government workers, though, tells us little on its own. [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] What about the scale of the public workforce relative to America's population? Total government employment climbed from about 6.5 percent of the population in the early 1960s to around 8 percent by the late 1960s, and has stayed fairly close to that level. …" @default.
• W1574249723 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1574249723 creator A5028429415 @default.
• W1574249723 date "2001-06-01" @default.
• W1574249723 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W1574249723 title "Privatization and Public Employment: An Essay on the Current Status and the Stakes" @default.
• W1574249723 hasPublicationYear "2001" @default.
• W1574249723 type Work @default.
• W1574249723 sameAs 1574249723 @default.
• W1574249723 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1574249723 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1574249723 hasAuthorship W1574249723A5028429415 @default.
• W1574249723 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W1574249723 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1574249723 hasConcept C158071213 @default.
• W1574249723 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1574249723 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1574249723 hasConcept C2778137410 @default.
• W1574249723 hasConcept C2778139618 @default.
• W1574249723 hasConcept C2780110086 @default.
• W1574249723 hasConcept C2780510313 @default.
• W1574249723 hasConcept C3116431 @default.
• W1574249723 hasConcept C31196326 @default.
• W1574249723 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W1574249723 hasConcept C46934059 @default.
• W1574249723 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W1574249723 hasConceptScore W1574249723C138885662 @default.
• W1574249723 hasConceptScore W1574249723C144024400 @default.
• W1574249723 hasConceptScore W1574249723C158071213 @default.
• W1574249723 hasConceptScore W1574249723C17744445 @default.
• W1574249723 hasConceptScore W1574249723C199539241 @default.
• W1574249723 hasConceptScore W1574249723C2778137410 @default.
• W1574249723 hasConceptScore W1574249723C2778139618 @default.
• W1574249723 hasConceptScore W1574249723C2780110086 @default.
• W1574249723 hasConceptScore W1574249723C2780510313 @default.
• W1574249723 hasConceptScore W1574249723C3116431 @default.
• W1574249723 hasConceptScore W1574249723C31196326 @default.
• W1574249723 hasConceptScore W1574249723C41895202 @default.
• W1574249723 hasConceptScore W1574249723C46934059 @default.
• W1574249723 hasConceptScore W1574249723C94625758 @default.
• W1574249723 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W1574249723 hasLocation W15742497231 @default.
• W1574249723 hasOpenAccess W1574249723 @default.
• W1574249723 hasPrimaryLocation W15742497231 @default.
• W1574249723 hasRelatedWork W120077806 @default.
• W1574249723 hasRelatedWork W1729812378 @default.
• W1574249723 hasRelatedWork W1969464130 @default.
• W1574249723 hasRelatedWork W1981805606 @default.
• W1574249723 hasRelatedWork W2006406977 @default.
• W1574249723 hasRelatedWork W204179662 @default.
• W1574249723 hasRelatedWork W2067932183 @default.
• W1574249723 hasRelatedWork W2089672656 @default.
• W1574249723 hasRelatedWork W2114208784 @default.
• W1574249723 hasRelatedWork W215103200 @default.
• W1574249723 hasRelatedWork W222690613 @default.
• W1574249723 hasRelatedWork W2500817647 @default.
• W1574249723 hasRelatedWork W252515191 @default.
• W1574249723 hasRelatedWork W269956975 @default.
• W1574249723 hasRelatedWork W345169606 @default.
• W1574249723 hasRelatedWork W40121590 @default.
• W1574249723 hasRelatedWork W69048994 @default.
• W1574249723 hasRelatedWork W2182689999 @default.
• W1574249723 hasRelatedWork W219357651 @default.
• W1574249723 hasRelatedWork W3140292105 @default.
• W1574249723 hasVolume "28" @default.
• W1574249723 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1574249723 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1574249723 magId "1574249723" @default.
• W1574249723 workType "article" @default.