expenditures. Substituting from a stable, linear government for complex networks may raise questions of allocation deliberations being solely prompted by cost/ efficiency not taking into account taxpayers other values. Contracting The Hollow State refers to the extent to which governments are directly involved in providing services.[4] Contracting out is when government allows a non-government institution to operate under the governments name to provide a public service. Hollowing out of government by allocating services to private organizations has three imperatives: the need to attract investment to compensate for lost revenues and meet the political imperatives set by the country and provincial governments; the need to receive inspection teams from higher levels of government; and "soft centralization" of township bureaus, which are placed under country or provincial government control. Advocates of privatization often make the point that government can provide or arrange for citizens to receive a service without the government actually providing it,[5] by contracting out. A government intent on privatization would decide what it wanted done and then contract with the private sector to provide the good or the service.[5] The federal government has always relied on state and local governments to distribute and provide services with money funded by the federal level. However, community-based development organizations have problems with accountability, responsiveness, and sometimes lose their connections with municipalities. This can lead to experiencing disparities in fundraising, fiscal and human resource management practices, and even skills in building and maintaining partnerships and gaining political support. Contracting out or privatization also redirects the funds that would otherwise go to the state and local government to private organizations. It can be said that there is a negative relationship between the neighborhoods where the central offices of those organizations are located, and neighborhood disadvantage, largely because so many distributive organization headquarters are located in downtown, higher-income areas. Government funding of nonprofit agencies in the United States of America increased during the grant-in-aid explosion of the 1960s and 1970s and continued during the Reagan and Bush administrations under the banners of privatization, limited budgets, and getting government off the backs of those it regulates.[5] Not all states who adopt the Hollow State find it successful and more often than not those states fail and lose their political goods. Criticism There are several outspoken criticisms of government contracting practices. Critics claim the hollow state can be inefficient, dangerous, and may violate human rights. The hollow