Meaning, Reasons and Effects! Essay on the Meaning of Privatisation: Privatisation has become an integral part of pro-competition programme and has now become a familiar feature of new consensus economic policy.
Copyright by Paul Starr. Readers may redistribute this article to other individuals for noncommercial use, provided that the text and this notice remain intact. This article may not be resold, reprinted, or redistributed without prior written permission from the author.
If you have any questions about permissions, please contact the author at or by e-mail at starr princeton. This article also appears in Alfred Kahn and Sheila Kamerman, eds.
The Meaning of Privatization Paul Starr Privatization is a fuzzy concept that evokes sharp political reactions. It covers a great range of ideas and policies, varying from the eminently reasonable to the wildly impractical. Yet however varied and at times unclear in its meaning, privatization has unambiguous political origins and objectives.
It emerges from the countermovement against the growth of government in the West and represents the most serious conservative effort of our time to formulate a positive alternative. Privatization proposals do not aim merely to return services to their original location in the private sphere.
Some proposals seek to create new kinds of market relations and promise results comparable or superior to conventional public programs. Hence it is a mistake to define and dismiss the movement as simply a replay of traditional opposition to state intervention and expenditure.
The current wave of privatization initiatives opens a new chapter in the conflict over the public-private balance. This Article attempts to clarify the meaning of privatization as an idea, as theory and rhetoric, and as a political practice. In the process I hope to explain why I generally oppose privatization, even though I favor some specific proposals that privatization covers.
But apart from this political judgment, I take privatization seriously as a policy movement and as a process that show every sign of reconstituting major institutional domains of contemporary society. Privatization as an Idea In the ideological world we inhabit, contesting interests and parties use "public" and "private" not only to describe but also to celebrate and condemn.
Any serious inquiry into the meaning of privatization must begin, therefore, by unloading the complex freight that the public-private distinction carries.
In this section I analyze, first, the general uses of the public-private distinction and, second, the recent political application of the concept of privatization. The Public-Private Distinction and the Concept of Privatization The terms public and private are fundamental to the language of our law, politics, and social life, but they are the source of continual frustration.
Many things seem to be public and private at the same time in varying degrees or in different ways. As a result, we quarrel endlessly about whether some act or institution is really one or the other.
We qualify the categories: This group is quasi-public, that one is semi-private. In desperation some theorists announce that the distinction is outdated or so ideologically loaded that it ought to be discarded, or that it is a distinction without a difference.
Yet the terms can hardly be banished nor ought they. The frustration with these ubiquitous categories partly arises because public and private are paired to describe a number of related oppositions in our thought.
At the core of many uses are the two ideas that public is to private as open is to closed, and that public is to private as the whole is to the part. In the first sense, we speak of a public place, a public conference, public behavior, making something public, or publishing an article.
Does Privatization Serve the Public Interest? privatization program that included the sale of its telephone monopoly, of a good or service, whether it is public or private, is far less. Privatization may mean the government sells state-owned businesses to private interests, but it may also be discussed in the context of the privatization of services or government functions, where private entities are tasked with the implementation of government programs or performance of government services. Reference: David Hall and Emmanuele Lobina, 'Water Privatisation', London, Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU), April , p. Because water supply is a natural monopoly, it is not surprising to find that water privatisation is accompanied by price rises since it means that those companies have power through their.
The private counterparts, from homes to diaries, are private in that access is restricted and visibility reduced.A look at the arguments for and against privatisation (selling state-owned assets to the private sector).
Arguments of efficiency, raising revenue, natural monopolies, effect . A natural monopoly occurs in an industry where a single company can produce end result or resource services in a market at a lesser per device cost than what two or more organizations can, (mobile phone industry, electricity and normal water supply tend to be cited as types of natural monopolies).
For example, privatization covers the sale of public assets to private owners, the simple cessation of government programs, the contracting out of services formerly provided by state organizations. Does Privatization Serve the Public Interest? privatization program that included the sale of its telephone monopoly, of a good or service, whether it is public or private, is far less. Essay on Privatization: Meaning, Reasons and Effects! of them has been a disillusion with the capacity of the nationalized industries to deliver effective and efficient services to the public and to achieve social goals they were set up to attain. By unbundling the industry into its different potentially competitive and natural monopoly.
Although private companies will provide a similar good or service alongside the government, opponents of privatization are careful about completely transferring the provision of public goods, services and assets into private hands for the following reasons: Performance.
Recent evidence on demand elasticity and efficiency differences suggests that privatisation would be likely to reduce welfare even according to Bradburd's approach.
‘Privatization of Natural Monopoly Public Enterprises: The Regulation Issue SpannRobert M. () ‘Public Versus Private Provision of Public Services’, pp. 71–89 in. John FitzGerald: Regulating private and public monopolies the best solution is to retain the natural monopoly in public ownership.
The privatisation of urban bus services in other. For water and sanitation services in a situation of natural monopoly, either privatised or in public hands, the relationship between customer loyalty and satisfaction (Figure 4, top curve) is not relevant as the only choice customers have is either to purchase or not purchase the service.