Neither is obviously more efficient than the other overall, it depends on the structure and the incentives. People worry about private prisons for example. If you make it so the government sends people to prisons and you pay the prison a fixed rate per prisoner, of course you’re gonna get skimping on services by the prisons. If you instead give the prisoner a voucher for a prison and make them pick where they go and prisons get money per voucher they get from prisoners, you’re gonna get competition on quality so you’ll get high quality prisons. Opposite outcomes with just a change to incentives.
My biggest worry about private prisons is that it incentives making more things illegal, longer sentences, disregard for recidivism rates, etc. There have already been cases of judges taking kickbacks from private detention facilities to hand out longer sentences. I guess this is a case of private companies corrupting government though. Government contracting stuff out to private companies is probably the worst of both worlds.
That is a completely legitimate concern. It’s important to note that even if prisons are publicly run, there’s still a bunch of private actors in the prison system in the form of the people who work in it. Prison worker unions and police unions lobby for more laws already to protect their jobs. Private prisons might make that aspect worse, but it’s not like it’s perfect now.
One agitprop I always bring up is that “capitalism is built on informed consent” to make people realize that the system is broken, because even the most ardent supporter of the system realizes that there’s very little informed and VERY little consent in what the system has become.
Exactly. The libertarian talking point that the market and private entities self-regulate because consumers “vote with their wallets” is nonsense. If people are misinformed or not informed at all, then people don’t have any choice at all in what is supposedly a free market! As I mentioned in another comment, we know many companies do not disclose what they put into their food products, and this is in spite of regulations also still existing! The Tesco supermarket chain in UK turned out their beef meat has horse meat and none were the wiser until it’s too late!
But surely you must admit that they do extract more wealth from the working classes for people who just move money around. Let’s see your profit-less crown corporation do that. Checkmate /s
That’s a survivorship bias. Running a small group is easier, of course, than a large organization (though I’m not sure how much this get offset by the large organization having more resources and the advantage of size), but I suspect there is something else going on there. When there are small groups, there can be many small groups, and the inefficient ones can die leaving only the successful efficient ones. Large organizations are too often “too big to fail”.
It’s not just that. You want businesses to be able to fail if they are being run poorly. That’s something that’s a lot harder with government agencies, state owned enterprises, and large companies.
government agencies: People rely on them by design. You can’t simply shut down the health care or welfare system because it’s being run poorly or corruptly.
state owned enterprises: There is pressure from the ruling class to keep even inefficiently run or corrupt SOE going because they provide jobs and patronage.
large companies: They become systemically important. The loss of a single large business can cascade through the economy. See: Lehman Brothers or the big auto companies during the 2008 crash.
My government is mostly privatized. We even hired a consulting firm to figure out how the government could lower consulting fees. The consultants found that if we consult less, we will have lower consulting fees. We paid over half a million for that single report:
Government consultant here. The federal government does nothing if it is not military related or medical care in the Department of Veterans Affairs. Everything they produce is done via contract. That includes leadership which is queued up using consulting. Sure, they make the decisions but that’s not management or the visionary leadership people think it is. It’s all contract management.
People forget that ‘efficient’ in a capitalist sense means that all resources are used. So when you privatize security, prisons, public transport, etc. guess what happens: those companies try to extract as much value as possible and do as little as possible. Because that is what capitalist efficiency is.
A private company is absolutely more efficient than a government. The boss simply says “this is what we’re doing” and that’s it – it’s just a question of what goal they’re efficiently pursuing.
The problem is that intelligent, empathetic, and selfless people rarely rise to those positions. The few that do usually get pushed out of business by ruthless assholes.
I dont think that private corps with tens of thousands of employees can do that at all. Private companies also have committees and working groups and different departments that dont talk to each other (despite the committees), and policies that people follow even though the policy hasnt been good for years.
The boss says “this is what we’re doing” and then it takes years for those hundreds of departments and tens of thousands of people to do it. Or they dont do it, because they disagree with the boss and the boss is far away from any work that they have no idea if people are doing it or not. Or they sorta do it, but then a new boss comes in and has a different plan.
Despite the dictatorship of the owner in a private corporation, actually implementing a thing, especially a new thing, does take a lot of time.
Certain things, yes. Certain other things, not at all.
As much as I hate Elon Musk the company he owns that does space stuff pretty rapidly got a whole lot of new rockets up and got them to land instead of crashing into the sea. The newest govt produced rocket, the SLS, was years late and billions of dollars over budget, and they expend the rockets.
spaceX did some cool stuff. That being said, fuck Elon Musk, he had nothing to do with any of its success.
Whenever people tout Space X as an exemplar of private efficiency my eyebrow twitches.
They wouldn’t exist if not for the billions spent through public funding of R&D at NASA.
Space X also can take risks governments can’t. Imagine if NASA blew up rockets as often as Space X? The Republicans would gut their funding even more then they already have.
taking risks is exactly why they’re more efficient. i wish the public sector could take as many risks without it turning into political circus, but that would never happen.
This is something you really can’t say one way or the other.
I could cite examples of sick, failing government owned companies that did better under privatization, or simply shouldn’t have been governments owned in the first place. On the other hand, I could cite disastrous privatization efforts that should never have happened because they were vital services, or in the national interest. I lived through most of it in the UK when they were privatising stuff left right and centre - some succeeded, others didn’t.
And if they stay under the control of government then they need incentivization and means for measuring success. Success doesn’t just mean profit but it does mean value and quality of service. And in some ways that would require operating similar to if it were a private company.
What do you think have been the successful privatizations in the UK. To my mind none of the big ones. I guess the little ones that work we don’t hear too much about.
A lot of subjectivity about what is a success or not, but I would say many nationalised companies (and most were only nationalised for 20-30 years) were absolutely stagnating and/or suffering from widespread union disruption and should have been cut loose. But just picking out a handful of privatisations that went well, I think British Telecom, British Gas & British Airways did much better as privatized companies. Some privatisations went not-so-well - look at steel or coal privatisations or British Rail.
And an example of successful nationalisation - hospitals & doctors were a loose arrangement of private / charitable causes before being nationalised as the NHS. I think we can agree the situation is far better for everyone as a public health service than if it were run for-profit.
I think the way energy markets work is pretty cool, where you have an independent regulatory entity that operates a market, with very strict control measures and compliance monitoring. That way you take advantage of market incentives but you still own it. China’s “hold on to the big, free the small” economic policy is interesting as well.
In the end privatizing means maximizing for profits and not other quality factors though. It would be great if that would lead to increased value and quality of service, but that’s not the reality in our current form of capitalism. Here, it leads to saving costs whereever possible, which finally implies loss of quality.
When it comes to infrastructure like train networks, telecommunication lines or postal services and critical services like hospitals, privatizing is the worst you can do from my point of view. Living in Germany, I see plenty of such examples. Our train service got incredibly worse since it was privatized, hospitals have severe issues on multiple fronts, and let’s not forget how we are extremely sucking with the modernization and upkeep of our telecommunication infrastructure.
The government needs to take over things which are not viable for the private sector, but important for society to work.
Lets say privatisation of public transport: In countries where it is completely private, only major cities have reasonable connections. Because those are the most profitable ones. But if you want people to actually use public transport, you need to have a fine and widely spread net of connections. For that to happen either the state completely owns the public transport, or takes off financial pressure and only partially owns it.
Exactly this mechanism enables (partially) state owned organizations to run suboptimal. As explained in the example, this is a desired effect. But it also enables memes like the lazy state employee - which are at least partially true.
I live where the govt gives absurdly large subsidies to bus companies (~500 million dollars per year) and the service as a whole still sucks balls. During peak hours, it’s not uncommon for a bus to not stop because you literally wouldn’t manage to get in.
One thing to keep in mind is that there are many companies that are little more than state parasites, companies that wouldn’t survive against real competition, yet all the blame or any misgivings ends up on the “evil big gubmint” just because.
E scooter services are a nice example. They are not covered under state-run public transport. You see those in major cities. There, where they are not required as much due to more dense public transport systems. But there, where they would be really useful, in more rural areas, due to a much less dense public transport system, they are lacking. And why is that? Because profits.
Add comment