http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/business/when-privatization-works-and-why-it-doesnt-always.html?_r=0
This article in the New York Times business section suggests that perhaps it is not so much a debate as to privatize industries but rather incentivizing the correct areas to shepherd people and companies into doing what is best for all. An example emphasized is British Petroleum (BP) as it has been under both private and government hands within the last ten years. Neither system was efficient because the private sector overemphasized profits and the government overemphasized public benefit. Neither found a balance, and it hurt the company. Goals in a company need to be clear and measurable and pull people behind them rather than being ambiguous because standards skew people. It seems simply sociology but plays a big role in whether or not a company, a country or even the world is geared for success or failure.
One important aspect of this argument that was neglected is that the federal government has unlimited funds. This does not reward innovation or efficiency. When a firm is concerned about their bottom line, they are forced to be efficient, or die. A good example of how the federal government cannot accomplish this is the United States Post Office, which is semi-private, extremely inefficient and bankrupt.
ReplyDelete