privatization: Definition and Much More from Answers.com

Defined in the strictest of terms, privatization means the sale of public utilities to private concerns. But as Public Works magazine noted, "in the broader sense of the term …and the definition that applies to most contemporary discussions, privatization is the contract operation of a public utility or service by a private entity. It most often occurs in solid waste management, water/wastewater treatment, fleet maintenance, road/bridge building and maintenance, and municipal management." Small businesses that provide services in these and other areas (for-profit school academies, for instance) have been among the biggest winners in the growing national trend toward privatization. As Public Works commented, "opportunities abound for private concerns to offer to manage public services with a close eye on cost and efficiency."

Privatization efforts in America today are in large part a reaction to dissatisfaction with government performance and/or unhappiness with the level of taxation that is levied on individuals and businesses by municipal, state, and federal governments to pay for services. This trend has grassroots origins, with local governments in the forefront and state and federal levels of government trailing behind. The purpose of privatization is to take advantage of the perceived cost efficiencies of private firms. Indeed, proponents of the practice say that privatization results in better performance of needed services at lesser cost. "The government usually allows the firm to choose how it will satisfy the contract," wrote Simon Hakim and Edwin Blackstone in American City and County. "For example, a contract may specify trash removal services for the area residents a certain number of times per week. The firm is normally allowed to choose the methods it will use to perform the requirements of the contract, the trash trucks, used, and the number of workers on each trash truck. The profit motive will encourage the firm to produce the services efficiently at the least cost, a motive absent in government provision of services." Even after privatization, however, government monitoring is necessary in order to ensure that satisfactory services are provided to residents.

Growth of Privatization

"Privatization may be a popular buzzword today, but the concept has been around since the first municipality hired Joe and his wagon to pick up the trash instead of getting city employee Frank to do it," remarked Public Works. "The difference today is that privatization is encroaching into all areas of public administration. And governments are expecting public agencies to compete—dollar for dollar—with private operators or surrender management of services. For years, our country has supported the idea that a public workforce was the best provider of essential services. Public employees would reliably and efficiently protect the public safety and deliver water and power; maintain roads and bridges; collect refuse and treat sewage…. In return, public employees enjoyed a certain job stability and a wide range of desirable benefits." But proliferating responsibilities, fiscal belt-tightening, sometimes lackluster performance by workers, and—in the cases of larger cities, especially—festering problems with infrastructure led increasing numbers of city planners and public policy makers to look to privatization.

Today, several of the nation's largest cities, including New York, Indianapolis, Philadelphia, and Phoenix have contracted out a broad spectrum of services that were previously attended to exclusively by city employees. Indeed, New York City opened up bidding from private companies on 40 different municipal services in 1995alone. Smaller cities and towns have instituted outsourcing philosophies as well, and many service businesses, both large and small, have garnered significant new contracts as a result. American City and County reported that various analyses indicate that this trend will likely continue. "Cost pressures, both internal and external, are rated as the most important reasons that officials decided to privatize a service," stated a report on privatization conducted by a coalition of Illinois academic, business, and municipal groups. "The main obstacle is the lack of information or evidence of the benefits of privatization. Many officials also report they would like more information on certain aspects of privatization. It can be deduced that providing additional information on privatization to city officials will lead to increased acceptance."

Variations in Privatization

The term privatization has been applied to three different methods of increasing the activity of the private sector in providing public services: 1) private sector choice, financing, and production of a service;2) public-sector choice and financing with private sector production of the service selected; 3) and deregulation of private firms providing services. In the first case, the entire responsibility for a service is transferred from the public sector to the private sector, and individual consumers select and purchase the amount of services they desire from private providers. For example, solid-waste collection is provided by private firms in some communities. The third form of privatization means that government reduces or eliminates the regulatory restrictions imposed on private firms providing specific services.

The second version of privatization refers to joint activity of the public and private sectors in providing services. In this case, consumers select and pay for the quantity and type of service desired through government, which then contracts with private firms to produce the desired amount and category of service. Although the government provides for the service, a private firm carries out the actual execution of it. The government determines the service level and pays the amount specified in the contract, but leaves decisions about production decisions to the private firm.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Privatization

The merits and drawbacks of privatization have been subjects of considerable debate among business-people, city leaders, and public employees alike. Indeed, each element of privatization—from its apparent cost-saving properties to its possible negative impact on minority workers—provokes strong reaction. About the only thing that everyone can agree on is that the trend has been enormously beneficial to owners of small- and mid-sized businesses. Following are some privatization issues that communities, public providers, and private providers all need to consider:

Costs and Productivity

Proponents of privatization argue that whereas government producers have no incentive to hold down production costs, private producers who contract with the government to provide the service have more at stake, thus encouraging them to perform at a higher level for lower cost. The lower the cost incurred by the firm in satisfying the contract, the greater profit it makes. On the other hand, the absence of competition and profit incentives in the public sector is not likely to result in cost minimization. Of course, small- and mid-sized companies also need to make sure that they do not sacrifice an acceptable profit margin in their zeal to secure a contract.

Although private firms may pay lower wages and fringe benefits than local governments, the major cause of the cost differences between the private and governmental sectors is employee productivity. Lower labor costs may arise either from lower wages (which means that the government was paying wages higher than necessary for a given skill) or from less labor input (which means that the government retaining more employees than necessary to fulfill need). Private firms have more flexibility than governmental units to use part-timers to meet peak periods of activity, to fire unsatisfactory workers, and to allocate workers across a variety of tasks. Moreover, critics of municipal governments argue that they are less likely to reward individual initiatives or punish aberrant behavior when compared with their private sector counterparts.

Finally, supporters of privatization argue that the trend has spurred improvements in performance by public service providers. "Evidence shows that public agencies should be allowed to bid on contracts along with private operators," wrote Blackstone and Hakim, "since this exposure to competition has led many public agencies to improve their service delivery and significantly reduce costs."

Service. Expected quality of service varies from community to community, depending on a wide range of factors such as historical service levels, local taxation, and possible changes in service requirements. Moreover, Public Works observed that good service is sometimes defined differently by citizens, public service providers, and private service providers. "Response time and public confidence need to be taken into account when judging the pros and cons of private/public," stated Public Works. "Stability may be a concern in the eyes of the public; a government agency cannot walk away at the end of a contract period."

Operating Philosophies. Proponents of privatization state that private firms may be more likely to experiment with different and creative approaches to service provision, whereas government tends to stick with the current approach since changes often create political difficulties for elected officials. In addition, private firms may use retained earnings to finance research or to purchase new capital equipment that lowers unit production costs. On the other hand, government may not be able or willing to allocate tax revenues to these purposes as easily, given the many competing demands on the government's budget.

Regulatory Realities. In some cases, local, state, and federal regulations may determine whether a service can even be handed over to a private provider. Moreover, "the ultimate responsibility (in the eyes of the public, if not the courts) rests with the public agency that assigns operating rights to a private concern," stated Public Works. "The local government will still be held responsible for the cost and quality of the service under contract."

Competition. Supporters of privatization often cite the competitive environment that is nourished by the practice as a key to its success. Private owners have a strong incentive to operate efficiently, they argue, while this incentive is lacking under public ownership. If private firms spend more money and employ more people to do the same amount of work, competition will lead to lower margins, lost customers, and decreased profits. The disciplining effect of competition does not occur in the public sector. Still, even advocates of privatization agree that private ownership produces the public benefits of lower costs and high quality only in the presence of a competitive environment. Privatization cannot be expected to produce these same benefits if competition is absent. Given this reality, analysts strongly encourage municipal governments to make sure that the bidding process is an ethical one.

Monitoring and Enforcement. Critics of privatization of government services contend that problems sometimes arise in various aspects of the process, including the bidding process, the precise specification of the contract, and the monitoring and enforcement of the contract. For example, some observers have raised concerns that potential suppliers may initially offer a price to the government that is less than actual production costs to induce the government to transfer the service to the private sector or to win the contract. Subsequently, the contractor would then demand a higher price after the government has dismantled its own production system. Such "low-balling" in the bidding process may be reduced if the local government requires relatively long-term contracts, or constructs contracts that give them flexibility in hiring and firing outside firms.

Public Personnel Management magazine also noted that governments need to take several important precautions before handing out a contract in order to avoid litigation and legal liability. These precautions include detailed performance specifications for service providers, guidelines for the evaluation of competitive bids, and labor relations strategies. For their part, private bidders need to make certain that these precautions are reasonable ones that will not unduly impact their ability to perform both profitably and professionally.

Commonly utilized methods of contract monitoring, meanwhile, include performance appraisals, tracking complaints, citizen satisfaction surveys, reports from contractors, field observations, and ongoing cost comparisons.

Employment. Privatization is understandably viewed as an alarming trend by public employee groups. In some cases, privatization results in layoffs of public sector employees, although governments often reassign them to other government jobs, place them with private contractors, or offer them early retirement programs. These possibilities have been particularly upsetting to public employee unions, which have been at the forefront of efforts to block privatization. Indeed, one of the principal objections to privatization is that it replaces positions that featured compensation that could be used to support a family with private sector spots that offer modest compensation. Indeed, critics such as the Journal of Commerce and Commercial's David Morris contend that private companies are only able to promise meaningful financial savings over public agencies because of the comparatively low salaries they pay their workers. Another charge leveled at privatization initiatives is that they too often have a disproportionate impact on minorities. "Governments often hire minorities in larger proportions than other workers," wrote Blackstone and Hakim. "Thus, if government size is reduced, relatively more minority workers are likely to lose their jobs." In recognition of these fears, some service contracts now require private contractors to hire affected public employees or give them hiring preference.

Demographic and Geographic Factors. Smaller municipalities may incur relatively high unit costs if they operate their own services as a result of not being able to achieve economies of scale. These localities may benefit from turning to a contractor that serves multiple communities. Privatization is also more acceptable in fast-growing communities. If services are being expanded to cover new residents, private contractors are less likely to displace existing public sector employees. Finally, contracting out varies with the number of services provided to residents. As the number of services increases, differences in the cost and effectiveness with which they are provided become more apparent. Therefore, municipalities providing diverse services may be more open to exploring private sector options than those localities where services are more limited.

Further Reading:

Blackstone, Edwin, and Simon Hakim. "Private Ayes: A Tale of Four Cities." American City and County. February 1997.

Elam, L.B. "Reinventing Government Privatization Style—Avoiding the Legal Pitfalls of Replacing Civil Servants with Contract Providers." Public Personnel Management. Spring 1997.

Kodrzycki, Yolanda. "Privatization of Local Government Services: Lessons for New England." New England Economic Review. May/June, 1994.

Layne, Judy. "An Overview of the Privatization Debate." Optimum. June 2000.

Lieberman, Ira W. "Privatization: The Theme of the 1990s—An Overview." Columbia Journal of World Business. Spring 1993.

Morris, David. "The Downside of Privatization." Journal of Commerce and Commercial. February 9, 1996.

"Private/Public Partnership: A Balancing Act." Public Works. September 1997.

Schine, Eric. "America's New Watchword: If It Moves, Privatize It." Business Week. December 12, 1994.

Schriener, Judy, Stephen H. Daniels, and William J. Angelo. "Gold in the Hills of Privatization." ENR.. October 24, 1994.

Sturdivant, John N. "Privatization: It Often Doesn't Work, Increases Costs and Lacks Accountability." Site Selection. April 1996.

Privatization is the practice of delegating public duties to private firms. It is advocated as a means of shrinking the size of government, reducing deficits, and increasing efficiency in public services, although its success in these objectives is debated. Privatization takes several forms in the United States: the selling of firms that were once partly owned and regulated by government; the contracting out of public services to private companies for production; and the funding of vouchers for use in the private sector thus introducing competition between public and private agencies.

Historically the United States has maintained a distaste for federal government intervention in the economy, although the Constitution does grant Congress the power to regulate commerce. With the exception of the Progressive Era (1901–1921) and the New Deal (1933–1945), policy was guided by the principles of laissez-faire capitalism, articulated by economist Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations (1776).

After World War II, public agencies themselves began privatizing without legislative guidance. In 1955, the Bureau of the Budget officially discouraged federal agencies from producing any "product or service [which] can be procured from private enterprise through ordinary business channels." In the mid-1970s the Ford administration proposed legislation eliminating federal involvement in airline, trucking, banking, and gas industries, and one aspect of President Jimmy Carter's energy policy at the end of the decade was to end regulation of natural gas. But it was President Ronald Reagan who made the strongest postwar push for privatization on the federal level.

Reagan established the Private Sector Survey on Cost Control (of ten referred to as the Grace Commission) to "identify opportunities for increased efficiency and reduced costs in federal government operations." Congress supported the Commission's recommendations, and in the 1985 Deficit Reduction Act required "the President to report on progress in implementing [commission] recommendations." This led to the largest privatization in U.S. history, the sale of Conrail for $1.65 billion—and seventy-eight other recommendations for privatization.

Since the 1980s proposals to privatize Amtrak, the U.S. Postal Service, the prison system, health care, housing, welfare, Social Security, and education (among other programs), have been put forth, debated, and implemented in various forms. Allowing citizens to invest some of their social security funds in the stock market was hotly debated during the bull market of the 1990s, yet was generally unpopular with voters, while welfare-to-work programs tended to be supported by public opinion. By the turn of the twenty-first century, state and local governments were contracting services ranging from operation of public utilities to maintenance of public parks.

Perhaps the most intensely debated privatization proposals were in public education. School voucher programs, permitting parents to use public funds to send their children to private schools were implemented in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Cleveland, Ohio. In 1992, private firms began running public schools in cities across the county to mixed reviews, while efforts to privatize five of New York City's public schools were reject by parents in 2001.

Critics of privatization point out that the essential mandate of government is to work in the public interest, while that of private enterprise is to maximize profits; thus ideologically, public services are best handled by government. Others argue privatization disproportionately hurts minority populations because they tend to rely more heavily on employment in the public sector. When such jobs move to the private sector, workers of ten receive lower wages and fewer benefits.

Bibliography

Pack, Janet Rothenberg. "The Opportunities and Constraints of Privatization." In The Political Economy of Privatization and Deregulation. Edited by Elizabeth E. Bailey and Janet Rothenberg Pack. Brookfield, Vt.: Edward Elgar, 1995.

Smith, Preston H. "'Self-Help,' Black Conservatives and the Reemergence of Black Privatism." In Without Justice for All: the New Neo-Liberalism and Our Retreat from Racial Equality. Edited by Adolph Reed Jr. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1999.

Swann, Dennis. The Retreat of the State: Deregulation and Privitisation in the UK and US. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1988.

Privatization may be pursued with different aims in mind. The political aim is to break away from the past and create a new class of capitalists as quickly as possible. The efficiency aim is to create a better management system for the enterprises, and to set up a market environment. If this aim is dominant, it requires complex institution-building and thus precludes rapid completion of the process. Privatization may have a financial aim: in this case the state-owned enterprises (SOEs) should be sold at their highest value so as to bring revenues to the state. Finally, an equity aim may involve returning property to those who had been deprived of it by the nationalization process (an aim pursued in some Central European countries), giving priority to employees for buying shares in their enterprises, or even giving away state assets to the citizens.

In Russia, privatization began in January 1992, together with the implementation of the stabilization program, and assumed the form of liberalization of small-scale trade (street vending). This "small privatization" was conducted at a quick pace in the services sector, which consisted of trade, catering, services to households, construction, individual transportation activities, and housing. It was often marred by racketeering and crime. The small-scale state enterprises (which had already been transferred to the local authorities in 1991) were sold to citizens, local entrepreneurs, and/or employees, basically through auctions. At the same time, as prices and individual activities were liberalized, it became immediately possible to create new, small-scale businesses, especially in fields where human capital was the main requirement, such as consulting, engineering, private teaching, and computer services. Actually, such activities were already privately conducted in the Soviet era within the shadow economy.

The main challenge lay in the privatization of the big SOEs, or large-scale privatization. The Russian government was clearly privileging the political objective, and hence opted for a quick mass privatization scheme. It also favored equity considerations, so that the people would benefit from the divestment of the state. In June 1992, the mass privatization program was adopted, and in October the voucher system was launched. All Russian citizens received 10,000 rubles' worth of privatization vouchers (equivalent then to 50 U.S. dollars), immediately redeemable in cash, or exchangeable against shares in the enterprises selected for privatization that had been transformed into joint stock companies. These enterprises were sold at direct public auctions. The staff (employees and management) could opt for three variants, of which the most popular was the allocation of 51 percent of the shares to the employees at a discounted price. Seventy percent of the enterprises were thus privatized by the end of June 1994; past this deadline the vouchers were no longer valid. The second wave of large-scale privatization proceeded much more slowly and was far from complete in 2002. It had to be based upon sales to foreigners or domestic buyers. It was slowed by several factors: the Russian financial crisis of 1998, which led to a collapse of the banking sector; the scandals linked with the outcomes of the first wave, when several notorious deals evidenced the dominant role of insiders who managed to acquire large assets with very little cash; and, finally, the enormous stakes of the second wave, which involved privatization of the energy sector (oil, gas, and electricity) and the telecommunications sector.

Who owned the Russian enterprises? The most prominent owners were the oligarchs, who controlled the largest firms of the energy and raw materials sector, but who became less powerful after Boris Yeltsin's resignation in 1999. More generally, the former nomenklatura of the Soviet system, along with a small number of newcomers, took advantage of a privatization process lacking transparency and clear legal rules. Restructuring of enterprises and improving of corporate governance did not proceed along with the change in ownership. Privatization was close to completion in Russia as of 2002, when 75 percent of the GDP was created by the private sector. However, the private sector had yet to function according to the rules of a transparent market.

Bibliography

Boycko, Maxim; Shlejfer, Andrei; and Vishny, Robert. (1995). Privatizing Russia. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). (1999). Transition Report 1999: Ten Years of Transition. London: EBRD.

Hedlund, Stefan. (2001). "Property Without Rights: Dimensions of Russian Privatisation." Europe-Asia Studies 53(2):213 - 237.

—MARIE LAVIGNE

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)