From what ive read, consumers are definitely not the beneficiaries in such arrangements. Why do governments do this then? Why give up ownership and control of vital stuff (e.g. water, utilities, highways, etc.) to private – and often – foreign entities?
In: 142
The consumers can be beneficiaries in some ways. The reality is that the situation is far more complicated than we give it credit for. This reality is problematic for evaluating the efficacy.
One reason to privatise something is if a private company can do better and your goal is to deliver the best possible service for those that need it. This is problematic for a number of reasons.
Firstly it assumes immunity from corruption. You have no idea whether those private entities are engaging in some kind of bribery or other corruption in order to get the contract or the sale.
Secondly, what is the motivation/loyalty of the private company? Is it to deliver the best service to the customers, or to the shareholders and if push comes to shove, what’s the triage plan?
Finally, once something goes private, you lose absolutely all democratic control over that entity. Privatisation ultimately weakens democracy and your ability to do something about a bad situation.
This is why there’s a counter argument that anything that’s critical to society should be democratically controlled, which until we can elect the members of boards of corporations means they would have to be nationalised.
Latest Answers