The privitasation that kicked off in the UK was popularised by conservative party in the USA. It has become a driving force for development worldwide at present.
--BY RAJENDRA PRASAD KOIRALA
An industry or business becomes privatised when it is moved from public to private ownership. The area of the economy that is managed by governmental organisations is known as the public sector. Privatisation restricts the government's involvement in economic activity and protects the private sector. It creates economic democracy and permits the private sector to engage in economic activities freely.
When did privatisation begin?
The term privatisation was first used in English accounts of the German experience in the middle of the 1930s. At the start of the 20th century, many important industries had government ownership in many European economies. The Nazi regime made the first attempt to de-nationalise the German economic sectors through a process known as ‘reprivatisierung’ or re-privatisation. The Adenauer administration of the Federal Republic of Germany undertook one of the earliest privatisation drives of modern times. A majority stake in Volkswagen was sold through a public offering by the German government in 1961 as part of its denationalisation policy which was primarily targeted at small investors. The selling of Veba shares followed in 1965. Both offers were initially well-received by the market but the government was compelled to bail out investors during the first stock market downturn, reversing the stated policy. In the early 1970s, there were more failed privatisation attempts in Chile and Ireland.
In the United Kingdom, the privatisation drive kicked off in 1979 when the Conservative party led by Margaret Thatcher was at the helm of the government. The term ‘privatisation’ was actually coined by the Conservative administration in place of the less appealing ‘denationalisation’. It is interesting to note that privatisation was not one of the major campaign issues that helped the Conservatives win the election. However, the Thatcher government's policy of selling off the assets of state-owned businesses (SOEs) left a permanent imprint on the economic history of the 20th century.
The public ownership of ‘steel, mining, banking, shipbuilding, shipping lines, and railways’ was sold off by the Nazis. These were initially nationalised in the early 1930s as a result of the Great Depression's devastating economic effects. Economist Germa Bel contends that the Nazi privatisation programme, however, was ‘inside a framework of expanding state control of the entire economy through regulation and political meddling’. The market was mostly under the party's control, and disobedient industrialists were ousted from their jobs, including the head of the Junkers aviation firm.
Privatisation is, undoubtedly, one of the major developments in the 20th century's economic and financial history. Approximately 4,000 privatisation operations were carried out globally between 1997 and 2004, generating over $1,350 billion in revenue for governments. By implementing the most privatisations and generating half of the worldwide earnings, western Europe emerges as the most significant region. There are a number of reasons why western Europe is relevant in this process. Financial market optimism and favourable budgetary conditions have been the key forces behind privatisation in western Europe. Political preferences and institutional limitations have also affected the process, influencing privatisation decisions due to partisan politics and constitutional restrictions.
Western Europe started the privatisation process with the idea that it would help governments cut costs and improve efficiency since private enterprises could convey commodities more quickly and effectively. One reason for privatisation was to reduce costs. Privatisation could result from a desire to move risk from the public to the private sector. As a new source of income, privatisation might also be justified. An improved level of service could possibly be the cause.
Privatisation in the US
The US first toyed with the idea of privatisation in the 1980s. The Reagan administration made privatisation a key component of its efforts to reduce the size of the government and balance the budget. Initially, the US government prioritised privatisation in road building, transportation, hydropower and communication, among other sectors. Moreover, the rapid development of science and technology, and globalisation started changing the world. If we look at the world scenario, most of the capitalistic democratic countries have been able to shore up their economic growth because of privatisation.
Everything has pros and cons. Privatisation is no exception to it. However, no country can deny the ethos of privatisation.
Recent studies on public and private sector ownership have concentrated on two key issues. First, which type of ownership increases social welfare more successfully, and second, why would politicians ever give up control of state-owned businesses when status quo would help them preserve electoral support? The first query has been addressed by a growing corpus of empirical data which contends that private businesses frequently perform more effectively than state-owned ones. The second question has received little empirical attention. According to current theoretical research, the simple explanation is that politicians go for privatisation when the political costs of preserving state ownership outweigh the advantages. This claim is difficult to test formally. The aspects that the politician takes into account while weighing costs and benefits must be quantified.
Privatisation Political Economy in the US
Private firms are expected to operate more efficiently than a comparable state-owned organisation. Laffont and Tirole (1991) note that managers of public enterprises typically have less incentive than private managers to adopt a sufficiently long-term perspective centred on productive efficiency because they do not own stock or have stock options in their ‘firms’, and are not subject to corporate takeovers that could cost them their jobs. When the state retains ownership of a portion of a company's shares, that conventional wisdom falls apart. In certain circumstances, partial state ownership may be compatible with the disciplining effect of capital market surveillance. But one reason to anticipate private companies performing better than state-owned ones is monitoring. Another is the 'strict budget limitation' that private managers are subject to. Although some public firms have actually shut down due to poor performance, a vast majority of them anticipate government subsidies. Public managers are less motivated to manage effectively than their private counterparts also due to the absence of bankruptcy threat.
However, Laffont and Tirole point out that in some situations, public ownership might be advantageous. For instance, it might be simpler for the government to pursue welfare objectives. Therefore, it is not clear from theory which type of ownership best advances social welfare. According to an empirical research, private businesses frequently outperform equivalent public ones in terms of efficiency (Lópezde-Silanes, upcoming; Mueller, 1989; Vining and Boardman, 1992). Many businesseses have showed increased efficiency after becoming private (Galal et al., 1994; Kikeri, Nellis, and Shirley, 1992) .
According to Clarke and Cull (1997), post-privatisation improvements were made for the banks in this sample in terms of both the quality of their loan portfolios and the effectiveness with which they generate income. Why didn't they privatise more swiftly if provincial policymakers were concerned about the health of their financial sector? Politicians clearly use public corporations to further their own political objectives, as shown by the instances provided by Shleifer and Vishny (1994). Giving supporters vacant positions in state-owned businesses is a simple approach to do this. In order to gain political support, state-owned businesses may sometimes set prices below their marginal costs. Given these advantages, it appears doubtful that politicians would ever cede control of the government. According to Shleifer and Vishny (1994), privatisation happens when politicians who gain from low taxes triumph over those who benefit from subsidising supporters.
The relative costs and benefits of privatisation for all politicians will also depend on a variety of other considerations. For instance, López-de-Silanes et al. (1997) discovered that in the United States, county-level privatisation is encouraged by state clean government laws and state legislation restraining public spending. They speculate that this might be, as a result of these regulations, making political patronage more expensive. Similar to how economic crises exacerbate a government's financial situation, they can also change the costs and advantages of privatisation, making it harder for politicians of all stripes to fund failing state-owned businesses (World Bank, 1995). Compared to provinces with healthy finances, those with significant fiscal deficits may have been more inclined to privatise their provincial banks.
However, it is not immediately obvious why deficits should have a significant impact on a politician's choice to privatise. It is unclear why a politician wouldn't profit from privatisation in a non-crisis period if he can do so during a crisis. The cost of raising revenue during a crisis, when marginal rates must be higher, is likely to be higher than during a non-crisis time due to distortionary taxes, according to one tenable theory. Further, various political actors may be impacted differently by crises. Left-wing ‘subsidising’ politicians may be less opposed to tax increases than fiscally conservative ‘low tax’ politicians which may make them less vulnerable to crises. According to the World Bank (1995), “a crisis must be exceptionally substantial before the political advantages of change outweigh the costs" in situations where the beneficiaries of the state-owned firm status quo constitute a significant portion of the leadership's support base.
Comparable to the justification for including deficits, the inclusion of bank quality has one. Politicians who oppose privatisation have a smaller base of support because poorly functioning banks place a greater economic burden on the government. Furthermore, the bankruptcy of a bank could result in a significant increase in the strain on the government's finances as well as raise concerns among taxpayers about how money is distributed to constituents of political parties. The chance of privatisation may rise as a result which may boost the position of lawmakers who advocate reduced taxes. When political party is taken into account, however, bank quality may not be able to account for much extra diversity in privatisation choices. After all, helping a failing bank is just one part of the fiscal jigsaw, and the models that follow already account for deficits. Additionally, it is possible to keep taxpayers from knowing how well-run state-owned businesses are. Low bank quality might offer more details, though, if it serves as a warning of the future financial penalties of opposing privatisation.
Political factors should likely account for a greater portion of the variation in compared to the other variable kinds, privatisation choices. Shleifer and Vishny draw their conclusion from a number of cases that "privatisation frequently occurs when conservative governments, supported by taxpayers, replace leftist administrations, supported by public employees." We can test some additional hypotheses on the political costs and advantages of privatisation thanks to the time limit variable which is also a useful tool. The US term limitations for governors have a sizable impact on the nation's economic policy decisions. They propose that effort and, consequently, policy outcomes will differ when term limits are binding based on a model of political reputation described in banks.
The issue is the same in almost all capitalist countries. Whoever comes in the government, plans and policies are made accordingly from the election point of view. However, whatever development has been carried out across the world, leaving some so-called Communist countries, is all because of the private sector.
WHAT INDUSTRIES ARE PRIVATISED IN THE US?
Medicare and Medicaid Managed Care
For all medical services received by a beneficiary over the course of a specific period, the government in the United States pays a managed care organisation (MCO) a set sum known as the ‘capitated rate’. Since 1990, more people have signed up for the programmes. In 2002, MCOs were providing care to 60% of Medicaid beneficiaries and 12% of Medicare participants. The private sector's involvement in Medicare and Medicaid extends beyond MCOs. Private physicians, hospitals, and nursing homes offer healthcare; private intermediaries’ process reimbursement claims; and private medical professionals work for peer review committees, utilisation review committees, and accreditation bodies like JCAHO.
In addition to managing Medicaid and Medicare, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), welfare-to-work, child support enforcement, and other government programmes, Maximus Inc - an American government services company with international operations in in the US as well as Canada, and the United Kingdom - is one of the major recipients of US outsourcing contracts.
Private groups that also administer treatment centres, head start programmes, and collaborate with child welfare agencies also manage food banks and homeless shelters. When the Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) programme took the place of the Aid to Families with Dependent Child (AFDC) programme in 1996, privatisation of the welfare system grew. Workforce development, job training, and job placement are welfare services that are frequently privatised.
Along with charter schools, Educational Management Organizations (EMOs), and school voucher schemes, the private sector also has some role in the public education system. Charter schools are occasionally managed by EMOs, which are often for-profit organisations.
In 2019, 14.3% of all federal prisoners and 7.8% of state convicts were confined in private prisons in the US. Although the operations of these private prisons are governed by contracts, managing a prison necessitates a significant amount of discretion. Compared to state-run jails, private prisons are more vulnerable to legal action.
Both for-profit and nonprofit organisations are entrusted with a range of duties relating to the US foreign aid budget, including delivering immediate humanitarian relief, development support, and post-conflict reconstruction operations. The same goes for tasks that, historically, were seen to fall under the diplomatic and military purview of the government. These include taking part in peace negotiations, military training, information collecting, and other security services or combat-related missions.
There are other sectors too like hydro, communication, roadways, and transportation which are given to the private sectors in line with the policy of the provincial and federal government of the USA.
In conclusion, nothing is aloof from the negative side. Privatisation also has negativity. Despite this, with the gradual reforms, it should be strengthened more and poverty of the globe should be rooted out holistically.
(The author is a PhD scholar. He can be reached at [email protected] for comments.)