I’ve finally completed a near-final draft of my book, although some bits, such as the following ‘Reanimation’ section of the chapter on privatisation are still a bit rough.
I’m getting some good comments from readers here, and through more conventional academic channels, which should help me sand down the rough spots a bit. Anyway, thanks to all for the comments I’ve received. It’s made a huge difference to me, and made the production of this book a much less daunting undertaking than laboring alone.
Remember, before pointing out stuff that is missing, that an earlier draft is online here and may be worth reading to see where I’m coming from.
Some zombies can be killed once and for all, and it seems that the global financial crisis may finally have buried the idea of comprehensive privatisation. Throughout the world, the need for governments to act as the ultimate guarantors of economic and financial stability has consigned advocates of a minimal state to the fringes of debate
Even groups on that fringe, such as the Tea Party protestors in the US, are deeply ambivalent, as is evidenced by the famous statement of one such protestor ‘‘keep your government hands off my Medicare’. While most on the right have tried to avoid such obvious self-contradiction, they have, as Paul Krugman has noted, abandoned serious attempts to scrap or privatise the key elements of the welfare state such as Medicare and Social Security.
And what is true in the US is true internationally. The British Conservative party, once the standard bearer for privatisation under Margaret Thatcher, have announced plans to allow public sector workers to set up cooperatives to run services such as primary schools and jobcentres. While some have expressed concern that this might be a backdoor route to privatisation, the central point is that the idea itself can no longer be defended in public, even by the party that did most to popularise it.
Elsewhere in Europe, the crisis has hit hard at the countries and governments that embraced the ideology of comprehensive privatisation most enthusiastically. Iceland, which hosted a triumphal meeting of the ultra-free market Mont Pelerin society only a few years ago, is now trying desperately to avoid national bankruptcy. Ireland is not much better off. The Baltic States are basket cases. Even in cases which seem, at first sight to involve a simple excess of spending over tax revenue, as in Greece, it turns out that a variety of quasi-privatisation measures helped to disguise the problem until it was too late to fix.
With the national exemplars of comprehensive privatisation in disarray, and its advocates in full retreat, it seems unlikely that this zombie idea will return from the grave any time soon.
That does not mean that we will see no more privatisation of government enterprises, nor, unfortunately, that silly and long-refuted arguments will be brought forward to support such measures.
In my own home state of Queensland, for privatisation the government is attempting to sell a range of income-generating assets, and claiming that the proceeds can be used to finance the construction of schools and hospitals. The fact that, unlike the enterprises being sold, the schools and hospitals will not generate profits to service the associated debt seems to have escaped their attention.
Sensible proponents of the mixed economy have never argued that privatisation should be opposed in all cases. As circumstances change, government involvement in some areas of the economy becomes more desirable, in others less so. In cases of the second kind, the appropriate response may well be to privatise existing government enterprises. And, unfortunately, whether or not any particular privatisation is justified, politicians will always be tempted to rely on superficially appealing, but spurious arguments of the kind being put forward in Queensland.
The crucial condition for the stability of a mixed economy is that shifts between the private and public sector should, broadly speaking balance out. Privatisations may take place, but they are balanced by extensions of government activity through the establishment of new public enterprises, the expansion of existing ones or, where private ownership has clearly failed, the nationalisation or renationalisation of private firms.
{ 8 comments }
salacious 03.08.10 at 12:55 pm
“The crucial condition for the stability of a mixed economy is that shifts between the private and public sector should, broadly speaking balance out.”
Why is stability a desirable criterion? Should we, as a matter of course, seek to keep the degree of government involvement in the economy constant?
It seems to me that each government program should be evaluated on its own terms. If, after this evaluation, the number and size of government initiaves judged worthwhile is higher or lower than it was in the past, so be it.
Kevin Donoghue 03.08.10 at 1:30 pm
I don’t think a list of “governments that embraced the ideology of comprehensive privatisation” should include the Irish. When Eircom was privatised the only things I saw the government embracing were the money and the publicity.
What went wrong in Ireland had very little to do with the open sale of state assets. It had quite a lot to do with the sale of favours. The proceeds did not go to the Exchequer. But corruption is nothing new, so it can’t fully explain what went wrong. An important part of the story is Ireland’s entry to the Eurozone, which demolished the usual constraints on property speculation.
bert 03.08.10 at 2:14 pm
You might want to tweak this, since George Osborne recently floated an 80’s-style reprivatisation of the UK bank stock acquired by the government during the credit crunch (ie most of RBS, and about half of Lloyds), to include a popular-capitalism TV ad campaign and subsidised shares for the hoi polloi. (GoogleNews) Hilariously, he tried to call it “the people’s bank bonus”. You can probably still make the point you want to make by saying that as an election wheeze the idea was poorly received, polled horribly, and has not been picked up by anyone else on the Tory front bench.
I’d also argue that privatisation was killed off as an ongoing program in the UK not by the financial crisis but by the colossal clusterfuck created by the early-90s Major government in rail transport.
James Wimberley 03.08.10 at 2:31 pm
Salacious in #1 is right. The crucial condition for the survival of a mixed exonomy is that the degree of government involvement stay within a (pretty wide) range: both the USA and Sweden are within this range today.
Even the survival of the mixed economy is only desirable in a contingent way; as technology evolves, in the long run it may become efficient to evolve to pure capitalism, or pure socialism, or pure anarcho-communism. Since it is hard to see any weay of integrating all externalities in a market system, pure capitalism is subject to the most severe handicaps. For the year 2200, if the human race survives, my guess woul be that most production will be in the unpriced communist sector, as Crooked Timber is today.
BTW, there is something wrong with the syntax of this sentence:
¨In my own home state of Queensland, for privatisation the government is attempting to sell a range of income-generating assets, and claiming that the proceeds can be used to finance the construction of schools and hospitals.¨
Joshua Holmes 03.09.10 at 4:36 am
Throughout the world, the need for governments to act as the ultimate guarantors of economic and financial stability has consigned advocates of a minimal state to the fringes of debate
We’ve always been out there. I’m not sure what counts as “minimal state” in these parts, but raising taxes, upgrading infrastructure, then selling it for pennies on the dollar to politically-connected cronies in a corporate-welfare-laden oligopoly doesn’t look like a minimal state to me. Government spending didn’t even decline, it just moved from social programs to corporate welfare.
Martin Bento 03.09.10 at 4:54 am
“That does not mean that we will see no more privatisation of government enterprises, nor, unfortunately, that silly and long-refuted arguments will be brought forward to support such measures.”
I think you mean:
“That does not mean that we will see no more privatisation of government enterprises, nor, unfortunately, that silly and long-refuted arguments will *not* be brought forward to support such measures.”
As for how much of the economy should be public, I agree with James and Salacious: the ideal balance is likely to shift with technological and other change. Specifically, the market seem to have no good solution for informational goods with considerable cost, at least in labor, of production, but trivial or no marginal cost, which is exactly what we’re getting more and more of.
djr 03.09.10 at 10:43 pm
Now I am completely confused. So are these ideas dead or aren’t they? I realise that you’re drawing a distinction between comprehensive privatisation and what you might call a state of dynamic equilibrium between privatisation and nationalisation, but as it stands these two paragraphs brought me to a crashing halt. Possibly it’s an ordering thing (and possibly if I’d just read the chapter to which this is an appendix then it wouldn’t seem so odd), but as it stands I don’t think it’s particularly clear to the reader what you’re saying has been comprehensively refuted, and what hasn’t.
pilgrimtraveller 03.10.10 at 1:12 am
i wish i knew enough economics to add helpful commentary. but i recently came across some words of john kenneth galbraith (from “the essential galbraith”) that you might want to quote:
“Neoclassical and neo-Keynesian economics . . . has a decisive flaw. It offers no useful handle for grasping the economic problems that now beset the modern society. And these problems are obtrusive; they will not lie down and disappear as a favor to our profession. No arrangement for the perpetuation of ideas is secure if the ideas do not make useful contact with the problem they are presumed to illuminate or resolve.”
“. . . the means by which we can reassociate ourselves with reality.”
Comments on this entry are closed.