Issue

Privatisation—to sell it or keep it?

We are moving from a system of government-owned enterprise to a system of privately owned essential services. Why? How?

Submitted 23/03/2006 By bgocal Views 37595 Comments 4 Updated 26/04/2006


Photographer : newyork808

What is privatisation?

Privatisation is the selling of a resource or company that was once owned by the government.

How does it happen?

The first step to privatising a resource or company is to decentralise the industry in which it operates. This means removing government regulations on the industry. So, say for instance the government has a regulation in place which says that only one or two airlines are allowed to operate in Australia. If it wanted to decentralise the airline industry it would remove this regulation, therefore opening up the market. Most of the time regulations like these exist in industries where government-owned enterprises operate.

Decentralisation is a step towards corporatisation, which means turning a government-owned and ran organisation into a company. The company is still owned by the government but it sets out to make a profit, rather than just providing a service. Corporatisation is a step towards the government selling a company it owns to the public.

Why does the government own businesses?

In the past, governments saw ownership of many essential services as a way of controlling development. It also allowed them to control the population's access to services, including hospitals, schools, banks, telecommunications, water, electricity and gas. Under government ownership, these organisations operated to provide a service to the public, rather than earn a profit.

Why sell?

Generally competition makes things cheaper. Government-owned organisations are usually the only organisations providing a particular good or service in the market. This means there is no competition, which is called a monopoly. Operating in a monopoly allows a company to pretty much set their own prices.

So, government-owned organisations usually have a free range to set prices, which arguably leads to money being wasted. This is because these organisation's don't generally operate to make a profit, which means they could be run more cost-effectively.

Selling a government-owned organisation and deregulating the market they operate in, allows for competition which means prices are pushed lower and lower as competitors compete for consumers. An example of this is the deregulation of the Australian telecommunication industry in the 1990s.

Telstra, formerly Telecom, was once the only choice consumers had for phone services. After deregulation, competitors were able to enter the market and more choice was available in the form of companies like Optus and Vodafone. Around a half of Telstra was sold in the late 1990s and as time goes by more and more of the company is being sold into the public ownership.

If stuff get cheaper what’s wrong with privatisation?

The system of government-owned services was in part established to allow some equality in the population's access to services. There are concerns that privatisation will lead to companies withdrawing services from particular markets because there is no means for profit. For example, after the privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank in 1991 many of the bank's branches in rural Australia closed because they couldn’t operate at a profit. So, there is concern that further privatisation of government-owned services will mean that some members of the public are denied access to these services due to circumstances largely beyond their control.

Big examples of Privatisation!

  • The Howard Government has been selling Telstra to the public, step by step. Some people think this will lead to fewer services for the bush. Others argue that it guarantees a more cost effective way of operating the telecommunications industry.
  • Many states have privatised services such as electricity and gas.
  • The Commonwealth Bank was privatised in 1991.

How do I know this?

Kryger, T 2005, 'The incredible shrinking public sector', Parliament of Australia Parliamentary Library, http://wopared.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/rn/2005-06/...

Sloman & Norris 2002, Macroeconomics, Second edition.

Taylor, J & Frost L 2002, Microeconomics, Second edition.

Discuss Now

Post Comment

RSS Comments
image

Kev - Lives - Here 24-Jul-2008

hahahah "reds under the beds" funnelweb?

Anyways, not sure if you still haunt this site (not sure if I do either) but if you do, why not update your pic? Its starting to get freaky...

As always, its about competition and accountability. the form of the enterprise is irrelevant; non-optimal outcomes can be produced by both govt enterprises and private ones; and private companies aren't always better than public ones.

&etc, &etc

-----

image

Yuilden 07-Apr-2008

Funnelweb I agree with your points but i think you neglect to point out that in a private system there is more scope for profiteering - hence the laws, enron situation and all that. Also the shareholders can be up in arms as much as they like - the CEO who sinks a company often still walks off with his golden parachute and liquidation companies make sure banks and institutional investors get paid off first. This is unrelated to the rest of my post, came as an afterthought.

Let me oversimplify things.
Public isnt always designed to make a profit, just look after a vital or strategic interest. Which ones? More commonly Water, electricity, transport communication. You can extend it to state run companies (like oil/gas) but i dont think they are applicable here.

Now the users of this service pays x ammount, which goes hopefully to maintain the system. Pay wages, invest in expand network, replace old gear - all that Jazz. The population has a vested interest in it, prices are controlled (mostly) Essentially you are paying the gov and running costs for use. Course the gov has a budget to balance so windfall might not go back in the system and the system might be losing money so it's subsidized. Historically gov's havent always managed things well or innovate -> its there, its good enough, next subj.

Now under privatization - The user pays x ammount which goes to the company running it. They maintain the system, expand it and pay their staff, shareholders - CEO. Not such a different food chain really, but the motivation is different. Shareholders want the highest return on investment Efficiency generally = running on minimal staff, common billing sys - and most of all encourage as may people to use your system for cost + profit. Now depending on how badly the company wants to run the utility they can boost their profits by overcharging or skimping on the maintanence (not saying they do but can). Course the business always wants to grow - which is achieved by buying up other companies or otherwise expanding their network - more pipes or whatever. Difference here is a private company will look at cost benefit, whereas gov may lean more towards a standard.


Like i said - i oversimplified. I dont hate privatization - but generally i think the concept is done stupidly. Rather than selling off a whole system governments should keep the rights to infrastructure (mostly) and look after the maintanance. Have whatever private org rent the infrastructure for a usage/upkeep fee. Any extension of service public/private funded - let the private company pay reduced rent on it to get back their investment. One utility that should never be privatised is water.

Telstra is probably the worst example here of privatisation.
They have 0 interest in providing everyone equal network access - examples:

  • CDMA to 3G - misreporting network capabilities/blackspots.
  • Wanting to remove bush telephone boxes.
  • Not playing with the network consortium to make new broadband network.
  • Copper network - decaying, they chronically underfund.
  • Lagging behind in their own broadband implementation (inc the 2 above points)
  • Burrying local internet startups - with that sweet gov subsidy to do it.
  • Price fixing - undercutting or overcharging those having to use their network.

With the mass layoffs, crappy ads (which usually lie), hoohaa about disconnecting at risk people Telstra is very high on my dislike scale. I used to have drinks with some Telstra employees where i got a bit of mileage trashing them on whatever wrong their company had done that week. But now you have Telstra whining like a little girl for deregulation - they've shown their enntiiiireeelly trustworthy thus far.

-----

image

funnelweb 21-Jun-2007

Kevin, highly controversial points you make - that's what this is all about.

Allow me to refute. While I can see the reason behind what you say, it is actually far from the truth. Govts are unaccountable and unregulated, why? Govts are exempt entities under the Corporations Act. Govt super funds are exempt under the Prudential regulation that other funds are subject to. Govts can borrow money far cheaper than any corporation. Govt entities that profit receive budget cuts, whereas private companies (PCs) employ more workers and expand. Govt entities are exempt for most taxes. Cover-ups are frequent in Govt (as you would notice), and there is a conflict between the best interests of the organisation, the people and image of the Govt of the day. PCs are accountable to its employees, shareholders and a plethora of regulators whether it be the ATO, ASIC, APRA, AUSTRAC, ACCC, Fair Trading etc.

There are rules against private companies acting unconscionably, engaging in predatory pricing, colluding, reducing competition or acting as a monopoly. None of the above applies to Govt enterprise. If a scandal breaks about a publicly listed comapny, the ASX will investigate to ensure appropriate disclosure was made, ASIC will investigate, the share price will take a battering and the Directors may be sacked. Railcorp recently was blasted by the media for cover-ups, employee wage blow-outs, maintenance blow-outs and among the worst in terms of reliability in the western world! Meanwhile the CEO still received a massive bonus and they were defended by the Govt. If that was a private company, you could be assured, shareholders would be up in arms and heads would roll.

Communism is a good example for you where there were no private companies. There were also no regulators apart from the good ol' Red Party members. Rarely were scandals ever reported or companies shamed over their treatment of employees. 16hr days for less than minimum wage conditions were common. What would you choose?

-----

image

Kev - Lives - Here 07-Apr-2007

Good article!

Just something I've noticed - feel free to argue if I'm wrong - governments in the past used to be 'big and scary'. Talk of rights in the past used to be about limiting government, the rights of citizens, bills of rights, magna carta etc etc.

Now, governments and their departments and companies are heavily regulated. They can't act outside the laws they create.

Ok, well and good.

Private companies, on the other hand, operate in the opposite way. The laws relating to companies tell them what they CANT do, and everything outside of that they're allowed to. So as long as a company follows environmental laws, labour laws, OH&S, it can do whatever to make profits.

These days we're seeing govts shrink, and major companies grow. Yet its govts that are regulated and companies that arent. Govts are vaguely democratic whereas companies... arent? Does 'voting with your dollar' count?

Privatisation = not just about stuff getting cheaper. Is it about less democratic accountability? Or is it about the ultimate accountability mechanism - profit?

I think privatisation is good in that it delivers clear

+

. But sometimes it doesnt work (in areas without markets). As long as its applied sensibly its a good thing?

-----