Contracting out and privatization of social services is in advertising for more effective social administration in the world. However the threat in the underdeveloped world for clients not to have money to pay for privatized social services is very likely. In any case, if social services organization and delivery is left for the state or municipal authorities without privatization, the payments will be less or there will be no payments of clients at all. The national and municipal budgets will feel tensions, but the poor people themselves will be more happy having provided social services. Here I do not consider such situations when public money is devoted to a private organization or NGO to deliver services. The latter situation is also an alternative.
Dear Arvydas
The increased value of contracting out public services, like schools and health care, are the increased availabilty of services and also often the customers' perceived quality of the services.The risk of the contracting out is about creating inequality in the population. One way to increase the participation of the citizens is to use a voucher system as is done in the Sweidish healthcare system (see Nordgren 2010 The Healthcare Voucher, Fiancial Accountabilty and Management Vol 26 No 4)
Intriguing issue! there is no 'ideal' panacea or one-size-fits-all solution especially dealing with the erratic conditions (including economic, political & social dimensions) but we do consider an adaptive approach. Giving u an example in Malaysia, (as a developing/ underdeveloped country) mostly, by adopting economic proverb " no free lunch" concept, in order to maintain the quality of service, privatisation is always/ undeniably a means to cater, but must be coupled with some government interventions (overseer). Like public housing provisions- there is a control price by the government, meaning the houses built by the private supplier must within the allowable range but by doing this, incentives must be provided by the government. In short, pure privatisation or pure decentralisation approach may not be a preferred choice esp at this moment in developing country. Another example, is public local good/ service like road and open space, Malaysia is slowly adapting to privatise with proper state control, so that (i) quality of good is more guaranteed and (ii) in economic term, transaction cost is lowered (more feasible).
From a political perspective, key risks are 1) that privatization itself is both a product and producer of a particular ideology, and 2) that the global capitalist framework makes such decisions more or less irreversible. If interested, there are good documentaries on the issues you raise above, for example the effects on IMF policies for money lending to developing countries, which force countries to give up access to key infrastructure (e.g. privatisation of water supply and provision, which exclude the poor).
kindly read this piece
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-08-2014-0130
Article Involvement of private actors in the provision of urban sani...
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication