The Balancing Act of Privatization

There is a move afoot to privatize operations that are currently performed by government agencies. After all, the competitive market and capitalist ideals have built the American economy and powered business initiative and productivity. Government workers have a reputation for inefficiency and lethargy, knowing that they will draw a paycheck no matter how they perform on the job.

While I can see the need for many functions of government to be provided by private industry, there is a balance to be achieved.

Services that are seasonal or intermittently needed are good candidates for out-sourcing. Imagine if the local public school district had to use government employee architects and carpenters to build a school. In addition, options would be limited, if elections were held using only the sort of balloting machine that some government agency had produced that year.

Some things should not be left to the private sector. The livability of a community relies on free access to certain amenities. Property owners would not be motivated to provide libraries, parks and playgrounds that are open to the public. Similarly, maintenance of public spaces, for example, parks or the grounds of public buildings or custodial care of buildings, might be privatized but work of this sort tends to be full-time employment, and it makes sense to employ maintenance workers that provide continuity of the care.

There is a danger in privatizing too much. When elected officials must award contracts to private companies, conflict of interest questions mushroom and campaign contributions from businesses vying for contracts would surely be seen as “kickbacks”. Before I would entertain proposals of widespread privatization of government services, I would demand ethics reform of the state legislature, especially in regards to conflict of interest and campaign finance.