Against contracting out
From CroziervisionWiki
| Author: Patrick Crozier |
| Permalink |
Sometimes, misleadingly in my view, called "privatisation", contracting out is where the state pays a private company to do some part of its work.
I am against it because:
- conceptually it is no different from state ownership - the only difference is that with one the contract is with private individuals with the other it is with private companies. Therefore, exactly the same arguments about state ownership apply
- if a state is no good at running something there is no particularly good reason to think that it would be any good at drawing up the contract to hand it over to someone else.
- even if it were any good at drawing up that contract that just means that the private company will be doing all the bad things that the government wants done better. Hardly an improvement
- (owing to its contractual nature) any stupidity that gets agreed to in the contract is thereafter "locked-in". At least with a nationalised company, there is some flexibility.
- the results aren't very good
[edit]
Comments
If you would like to comment on this article I suggest you make it here rather than attempting to use the Talk/Discussion page. I have recently received a large amount of Wiki spam and the only effective way of preventing it is to prevent the unmoderated creation of new accounts without which the page is uneditable (unless your name is Kieran or Jax).
