Thursday, December 11, 2014

Privatisation - Is it more efficient?

And the animals all began to chant, PRIVATE GOOD, PUBLIC BAAD

We have had a lifetime of privatisation from Thatcher, Blair, and now Osborne.
MPs and journalists in unison bleat the mantra "Private good, Public Baaaad".

It is time to look to see if privatisation actually lives up to its promise of greater efficiency.

So, does it?

No.

The European Public Service Unions looked at 9 sectors where privatisation had taken place, and  found no evidence that private is more efficient.

The excellent New Economics Foundation, nef, looked at privatisation of rail, health and prisons. here are some highlights.

Rail
Railways lost traditional bonds and transmission of skills and experience. The complexity introduced meant that literally hundreds were employed solely to apportion blame for trains being late.

State support for rail had to increase after privatisation


Healthcare

Life expectancy rises with health expenditure, but the USA with its 100% private health, does very badly.


The Tories deny that their reforms are an act of privatisation, but since the Lansley Act, 1/3 of new contracts have gone to private providers.

Prisons

Ohio found that re-offending was higher in private prisons
Private prisons are more expensive.

Conclusion

The UK, and indeed the whole world, is being taken for a ride. By private providers of course.

Not convinced? Try this more in-depth account.


2 comments:

mumasu said...

How can it be, surely it has to make profit to be worth it to a private company which is money taken out of the public sector (hospital schools anything else). Any profit, even if its only a penny should have been spent on services which is what we pay our taxes for. Can never be better, why dont the public see it?

Richard Lawson said...

Mumasu, it is obvious, isn't it? money siphoned off for shareholders and bonuses is money not spent on patient care. The Tories and their puppets claim that private is more efficient, but the evidence for this simply is not there.