Privatization, another Perspective
© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2010; all rights reserved
True and efficient privatization designed to really help the citizenry may well be effected in a manner significantly more equitable than giving away public assets to the wealthy (can’t call them investors when the state guarantees to eliminate the risk). It could be effected in a manner that gives every citizen a say and that is by spinning off the entity involved directly to the citizens as stockholders. They can then, on their own, decide whether or not to sell their interests, at what prices and under what conditions, or to bear the risks or reap the benefits of holding onto them.
Furthermore, they can participate directly in retaining existing management or selecting new management and that new management might well come in the form of unfriendly tender offers, if rules regulating such offers are made a bit more user friendly during the initial two years of the spin-off.
On a series of related notes:
Today’s practice of farming out government functions to private concerns is certainly not innovative, it was done with taxes at least as far back as the Roman Republic and perhaps with results just as detrimental to the public good as they too were more than anything else windfalls to the private parties involved.
“[T]he state: … the incarnation of collective interests, collective purposes, and collective goods”. Interesting definition, I’d like to think about that one a bit. I one sense it is limiting, a broader definition might be the incorporation and empowerment of the collective
Economic activities versus essential public goods, another interesting set of concepts. How does one divide them as one get’s to their boundaries, which are rather broad?
 Judt, Tony. What Is Living and What Is Dead in Social Democracy? Adapted from a lecture given at New York University on October 19, 2009. The New York Review of Books