The Role of Privatization in Improvement of Productivity in Public Sector

Many public agencies in recent years have followed the trend of privatization, or contracting-out. Activities and functions that were once performed, or services that were once provided, by public employees are now being performed by private sector employees (Lyons). Vehicle towing, health services, police protection, and solid waste collection are among the many services and functions that government has contracted out. A survey in 1995 that was sent to mayors or city managers of America's largest cities (based on population) revealed that only three of the 66 cities that responded to the survey had not privatized any city services.

Government failure happens when policies veer away from traditional institutional norms, electoral mandates, and industrial market forces. According to the public choice theory, public policy outcomes often conflict with public opinion, public awareness, and the economic forces of markets. Eg: Crowding out – government spending encroaches on private sectors.

The economic nature of private corporations is to be profit-seeking agents whose sole focus is to maximize shareholder value. This is a fair reason and a reason that will always exist. Detractors of privatization and free market systems, argue that

However, among the causes which negatively connote bureaucracy, but which are debunked in the article, we can find also the need for a privatization for bureaucracy in order to successfully create an efficient system and a more standardization of the latter which treats citizens as simple numbers.

with the public sector. Privatization refers to shifts in ownership from government to private for-profit

During the last three decades, privatization has become increasingly popular in our government. This noticeable growth of privatization of public services has generated lots of discussions and debates among many scholars and left many of asking the questions.

Contracting out is the process through which public organizations contract with private sector organizations to provide services normally provided by public agencies. It is a form of privatization, which is defined as any shift of activity or functions from the state to the private sector, more specifically, the shift of production of goods or services from public to private. (Starr, 5) Privatization reduces the role of government and increases the role of private sector agencies. However, public agencies maintain ultimate control over the provision of services and they control government funding.

There can be a number of reasons for a company to go public or private. There are benefits, as well as disadvantages that go along with either course of action (Exhibit 1 for details). When firms decide to go private, they are no longer listed on any stock exchange market. The pressure of keeping accounting regularity and reporting to the public is no longer an issue. Instead, firms can be more flexible to reorganize the business profile as well as the management team. In many cases, shareholders and board members receive very rewarding financial benefits from this transaction. However, in some situations, public firms do not have a choice in the matter, as is the case in a “hostile takeover”.

The need for financial stringency in public organizations due to budgetary pressures and tax resistance coupled with the need to Managing /balancing budget deficits and provide quality services with a reduction in revenue has always been a major challenge for public organizations. The need to save money and at the same time provide quality services, had forced government agencies to privatize and contract out. Recently, there is greater involvement of the private and nonprofit sector in public service delivery. More and more government functions in service delivery are now carried out by private and nonprofit organization. This is one part attributed to the belief that private organizations can provide services more efficiently and effectively than government operated services. And the other is the fact that it is cost effective and takes a lesser time frame. These two process are indeed unarguably beneficial to the government and private sector as well as the beneficiaries, but they can be also very daunting accompanied with huge challenges especially when not executed in the rightful manner. The case of the crummy contractor by Rainey depicts such a complex situation , where the process of contracting out was poorly conducted. The case highlights the demand for privatization and contracting-out and most importantly some of the challenges of privatization and contracting in government organization. it goes on further to identify some crucial pointed to be

Before compare the two different models TPA and NPM, I will illustrate what is the

When we examine public sector versus private sector, plenty of differences come to mind. In defining each, we learn a private sector in an economy consist of all businesses and firms owned by ordinary members of the general public. It also consists of all the private households in which people live. The public sector in an economy is owned and controlled by a government. It consist of government businesses and firms and goods and services provided by the government such as the national health service, state

In the following paragraphs, I will explain the dominant theory in public administration practice and elaborate on the major theoretical assumptions of the Old Public Administration. As stated in the question, the world has transformed through globalization, information technology, and devolution of authority since the latter part of the last century. The dominant theory in public administration has been replaced from the traditional rule-based, authority-driven processes of the Old Public Administration with market-based, competition-driven tactics in the New Public Management, beginning in the 1980s (Kettl, 2000, p. 3). This was an effort to privatize government and streamline public administration to maximize efficiency and productivity. Heavily relying on market mechanisms to guide public programs, public administrators in the New Public Management are encouraged to “steer, not row,” meaning they should not bear the burden of delivering services, but instead define programs that others will carry out, through contracting or other means (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2011, p. 13). Core values of the New Public Management include using private sector and business approaches to the public sector, squeezing as many services as possible from smaller revenues, market style incentives, providing customers more choices, and focusing on outputs and outcomes instead of mainly processes.

There is the need to stress improving organizational and processing procedures. This can be done by the use of technology such as e-gov and management information systems. Also, computer and software applications can make a difference in large education systems, unemployment compensation, retraining, welfare-to-work, and monitoring capital construction programs. The importance to maintain and improve productivity of our government programs. It is very important that we improve productivity of government programs. In this economy we need to be able to cut costs wherever possible, this enables us to do so. It also would limit the amount of involvement and confusion it would bring if we don't improve them. The efficiency as we improve will also be developed.

Beginning in the 1980s, many jurisdictions started to seek third-party alternatives to provide public service under the pressure for cost savings and the call for government efficiency. Private organizations are known for their expertise in specific fields – if leverage private sector know-how well, it can bring success to public sector – high quality public services can be delivered with lower costs. Therefore, public organizations can concentrate on solving critical tasks when they contract out the mundane work to private sector. Outsourcing waste management is one of the effective privatization solutions for public organizations given its easy-to-measure nature, and it continues to be popular among local governments. Nevertheless, the success of privatizing government services is not guaranteed. If not manage privatization well, it could result in increased costs, organization structure and culture change or legal liabilities. In addition, take advantage of privatizing public services redefines the nature of government service and governance as it creates a partnership between private and public sector. With the rapid pace of technology development and the obligation of government to spend taxpayer’s money strategically, privatizing government services has gained unstoppable momentum.

Public organizations and the public administrators have an important duty of promoting and maintaining democratic government especially by ensuring good governance. Social and economic development can be achieved through good governance. Collaborative governance is a primary component of good governance (Ansell & Gash, 2008). Admittedly, public management reforms are fundamental to improving the abilities of various nations to address issues that touch on democratic government. Some of the