Sample Public Administration Coursework Paper on Social Justice and Privatization

Social Justice and Privatization

            Challenging situations in the present day are increasing the demand for the government to offer effective public services. This is with regard to the public and private associations in provision of services. The high demand has forced the government to seek for help from the private entities through privatization. Unfortunately, the interconnections between public and private entities have at times generated undesirable outcomes for the public. Since the early days of the republic, political institutions have played a leading role in American society and in the civic life of the nation. Recently, though, it appears that American society has grown somewhat disillusioned with government. This, in turn, has had a negative effect on citizen participation in political institutions and in civic participation in general. Some would argue that what was once perceived an element of liberty and freedom has evolved into a type of social egoism, where individuals no longer feel an obligation to participate or concern themselves with public affairs. The study examines some of the key issues involved in the public-private nexus in relation to the impact of privatization on the policy process. The study further examines this phenomenon and the implications of this trend for public policy. 

Impact of Privatization

            Privatization refers to the performance of including the private sector in the procedures, roles and responsibility of the government. The government seeks the services of the private providers either for profit or non-profit with specific objectives to be met through privatization. Privatization is therefore the use of the private sector to provide good service in terms of financing, operations, and quality control. Therefore, privatization is of recurrent interest to congress. The objectives of privatization include minimization of the fiscal deficit, increase in efficiency of the public sector, foster of competition, and releasing of the resources for physical and social infrastructure.

To reduce political interference, the government at times applies privatization since private organization managers are flexible in making quick decisions. Appreciation should be made on the primary objective of privatizing these enterprises is to meet the needs of the public. This is attributed by the fact that the government in an innovative venture should be neutral by laying out the ground rules of the businesses to run and compete. It is nonetheless the role of the government to penalize guilty personalities, in addition to adjudicating disputes in competing firms. The government is thus expected to maintain its main role of regulating business and not to operate these businesses. There are high chances of the market becoming chaotic and unruly in cases where the government is to own a firm itself. Market players would end up losing confidence on the neutrality of the Umpire. The market therefore becomes disorderly and the economy pays the heavy price for loss of the market mechanism. Based on the stated objectives, privatization emerged as a solution to the purported mistakes of the government.

            Much difficulty is experienced in measuring the impact of privatization on sustainable development due to the diminutive comprehension of the transmission channels. Successful privatization is properly implemented results to efficient allocation of resources, increased productivity, creativity, and entrepreneurship. These results impinge on the development of the nation interconnection and assist in increasing of the rate of economic development. Sustainable development is realized when the pattern of economic growth conserves depleted natural resources and conserves the environment. It must be realized then none of the patterns are automatic and hence needs not be taken for granted. In reality, there has been major breakdowns and congestion, which have resulted to the present results.

            Relationship between privatization and development is realized only when productivity is experienced in the prevailing resources such as labor, technology and capital. According to economic theory, welfare theorem stipulates that privatization as a form of production in a competitive equilibrium is most favorable. The government in this theorem is expected to play the role of intervention of the regulation of natural monopolies, embark upon externalities, and provide public goods. Within the competitive market structure however, the rationale for the government owned enterprises is scrawny. Private ownership is then perceived to generate higher rates of productivity growth and eventually turn down of costs.

            The set objectives of the government for privatizing some of its roles may at times fail due to widespread individualism. According to Anderson (2012), “The document we’re celebrating today says in its second line that axiomatic human rights include “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” — individualism in a nutshell.” Increased self love, which is a counterpart of self love has generated increased privatization from the government and minimal dependence on privatization. Anderson goes on to assert that Americans have gone overboard in indulging in propensities to self-gratification.  Two decades after the world war II, none of the conservatives could think of fighting for reduced tax rates as this was perceived as shameful. Presently, moral decadence dictates the present society due to adoption of the free animal spirits human beings have adopted. Instead of the goal of communality prevailing within similar social class, the motto for ‘every man for himself is instead dictating societal morals. Political personalities are left to blame the freedom defined from the 60s for the present form of society.

            According to Hudson (2003), privatization as an idea reached federal policy agenda more than two decades ago, resulting to introduction of new bills that featured this move. The bills proposed that either the government expand its activities within the private sector of halt its movements. Privatization of the military housing was included as an approach of expanding opportunities for social and community services. Unlike regenerating government, or reform ideas, privatization has undergone several criticisms due to some departments which have faced numerous challenges after the private sector took over. There has been some sifting of the government work from the government employees to the contractors, a move perceived as a union busting approach to weaken the political left by decreasing the number of the unionized government employees. This is however true as one of the major reasons for privatizing the roles were to overcome the overwhelming political interference in some of the departments. This is because most of the roles the government was to play has  to be passed through the legislature or undergo some policies. This was difficult for the government to realize any achievements.

Another major issue has been women and minorities representation who have been readily finding jobs in the government sector than in the private sector. This challenge has affected majority of the people and especially the marginalized. It is however difficult for the government to control the number and kind of employees to work in the private sector due to the private entity policy which mandates the private sector to make profits and increase business ventures. Women and the minorities were suitable in some of the roles in government sector as the government’s policy was to offer financial and economic equity among its subjects (Kosar, 2006).

             Privatization has been recently down looked due to the promotion of the iron triangles and similar corrupt deals the federal government has assumed in the recent past in relation to the private sector. a case in point is the issue of the Boeing Company that reached a $ 615 million settlement with the Department of Justice. The company was involved in a scandal as investigated by the justice department for its role in the scandal. Such scandals have been numerous over the past mainly due to the increasing greed and individualism of the citizens. Fro these instances, the government should take note that it is overwhelmingly tasking to hire private sector to conduct its roles. This is attributed by the fact that this process posses managerial challenges to the administrators incase an agency fails to have a well-equipped staff to conduct the roles. Privatization practice has been concludes as not the best approach in cost savings or better services. In some instances, these firms have had significantly higher cost overrun than government agencies in the performance of services and have performed work that has been

criticized as being grossly been inadequate.

References

Anderson, K. (2012, July 3). The downside of liberty. The New York Times. Retrieved from

Hudson, W. E. (2013). American democracy in peril: Eight challenges to America’s future (7th ed.). (Chapters 3-7). Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press.

Kosar, K. R. (2006). Privatization and the federal government: An introduction. CRS Report for Congress (Order Code RL33777). Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33777.pdf 

 Shafritz, J. M., Lane, K. S., & Borick, C. P. (Eds.). (2005). Classics of public policy.  New York, NY: Pearson Education.

Shafritz, J. M., Lane, K. S., & Borick, C. P. (Eds.). (2005). Classics of public policy. New York, NY: Pearson Education