Copyright by Paul Starr.
Copyright by Paul Starr. Readers may redistribute this article Critically examine the impact of nationalization other individuals for noncommercial use, provided that the text and this notice remain intact. This article may not be resold, reprinted, or redistributed without prior written permission from the author.
If you have any questions about permissions, please contact the author at or by e-mail at starr princeton. This article also appears in Alfred Kahn and Sheila Kamerman, eds.
The Meaning of Privatization Paul Starr Privatization is a fuzzy concept that evokes sharp political reactions.
It covers a great range of ideas and policies, varying from the eminently reasonable to the wildly impractical.
Yet however varied and at times unclear in its meaning, privatization has unambiguous political origins and objectives.
It emerges from the countermovement against the growth of government in the West and represents the most serious conservative effort of our time to formulate a positive alternative.
Privatization proposals do not aim merely to return services to their original location in the private sphere. Some proposals seek to create new kinds of market relations and promise results comparable or superior to conventional public programs. Hence it is a mistake to define and dismiss the movement as simply a replay of traditional opposition to state intervention and expenditure.
The current wave of privatization initiatives opens a new chapter in the conflict over the public-private balance.
This Article attempts to clarify the meaning of privatization as an idea, as theory and rhetoric, and as a political practice.
In the process I hope to explain why I generally oppose privatization, even though I favor some specific proposals that privatization covers.
But apart from this political judgment, I take privatization seriously as a policy movement and as a process that show every sign of reconstituting major institutional domains of contemporary society.
Privatization as an Idea In the ideological world we inhabit, contesting interests and parties use "public" and "private" not only to describe but also to celebrate and condemn.
Any serious inquiry into the meaning of privatization must begin, therefore, by unloading the complex freight that the public-private distinction carries. In this section I analyze, first, the general uses of the public-private distinction and, second, the recent political application of the concept of privatization.
The Public-Private Distinction and the Concept of Privatization The terms public and private are fundamental to the language of our law, politics, and social life, but they are the source of continual frustration. Many things seem to be public and private at the same time in varying degrees or in different ways.
As a result, we quarrel endlessly about whether some act or institution is really one or the other.
We qualify the categories: This group is quasi-public, that one is semi-private. In desperation some theorists announce that the distinction is outdated or so ideologically loaded that it ought to be discarded, or that it is a distinction without a difference.
Yet the terms can hardly be banished nor ought they. The frustration with these ubiquitous categories partly arises because public and private are paired to describe a number of related oppositions in our thought.
At the core of many uses are the two ideas that public is to private as open is to closed, and that public is to private as the whole is to the part. In the first sense, we speak of a public place, a public conference, public behavior, making something public, or publishing an article.
The private counterparts, from homes to diaries, are private in that access is restricted and visibility reduced. The concepts of publicity and privacy stand in opposition to each other along this dimension of accessibility.
Public is to private as the transparent is to the opaque, as the announced is to the concealed. Similarly, a person's public life is to his or her private life as the outer is to the inner realm.
On the other hand, when we speak of public opinion, public health, or the public interest, we mean the opinion, health, or interest of the whole of the people as opposed to that of a part, whether a class or an individual.Impact of Nationalization on Pakistan's Economic development " We would have had the likes of Birlas and Tatas but for nationalization." Nasim Saigol, Interview with Business Today, India.
March April 6, " Had we gone at the rate of growth during the decade of 's, I reckon we would have definitely been an Asian tiger by now" Abdul Hameed. After learning how to critically analyze the media, we hope you’ll explore some of the suggestions for making your own media and telling stories about your own identity.
Note that most of the media examples and the overviews are written from an American perspective or vision of the world. Despite bureaucracy, lack of infrastructure, and an ambiguous policy framework that adversely impact MNCs operating in India, MNCs are looking at India in a big way, and are making huge investments to set up R&D centers in the country.
Issues in Political Economy, Vol. 14, August Impact of Privatization on Economic Growth Adnan Filipovic, Furman University The concept of economic growth is a fundamental part of the field of macroeconomics. Impact of Nationalization on Pakistan's Economic development " We would have had the likes of Birlas and Tatas but for nationalization." Nasim Saigol, Interview with Business Today, India.
Nasim Saigol, Interview with Business Today, India. Privatization is a fuzzy concept that evokes sharp political reactions. It covers a great range of ideas and policies, varying from the eminently reasonable to the wildly impractical. Yet however varied and at times unclear in its meaning, privatization has unambiguous political origins and objectives.