Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.
search  
 
Subscribe   Subscribe   MI on Facebook Find us on Twitter Find us on Instagram      
 
 
   
 
     
 

New York Times Room for Debate

 

Is Privatization a Bad Deal for Cities and States?

April 03, 2011

By Nicole Gelinas

To save money, New York is turning the clock back on outsourcing by replacing private contractors with city workers.

Privatization of government services can be a tool for competent governments but it’s not a cure for incompetence.

CityTime, New York’s private-sector project for a new payroll system, is an example of privatization gone wrong. The endeavor didn’t do what privatizations should aim to do: encourage savings and better service through competition. All New York did with this contract was allow a monopoly contractor to exert immense power over Bloomberg administration officials.

The lesson learned here: privatization doesn’t obviate the need for government competence and honesty, as well as for the democratic checks and balances that encourage these traits.

In general, too, whenever cities and states sell or lease a big asset to the private sector to reap some short-term cash to cover budget deficits, as Chicago did with its parking meters, taxpayers get a bad deal. Bidders know when a government is desperate for money. They stand ready to enable government officials to enter into decades-long contracts, which only magnifies the effect of any mistakes in calculating potential profits and costs.

But there are good examples of privatization. Take London, for example. New York would be wise to, like London, competitively contract out public bus service, with transit officials choosing bidders based on the lowest public subsidy they require while maintaining uniform safety standards, schedules and payment from customers. Individual contracts would be for a couple of years and cover no more than a few lines, so no operator could gain a monopoly.

Indeed, done well, such deals help break monopolies. In London, recent transit strikes shut down subways, but bus lines still ran, easing union power over the public.

Such a system here would require more government competence, not less, though, to ensure that corruption, collusion and other risks don’t take New Yorkers for a ride.

Original Source: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/04/03/is-privatization-a-bad-deal-for-cities-and-states/not-a-cure-for-incompetence

 

 
PRINTER FRIENDLY
 
LATEST FROM OUR SCHOLARS

5 Reasons Janet Yellen Shouldn’t Focus On Income Inequality
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, 10-20-14

Why The Comptroller Race Matters
Nicole Gelinas, 10-20-14

Obama Should Have Picked “Ebola Czar” With Public-Health Experience
Paul Howard, 10-18-14

Success Of Parent Trigger Is Unclear­—Just As Foes Want
Ben Boychuk, 10-18-14

On Obamacare's Second Birthday, Whither The HSA?
Paul Howard, 10-16-14

You Can Repeal Obamacare And Keep Kentucky's Insurance Exchange
Avik Roy, 10-15-14

Are Private Exchanges The Future Of Health Insurance?
Yevgeniy Feyman, 10-15-14

This Nobel Prize-Worthy Economist Figured Out How To Destroy Terrorism
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, 10-15-14

 
 
 

The Manhattan Institute, a 501(c)(3), is a think tank whose mission is to develop and disseminate new ideas
that foster greater economic choice and individual responsibility.

Copyright © 2014 Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc. All rights reserved.

52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017
phone (212) 599-7000 / fax (212) 599-3494