Private vs Public Sector by Karen Cheung

KarenCheung — 2014-08-04 06:55:02 UTC

Organisations always run more efficiently when they are free of government control. Discuss.

http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/mythbusters-the-private-sector-is-more-efficient-than-the-public-sector

Karen Cheung

KarenCheung — 2014-09-15 15:28:41 UTC

Why not nationalise the UK railways?

2014-09-16 05:42:16 UTC

Renationalisation can cure British failures

KarenCheung — 2016-09-15 01:33:55 UTC

http://www.theweek.co.uk/25537/renationalisation-can-cure-other-british-failures

Cecilia

2016-09-16 05:43:05 UTC

In my opinion, the public and private sector are both important to the society. For example, in the society there must be poverty, meaning that there must be people suffering from living, if there's only private sector, it may not be affordable, as they only aiming for making profit.
for them. Similarly, if there are over 70% of the market is own by the public sector, the market will be monopolies by them. So, to form a society, both public and private sector are important, as they mange different area in the society.

Doris Shum

2016-09-16 10:10:38 UTC

A private and public sector is simultaneously essential necessary to the society, mainly because the sector of two can reduce and let the life better, leading the population can have a safety and quality of life.
First of all, we need to know the private and public sector are different. We need a government to build the high way, hospital, street, road or even more then that, in the same time we also need a organisation to make the life become more efficient, that wise it is crucial to have this two sector together to maintain a better life.
Further more, we are need to have a private sector to balance because sometime both sector can run a project to safe the cost and share the technology.
In conclusion, this two factor are important, they need a competition and corruption to let the market work more efficient.

Yoki Tang

2016-09-16 14:11:16 UTC

"Organisations always run more efficiently when they are free of government control" must not stand. Privately run organisations are not always more efficient in terms of production, because they might decrease in productivity, customer satisfaction, and efficiency when the competition is not huge.

Private organisations might decrease in productivity, customer satisfaction, and efficiency, as they might become monopolies in a certain industry, and competition no longer exists. Taking the example of British Rail, a privatised organisation, it is the most expensive railway in Europe, with fares 14 times higher than the others (Clark, 2008). Although its fares are expensive, it receives four times more in taxpayers' subsidies than the state-owned rails (Clark, 2008). This suggests that the organisation is not producing efficiently since it still need large amount of subsidies despite its high fare prices. And one of the main cause to the malfunction of the organisation is its control over the rails market in UK. Since British Rail is the only railway organisation in UK, and rail is one of the most important public transportation used in the UK. This makes British Rail become the monopoly in the rail market. Since there is almost no competition, they soon focus on making more profit, and customer satisfaction and productivity might be neglected.

Therefore, "Organisations always run more efficiently when they are free of government control" is not always true. This can be caused by the lack of competition, over-focus on profit-making and other external causes.

Christine IP

s1207138 — 2016-09-19 03:24:11 UTC

From my point of view, there are advantages and disadvantage in both nationalisation and privatisation. In public perspective, nationalisation is more beneficial, due to the reason of creating cheaper traffic fees for the British, while privatisation has least advantage to the people due to high traffic fees. UK's railway fee is the most expensive one among the Europe, therefore, it is not an advantage from the public perspective. In business perspective, privatisation is a benefit, due to the less competitive environment.

Family Fan

2016-09-22 04:20:45 UTC

Nationalism and privatisation are having different kind of business strategy. Of course, nationalism will be better for the people in UK (Base on this incident) However, the UK's traffic fee already gives a heavy financial problem for people there. If the UK's railway go for nationalism business, then it will cost a lost more for people travelling around UK. However, from my perspective, if UK's railway goes for nationalism, the business can bring economic growth for UK. Because the visitor can give a lot of money on travelling fee. Therefore, I think if the UK's railway change from privatisation to nationalism, it might be a good idea too.

Erica

2016-09-22 12:32:31 UTC

What is public and private sector? The private sector is usually composed of organizations that are privately owned and not part of the government. The public sector is usually composed of organizations that are owned and operated by the government. This includes federal, provincial, state, or municipal governments, depending on where you live. Based on the UK’s railway situation, I think they should goes for nationalism instead of privatization because nationalism is that it can build up a desire for independence within a country and this can cause them to overthrow colonial rule. It can also help advance a nation scientifically and technologically. An example of this is during the 1900s Germany and Britain was competing to build battle ships to improve their navies (Beck, Black, & Krieger, 2005).

Justin

2016-09-22 14:12:40 UTC

In my personal view,I think that both sector have different advantages,but because it was a large business,it may cause a lot,if the train business turns into public sector,It may monopolised by the local shareholder,Because of that it increase the tax payer's taxes ,according to the article"Tax payer has been double",which require more taxes for the railways,or it will be issue too much shareholders if it in public sector,but when the UK's railways turn into private sector,it can solve the problem of the taxes payment,which reduce the taxes loads for the people,however,it will create private monopolies and allow real competition.

Niki

2016-09-23 01:32:15 UTC

Private sector are individuals or organisations that owned privately. Public sector are organisations that government owned a part of it. I think UK railways should nationlise rather than having privatisation. When it's change to public sector, more people may choose to take UK railways because the price may lower than the company runs private sector. The government will pay a part of it, so that the fee of taking UK railways will be cheaper. More UK people or even visitors from other countries will have a better choice.