the privatization of the public policy - 1650 Words

the privatization of the public policy (Term Paper Sample) Content: POLITICAL SCIENCE Name Course code Instructor Institution City/State Date Introduction In the recent past, the proponents of reform have advised the government to allow many of its functions to the private sectors so as to instill much competition which will bring efficiency. The government has been carrying out these activities for decades with major policy initiatives managed through the public private partnerships since World War II. Yet, the privatization of such policies has not yielded much fruits or solved the government problems. Though this has recorded some positive result, there is less accomplishment in the market competition policy. This task therefore highlights how the privatization of the public policy has majorly failed in the current markets. Methodology Kettl uses both the historical data to emphasize on the transition of the competition. He claims that the public private partnerships have existed for decades and that the government has used this policy. Detailed case studies and examples have been used by Kettle to emphasize on how the privatization of policies has not born fruits.Imperical evidence of the FTS-2000 systems have also been shown and revealed. Summary The book commences by highlighting the facets of competition. According to Kettl (1993), the government has become wasteful and very insufficient and therefore its programs should be contracted. He claims that the private managers are often challenged by competition making them efficient and productive lest they lose the job (Kettl, 1993, p.6). On the other hand, the governments managers are complement because of no competition hence no pressure for efficiencies. Kettles (1993), highlights that there is a lot of poor planning, ineptitude corruption inadequate auditing and venality have caused taxpayers a lot of billions of dollars in bureaucracy. Additionally, he states that the procurement officials have constantly failed to identify the objectives of the government projects and this has caused major losses (Kettl, 1993, p.5).The question raised by Kettl is why the government has been facing numerous problems despite trying to expand partnership with other private sectors. The illusion that private markets will do good for the government is a myth that needs discussion. Therefore, Kettl explains the systems, mechanisms that are appropriate for government success in private public partnership. Though the proponents of competition claim that it can advance efficiency, it should be noted that the government ought to be competent and follow the "competition prescription" with a lot of intelligence lest it lacks the capacity to manage the policies. This is the essence of the government remaining a smart buyer in the market. Historically, the rules that governed the government contracts remained unchanged since World War II. The government projects were specified to the public and then bidders were welcomed. The lowest bidder was given the opportunity to work with the government. This approach was discriminatory at times and thus was not effective. Besides, it meant that the workers could no longer receive training on the usage of standardized products. This replicated the cycle of contracts as the government did not have enough manpower. Therefore, it is clear that there has been privatization of public policy since the civil war and it proved effective in some extend. The government has been involved in a public private relationship by the use of contractual relationships. The government who is the principal will write a contract inducing the agent to follow its instructions. The agreement is then signed when the agent meets the goals at the lowest price. Kettl (1993) claims that the government must have the competence to draft best policies that is inclusive. However, in the execution of the contractual relationship, there are problems that undermine the simplicity of the contracts. The first problem is that the agents often have personal interests and therefore might fail to deliver quality as required by the principal. The agent may decide to shirk or abscond the duty to work for the competitor. This may be propelled by the greed of the agents due to poor payments. The privatization of public policy in this case becomes immaterial because the agents have more opportunities to shirk than principals have control over them (Kettl, 1993, p.24). Secondly, the principalsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ core reasons have been to reduce the shirking of their agents through monitoring their behavior. Kettl, categorically states that this system is illusive and ineffective. He claims that monitoring is a costly affair and shirking is here to stay. Therefore, to avoid much loss of government funds, he proposes that the principals must strike a consensus and a balance between the amounts of money spend on monitoring and the some level of shirking to be tolerated so as to achieve a give n level (Kettl, 1993, p.100). To be able to solve varies problems that span from conflict of interest to monitoring problems, Kettl proposes that the contract job should be defined from the beginning. The contract should be able to "outline the goals between the principal and what the agent is to accomplish. The goals would define what the organization expects, its boundaries and its procedure of doing things" (Kettl, 1993, p.30).Ordinarily, public contracting has become more complex than private. The goals and policies formed by a process which is purely legislative. This process is political and thus tends to give complex, conflicting and varied goals. It has thus proved difficult to discern the congressional intent of any bill. Additionally, the goals have become the products of common law conveying a vital social political legitimacy. Therefore, this implies that private managers have more discretion as compared to the public managers over the goals and this makes the government business to be complex. Normal ly, the goals must be understood and legally enforceable in contracts relationships. However, in government contracts, the jobs are difficult because of shifting goals that makes it hard for the agents to comprehend the requirements .The public policies are hard to change because of the political influence and their fluctuating nature. The goals are thus subjected to "political malleability" for the sake of consumer protection. For example the rise in inflation may force the prices in the organizations to rise to counter these problems. Other policy includes the reduction of the circulation of currencies. In selection of a suitable contactor, the government always faces "adverse selection" which is accompanied by the risk of conflict of interest. It will be too late for the government to detect these conflicts of interests of the agents because they have insufficient information concerning the agents. The entire selection process is thus not perfect. These agency problems are unavoidable as stipulated by agency theory (Kettl, 1993, p.120).Though the proponents argue that the solution can be found by structuring the incentives and sanctions to force the agents perform their duties as desired. The sanctions are not welcomed by the contractors and this brings a tag of war that makes the contractor refuse to work. More over, the government has a difficult time in making the sanctions stick. The fact that the goals are fuzzy and unclear, the contractors fear to take the risky contracts while developing defensive mechanism when a contract is weirdly done. Additionally, the technological uncertainties can also interfere with the accomplishment of the goals because the complex networks and systems at times are unfavorable for the business and contractors. Finally, he claims that the present of market imperfections have also affected the contracts. This is because the governments always rise to intervene into free enterprise incase of imperfections which questions whether the business will be legit as the government and the private sector tries to share the market. In my view, the government could change the policy to favor itself and therefore partnering could not be a good solution CITATION Raj15 \l 1033 (Makwana, 2015). Secondly, the market failures vary in different markets because of different competitiveness of the market. Kettl states that the problems could be solved by having competent managers who are aggressive, established systems and above all good policies that are independent o...