I am very hapy when I see profitable state organizations to privatized for a bunch of dollars and I am even happier when taxpayers pay billions of dollars for the bonus of failed managers in the private sector.
The privatisation of the profits and the socialsizing of the loses is my top specialite, I LOVE IT!
There is no diference between state and private enterprises , as we (citizens) are always from the losing side!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Davidf
This one of civilization’s compromises and unsolvable conundrums if only because it has become a matter of political faith or ideological belief/bigotry.
Objectively both options have their weaknesses it all comes down to which set of objectives are chose and to what degree they’re implemented.
The one overriding factor in my mind is the size of the organization involved. At either end of the continuum the larger the size the less responsive it is to need.
Organizational theory/Group dynamics teaches that the primary purpose an organization is its survive/benefit and the bigger it becomes the more that focus tends to be. In either case the individual tends to become less important both internally and externally. Both tend towards monopolism of the sector. This isn’t good for service.

At the Govt end statutory compliance becomes the defining inhibitor. Large departments are often typified by a lack of flexibility, overly structured responses, slow to act/change (red tape, bureaucratically arthritic).

Yet large mega Corporations tend to suffer the same symptoms only here the objective is profit for a relatively few beneficiaries Upper management and share holders. Because this version is based on profit then those involved tent to be less statutory compliant spending inordinate amounts of money on defending, lobbying and ways to circumvent or reduce controls. The result is an organization that arguably encourages greed and reduction in apposite/equitable wealth distribution.

Consider the wages of top departmental execs, departmental expenditure
multimillion $ wage packets executive jets , Perks limos (scale) or on tax avoidance, abuses of power, off- shore dodges and off-shoring services?

In conclusion I think the determining factors are the size of the organization and its inherent objectives that determine the management and style.

I would suggest on balance if the most efficiently requisite of the organization to manage a service is large or monopolistic then it should on principle be in the hands of the people. Business/capitalism is best when it serves the people not the other way around. Total reliance or either extreme should be avoided.

There used to be clear distinctions between public and private enterprises. Public entities characterized by being run by bureaucrats, management by committee, for the provision of collective goods and services, such as education, utilities, public transport and many more. The private entities supply goods and services, mostly in a competitive market for profit.

Fractelle, there may be private entities that have a monopoly but I can’t think of any, though you are right about Coles and Woolworths being anti-competitive, more to do with total grocery market share, but not as monopolies.

Many previously government owned enterprises have been sold to the private sector or their functions “outsourced”. We now have a confusing mix. I tend to support David f that it’s not who owns them but to what extent they meet customer expectations.

There will always be good and bad examples from either perspective, it’s up to the pollies to decide what fits in private and public ownership and the consumer can vote with their feet, unless of course we are facing a monopoly.

Yabby’s example of Australia Post is a good one; they have certainly achieved customer focus. The driving force behind that transformation was however competitive. In the early 90’s, TNT and the then privatized Dutch Postal service made a joint bid for AP’s exclusive franchise in Australia. AP responded to the government with their own modernization proposal which was accepted and I believe well implemented. I would also nominate the ATO as a star of customer focus transformation. I would also nominate from experience, Telstra as one of the worst examples.

I guess the issues facing the government are how much of our money they are prepared to spend on public ownership? Both sectors provide employment, tax revenue and a product or service. The government can exercise more control with public ownership but is that what is needed. I guess I’m saying, if public ownership is the answer, what was the question?

Examinator, I’m really at odds with your suggestion that the size of an enterprise correlates to reduced service, monopolism, the encouragement of greed and reduction in equitable wealth distribution. Where on earth did you dig that lot up from, some pre-1980 dissertation by Engels?

There is no way a $90bn corporation with 120,000 employees in 35 countries could survive without enormous focus upon their main assets (employees), their customers, and a total understanding of the social, political, economic, religious and ecological factors for every part of their business.

I accept that there are some dreadful examples of executive “piggery” out there and I do not seek to excuse these however, your generalizations on large enterprises are simply not true.

From the early 80’s large entities embarked upon major transformations. They adopted flat management structures with downward delegation, bureaucracies maintained hierarchical structures with upward delegation. Corporate Cultures were interrogated and modified; Business Process Engineering and Entity Relationship Analysis were introduced. Many multi-national corporations implemented “Bill of Rights” and anti-discrimination 10 years before Australia adopted the 1994 Act.

The greatest improvement in behavior was the introduction of 360 degree assessments, employees were assessed by subordinates, peers and superiors. Try to be a “corporate toad” in that environment.

Your generalization of employees in large enterprises is as sad and ideological as it is untrue. I spent 40 years in small, medium and large enterprises; I do not recognize your characterizations as being remotely close to the real life I have experienced.

This quite sad really, we had an excellent exchange on another thread; I learned much and I thank you for that. However, my disappointment is that your balanced and thoughtful insights on another thread were replaced in this thread with an ill informed and ideological hissy fit

Errr... spindoc?

>>There is no way a $90bn corporation with 120,000 employees in 35 countries could survive without enormous focus upon their main assets (employees), their customers, and a total understanding of the social, political, economic, religious and ecological factors for every part of their business.<<

How about a $169bn corporation with $60bn in revenues and 90,000 employees in 105 countries?

I give you - Microsoft.

Anyone who has been Windowed, from Version 3.0 through to Vista, knows exactly how Microsoft values its customers.

They love our wallets, though, you have to give them that.

*Telstra as one of the worst examples.*

Spindoc, but even in this case, Telstra having some pups snapping
at its heels, has made a difference and consumers benefit.

I was the first around my district to link up to the internet.
Telstra/MSN was the only ISP, they charged 5$ an hour and later
9$ an hour for access! I had some huge arguments with Telstra
people, pointing out that how much went down those lines hardly
mattered, unlike electricity. I rang my local MP, mentioning
the potential of the internet (this was in 1995), but he really
did not know what it was.

Telstra, still Govt owned, just did not want to know, they had
the monopoly and the money was rolling in, their staff lived
in dreamland.

Eventually a tiny ISP set up in the area and was struggling to
find 10 people to get going. Things grew from there. Without
that competition, we would have ISP charges which still would be
through the roof.