According to Adam Smith, man's natural unending needs and wants are directed by an invisible hand, the rules governing the market, especially the law of supply and demand.
He proposed a let alone policy, on which the government only role in the economy is to provide security and stability and maintain the rules of the trade.
With this minimal government involvement in the market, privatization comes to play. Privatization, is the process of transferring a public service given by the public sector in the hands of the private sector of society. Privatization, being a concept of free market, aims to achieve the goals of a competitive market involving efficiency in terms of profit and usage. With this, is privatization good or bad?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Lahat naman ng bagay ay may mabuti at masamang bahagi. Sa tingin ko, at sa katayuan kong ito, ang privatization ay mabuti kung ang namumunong sektor ay naghahangad ng ikabubuti rin ng nakararami. Pero sa panahon ngayon, karaniwan na ang pansariling paghangad ng pansariling interes. Base nga sa napag-aralan na natin, nagkakatay ng karne ang mga magkakarne di dahil natutuwa sila sa ideya ng pagkakaroon ng pagkain sa hapag kundi dahil sa ganoong paraan sila kumikita ng pera.
ReplyDeleteSang-ayon ako sa ideya ng pagsusulong ng competitive market. Pero may esensya pa ba ang kompetisyon kung kitang-kita na kung sino ang llamado at dehado? Marahil ay oo sa kadahilanang magpupursigi pa ang mga nakabababa para kahit paano'y maabot, kung di mapantayan, ang mga nakatataas. Gayunpaman, di natin maikakaila na ang pagkakapantay-pantay ay wari isang ideyalismo lamang-na may mayaman na nagpapayaman pa at may lugmok na nalulunod na sa kahirapan.
IT DEPENDS. WHEN PRESIDENT RAMOS PURSUED THE POLICY OF PRIVATIZATION, THE GOVERNMENT ASSETS THAT WERE PRIVATIZED WERE THE PROFITABLE ONES LIKE NAPOCOR. THE NON-PERFORMING ASSETS COULD NOT BE SOLD UNTIL NOW, SO THEY REMAIN A BURDEN TO THE GOVERNMENT.
ReplyDeleteFN
Free competition in the market may be either a good thing or a bad thing. This depends who are the players in this game and how they are playing it. If free competition is really 'free' and equal, then it is a good thing.
ReplyDeletePrivatization likewise, may either have good or bad consequences. If the owner of the private companies have good intentions then this may benefit the community. But if they only seek power and money, like most private companies do now, then it may not lead to such a good thing. Privatization is transferring business to a private ownership. Therefore, the effects of privatization would mainly rely on the owner/s and their purposes.
TO MS ALLENA
ReplyDeleteTAMA KA, LAHAT NA BAGAY AY MAARING MABUTI AT MAARING MASAMA. KUNG PAGUSAPAN ANG PRIVITAZATION, TINGNAN NATIN KUNG ANO ANG PINAPRIVATIZE; MAKABUBUTI BA ITO SA BAYAN; SINO ANG PINAGBILHAN, ETC. SA MAIKLING SALITA, MAG-ISIP KA, MAGTANONG KA. PRIVATIZATION (JUST LIKE ITS OPPOSITE: NATIONALIZATION) CANNOT BE GOOD OR BAD IN ITSELF. SEE THE OBJECTIVE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING IT.
FN
TO MS CASTRO
ReplyDeleteIT IS NOT THE INTENTION OF THE OWNER THAT DETERMINES WHETHER IT IS GOOD OR BAD. A LOT OF MISDEEDS ARE DONE WITH THE BEST OF INTENTIONS.
FN
Oo nga, debatable din ang advantages and disadvantages of competition. Para saan nga ba ang kompetisyon? Kahit pa "obvious" na kung sinong lamang at sinong dehado sa laro, ideally, ang purpose ng competitive drive ay ang paghusayan pa ang kani-kanyang kakayahan at gawain. Habang nalalalaman nilang dehado sila, mas nagpupursigi sila para makahabol sa mga llamado. Sabi nila, competition promotes improvement of oneself. Papaano nga naman, kung ang prinsipyo ng "Kung anong bumenta yun ang maganda" ang susundin, kung hindi mo kayang i-improve ang produkto mo, paano nga naman itong mabebenta?
ReplyDeletePero, sa kabilang banda, hindi lang naman improvement ang dinudulot ng kompetisyon. Kung minsan, sa halip na pahusayin yung produkto o serbisyo, nagiging mas mababa ang kalidad nito, and again, dahil sa prinsipyong nabanggit sa itaas. Kung gusto mo lang naman eh makabenta, ano pa nga bang pakialam mo sa quality? Basta hindi halata ng publiko na nabawasan yung quality o kaya nadaya mo sila, ayos lang na mandaya. Ang importante lang naman eh kumita.
Kaya naman, sa privatization at nationalization, ganun din. Depende kung anong isasapribado, depende kung ano ang isasailalim sa pamamahala ng gobyerno. Bakit kaya hindi na lang ibenta ang isang government-owned company kung hindi naman ito kumikita? Dabat bang ipasakamay sa pribadong sektor ang isang industriyang makakabenepisyo nang malaki sa lahat? Hindi kaya imbis na makatulong ang competitive spirit ng private sector eh baka makasama pa ito sa kabutihan ng nakararami kung sila ang mamamahala ng industriyang pag-aari pa ngayon ng gobyerno? O kaya, baka nga yung competitive spirit na iyon ang makatulong para ma-improve ang services? Ano kaya ang magiging epekto ng pagsasapribado, mas gaganda o mas papangit ang serbisyo sa publiko? Yan ang mga tanong na pinag-iisipan kapag pagsasapribado ang pinag-uusapan. Pero, naisip niyo ba, kung kaya lang naman ng gobyerno na pamahalaan financially ang ilang mga vital industries, mababawasan ang mga katanungang kelangang pag-isipan. Kadalasan kasi, hindi yung benepisyo ng industriya yung pumapasok sa decision process; kadalasan, ang pinagtatalunan eh kung "kaya ba" ng gobyerno na pamahalaan ang isang industriya. Lagi nilang sinasabi, walang pera ang gobyerno para sa mga malaking industriya. Hindi ko alam kung totoo ito. Pero, totoo man o hindi, isa yun sa mga malaking dahilan kung bakit kahit marami ang makakabenepisyo sa isang industriya, hindi naman magawang isailalim sa pamamahala ng gobyerno.
At wala pa nga rito ang tungkol sa vested interests ng mga pulitiko. Wala pa rito yung takot ng mga pulitiko sa mga big-time na negosyante. Wala pa rito sa usapan ang tungkol sa political will. Benefits of the particular industry or company from just one component of the whole decision process of privatization or nationalization. More often than not, the other factors affect the decision process more severely, given the political milieu in our country nowadays.
Seeing how almost all the arguments are hypothetical in nature, the debate was bound to end up with the conclusion: "it is good or bad depending on..." So to be able to clarify on whether privatization is good or bad, we need to look at more concrete examples and situations.What are the assets that have been privatized? Has this privatization improved the performance, efficiency or the prices of the products of said assets? Would putting these assets in the hands of our government officials improve the companies or only worsen it?
ReplyDeleteOne of the merits of privatization is that assets that are privatized are less prone to the evils of graft and corruption. Would you say that the privatization of the companies have indeed helped keep them out of the hands of the corrupt government officials?
In terms of whether competition is good or bad, we can again look at concrete examples. There are, in fact, some industries that seem to compete pretty well(i.e. competition between television networks, unfortunately, their competition may have contributed to the disaster that is the manila hostage taking. otherwise they had pretty healthy competition as far as viewers were concerned)
Although, there are also industries that don't seem to compete well at all. One being the oil industry, a factor may be the cartel among the big 3 which make it difficult for smaller companies to compete. So instead of asking whether competition is good or bad, look at the companies and industries around you. Is the competition there good or bad? What makes it good or bad?
It is when competition leads to conspiracy, cheating on consumers, or the decrease in product/service quality that we should be alarmed about competition.
ReplyDeleteExactly, none is perfect: while competition among private enterprises may jeopardize or improve products/services and consumer welfare, state control may also do so; GOCCs are always prone to graft and corruption. In theory, it is the State that, not being a profit-oriented enterprise, should seek public welfare and NOT mere profits. But, with the vulnerability of the bureaucracy to corruption, it seems that government officials may seek their own profits out of plunder.
TO MR PELIAS
ReplyDeleteA conspiracy of producers to dictate the prices of consumer goods is what we call a CARTEL. When there are so many competitors, cartelization is almost impossible. When the competition ruins most players and leaves only a few, the survivors may (if they are farsighted) get together and form a cartel. But even in a cartel, the desire to outwit and drive partners out of the market is always a strong motive; this leads to MONOPOLY.
Take, for instance, the oil producing countries. They formed a cartel (OPEC) but some member countries violate their agreements, which is the reason why OPEC has become ineffective.
Free competition falters when some competitors gain political power and pressure the government/s to adopt policies that disadvantage others. Look at how the big shopping malls are destroying the sari-sari stores and the smaller supermarkets.
fn