European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

Public Services in Europe: defying privatization

by talos
Fri May 18th, 2007 at 06:50:12 AM EST

The latest issue of Eurotopia [pdf file] - published on the Trans-National Institute's website - is about Public Services in Europe, their privatisation and the grass-roots efforts to build alternatives to it, all around Europe. It highlights the problems of accountability, democratic participation and efficiency that the privatisation process has created. It also showcases some of the (mostly but not totally) municipal-level grass-roots reactions to the privatization of the commons in Europe - thus its title: "Public Services in Europe: From privatisation to participation"

From the diaries ~ whataboutbob

Excerpt:

The passage from public to private that has taken place in Europe has demonstrated the link between privatisation (of industries, infrastructure and public utilities) and the increasing influence of financial markets on the direction of the economy and society. In many European countries, privatisation has been directly linked to diffused shareholding and `popular capitalism', whereby shares in what were public industries and services are sold on the financial market and bought up partly by private citizens but mostly by international investors such as insurance companies...
...One result of this process of putting what were state services onto the market is that the citizen is being turned into a consumer and small shareholder. The political implications of this need seriously to be discussed; it underlies many of the contradictions facing left-wing parties today.
There is only one explanation for the propensity of erstwhile parties of the left to support privatisation: in rejecting their past these ex-socialist and ex-communist parties decided they wished to strike a deal with the new holders of financial power...

On a related note Bolkenstein's Monster, is still among the undead (In "The Directive That Wouldn't Die" kind of way) and its spirit is haunting health services in Europe again.

Also related: "Water as a Public Service", and Apostrophe Widbag's brief respite from a long hiatus, to write about "The exploding package of EU Postal Privatisation"...

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. Search
. Search (Google)
. Archives (Wiki)
Art, Economics, Energy, Environment, EU Politics, Mech & Tech, By Country

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Public Services in Europe: defying privatization | 19 comments (19 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Public Services in Europe (4.00 / 3)

Public = State.

Private = "owned by a Joint Stock Limited Liability Company"

Neither is optimal.

There is a new partnership-based - "Profit for Purpose" "enterprise model" or "legal and financial structure" now available which allow assets to be in "Public Ownership" without either "State" or "Private" use, but a new synthesis.

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Thu May 17th, 2007 at 08:57:30 AM EST

Re: Public Services in Europe (4.00 / 2)

If public=state, then is municipal ownership, state ownership? Because the examples Eurotopia gives is of some form of "participatory" public decision-making and companies on the municipal level.

And while I'm all for partnerships and collective legal enterprise structures, can something like the public national health service, or the national transport system (indeed anything that intrinsically has to be nation-wide, or large-scale anyway) be anything other than (ultimately) state-run?

The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake

by talos (mihalis at gmail dot com) on Thu May 17th, 2007 at 09:13:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Public Services in Europe (none / 0)

If we start linking "community" partnerships of service providers with partnerships of service users at the optimal level of service delivery, then the result will be the reinvention of the State into a more participative form.

Key is the existence of a legal entity within which we are Members wherein we have no responsibility for our fellow citizens INDIVIDUALLY but do so COLLECTIVELY insofar as we consensually agree.

That's what's new about the "Open" Corporate I bang on about of which the UK LLP is the first example.

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Thu May 17th, 2007 at 09:19:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Public Services in Europe (4.00 / 2)

You have said that the UK LLP can be used to duplicate any legal structure from other countries, and also to combine entities from various countries. Can it even be used to combine entities from a single country outside the UK? In other words, is it even necessary to wait for other governments to copy the UK LLP? [Incidentally, exporting the legal wrapper might be necessary as the Parliament might chose to abolish or reform it in the future]

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 17th, 2007 at 09:34:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Public Services in Europe (none / 1)

Technically yes: but politically less easy.

What I mean by that is that people in any country COULD (technically) decide to use a UK LLP as their vehicle of choice.

Note here how Germans have been setting up UK Companies at a phenomenal rate to bypass German bureaucracy etc etc (particularly in insolvency/distrsssed situations) - if they knew about UK LLP's they would undoubtedly use them instead.

However, that having been said, these strategems do not play too well locally (politically), even though (for instance) the LLP protocol could provide for local laws to govern practically every aspect.

In fact, the application I had in mind when I first realised the cross-border potential of the LLP was as a "Market Corporation".

ie a neutral legal protocol of global application for a global market place.

As described here, five years ago

http://www.exchange-handbook.co.uk/index.cfm?section=articles&action=detail&id=38754

which I like to think is as valid now as it was then.

Technically Parliament COULD repeal the Act, but since:

(a) they were blackmailed into it in the first place by the Jersey legislation; and

(b) more than half UK solicitors are, or are planning to be LLP's; and

repeal is unlikely.

And of course, it exists in Qatar, Dubai, Japan, and is pending in India, while a US LLC would do just as well.

ie this genie isn't going back in the bottle....

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Thu May 17th, 2007 at 02:40:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Public Services in Europe (4.00 / 2)

I don't disagree with you but do you have any concrete examples of how the UK LLP has worked well in terms of the whole country. It seems all PPI and private partnerships with government in the UK has only one priority which is getting the best deal possible for their shareholdres in terms of profits and equity in any partnership with the 'state'. Are there UK LLP's which dont have this priority?

by An American in London on Thu May 17th, 2007 at 12:32:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Public Services in Europe (none / 0)

No and no.

Although there has been a >£1bn hotel group refinancing using a "Capital Partnership" for a 27 year revenue sharing agreement.

The "Capital Partnership" application of an LLP allows the introduction of a "Non-toxic" form of PFI and PPP.

ie a model linking together "partnerships of partnerships" or "cooperatives of cooperatives" of stakeholders with no place for "rentiers".

Imagine a partnership between an employee cooperative like John Lewis, and a retail/ "customer" cooperative.

Capital would come from the employees (as a pension investment in future revenues, instead of unsecured loans as now) and the customers (an investment offsettable against future purchases maybe): probably secured by "co-ownership" of the business premises (as opposed to a claim/mortgage over it).

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Thu May 17th, 2007 at 02:50:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Public Services in Europe (4.00 / 4)

Given 'no and no' I still don't see how an LLP magically changes the market exclusion principle (by which one class considers itself owners of everything, and all other classes are considered expendable) or automatically sets up a different social dynamic.

The problem isn't that people aren't using LLPs. The problem is that a small group of hooligans think they own the fucking universe and the rest of us exist to keep them in money and luxury goods - plus entertainment when they decide a war is necessary.

I'm not clear how LLPs are supposed to solve that problem. Just because it's possible for an enterprise to become more open and sharing, doesn't mean that sharing and openness become more likely.

Now, if you could arrange a system where cooperative LLPs crowd out toxic corporations for solid market reasons (oh, the irony...), you might be onto something.

But I'm not seeing how, or even if, you're proposing to connect those dots together.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri May 18th, 2007 at 07:51:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Public Services in Europe (4.00 / 3)

Now, if you could arrange a system where cooperative LLPs crowd out toxic corporations for solid market reasons (oh, the irony...), you might be onto something.

You put your finger on how it will happen. The "Cooperative Advantage" is the freedom from paying returns to rentiers.

Those businesses that do NOT use these tools will be at a disadvantage to those that do. Classic Darwinism.

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Fri May 18th, 2007 at 08:24:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Public Services in Europe (none / 1)

I've been away for months, so I have a few of these saved up: "Diary!"

-----
sapere aude

by Number 6 on Fri May 18th, 2007 at 09:11:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Public Services in Europe (4.00 / 2)

Your system doesn't reduce the inequality in the distribution of capital, I see it as pretty irrelevant to those who don't have any to begin with.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri May 18th, 2007 at 09:34:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Public Services in Europe (none / 1)

Land ownership is the key point. Those who have exclusive rights to "Commons" should compensate those they exclude.

That's where "Community Partnerships" come in.

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Fri May 18th, 2007 at 09:41:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Public Services in Europe (4.00 / 2)

At least in the UK, all freeholds should be the property of the state and ground rent should replace council tax. IMHO

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri May 18th, 2007 at 09:51:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Public Services in Europe (4.00 / 2)

Exactly (of course freeholds technically belong to "the Crown" already): but for State read municipality.

I would advocate a couple of forms (and its not either/or) of "rental".

One is a "location benefit levy" based upon the amount of land occupied and the location/desirability of it, as measured by land rental value.

This levy would be pooled and redistributed evenly to members of the "Community Partnership" resulting in a net transfer from those who have exclusive use of more, and more "desirable", land to those who have less.

The second is a levy based upon income (or production of land, for farms) eg x% of income goes into a pot, is pooled and redistributed evenly.

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Fri May 18th, 2007 at 03:17:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Public Services in Europe (4.00 / 2)

None of this changes the fact that you still have to pay to play.

And most people will have a hard time affording either.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat May 19th, 2007 at 07:21:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Public Services in Europe (4.00 / 2)

The problem is that a small group of hooligans think they own the fucking universe and the rest of us exist to keep them in money and luxury goods - plus entertainment when they decide a war is necessary.

Great said!

by vbo on Fri May 18th, 2007 at 07:39:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Public Services in Europe: defying privatizati (4.00 / 4)

Especially thanks for the missed news on Bolkestein's resurrection.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Fri May 18th, 2007 at 04:47:16 AM EST

Re: Public Services in Europe: defying privatizati (4.00 / 5)

Look how far we have gone here in Australia:

Patients lose right to sue...PUBLIC patients whose operations are botched will lose their right to sue the State Government under a plan to reduce elective surgery waiting lists...Thousands of people who will have their operations outsourced to private hospitals will also be unable to access their case notes under the Freedom of Information Act if things go wrong.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21756775-952,00.html

Not to mention that everything is already privatised...now they are outsourcing public services.

by vbo on Fri May 18th, 2007 at 07:27:29 PM EST

Re: Public Services in Europe: defying privatizati (none / 1)

(WTF^2)

-----
sapere aude

by Number 6 on Tue May 29th, 2007 at 07:06:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Public Services in Europe: defying privatization | 19 comments (19 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]