Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I go both ways on the corruption angle - it could be possible, but I think it's not (Occam's Razor) needed to explain what happened.

The problem (as I'm seeing in my health service research at the moment) is that you have a set of civil servants who have a very simplistic view of markets and a religious belief in the power of "market-driven decisions."

This combines in this case to an excessive focus on the initial cost number (which First were lowest on) and no consideration of service levels or indeed of First's track record on bailing on later stage payments.

"The invisible hand would fix that, don't you know?"

As I say, I don't exclude other motives, but what's scary is how unnecessary they are to explain what happened.

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Fri Oct 5th, 2012 at 06:13:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
you have a set of civil servants who have a very simplistic view of markets and a religious belief in the power of "market-driven decisions."

In this case, the civil servant is a former "market" participant herself, so naivety may not be the main factor.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Oct 11th, 2012 at 07:22:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series