The debate about nationalization/privatization needs to be expanded. The arguments used today confuse government, the state, and the public (population). Why is there no discussion about unlinking the management of these companies from the administration of the "government" (on behalf of the state)? This issue can be addressed without necessarily moving toward "privatization" as it is currently understood among us.
"Public Enterprises", fully owned by users through shares or quotas linked to some form of service usage, such as water meters or electricity meters (and not tradable on the stock exchange), exist around the world. How to divide the shares among users is an important issue to discuss in each locality where a "public enterprise" might be established. Discussing details or ideas would be beyond the scope of this article.
Why "public enterprises"? In principle, because it does not seem reasonable to grant monopolistic service "concessions" to individuals or groups. The essence of private ownership of a company, as it is currently understood, is based on the capitalist economic system, and therefore on free competition.
However, in natural monopolies, such as water or electricity distribution systems, there is no room for free competition, unless we allow two or more water or energy networks in the same streets, competing for customers, which today seems inconceivable.
On the other hand, compared to the current "state-owned enterprises" ("government-run"), the proposed "public enterprises" would have several advantages. First: a government, no matter how efficient, cannot effectively manage all the areas it is currently responsible for, and this proposal is decentralizing. Additionally, if the government is responsible for providing the service, who will monitor it?
One might wish to vote for a candidate with a certain ideological profile for what are considered basic state functions, such as the police, emergency services, conflict resolution, education, etc., but we would prefer to have the "Water Company" managed in a purely technical manner, or even “conservatively,” without it being considered an inconsistency. But today, this is not possible.
The technical-administrative staff of the "public enterprises" proposed here would be judged, promoted, or retained in their positions by the population, based on the results achieved, their effort, and competence (merit), rather than, as it often happens today, based on political connections.
With stability in "public enterprises," everyone would benefit: employees, suppliers, contractors, designers, and users.
In summary, the proposal is for "public enterprises" or "user-owned enterprises" (as they are called in some places where they exist), where the population directly exercises shareholder control of the companies, without going through the group that may currently be in power, governing (as is the case today).
One method for implementing this system could be the "compulsory sale" of all voting shares of these companies to the users. This method would have one detail that could attract allies: an immediate source of resources for the government and the state.
The time is right for this discussion, as it seems more appropriate than simply "privatizing" or "not privatizing" existing natural monopoly systems.
Miguel Fernández, consulting engineer, columnist, and writerRio de Janeiro, published in Jornal do Brasil on December 14, 2018, page 09.
Comments