Back to index of Nerve 22 - Summer 2013

Private Business vs Public Service

By Paul Doran (Community philosopher)

What can philosophy say about the socio-political problems regarding The Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs)? Well, let’s see. The first thing it can do is clarify what the problem is. In doing that, it will probably need to be on the look out for any rhetoric involved, or any ideologically biased language. A bias usually arises when there are two or more opposing positions vying for approval. The bias usually arises from the socio-political context the problem is grounded in - which in this case is the political spectrum between Public Service Values and Private Business Values.

Supporters of the PPF initiative, which is very much favoured by our present government (and many governments around the world) hold that these two seemingly opposed positions are in fact mutually beneficial. Opponents of this view argue that the benefit is not mutual, but is heavily loaded on one side.

PFI is a procurement method which secures private funding for public institutions in return for part-privatisation. PFI is also an operational framework which transfers responsibility, but not accountability, for the delivery of public services to private companies. PFI projects aim to deliver infrastructure on behalf of the public sector, together with the provision of associated services such as maintenance. Every PFI deal has its own particular characteristics, however there are common threads.

The common threads (efficiency, leasing, debt, profit, infrastructure, etc) and current knowledge of PFIs, and similar systems of Public Private Partnerships (PPPs), can be found, along with their related arguments on the internet, in books, and various other media. A scanning of these arguments reveals an underlying dichotomy of views on a spectrum between, what we can call a neo-liberal ideology and a socialist ideology. It is argued, however, that PFIs are part of what is called the third way.

The third way is a term used to describe a political position which attempts to transcend right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a synthesis of some right-wing and left-wing policies, theoretically. The third way supposedly represents a centrist position between free market capitalism and democratic socialist. So presumably the third way should sit somewhere around the centre of our political spectrum.

The right being against the third way, argue that the best approach to economic governance would be on a purely laissez-faire basis. The left, also against the third way, argue that the third way is actually based on laissez-faire competitive mechanisms, and so, is in fact, not a third way. The endeavour here is to try and clarify the situation, get the facts straight as fairly as possible so we can begin to argue about them.

www.philosophyinpubs.org.uk

Printer friendly page

Comments are closed on this article