Comments on: Dude where’s your mechanism?

by: ck

Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

I think the onus of responsibility is on YOU to prove that the Market can perform roles in areas that it has not done traditinally like police, monetery policy, environment etc. These are areas that have ALWAYS fallen within the purview of the Govt. and if you think that the government should not be in these areas then YOU have to prove that market can do the job better than the way it is currently being done. If you want to change the status quo then the responsibility is yours to prove that the changed way is better than the old way.

I have been following the market vs. govt. debate for many years now and to date have not see one shred of proof to show that the market is the solution for many of the cases we have debated.

by: Kingsley

Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

CK, your logic is faulty - for example, just because religious institutions have traditionally been the makers of laws, the onus of proof is not on secular agencies that they can be as good at lawmaking. Yet most laws now are made by secular agencies, and we seem to be doing quite well. The areas you mention are complex enough that without actually ceding authority to a new body/mechanism, it may be impossible to theoretically estimate if they will be better or worse.

by: Ravikiran

Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Well CK, I see that you believe that offence is the best form of defence. In the first place I wasn’t talking of police, environment or (in the current post) monetary policy. Right now I prefer to concentrate on those places where I think that the government has overreached - plain ole economics (as in fiscal policy) morality, etc.

Now I don’t think that the government does a really perfect job in defence or law and order, but I reluctantly concede that the government should be doing those things because I can’t think of a market mechanism that would do a better job.

On the other hand, you don’t even think it necessary to propose a mechanism by which you plan to make the government do what you want it to do. You think that attacking the market is sufficient.

by: Gautam

Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

1. The Oklahoma State started hiring Private firms to run Jailhouses in the late 1990s. And I think some other states do this as well, particularly Texas. 2. The Mumbai Police of Pandu Fame, is partnering TOPS (a Private security firm) to help the traffic police. I think the government finds it tough to hire newer police constables, because of its fiscal profligacy in other "development" fields. 3. If the government were doing a good job of Policing, which most people accept to be its core competency, then why are there so many private security firms around?

by: Ck,

Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

The examples you have posted are called outsourcing of government contracts - they have been around for ever (almost always in the US and only recently in India).
e.g:
The government outsources the production and development of a fighter plane to Lockheed Martin (a pvt. compnay) but it does not mean the Lockheed Martin has taken over the role of the air force - it only provides services.

A private Oklahoma jailhouse does not mean the the jail system has been handed over to a pvt. company. The government still judges and sentences criminals which the Oklahoma co. has no control over. They merely provide a service that houses the prisoners as per the govts. orders.