Why Privatized Services Seem Efficient but Fail Society
Privatization may cut costs at first, but it undermines service quality, public trust, and long-term resilience. Here’s why public services should remain public.
The Mirage of Market Efficiency
It always begins the same way. A government service, be it water, electricity, mail, or transit, is declared too inefficient, too bloated, too expensive. A new political vision promises sleek, streamlined alternatives through privatization. A younger, hungrier management team moves in, slashing costs and rebranding failure as efficiency. The service now runs on a thinner budget and with fewer workers. On the surface, the numbers look better, but we often forget that privatization is more efficient exactly once. After that, it begins to hollow out the very system it claims to improve.
When a public service is transferred into private hands, its goal changes. Where once it existed to meet a public need, whether or not it turned a profit, it now exists to generate revenue. The eager MBAs, as consultants, brought in to lead the “turnaround,” do exactly what they were trained to do. They start by eliminating redundancy, shedding workers, and slashing maintenance budgets. The consultants test how far they can degrade the customer experience before people truly revolt. For a brief moment, the financial returns surge, but they later learn that what looks like fat was often necessary muscle.
In a public system, many of those “excess” employees kept the machinery running smoothly. They represented the grease in the wheel, the steady hands on deck who prevented small issues from becoming systemic failures. Once removed, the system becomes leaner but also more brittle. The following year and years after that, there’s no more fat to cut. If you continue down the path of cost-cutting, you begin carving into bone and breaking the foundation of the service itself. What had been a public trust becomes an asset to be milked until collapse.
The Illusion of Choice in Monopolies
Privatization relies on the promise of the market. However, in essential services, a true market rarely exists. You cannot choose a new water provider if your local water utility fails, and you cannot easily switch hospitals when emergency care is needed. These are natural monopolies, and handing them to private entities often consolidates power.
When a private company holds exclusive control over water, electricity, or public transport, the public loses the ability to hold it accountable. Customers have no real alternative, and the government inevitably steps in to bail them out when such companies are deemed “too big to fail,” converting their risk into public debt. In such cases, the taxpayer gets the worst of both worlds: privatized profits and socialized losses.
No private company should be responsible for running water systems as a business. Efficiency in such cases does not mean better service. It means cutting corners until the system breaks, then expecting the public to foot the repair bill. A properly functioning society cannot afford that gamble.
Efficiency Versus Resilience
A service built solely around average conditions cannot withstand stress. We see this every year in hospitals overwhelmed by flu season. There are not enough nurses, not enough beds, and not enough slack in the system to respond when demand spikes. This is what happens when we chase efficiency at the expense of robustness. Emergencies expose every cut corner and every ignored warning.
Public infrastructure, such as water, sewage, electricity, and emergency response, is essential not just because it serves everyone, but because it holds everything else together. Prioritizing robustness in these areas is not indulgent because these services need to withstand floods, storms, fires, and pandemics. That resilience cannot be measured in quarterly earnings.
The mistake is pretending that the delivery of basic human needs can be operated like a business. However, businesses are meant to serve shareholders while services are meant to serve people. The two are not interchangeable.
The Conditions for Ethical Privatization
For privatization to work at all, two things must be in place and not just as guidelines, but as laws. First, the government must act as a relentless advocate for the public. It must act like a difficult customer on behalf of every citizen. If prices go up by even a fraction, there should be an uproar. If water quality declines, there must be consequences. Without this, there is no pressure to maintain standards.
Second, private owners must be prevented from extracting unlimited profits. A strict cap on withdrawals would require surpluses to be reinvested into the system, whether to improve services, modernize infrastructure, or pay fair wages to frontline staff. Directors and executives should not earn obscene multiples of the entry-level wage. Any company unwilling to operate under these terms is signalling that it does not intend to provide a public service, but to extract one.
If a company wants a long-term guaranteed income, backed by public money, it must accept public accountability. If it refuses, then it was never fit to run a public service to begin with.
Why Competition Must Include the Public Sector
A market only functions when true competition exists. Nonetheless, if only private providers are allowed to compete, then the system is rigged from the outset. The only way to ensure competitive pricing and service quality is for the government to remain an active provider in key sectors.
The example of Canada’s telecommunications sector illustrates this clearly. Across most provinces, internet and mobile services are overpriced and underperforming. However, in Saskatchewan, where government-run SaskTel operates alongside private providers, prices are lower, and quality is better. Competition works best when the public sector participates, not withdraws.
A healthy economy is not defined by how much of it is privately owned, but by how well it balances public and private interests. Mixed market economies consistently outperform both extreme capitalism and rigid socialism. Public services offer stability while private enterprise drives innovation. Together, they keep one another in check.
What We Can Do Now
The consequences of reckless privatization are not theoretical. They unfold every time a train is delayed due to cut maintenance, every time a town boils water because the system failed, every time someone dies in an ambulance stuck in an underfunded health system.
We must stop pretending that a market alone can deliver justice. Where the goal is human well-being, not profit, we need public systems rooted in care, not quarterly targets. Our voices matter in this debate, and we must speak up when essential services are put at risk by those who mistake efficiency for success. We must also demand laws that hold private providers to account and insist on public alternatives where monopolies exist.
If this helped clarify your thinking, I invite you to share it with a friend, become a free or paid subscriber, or buy me a coffee to support more in-depth writing. Every contribution helps keep this work independent and grounded in the belief that better systems are always possible if we fight for them.
Privatisation of public services in the UK has proven to be a failure. Look at the difference between Scottish water which is still being controlled by the Scottish government and the water companies in England which are totally privatised! Sewage problems in England galore, underfunded maintenance as they focus on paying dividends to shareholders, not spending money on maintenance! Same for the railroad etc etc
This comment is somewhat trite but we must fund heath care much more than adequately. I personally am opposed to a significant (really any) increase in for profit health services. At some point, while accepting the wrath of readers out there, we must consider raising taxes spent wisely in order to fund these important programmes.