Privatization Trends



Privatization Trends

Introduction

The term “privatization” poses many problems for its definition; it is hosting a multitude of possibilities. Perhaps in these cases, it is best to go to the dictionary, such as the Royal Academy of details for us: “Transferring a business or public activity to the private sector”. The definition also includes the transfer of activities to the private sector such as private security guards and guarding public buildings. Going a step further, understand privatization as an economic, political and social restructuring.

In the establishment of private correctional and detention facilities, governmental agencies and for-profit organizations generally enter into contracts that outline the primary physical, administrative, and performance standards to be followed by the contracting organization. As with publicly administered prisons and detention facilities in the United States, privately run facilities are also required to adhere to federal, local, and state laws and requirements pertaining to the rights and welfare of inmates and detainees, as well as other health and safety standards. In exchange for adhering to these standards, the private contractor is afforded a daily (or monthly) fee for each incarcerated prisoner. The paid fee is typically lower than the expenditure per inmate in a public prison or detention facility; hence the incentive for public agencies to enter into such contracts insofar as this reduces correctional expenditures.

Privatization Trend

Privatization in the first place engulfed industry and services, trade and public catering. Small enterprises passed into private hands by selling them at auction or tender. Large enterprises were transferred privatization authorities, which was carried out by corporatization of their privatization. Shares of such companies are partially passed collectives of enterprises and the rest was bought by private such as legal and physical people at auction or tender. However, the specific forms and methods of privatization were many differences.

In most countries, first and second groups of the new ruling elite in the early 90s; at the start of market transformation, believed that through the rapid elimination of state property and transfer into private hands can quickly resolve the most important economic and social problems but the mid 90's it became obvious that this approach was not true. All these countries were in crisis.

In countries where the public sector is corrupt by nature, it is likely that business will be at least equal or worse. In addition, privatization in countries with weak social structure can only contribute to further weakening. Another argument that conflict is that of reducing the excessive size of the public sector in these nations, many of which public spending is ridiculous and most people do not enjoy basic public services, the incompressible privatization because of this.

In Latin America, in a few years, this process has transferred control of production to the private sector of the continent.

Each and every one of the sectors have been affected such as roads, natural resources, zoos, parks, steel manufacturing plants, utilities, telecommunications networks, etc. This movement has involved the transfer of public ownership between 1990 and 1996, for a price estimated at $ ...