Towards a Logic of Privatisation

  • Judith Clifton
  • Francisco Comín
  • Daniel Díaz Fuentes


Explanations of privatisation have grown and become enriched in parallel with the expansion of the programmes around the world. In the first contributions, published in the early 1980s, observers suggested the process could be explained by an emulation of the UK experience.1 One of the consequences of this association is that, in a great deal of the privatisation literature published in the 1980s and early 1990s, a ‘British paradigm’ is often assumed, so that, for example, characteristics of the British privatisation experience in terms of motivation, procedure and circumstances are used as a framework for the analysis of other experiences in other countries. Consequently, a view has been formed that governments are embracing an ‘Americanisation’ of policy in the form of a global regulatory framework.2


Public Service Regulatory Framework General Interest Public Enterprise Common Market 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Vickers and Yarrow (1988) and Vickers and Wright (1989).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    As argued for instance by Megginson and Netter (2001) in their review of privatisation literature.Google Scholar
  3. 6.
    Using CEEP (1990, 1994, 1996, 2001) and CEPS (1996).Google Scholar
  4. 7.
    The regulation of national monopolies was commonly accepted as an strong argument in favour of public intervention, and if an enterprise is to be regulated by an State agency, why should it not be owned by the State. Posner (1987: 595).Google Scholar
  5. 10.
    The decline of public enterprises in the 1990s would be even more dramatic if we considered, from 1991, the contributions of production, employment and investment in eastern Germany after integration. This was only registered in 1999 while in 1995 the indicator of Germany was over 14 per cent.Google Scholar
  6. 11.
    Swedish Government Offices (2000).Google Scholar
  7. 12.
    As Megginson and Netter point out in the case of Asia (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 14.
    Freeman and Soete (1994); OECD (1996a and 1998a).Google Scholar
  9. 20.
    Michie & Smith (1995), Michie (1996), OECD (1996b) OECD (1997a and 1997b )Google Scholar
  10. 21.
    Undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest or having the character of a revenue-producing monopoly shall be subject to the rules contained in this Treaty, in particular to the rules on competition, insofar as the application of such rules does not obstruct the performance, in law or in fact, of the particular tasks assigned to them. Article 90, Treaty of Rome.Google Scholar
  11. 22.
    See Marshall (1920), Walras (1900), Pigou (1920) and Allais (1993)Google Scholar
  12. 24.
    See for example the debate about the future of the BBC between Davies and Congdon in Prospect (2000).Google Scholar
  13. 28.
    Carter argues the trigger for the change was not connected to debates about society but technological change, the prospect of long-term unemployment and growing labour flexibilisation. One of the important ways of justifying this change in thinking was the social dumping argument. This, it was argued, could lead to trade wars and preferential zones for firm location thus enhancing regional inequalities. See Carter (1996).Google Scholar
  14. 29.
    Articles 81 to 89 of the EC Treaty, formerly 85 to 94Google Scholar
  15. 30.
    The concept of public service is a twofold one: it embraces both bodies providing services and the general-interest services they provide. Public-service obligations may be imposed by the public authorities on the body providing a service (airlines, road or rail carriers, energy producers and so on), either nationally or regionally. Incidentally, the concept of the public service and the concept of the public sector (including the civil service) are often, wrongly, confused; they differ in terms of function, status, ownership and ‘clientele’.Google Scholar
  16. 31.
    Communication from the Commission: Services of General Interest in Europe. (1996).Google Scholar
  17. 33.
    The Amsterdam Treaty 1997 Article 16. ‘Without prejudice to Article 73, 86 and 87, and given the place occupied by services of general economic interest in the shared values of the Union as well as their role in promoting social and territorial cohesion, the Community and Member States, each within their respective powers and within the scope of application of this Treaty, shall take care that such services operate on the basis of principles and conditions, which enable them to fulfill their missions’.Google Scholar
  18. 36.
    Communication from the Commission: A Methodological Note for the Horizontal Evaluation of SGEI. (2002).Google Scholar
  19. 37.
    CEEP (2000) Proposal for a Charter of Services of General Interest.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Judith Clifton
    • 1
    • 2
  • Francisco Comín
    • 3
  • Daniel Díaz Fuentes
    • 4
  1. 1.Universidad de OviedoSpain
  2. 2.Open University and University of LeedsUK
  3. 3.Universidad de Alcalá de HenaresSpain
  4. 4.Universidad de CantabriaSpain

Personalised recommendations