Is there a possibility that privatization disadvantages the poor people in the long run?

Is it possible that privatization may disadvantage impoverished people in the long run?
Is poverty a result of changes in the social welfare system?
Should governments retain control of their own firms rather than contracting them out to foreign firms?
What can be done to ensure that citizens are not harmed by the newly contracted firms?
Can various governments engage with private enterprises to ensure fair treatment of workers, suitable wages, timely salaries, and better conditions in the context of neoliberalism?
Does this imply that once the government permits privatization, it loses control of the firms? Can the private firms be forced to enter into contracts that detail the relevant working conditions, discipline measures and the right of the employees to get into labor unions?

Should significant sectors of the economy like health, agriculture, education, and infrastructure be fully contracted to private companies and what would be the adverse effects?

Has the reduction in government spending on social welfare and investments accelerated poverty level in countries?

Can governments balance consumption, investments, and government spending to facilitate financial stability?

Do the racial status, class, and one’s background affect their financial position in the society?

Why are women the most victims of violence? Does the society allow it to happen and what can change about that?

Is the state to blame for men’s dominance and women being treated as second class?

Reflection

Privatization can be an excellent way of enabling a country to rise from an economic crisis. With more private industries, there will be more production of goods, employment, and increased per capita income. Neoliberalism seeks to maximize the utility of the available resources while bringing forth maximum returns to the stakeholders. For instance, in higher education, privatization enables the school to align the studies with the corporate needs. The graduates, therefore, can smoothly transition to the corporate world because they have been taught the relevant skills for the various positions.

Neoliberalism is indeed a great way of ensuring that the country’s resources are well utilized, but it has some setbacks. There have been many instances where the private firms take over power and disregard the employees that work for them. The workers tend to mistreated, denied wages, exposed to poor working conditions and they are retrenched without warning. Further, some of the employees are not granted work benefits such as health and medical insurance. It is hence not surprising that when privatization occurs, there is a growth in social classes as the poor people remain in poverty and the affluent get richer. Privatization tends to benefit those in power since the profits are divided among the owners who then do not have to worry about public goods.

Allowing the government to take charge of the public resources would enhance equitability and fairness. The government can hence supply public goods such as water, roads, electricity and schools without making the taxpayers decide if they need them. On the other hand, if the private companies were allowed to purely run the state, then they would never offer public goods because this would not guarantee them of immediate profits. The education sector, for instance, should be under the local government. With many private universities coming up, the cost of education has gone high thus denying thousands the chance to enroll in school. Moreover, privatization in the education sector had led to increased loans which the graduates have to pay soon after completing their studies. If the universities were fully sponsored and managed by the government, the cost of education would go down, the quality would remain high and more people would access higher education.