In the debate about the relationship between private and public welfare, it has crept into a peculiar argument that “it’s a business / political blunder to draw private capital into the tasks the public sector can solve the fine – and better – even. We have use of the private capital in other places.” Roman Linneberg Eliassen in the Manifesto are among those who promote the argument, here in the Newspaper 19.12.
Lars Kolbeinstveit Show more
How can you know though the government fixes a task better than private without having to test it out with the competition? Is public suppliers the best, yes and so should they also be providers of services.
Often it can, however, change over time who is the best, and therefore it can be sensible to all the time be transparency for both private and public actors within skattefinansierte tjenesteordninger. The premise of the Eliassen seems to be that we all collectively pay for through skatteseddelen should come from the public itself.
When the public in as large a degree pay for the barnehageplassene our they must almost per definition also operated and owned by the public. The problem with this line of reasoning is that it advocated a very radical and closed economic system.
In today’s society there is a lot of tax that actually goes back to private again, when the public requested private services and goods. Private companies create value when they deliver everything from the nursery to the buses and medical equipment to the public. It is not so that a private party who builds a nursery creates value, while a private operator “has the straw down in the public chests” if she runs a kindergarten.
The difficult profits Debate,
This however does not that market solutions are always the best and that all tasks and services we want that to be done should be provided by private actors. The public should largely provide services where competition will work poorly, a part of infrastructure or health care are good examples of this. But even here is not the distinction between the public and private absolutely.
It is crucial, rather, is that to create good framework conditions, and taking into account the complexity of the market for various services. For example: whether a municipality to open for private suppliers and the award can depend on everything from the size to the type of service to be performed.
Anyway, it is a key element here that you just do not should to think for stivbent ideological, so that important considerations are taken care of when one is governing and designing the framework.
A central and bipartisan points in Norwegian industrial policy from the late 1970s has been that a more neutral policies, based on market economic ideas, is the policy that in the best possible extent to facilitate for value creation and profitable jobs. This tverrpolitiske the agreement between the moderate right and the right has, naturally enough, received the lowest support to the left of the Labour party.
This is obvious when the Eliassen believes that if the goal is “to increase the value added and demand, it is more precise to use the money over the state budget, for example, by increasing public investment in green technology and industry.”
Eliassen views on industrial policy stands in direct contrast to what the political parties for nearly 40 years has stood for. In 1981, the la Arbeiderpartiregjeringen forward the white paper Industripolitiske guidelines for the next years to come. Here it was, among other things: “our country should essentially be based on a decentralized market economy … the individual business also be socio-economically profitable if it operates according to commercial considerations.”
This line to the Labour party nevertheless it has arisen some confusion about the last few years – especially after Jens Disastrous departure. That nietzsche criticizes the Labour party for this is not that the right is dressed in an “ideological straitjacket”.
It is rather to bring out the importance of the private sector and what value creation is all about. Neither the ideas that utdefinerer private capital from the service production, or suggestions that the politicians once again want to focus on the more selective business policy, will ensure future jobs and sustainable welfare.
Norway has the last few decades, largely managed to combine a free and open market economy with good welfare schemes. This will very likely not continue on the course to be placed in a venstreradikal direction.
the Government’s gradebook:Few peaks and many flops Comment
