Roman Linneberg Eliassen , wrote in his column in the Newspaper.no 19. December that “it is 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.”
This claim is answered I in a post 20. December. I mean Eliassen with this shows a narrow view on the economy for several reasons. It is not by necessity wrong that private earn money to deliver goods or services where the public is buying.
Lars Kolbeinstveit Show more
It has occurred in all years, but in the recent past there has been a debate about whether the private should be able to earn money to deliver welfare services. Eliassen believe that we have the use of private capital in other places, but provides no answer on the limits for how private should be able to earn money.
Can a private operator make money to build a kindergarten, but not by running it? Can private earn money by operating a rørleggerfirma, but not on sale to the public? A økonomisyn as the Eliassen argues for – namely, that private not driver of value creation if the demand comes from the public – is radically.
Eliassen answer me again 23. December and writes, among other things, that the “to sell bread and coffee is not the same as selling a sykehjems or kindergarten.” I think most will agree, but on that basis conclude that private operators must be kept away from nursing homes and day care centers is problematic.
We need a policy for the creation of value, Writer
Buyers of these services are, as Eliassen writes, often vulnerable, but rather it is an argument that the public should act as a more professional buyer, and within certain limits, to allow competition and freedom of choice just to preserve the user’s interests.
How this is organized, and how, for example, tenders be designed is not a simple matter. As I wrote in my original answer is not all of the services – for example within the health sector. – suitable for competition.
My colleague, Anne Siri Koksrud Broadbent has written a lot about the complexity in this field. In some areas – for example, kindergartens – are the users satisfied with the private providers. Nevertheless, it is important not to draw too general or hasty conclusions on this field. No matter is a view that argues that private actors do not have anything to add on this site, well as characterized by an ideological straitjacket, as those who think that only private is it saliggjørende.
Eliassen believes that tax cuts do not have any effect on the increased value. Whether the relatively small skattekuttene to the current government help is, however, partly too early to conclude about. And if they do not help, it is far from given that a more active industrial policy with selective measures against enkeltnæringer will work better. The lessons learned from the post-war period, and especially the 1970s, shows that it rather will be negative.
Eliassen takes, among other things, called for public investment in lyntog. But there are good reasons why no government has set in motion large lyntogprosjekter in Norway. It is very expensive, and the climate for lyntog in Norway is highly doubtful.
Eliassen believes that I misunderstand and that “we need a sensible discussion about the division of labour between the private and the public sector”. However, it is in my view difficult to see how sensible such a discussion is if one excludes the privates contribution in so strong a degree at the same time as supporters of private actors is defined as characterized by an ideological straitjacket.
In my original reply I take up the division of work and indicates that public responsibility and financing of welfare services does not with necessity need to exclude private suppliers. Private can at its best contribute to better services and innovation. But the regulations and rammevilkårenes quality is crucial.
important success factor for the division of labour between the private and the public sector in Norway, is that the basic economic model is based on a free and open market economy with emphasis on fair competition, and avoidance of selective industrial policy. This has created fertile ground for economic growth, trade and good exploitation of resources, which in turn has made it possible to finance a large public sector with extensive welfare services.
the Government has two years Debate
