Privatization :only solution

Hi everyone,
Following the discussion in class about pros and cons of privatization and public undertakings,I think some excerpts from an article by Naira Yakoob are worth mentioning.

Privatization means transfer of risk by the government or public sector to the private sector by giving up management control and usually ownership (at least majority shares) in an enterprise. It differs from commercialization as in this case the government retains business risk and ownership but makes changes in the way the company operates so that it runs on business principles. Privatization or de-nationalization helps to establish a capitalist economic system, competition, readily available products and services, high quality, more exports, better services, more opportunities, growth, etc. The primary objective of privatization should be to find the private owner who is most likely to improve the performance of the company. Due to the poor performances of our government-be it in the field of political governance, education, industry, etc., it becomes very important to resort to privatization of these institutions and systems. An example to support would be privatization of many companies producing consumer goods. People had to queue, sometimes for days, to get cement, rice, sugar, milk, etc. Now it’s readily available and at times maybe cheaper where competition prevails. Many of the improvements we take for granted now are the result of privatization.
In a set up or environment with a strong tradition of socialism and bureaucracy, the government's privatization program has always had its impediments. Generally, the government adopts, if it does, a very complicated privatization policy. They then use complicated procedure for selecting the owner, impose conditions on the management of the company, sell only part of the company to retain partial control or to intervene in management, restrict or prohibit foreign investment, sell the company shares to small domestic investors who have little ability to manage and so on. Special interest groups such as wealthy businessmen and ruling politicians usually pressure the government to keep the undertakings running that ought to be liquidated. Thus a large share of the State’s productive assets and work force remains locked up in inefficient and unprofitable companies. The reviving and awakening of the governmental units and institutions to the modern practices and modus operandi seems difficult or impossible. Efforts to improve the functioning of these institutions by the government may not be effective for many years. The point that even the private organizations in this State are not very well established or performing is genuine. But the blame can be placed mostly on the political governance- laws, policies, and institutions created by governments. What is needed is a change in the administration and management of the sick and bad-performing units. The reins should be handed over to the private organizations or individuals with competent and ethical management skills. A fresh approach is required- enterprise restructuring, privatization, and liquidation of non-performing and sick units or even commercialization for a start. What is important is that they should deal with competition and quality issues. The non-performing or sick companies can either be restructured or commercialized. However, at times selling organizational assets can be a better decision and hence liquidation can be resorted to. The best way to improve the performance of private business is to eliminate government barriers to competition like tariffs, licensing, legalities, and other restrictions. With the initiative to start up privatization in all government sectors, it will start a drive towards quality, competitiveness and high standards.