Tuesday, 7 June 2011

Er...no. Competitive markets do not come from government managing those markets.


History tells us that in this country we tend to opt for a form of ‘pro-competitive disengagement’, removing those barriers and letting ‘market forces’ dictate. Instead, we should introduce a set of policy instruments that can both facilitate the provision of the services our communities really need, and contribute to the health of our local economies.


The author also believes that:

...we see policy initiatives that will disincentivise these types of organisations from entering the market. Payment by results and outcome based commissioning are examples.

Clearly this bloke has little substantive grasp of how business works - you do something for me and I pay you.  In the private sector it's all payment by results you know! But no, our friend believes that markets must be managed:

If public sector reform is to produce stable and genuinely competitive markets for local public services, such that result in quality public services, the government must create and implement an industrial policy for the sector. Such a policy would enable central and local government to make strategic interventions to manage markets, the demand and supply side, rather than simply removing barriers to entry.

So "genuinely competitive markets" come about because of government intervention? What nonsense!

And these people are not only given space at CLES but are paid to advise local councils - save us!



patently said...

So we free the provision of these services from State control and allow the private sector to deliver them in innovative and efficient ways by... telling the private sector companies exactly how they are to do it?

You couldn't make it up.

FedUpWithHMRC said...

Business works however the government wants it to work. After all everyone should be lucky that we are allowed to keep any of the taxpayers funds:

Have a look at the comments made by some HMRC staff:

I especially loved, emphasis mine:
Although I agree with your overall argument, this particular non-sequitur and its variants have always irritated me as logically all companies are funded by taxpayers. I can see why BBC employees get irritated by the "I pay your wages" argument as well.