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!