Privatisation and Nationalisation
Privatisation And Nationalisation; contrasting theories in the pursuit of democracy, a UK Australia study.
Privatisation and Nationalisation are two of the governance practices used by democratic governments to uphold and help realize democratic ideals. However they are in direct correlation in principle, to one another. Using Australia and the UK, this essay shall consider this issue as it explores how these two governance practices have helped and hindered the realisation of democratic ideals.
Democracy is a belief that has shown itself to be as strong as religion. Nations and alliances have gone to war for democracy and the ideals it sustains. It has been called the human races greatest invention or “the crowning achievement of the twentieth century” ((Stoker 2006)page 19). It is perhaps the answer to the question that has plagued mankind as to ‘who shall rule’. With so much belief and passion, democracy becomes quite hard to define as Heywood writes, “ when a term means anything to anyone it is in danger of becoming entirely meaningless” (Heywood 2004) (page 220). In other word so much has been done under the banner of democracy that its true vales and ideals can be left warped and disfigured to the point that the term may represents nothing. This idea also stems from the fact that around the world there are so many different forms of democracy in practice. However the origin or democracy shows the path to its ideals. Democracy comes from the ancient Greek words demos meaning ‘stand for the many’ and kratos meaning ‘power or rule’, so put together democracy means ruled by many or mob rule. It is “about the capacity of citizens to engage an and influence policy debates and outcomes” (Stoker 2006)(page 22). Democracy is the process that allows social majorities to dictate the public environment, and make collective decisions about society. Mob Rule.
Democratic governments all around the world have employed the governance practice of privatization
Privatisation and Nationalisation are two of the governance practices used by democratic governments to uphold and help realize democratic ideals. However they are in direct correlation in principle, to one another. Using Australia and the UK, this essay shall consider this issue as it explores how these two governance practices have helped and hindered the realisation of democratic ideals.
Democracy is a belief that has shown itself to be as strong as religion. Nations and alliances have gone to war for democracy and the ideals it sustains. It has been called the human races greatest invention or “the crowning achievement of the twentieth century” ((Stoker 2006)page 19). It is perhaps the answer to the question that has plagued mankind as to ‘who shall rule’. With so much belief and passion, democracy becomes quite hard to define as Heywood writes, “ when a term means anything to anyone it is in danger of becoming entirely meaningless” (Heywood 2004) (page 220). In other word so much has been done under the banner of democracy that its true vales and ideals can be left warped and disfigured to the point that the term may represents nothing. This idea also stems from the fact that around the world there are so many different forms of democracy in practice. However the origin or democracy shows the path to its ideals. Democracy comes from the ancient Greek words demos meaning ‘stand for the many’ and kratos meaning ‘power or rule’, so put together democracy means ruled by many or mob rule. It is “about the capacity of citizens to engage an and influence policy debates and outcomes” (Stoker 2006)(page 22). Democracy is the process that allows social majorities to dictate the public environment, and make collective decisions about society. Mob Rule.
Democratic governments all around the world have employed the governance practice of privatization
References: "Chapter 6 Resourcing Public Revenue", 2005, American Journal of Economics & Sociology, vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 39-53. "Privatisation: has Australia Caught the British Disease ?", 1988, WORLD TRADE UNION MOVEMENT, Vol.1, p.27-28, vol Arrowsmith, J. 2003, "Post-privatisation industrial relations in the UK rail and electricity industries", Industrial Relations Journal, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 150-163. Aulich, C Aulich, C. & O 'Flynn, J. 2007b, "John Howard: The Great Privatiser?", Australian Journal of Political Science, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 365-381. Bradbury, J Crowson, H.M. & DeBacker, T.K. 2008, "Belief, Motivational, and Ideological Correlates of Human Rights Attitudes", Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 148, no. 3, pp. 293-310. Davidson, B Goot, M. 1999b, "Public Opinion, Privatisation, and the Electoral Politics of Telstra", Australian Journal of Politics and History, Vol.45, Issue 2, p.214, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 214. Gowland, D Harris, P. 2006, "Neo-Liberalism and the State: Implications for Economy, Society and Human Relations", Social Alternatives, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 8-13. Haubrich, D Heywood, A. 2004, "Democracy, Representation and the Public Interest (Ch 8). In Political Theory: An Introducation" in Palgrave Macmillan, , pp. 220 - 251. Hodge, G Hopkins, A. 1999, "Privatisation of Utilities", AQ: Journal of Contemporary Analysis, Vol.71, Issue 2, p.30, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 30. Johnston, J Johnston, J. & Gudergan, S.P. 2007b, "Governance of public-private partnerships: lessons learnt from an Australian case?", International Review of Administrative Sciences, vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 569-582. Knill, C Meadowcroft, J. 2006, "The Re-Nationalisation of Britain", Economic Affairs, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 74-74. Stoker, G