Public ownership is one of the ways that people historically tried to deal with the corruption within our cities. Now privatisation is seen as the solution. But certainly the private provision of things like street sweeping were a bonanza for corrupt politicians during the Tweed regime. Politicians would award the contracts, the services would be badly performed, and money would flow back to the corrupt politicians who handed out the contracts. Having public services obviated the need to award contracts to private companies, which essentially made it more difficult to steal.
This is a very live issue in the developing world. The question is whether the public failures in the developing world should prompt the provision of things like water services from purely private providers. Or are we afraid of creating exactly what happened in New York in the 19th century, where a lot of money was paid out of the public purse with little actual provision of services?
Live issue indeed. Los costos sociales de los trenes gerenciados por el Estado han sido altos, insoportables diría alguien del equipo de Alfonsín. Los costos sociales de los trenes gerenciados por privados han sido por lo menos tan altos como aquellos. No sé mucho del tema, pero lo que sé es que necesitamos expertos de transporte urbano en esta discusión (o por lo menos debemos tratar de pensar y discutir fuerte el tema), y que debemos explorar todas las posibilidades intermedias (ente regulatorio que funcione, subsidio a la demanda, etc.) en vez de gritarnos unos a otros privatización versus estatización.
También me llamó la atención esta afirmación:
The most striking conclusions were that unless drivers pay the full cost of driving, urban roads will always be congested and that at all but the most extreme densities buses, with dedicated lanes, are better than trains. There is an old saw that 40 years of transportation research at Harvard can be summarised by four words: bus good, train bad.
No comments:
Post a Comment