1

EVALUATING THE PROS AND CONS OF PRIVATISATION THROUGH A CASE

STUDY OF BRITISH RAIL

Student

Instructor

Institution

Course

Date
 2

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................................3

2.0 Theoretical Framework..............................................................................................................3

3.0 The Case for Privatisation.........................................................................................................4

3.1 Increased Efficiency...............................................................................................................4

3.2 Fiscal Relief for Governments...............................................................................................4

3.3 Improved Service Quality and Innovation.............................................................................5

3.4 Encouragement of Competition.............................................................................................5

4.0 The Case Against Privatisation..................................................................................................6

4.1 Market Failures and the Public Good....................................................................................6

4.2 Reduced Access and Social Inequality..................................................................................6

4.3 Loss of Public Accountability................................................................................................6

4.4 Profit Motive and Public Interest...........................................................................................7

5.0 Case Study: The Privatisation of British Rail............................................................................7

6.0 Proponents' Perspective.............................................................................................................8

7.0 Critics' Perspective.....................................................................................................................9

8.0 Comparative Analysis of the Case Study..................................................................................9

9.0 Conclusion...............................................................................................................................10

References......................................................................................................................................12
 3

Evaluating the Pros and Cons of Privatisation through a Case Study of British Rail

1.0 Introduction

Privatisation, meaning the sale of public services or assets to the private sector, was one

of the leading economic reform ideas since the 1980s. They assert that it creates efficiency,

enhances the quality of services, and brings about fiscal efficiencies by opening up markets to

competition and profit incentives to reduce costs. This seems to remedy financial problems that

worry the government and attain higher efficiency attributed to state enterprises. Critics,

however, express their worries about widened inequalities, availability of services, and privatised

accountability as firms and corporations work under the motive of profit-making without

considering the public welfare. The reality depicts variable results, with some Read sectors

beneficiary in investment and service provision while others incurred higher costs and reduced

quality of services. This essay critically analyses these arguments through the lens of economic

theories and political ideologies. It focuses on British Rail as a case study of privatisation

policies and the positive and negative effects that follow privatisation policies.

2.0 Theoretical Framework

The theoretical foundation for analysing the concept of privatisation incorporates several

significant economic and political theories. Public Choice Theory points out that privatisation

can decrease the government's wasted costs as decision-making is delegated to private, profit-

seeking organisations, which can be more effective (Sekera, 2020; Spulber, 2023). According to

Neoclassical Economic Theory, organisational development promotes competition, and

privatisation can stimulate changes and innovations, making services more effective and cheaper

(Radić et al., 2021; Shapira, 2022). Contestable Market Theory also states that one private firm

in a competitive industry can act as a competitive one if entry and exit options are readily
 4

available (Spulber, 2023). On the other hand, Market Failure Theory points to the danger,

indicating that privatisation might not always lead to the best, especially in areas where market

forces do not capture public goods and externalities (Ciccarone, 2020). These theories form a

holistic framework to understand privatisation measures' various and complex effects on

efficiency, service delivery, and societal well-being.

3.0 The Case for Privatisation

3.1 Increased Efficiency

The idea that private firms are more efficient than public ones is one of the main reasons

for privatisation. As the advocates of the profit motive have argued, private enterprises primarily

reduce costs and achieve high output levels (Jeste et al., 2021; Roe, 2021). On the other hand,

since public entities are not pressured to operate in the competitive market, they are often

bureaucratic and need better operating efficiency. This argument aligns with the economic theory

of allocative efficiency, which refers to distributing resources in the best way likely to increase

society's well-being (Ramazzotti, 2020). Those who support privatisation assert that private firms

with direct exposure to markets have considerably higher stakes in productive efficiency,

technological advancement or search for cheaper ways of delivering services and quality

improvement.

3.2 Fiscal Relief for Governments

Privatisation, for example, offers an instant fiscal advantage to governments through the

disposal of state assets, a helpful option in situations where the government is facing fiscal

constraints. Such injection of funds can assist in eradicating Budget deficits or enhance

reinvestment in other essential areas of the economy and development (Jeste et al., 2021; Stojčić,

2021). Furthermore, by privatising loss-making public enterprises, the government can regain
 5

balance by eradicating the yearly subsidies burden on the public purse (Lee et al., 2022). It is

often highlighted that fiscal relief is one of the significant reasons for privatisation, enabling

governments to dedicate resources toward more efficient areas of spending.

3.3 Improved Service Quality and Innovation

Theoretically, privatisation enhances service quality through competition and profitability

factors. Private enterprises have incentives to search, discover, and develop innovative solutions

and new technologies compared to public providers, who lack these incentives (Stojčić, 2021;

Shapira, 2022). In telecommunications, this has repeatedly led to more investment, innovation

and improved service delivery after privatisation. Hu et al. (2024) argue that these enhancements

benefit the individual consumer via better services and can positively affect total economic

growth through increased innovation and productivity. There is usually aggressive competition in

privatised sectors, meaning constant improvements, as the industry indices will increase without

stagnating.

3.4 Encouragement of Competition

The values of privatisation are often expressed in terms of promoting competition,

especially in fields traditionally controlled by state monopolies. As suggested by various

economic principles, the presence of many firms can reduce prices, enhance services, and

increase choices for consumers (Calvano and Polo, 2021; Jeste et al., 2021). Governments seek

to enhance the efficiency and competition of the markets, and one way to achieve that is by

'floating' large monopolies that already exist in the public domain. The competition ensures that

private firms are forced to operate efficiently, cut costs and ensure customer satisfaction, which

is more beneficial to the consumers than the state monopoly.

 6

4.0 The Case Against Privatisation

4.1 Market Failures and the Public Good

The critics of privatisation express the opinion that some commodities, particularly public

ones (healthcare, education, and transportation services), should remain in the state's hands and

be accessible to everyone. According to Clifton and Díaz Fuentes (2023), when services are

privatised, market failures can be observed since private companies focus on revenues instead of

the general interest, and this means that service provision is sub-optimal, especially in areas

where profits are low. Therefore, it might become the case that the private sector could

underestimate the potential of rural areas and provide services predominantly to urban areas,

making the distribution of services unbalanced.

4.2 Reduced Access and Social Inequality

The privatisation process has several vulnerabilities, one of which is that it disagrees with

the objectives of equalisation. Thus, when basic life requirements, including health, education,

and basic facilities, are commercialised, they are beyond the reach of poor individuals (Farley et

al., 2021; Calvano and Polo, 2021). However, this exposes the users of private providers to

problems such as inadequate access to universal service, as private providers have no legal

requirements to offer the service. The above scenario raises a significant ethical dilemma on

whether the state is responsible for facilitating the distribution of services that are basic needs to

human beings.

4.3 Loss of Public Accountability

Public services are more transparent and accountable than most private players. While

privatisation has its benefits, it erodes the strength of public scrutiny because most private

companies tend to work for their shareholders only (Jeste et al., 2021; Stiel, 2023). Moreover,
 7

privatised services are contractual; this implies that privatised services can present some

problems to government regulators; they may need more authority to regulate quality or force

private providers to fulfil their obligations as legally contracted. This neglect of responsibility

may cause corruption, mismanagement or even decrease the quality of service delivered.

4.4 Profit Motive and Public Interest

One crucial weakness associated with private organisations' involvement is that they

function with the gain motive in mind and may not consider the public's need as a factor of their

profit-making capacity since some service sectors profit more when they minimise their social

costs. For instance, in the process of privatisation of utilities, such as water supply, efficiency

may be enhanced through methods such as cost-cutting measures, including reduced

maintenance or underinvestment in infrastructure, which would lead to poor service delivery and

high prices for service rendered with little reliability (Mejía et al., 2021; Cozmuta, 2024). Thus,

the contradiction between profit and the public interest reveals a severe weakness in

privatisation, especially in sectors with natural monopolies or where essential services are

delivered.

5.0 Case Study: The Privatisation of British Rail

The privatisation of British Rail in mid-1990s is an excellent example of the complex

issues involved in the privatisation process. British Rail, a state-owned company, started the

process of privatisation in 1994-1997, and the company was divided into more than 100 different

companies (Wolmar, 2022; Cozmuta, 2024). This impressive restructuring was intended, among

other things, to increase productivity, reduce reliance on subsidies, and introduce competition

within the rail industry (Whiteside, 2020; Megersa, 2020). The rationale for privatisation was

direct; it was argued that the service quality would likely improve and the cost to the taxpayers
 8

would be reduced due to competition, which is likely to emanate from the industry's

fragmentation.

The consequences of such privatisation attempts were partially problematic, as they

showed advantages and considerable shortcomings. Although liberalising train operations

responded to infrastructure investment and service intervals, it increased ticket prices,

operational problems and safety questions (Wolmar, 2022). This structure weakened the

integration and coordination; hence, when the achievements of one party are fragmented,

criticisms of the rising complication and the lack of supervision surface (Megersa, 2020). From

the British Rail experience, one can learn that though going private seems to have benefits, such

as encouraging investment, its implementation must always consider the needs of the specific

sector and possible detriments, such as erosion of service quality and consumer price.

6.0 Proponents' Perspective

The efficiency proponents of the privatisation of British Rail point out several

advantages. It has been noted that after privatisation, the rail network has improved its services

and performance since more investment was made in the delivery of services than during the pre-

privatisation period (Nash and Smith, 2020). More passengers boarded railway services because

the private operators provided additional services and better quality trains, cars, and coaches due

to privatisation (Mejía et al., 2021; Goodyear, 2023). This view is also supported by the theory

of contestable markets, which posits that raising the level of competition will force companies to

increase the level of service. Advocates point out that private firms brought a significant amount

of much-needed capital into the rail system, which the government might have been unable to

fund the Modern Rail Industry (Shapira, 2022; Heath, 2023). This flow of investment and the
 9

competitive structure was meant to bring about changes and efficiency in the rail sector, as was

the belief in better service delivery when the sector is privatised.

7.0 Critics' Perspective

However, there have been some problems with the privatisation of British Rail, which

has become an object of criticism concerning some operational and financial aspects. The break-

up into more than a hundred management bodies was problematic, and the organisations could

not fully coordinate themselves, resulting in increased operations costs and fares for consumers

(Wolmar, 2022; Heath, 2023). In contrast with privatisation, government subsidies grew instead

of shrunk, which makes one question the rationale of the process. Furthermore, obsession with

profit meant that little funding was extended towards maintenance and safety; for instance, the

Hatfield rail disaster in 2000 was a result of negligence in track maintenance by Railtrack

(Pixton, 2024). These problems raise questions about the appropriateness of privatisation

concerning the operation of critical public infrastructure that requires safety and reliability over

opportunity for gain.

8.0 Comparative Analysis of the Case Study

The issue of privatisation reflects in general economic and political debates on the proper

place of the state and market in serving the public good. The proponents of privatisation believe

that outsourcing public services increases efficiency, improves the quality of services delivered

and reduces the fiscal burden of the government (Sarkar and Sarkar, 2020; Mejía et al., 2021).

Some argue that competition among private firms fosters innovation and reduces costs; thereby,

service delivery is supported by some sectors that have witnessed advancements and financial

savings after privatisation.

 10

On the other hand, those who oppose the privatisation process have concerns about the

deterioration of inequality, accessibility, and public accountability. Privatisation can also worsen

social injustice by offering better services to higher-paying customers, making it more difficult

for marginalised groups to access them and lowering the quality of service in crucial sectors,

according to Heath (2023). Secondly, concerns have been raised about removing public

ownership and the possibility of market failures, especially in cases where service forms an

essential aspect of nations' well-being and, as a result, calls for massive regulation.

Using the experience of British Rail demonstrates the advantages and disadvantages of

the policy of privatisation. On the positive side, the privatisation of British Rail caused more

monetary investments into the infrastructure and brought some changes for the better in the

sphere of service quality. Nevertheless, it revealed some critical problems, such as elevated

consumer prices, organisational ineffectiveness, and risks. The British Rail experience

established that privatisation might not apply to the industries in general but depending on the

sector, such as public interest for welfare and coordination (Leykun, 2020 Shapira, 2022). It may

require a slower and measured process of reform and liberalisation to properly weigh the

advantages against the risks and costs of what privatisation entails.

9.0 Conclusion

Despite these advantages, there are better solutions than privatisation as it has

reservations, such as lack of efficiency. All the possible benefits that privatisation may bring

should be weighed against the possible costs, especially in sectors that provide utility services.

Especially in fields such as health care, education, and public transportation, privatisation has

adverse effects on social equity and limited access to services for less privileged groups. Thus, it

is crucial not to simplify the problem. Policymakers should ensure that privatised services are
 11

effectively regulated and monitored to deliver public needs and standards. In essence, this paper

has argued that while privatisation cannot be completely eliminated due to its positive impacts on

society, it is possible to design regulations and monitor performance so that some adverse effects

do not occur. This balance may be able to help optimise and innovate for efficiency while not

having to sacrifice equity and accessibility.

 12

References

Calvano, E. and Polo, M., 2021. Market power, competition and innovation in digital markets: A

survey. Information Economics and Policy, 54, p.100853.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoecopol.2020.100853

Ciccarone, G., 2020. Market versus government failures under risk and uncertainty. Journal of

Public Finance and Public Choice, 35(1), pp.81-106.

https://doi.org/10.1332/251569120X15802174243174

Clifton, J. and Díaz Fuentes, D., 2023. How do state-owned enterprise multinationals behave

abroad? A multi-dimensional framework for analysis. Journal of Economic Policy

Reform, 26(1), pp.67-81. https://doi.org/10.1080/17487870.2022.2079509

Cozmuta, A., 2024. Airline privatisation in Europe and industry dynamics: British Airways,

Lufthansa, and Air France (Doctoral dissertation, Dual Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

in Economic and Social History at the University of Glasgow and Economics at Kyoto

University). https://theses.gla.ac.uk/id/eprint/84089

Farley, C., Howat, J., Bosco, J., Thakar, N., Wise, J. and Su, J., 2021. Advancing equity in utility

regulation. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1mr715sx

Goodyear, D., 2023. Britain’s Changing Train Liveries: Four Decades of Change. Pen and

Sword Transport. https://books.google.com/books?

hl=en&lr=&id=tkK8EAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Passenger+numbers+surged+a

s+private+operators+introduced+more+frequent+services+and+upgraded+train+fleets,

+which+were+seen+as+a+direct+benefit+of+privatization&ots=_PC_khR2Dy&sig=QK

XMWao1R9kfJWO6b7ZX35WAZv8
 13

Heath, J., 2023. Anodyne privatisation. Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, 16(2),

pp.25-65. https://doi.org/10.23941/ejpe.v16i2.800

Hu, M., Huang, W., Liu, C. and Zhou, W., 2024. Regulation of Privatised Public Service

Systems. Production and Operations Management, p.10591478241235005.

https://doi.org/10.1177/10591478241235005

Lee, C.L., Ahmad, R., Lee, W.S., Khalid, N. and Karim, Z.A., 2022. The financial sustainability

of state-owned enterprises in an emerging economy. Economies, 10(10), p.233.

https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10100233

Leykun, F., 2020. Theoretical Arguments and Debates on Public Enterprises Privatisation:

Ethiopian Focus. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 11(11), pp.69-84.

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/327151724.pdf

Megersa, K., 2020. State-owned enterprises and public finances in developing countries: The

Impact of Economic and Health-related Crises.

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/333884822.pdf

Mejía, M.G., Pareja, A., Farias, P., Kaganova, O., Ball, I. and Detter, D., 2021. Our Untapped

Wealth: Toward Modern Management of Public Assets.

http://dx.doi.org/10.18235/0003775

Nash, C. and Smith, A., 2020. Developments in rail regulation in Britain. In Handbook on

Railway Regulation (pp. 45-62). Edward Elgar Publishing.

https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789901788.00008
 14

Pixton, B., 2024. The Railway Grouping 1923 to the Beeching Era.

http://digital.casalini.it/9781399088312

Radić, M., Ravasi, D. and Munir, K., 2021. Privatisation: Implications of a shift from state to

private ownership. Journal of Management, 47(6), pp.1596-1629.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320988356

Ramazzotti, P., 2020. Prices, institutions and the coordination of economic growth. American

Review of Political Economy, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.38024/arpe.164

Roe, M.J., 2021. Corporate purpose and corporate competition. Wash. UL Rev., 99, p.223.

https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0195

Sarkar, R. and Sarkar, R., 2020. Privatisation as a Development Strategy. International

Development Law: Rule of Law, Human Rights & Global Finance, pp.247-307.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40071-2_6

Sekera, J.A., 2020. The public economy: understanding government as a producer.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/public-purpose/wp2020-01

Shapira, R., 2022. The Challenge of Holding Big Business Accountable. Cardozo L. Rev., 44,

p.203.

https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/cdozo44&div=8&id=&pa

ge=

Smith, E., Ali, D., Wilkerson, B., Dawson, W.D., Sobowale, K., Reynolds III, C., Berk, M.,

Lavretsky, H., Jeste, D., Ng, C.H. and Soares, J.C., 2021. A brain capital grand strategy:
 15

toward economic reimagination. Molecular psychiatry, 26(1), pp.3-22.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-020-00918-w

Spulber, D.F., 2023. Antitrust and innovation competition. Journal of Antitrust

Enforcement, 11(1), pp.5-50. https://doi.org/10.1093/jaenfo/jnac013

Stiel, C., 2023. Remunicipalization, corporatisation, and outsourcing: The performance of

public-sector firms after reorganisation. International Public Management

Journal, 26(4), pp.463-488. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2022.2038317

Stojčić, N., 2021. Social and private outcomes of green innovation incentives in European

advancing economies. Technovation, 104, p.102270.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102270

Whiteside, H., 2020. Public-private partnerships: market development through management

reform. Review of International Political Economy, 27(4), pp.880-902.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2019.1635514

Wolmar, C., 2022. British Rail. Penguin UK. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?

hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2020&q=Passenger+numbers+surged+as+private+operat

ors+introduced+more+frequent+services+and+upgraded+train+fleets

%2C+which+were+seen+as+a+direct+benefit+of+privatization+&btnG=