Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Although privatization has been a hallmark of the neoliberal economic policies that have helped to drive the forces of globalization since the 1980s, the idea is contested between different ideological currents and thus difficult to define in its common core. Because of the increasing impact of counter-ideologies, it is also difficult to predict what its global future will be.

The concept of private ownership and the practices related to it have been central to the modern Western mind-set of individualization and secularization since its very beginnings. In fact, such practices started with the Roman “invention” of a jurisdiction that for the first time in history systematically used private property as a tool to structure, balance, and control society. As a consequence, privatization was—and remains—inextricably interwoven with the positive features but also with the problems associated with the Western world-view as such. Among these features—which in part constitute also its problems—are the measurement of values, personal worth, and achievements by material goods; the primacy of profit, personal freedom, and self-reliance; a human-centered universe; and the belief that competition between individuals and groups is good for the whole of society because it forces every member to increase both productivity and responsibility, thus ultimately fostering the increase of wealth for all.

Definitions

The term privatization derives from the Latin word privare. This was one of the core terms at the foundation of history's first global empire, the Roman Empire, which (together with the Greek civilization) gave birth to the Western mind-set through the implementation of a public law for the first time centered on individuals and their rights. The literal meaning of privare ranges from “to bereave,” “to dispossess someone of something,” “to disseize,” “to take away,” “to steal from others,” to “to hijack something,” including all terms in between. Among the intermediate meanings are “to keep something for oneself (or for a defined group) by detracting it to others,” “to withdraw something from the common wealth for one's own benefit,” “to take care for something by personal ownership,” “to occupy something,” as well as “to enjoy something for one self, by disregarding the enjoyment of others.”

Particularly in its passive form of privatus (i.e., the ontological status where the activity of privare is accomplished), the term today has two primary and closely intertwined meanings, making it one of the great “fundamentally ambivalent” and equivocal lead terms of humanity. It denotes:

  • the status of the good that has been detracted from common ownership, for example, a piece of land or a public resource like a creek or a wood, or a service formerly provided to the public by the government or other public institutions now passed on to private business; and
  • the person or group who has been bereaved or despoiled of something, that is, the one who is the victim.

It follows that privatization in principle means the process of transfer of ownership, sometimes also of permanent or long-term usership, of a formerly common or public good to individuals and/or groups operating for private profit, that is, its passage from public to segregated owner- and/or user-ship. As the specific double meaning of the term suggests, this process is in principle a benefit for some but at the disadvantage of others. Is it disputed whether this must always be the case, and what the circumstances are under which it may not be.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading