Employment benefits

Privatization also leads to workforce issues. Usually, while privatizing services, employees are laid off and some of the employment benefits reduced or eliminated altogether. This would lead to morale problems in part of the employees thus reducing the quality of work and employees productivity. Employee lay offs may also attract the attention of labor unions thus disrupting the continuity of an entity or agency. Also, privatization may lead to increase in unemployment rate which is contrary to the objectives of the government or state of creating employment.

Public agencies usually employ individuals from minority groups as well as marginalized individuals to perform tasks such as maintenance functions. Once contracted, such menial jobs are lost and removal of such employees from the payroll of the government or state affects and distorts the ability of the state or government to meets its equal employment goals (Nicholson-Crotty, 2004). Contracting through private agencies involves various and diverse standards and systems which can jeopardize the equal protection system of the public administration.

It is the duty of the government to ensure that it protects its citizens from exploitation from the public sector. However, this may be distorted once a government privatizes some of the essential services such as schools and other social amenities like hospitals. Usually, private sectors and contractors aim is to cut down costs and to increase their profits in cases of complete privatization. Where a government completely privatizes a public agency, citizens are subject to increased prices for same services and/ or low quality services.

The government is unable to prevent such business practices from being carried out, thus cannot protect its citizens (Vanalandingham, 1999). Conclusion Privatization of public agencies either through contracting, partnering or complete sell-off is a sensitive issue which should be critically analyzed before a decision is made. In some instances, it may have positive impact while in others; it may lead to adverse effects. The short run and long run of privatization should be assessed before reaching a decision.

A government should only sell-off a public agency to the private sector if such a move would have long term benefits to the citizens. However, privatization is not the best option of enhancing efficiency and effectiveness of the public agencies. The government should consider other methods such as partnering with the private sector to enhance performance of the public agencies. Through partnering, public accountability is not completely lost and the government also has a chance of regulating the agencies while at the same time getting necessary expertise from the private sector.

Privatizations should thus not be encouraged as it leads to increased costs in the long run. Reference: Howe, C. W. (n. d): The Effects of Privatization of Public Services: The Case of Urban Water. Retrieved on 31st July 2009 from, http://docs. google. com/gview? a=v&q=cache:2jkzFscBpMsJ:www. ucowr. siu. edu/updates/pdf/V117_A9. pdf+effects+of+privatization+of+public+programs&hl=en&gl=ke Nicholson-Crotty, S. (2004): The Politics and Administration of Privatization: Contracting out for Corrections Management in the United States.

Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 32 Pierce, J. R. & Blackburn, C. P. (2003): Measuring the Effects of Privatization. American Journal of Public Health Vol, 93 Vanalandingham, G. (1999): Assessing Privatization in State Agency Programs. Retrieved on 31st July 2009 from, http://docs. google. com/gview? a=v&q=cache:X-Y0ER_Ksb8J:www. oppaga. state. fl. us/report s/pdf/9864rpt. pdf+advantages+and+disadvantages+of+privatizating+public+programs&hl=en&gl=ke