In the seemingly all-encompassing field of World Politics, there are numerous relationships that need to be taken into account. The class brought up many of these relationships: state-to-state (Catherine), people-to-people (Andrew), and business-to-business (Michelle), and all made very good points. However, I felt that we just touched on the relationship between businesses and states, and I would like to discuss how states utilize private corporations for nearly every aspect of government operations. I believe world politics in the future will increasingly entail relations between the public and private sectors to achieve a specific aim. Indeed, relationships such as these have already been important around the world.
The government hires contractors from a wide variety of corporations to provide services. From the electricians who run the wire through government buildings to the military contractors in Iraq, the private sector is becoming increasingly involved in day-to-day government operations. The Bush administration has shown that it believes the future of government involves substantial private involvement. Some see private corporations as a low-liability way for the government to work around its own red tape in a timely, cost-effective manner.
While this all sounds good, the unfortunate fact is sometimes in an effort to cut costs or establish their corporations as a cut above the rest, negative consequences harm Americans or damage our image in the world. A couple of examples are the electrical work on military bases by KBR, a branch of Halliburton, where faulty wiring in the showers of many bases caused injury, and even death, to American soldiers. I don’t mean to get all preachy, but soldiers in Iraq have enough to worry about without the fear of being killed by their shower. Another example of private-sector-gone-wrong is Blackwater Security and how military contracting firms like it have damaged the image of the United States across the world. The contractors have done many things to cast themselves as gung-ho cowboys with little respect for the Iraqis or their culture. From running Iraqi cars off the road to shooting unarmed civilians, Blackwater has a documented list of offenses that, due to their private-sector status, will never be brought to trial. “Blackwater is also a neoconservative Evangelical organization that has a faith in Jesus Christ as one of the major values of their company” (Scahill, Blackwater). The hiring of a radical group such as Blackwater Security deepens Iraqi resentment of an invasion it sees as imperialist and a threat to their way of life.
The private sector is rapidly having a larger role in government, with both positive and negative effects. This is a developing trend I would love for the class to discuss in-depth, as government when we graduate will probably be even more concentrated in the private sector than it is now, and I would like to hear diverse viewpoints on what this means for the future of our country.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
In regards to your reflection, yes, the private sector is becoming a more prominent player on the global stage...what is it that Foer says at the end of his book? "Multinational corporations are just that, multinational...Just as much as they have change the tastes and economies of other countries, they have tried to change the tastes and economy of the U.S." The private sector has always had a more substantial, more tangible influence on the world than a nation's government. Ask anyone: when they were a child, what affected them more: McDonald's and Disney or their government's influence in their lives? Private firms and corporations, in some instances, are much important than the government of a nation because people can more easily relate to those in a corporation, say a KFC, because people who work there are people they actually see, not just view.
In regards to my reflection...due to the wonders of technology, I can't tell if that was sarcasm in the plumbing comment. Regardless if it was, I still believe food has a huge relevance in today's culture, yet the position it holds now is one that is more damaging than beneficial. If people are starving from lack of food and dying from too much of it, then how can the world expect to improve when our most basic need, to eat (I mean, apart from breathing and drinking, anyway), is in a paradox?
I tend to agree with you: privatization of government services has gone to far in the United States. However, that isn't to say that there isn't a proper role for contractors. If I want to build a porch, it makes far more sense to hire someone with knowledge and experience building porches than it does to buy the supplies, do the research, and spend the time building it myself. The same thing holds true in the government: it may make more sense to hire outside specialists than to retain underutilized internal personnel or give the job to someone who isn't qualified. Furthermore, in the government, the use of contractors could help remove political considerations from a job (although it doesn't always, as in the case of Blackwater). How do we determine when private sector involvement is desirable and when it is not?
I would like to clarify that I am not by any means anti-private sector-in-government. They often to work quicker and cheaper than the public sector. The reason I gave examples of contractors-gone-wrong is that I believe such a lucrative market should have a basic watchdog system to ensure ethical standards and quality work.
Post a Comment