By: Sönke Pietsch

In an age when every decision, every idea, every word seems to have a consequence of some sort, the importance of the decisions our representatives make can be hard to overstate. One contested and constantly resurfaced aspect is whether to privatize industries or nationalize. Answering this question for each sector of our economy is challenging at best, and close to possibly impossible in reality. 

Evaluating the condition a country is in, considering the size of the proposed sector being privatized or nationalized, to understanding the public perception of each option, an answer that satisfies everyone is not easy to come by, exemplifying the many challenges faced by representatives in this decision-making process. However, the process of answering this question does not end there. One needs to consider the constantly evolving changes that all industries face in the 21st century — a policy that is made today may not be a policy that suffices tomorrow, and thus, requires constant revisions.

After extensive debate about which option wins the upper hand, the delegates of the International Press Corps have come to a conclusion: no conclusion. The sheer number of variables to consider when making such influential decisions would make for the perfect Model UN conference: one aspect for every committee to discuss in detail, with plenty left to spare. 

However, using just a few industries as a frame for a broader discussion, one can delve deeper into the topic to truly examine what industries are best suited for privatization and which are better left to be nationalized. Starting with the current, hot-topic of health care, the Working Paper writers have concluded that this industry is better left off without an answer — at least one that is either solidly in the privatization or nationalization camp. Instead, leaving health care as a cocktail of both private and national interests leaves consumers with the best aftertaste. Modeled after the French health care system, having a national-payer system provide the imperative care necessary for all citizens is quite effective as individuals are also granted the choice to opt for private health care at any time. Allowing these two systems to live in harmony has given the people of France the greatest choice of any European country, and has made the French some of the healthiest in all of Europe while simultaneously keeping expenses low. 

While this may have worked for health care, it is necessary to understand that the French model of combining the two systems of private and national industry only works under a special set of circumstances. If public, government-backed healthcare had suffered from a poor public image at the time of nationalization, then the act of doing so without a doubt would have failed. 

Another industry has faced a similar dilemma: public housing. As mentioned in national newsreel highlights, to being featured in Lil Scrappy's “Livin’ In The Projects,” government-backed housing has not been portrayed nor received as a positive public image. Seen as second-class by some, it is clear that this industry is best left in the hands of private corporations. By understanding private consumer preferences and having the resources to individualize and customize houses, privatization of the housing industry can meet its needs to a much greater extent than any national entity ever could. 

However, if one were to ask a European this same question at the end of World War 2, hearing the answer of the “private industry” would have been nearly impossible. This is due in part to the variables needed, but difficult to grasp during this time: quick action, extensive funding, and comprehensive planning. After European citizens were welcomed by a pile of rubble and ash as their form of housing, only a nationalized industry acted quickly, and without the greed of private corporations, to prevent the possible greatest outbreak of homelessness in human history. While nationalization acted in a timely manner in this instant, the opposite is also true about this option in regard to the payment system.

In this manner, a nationalized system was considered highly ineffective. Discussed and elaborated upon in the back rooms of the newspaper, having a national banking system with a singular player would come dangerously close to the idea of communism, all while ineffectively serving each individual (in a timely matter). By treating every citizen the same financially,  the incentive of working vanishes, resulting in a greater slowdown in productivity in all other sectors. 

Yet again, under a different set of circumstances, choosing a different answer between privatization and nationalization could have easily been equally valid. As has been evident, the opinions reached by this special committee are highly divisive all the while alternative reasoning could easily explain why another choice may be better suited. The decisions we make today may not be the correct ones for tomorrow but in the end, all we can do is elect the best representatives we deem fit as every decision, every idea and every word they choose, does directly impacts us.