Privatisation of Punishment and Penal Policy comes with more drawbacks than benefits. Discuss
Introduction
Privatisation is a process whereby the government transfers responsibility for the
provision of a public sector service to private companies.
Privatisation is bigger than just punishment and is occurring in other domains such as
healthcare and education.
Sometimes referred to as contracting out of public services or creating competition where
private bidders must advocate why they should carry out a service.
Privatisation has become particularly relevant to delivery of punishment including prisons,
non-custodial sentences and probation services.
It is a contested strategy with both advocates and critics.
It is advocated on the basis it will deliver a superior service on reduced costs. However, in
reality, this has yet to be proved, and many ethical issues have also been raised to indicate
privatisation of punishment produces more negative outcomes than positives.
Paragraph 1 – economic basis
Privatisation advocates argue the privatisation of prison will reduce costs of delivering
public services and roll back the state.
The economic arguments in this debate are generally championed by economists and
politicians on the political right.
Profit in private prison management is to be found in the reduction of running costs to a
level below the sum charged to the state.
Essentially, costs can be reduced by private sector managers in two principal areas:
purchasing and staffing.
Necessary supplies can be purchased more cheaply by the private sector, because private
managers are able to circumvent the bureaucratic purchasing regulations to which their
public sector counterparts must adhere. (Camp and Gales 2001)
The initial proponents of private prisons promised huge savings, as much as 15-25%
compared with public sector prisons. (Cavadino and Dignan 2007).
Paragraph 2 – economic benefits rebutted
However, few researchers have succeeded in producing a conclusive description of
genuine price savings.
Management consultants in the USA reviewed the available data and found there was no
general pattern of cost savings in US private prisons. (Abt Associates 1998)
Furthermore, the activity of cost comparison is problematic in nature.
Firstly, no two prisons are the same, which makes direct comparison difficult.
Secondly, the public and private sector enterprises take into account the depreciation of
their buildings and other assets whereas public sector organizations do not.
There are also some hidden costs to the state in private sector prisons, such as the
monitoring of private prison contracts.
Paragraph 3 – more economic drawbacks
Another factor that must be considered is the potential for the state to become too
dependent on the services of a small number of providers so competition becomes eroded
Introduction
Privatisation is a process whereby the government transfers responsibility for the
provision of a public sector service to private companies.
Privatisation is bigger than just punishment and is occurring in other domains such as
healthcare and education.
Sometimes referred to as contracting out of public services or creating competition where
private bidders must advocate why they should carry out a service.
Privatisation has become particularly relevant to delivery of punishment including prisons,
non-custodial sentences and probation services.
It is a contested strategy with both advocates and critics.
It is advocated on the basis it will deliver a superior service on reduced costs. However, in
reality, this has yet to be proved, and many ethical issues have also been raised to indicate
privatisation of punishment produces more negative outcomes than positives.
Paragraph 1 – economic basis
Privatisation advocates argue the privatisation of prison will reduce costs of delivering
public services and roll back the state.
The economic arguments in this debate are generally championed by economists and
politicians on the political right.
Profit in private prison management is to be found in the reduction of running costs to a
level below the sum charged to the state.
Essentially, costs can be reduced by private sector managers in two principal areas:
purchasing and staffing.
Necessary supplies can be purchased more cheaply by the private sector, because private
managers are able to circumvent the bureaucratic purchasing regulations to which their
public sector counterparts must adhere. (Camp and Gales 2001)
The initial proponents of private prisons promised huge savings, as much as 15-25%
compared with public sector prisons. (Cavadino and Dignan 2007).
Paragraph 2 – economic benefits rebutted
However, few researchers have succeeded in producing a conclusive description of
genuine price savings.
Management consultants in the USA reviewed the available data and found there was no
general pattern of cost savings in US private prisons. (Abt Associates 1998)
Furthermore, the activity of cost comparison is problematic in nature.
Firstly, no two prisons are the same, which makes direct comparison difficult.
Secondly, the public and private sector enterprises take into account the depreciation of
their buildings and other assets whereas public sector organizations do not.
There are also some hidden costs to the state in private sector prisons, such as the
monitoring of private prison contracts.
Paragraph 3 – more economic drawbacks
Another factor that must be considered is the potential for the state to become too
dependent on the services of a small number of providers so competition becomes eroded
