Having spent my career in the way that I have, my conclusion is that the private sector is usually the most efficient way to get something done. But the private sector provides no assurance either of quality or equity. The government (and I include the military) also struggles with quality, but for different reasons. For the private sector, quality is limited by cost and the market's willingness to recognize and reward quality sufficiently to cover those costs, which usually points production to the lowest common denominator, not to excellence. Quality in government programs is limited--sometimes severely--by cost inefficiencies. But the government, while not be accountable routinely for efficiency, is usually accountable for equity in many things that it does, and that is primarily because of the representative political oversight. It is an imperfect system by any measure, but so is the private sector, especially when building public infrastructures.
Stated another way: Government is not usually the most efficient method to get something done, but it is occasionally the only method that will attain all the objectives, including but not limited to service to the parts of the population that for one reason or another cannot compete as customers in the market.
Rick "observed all levels of government and the private sector from the inside" Denney
Stated another way: Government is not usually the most efficient method to get something done, but it is occasionally the only method that will attain all the objectives, including but not limited to service to the parts of the population that for one reason or another cannot compete as customers in the market.
Rick "observed all levels of government and the private sector from the inside" Denney