: : "Privatisation can create a new range of government bureacracy that exceeds any burden under public ownership" [ie LESS efficient]: Thats the key sentence. Privatisation creates new government bureacracy? How so? No, it is government who decides, upon privatisation, to replace its absolute control with a set of laws and regulations in order to have the nominally private owners effectively as 'puppets on a string'. To give the appearance of private ownership whilst regulating such to the degree that the 'private owner' can make no decision regarding 'his' property without referring to the regulator.
Privatisation creates new bureacracy as the private sector cannot be trusted to perform certain functions that are vital to the community. If profit is the motive then there is a tendency to cost cut so making the end product more efficient in the pecuniary sense while it may be less effective in terms of service provided.
: : "If it is difficult to regulate a privatised firm and this firm can engage in undesirable practicces then public ownership...may be prefferred".
: And here is the reasoning. What exactly are "undesirable practicces", who decides, and who decides which organisations fall under its scrutiny.
Undesirable practices are those that affect the good of a community.
Remember that utilitarian arguments only go so far. Efficiency is supposed to be promoted to provide the good of the community. When this is no longer occuring then one must question the validity of the impugned practices. That is one must look at the competing values and decide between them or perhaps import some criteria other than efficiency to decide the issue.
