Critically examine the impact of nationalization

Each of these aspects requires elaboration. Nations and national identity may be defined in terms of common origin, ethnicity, or cultural ties, and while an individual's membership in the nation is often regarded as involuntary, it is sometimes regarded as voluntary. The degree of care for one's nation that nationalists require is often, but not always, taken to be very high:

Critically examine the impact of nationalization

Copyright by Paul Starr. Readers may redistribute this article to other individuals for noncommercial use, provided that the text and this notice remain intact.

This article may not be resold, reprinted, or redistributed without prior written permission from the author. If you have any questions about permissions, please contact the author at or by e-mail at starr princeton.

This article also appears in Alfred Kahn and Sheila Kamerman, eds. The Meaning of Privatization Paul Starr Privatization is a fuzzy concept that evokes sharp political reactions. It covers a great range of ideas and policies, varying from the eminently reasonable to the wildly impractical.

Yet however varied and at times unclear in its meaning, privatization has unambiguous political origins and objectives. It emerges from the countermovement against the growth of government in the West and represents the most serious conservative effort of our time to formulate a positive alternative.

Privatization proposals do not aim merely to return services to their original location in the private sphere. Some proposals seek to create new kinds of market relations and promise results comparable or superior to conventional public programs. Hence it is a mistake to define and dismiss the movement as simply a replay of traditional opposition to state intervention and expenditure.

The current wave of privatization initiatives opens a new chapter in the conflict over the public-private balance. This Article attempts to clarify the meaning of privatization as an idea, as theory and rhetoric, and as a political practice. In the process I hope to explain why I generally oppose privatization, even though I favor some specific proposals that privatization covers.

But apart from this political judgment, I take privatization seriously as a policy movement and as a process that show every sign of reconstituting major institutional domains of contemporary society.

Privatization as an Idea In the ideological world we inhabit, contesting interests and parties use "public" and "private" not only to describe but also to celebrate and condemn. Any serious inquiry into the meaning of privatization must begin, therefore, by unloading the complex freight that the public-private distinction carries.

The Meaning of Privatization

In this section I analyze, first, the general uses of the public-private distinction and, second, the recent political application of the concept of privatization.

The Public-Private Distinction and the Concept of Privatization The terms public and private are fundamental to the language of our law, politics, and social life, but they are the source of continual frustration.

Many things seem to be public and private at the same time in varying degrees or in different ways. As a result, we quarrel endlessly about whether some act or institution is really one or the other.

We qualify the categories: This group is quasi-public, that one is semi-private. In desperation some theorists announce that the distinction is outdated or so ideologically loaded that it ought to be discarded, or that it is a distinction without a difference.

Yet the terms can hardly be banished nor ought they. The frustration with these ubiquitous categories partly arises because public and private are paired to describe a number of related oppositions in our thought. At the core of many uses are the two ideas that public is to private as open is to closed, and that public is to private as the whole is to the part.

In the first sense, we speak of a public place, a public conference, public behavior, making something public, or publishing an article. The private counterparts, from homes to diaries, are private in that access is restricted and visibility reduced.

The concepts of publicity and privacy stand in opposition to each other along this dimension of accessibility. Public is to private as the transparent is to the opaque, as the announced is to the concealed. On the other hand, when we speak of public opinion, public health, or the public interest, we mean the opinion, health, or interest of the whole of the people as opposed to that of a part, whether a class or an individual.

Economy of Zambia - Wikipedia

Public in this sense often means "common," not necessarily governmental. The public-spirited or public-minded citizen is one concerned about the community as a whole.

But in the modern world the concepts of governmental and public have become so closely linked that in some contexts they are interchangeable.

[BINGSNIPMIX-3

The state acts for the whole of a society in international relations and makes rules binding on the whole internally. Public thus often means official. Indeed, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, private originally signified "not holding public office or official position.

These different contrasts between public and private lead to some apparent conflicts in defining what lies on each side of the boundary. One such conflict concerns the location of the market. To an economist, the marketplace is quintessentially private.race & ethnicity.

Race and ethnicity are physical attributes of people, but also ways of seeing and understanding the world. Media plays an influential role in shaping how we think about and enact race in our everyday lives.

In the United States and other Western contexts, whites and whiteness have historically been associated with superiority and privilege; people of color have historically.

Critically examine the impact of nationalization

Impact of Nationalization on Pakistan's Economic development " We would have had the likes of Birlas and Tatas but for nationalization." Nasim Saigol, Interview with Business Today, India. Nasim Saigol, Interview with Business Today, India.

privatizing, the role of the government in the economy is reduced, thus there is less chance for. the government to negatively impact the economy (Poole, ).

Privatization can have a positive secondary effect on a country’s fiscal situation. The meaning of privatization depends in practice on a nation's position in the world economy.

In the wealthier countries it is easy to treat privatization purely as a question of domestic policy. But where the likely buyers are foreign, as in the Third World, privatization of state-owned enterprises often means denationalization--a transfer of control to foreign investors or managers.

Impact of Nationalization on Pakistan's Economic development " We would have had the likes of Birlas and Tatas but for nationalization." Nasim Saigol, Interview with Business Today, India. Nasim Saigol, Interview with Business Today, India. A critical cultural studies -- embodied in many of the articles collected in this reader -- thus develops concepts and analyses that will enable readers to analytically dissect the artifacts of contemporary media culture and to gain power over their cultural environment.

Critically examine the impact of nationalization
race & ethnicity Archives - Critical Media Project