Is Privatization Subsidiarity?

I admit I was taken aback by some of the comments under my article on Gov. Christie’s effort to privatize many government services, such as toll collection, etc. (“A Catholic Governor Embraces Subsidiarity“).

Given the fact that Catholic teaching on subsidiarity is directly connected to the encroachment of centralized government into the lives of communities and families, I assumed the process of privatization — the use of private vendors to provide services regulated by the state — is an example of the goverment shrinking itself.  

The flurry of comments that followed seemed to assume that “corporations” have the same type of status as the government, in the sense that they are necessarily large, distant, and generally unresponsive to customer discontent. 

But this isn’t true — for example, this non-profit, the Morley Publishing Group, that owns and publishes InsideCatholic.com. Corporations come in all shapes and sizes; some are for-profit, others are not. Non-profits can be as vast and complex as a Fortune 500 company — think of the Red Cross or Catholic Relief Services.  

What all corporations do have in common is that they are private and are not part of the government, even if they are hired to do government work. Many of our occupations are subject to government regulation and oversight — too many, in fact — but that does not mean they are somehow part of the public sector.

It’s true that large corporations are not cozy with individual families and local communities, but that is not a criterion to be applied in the case of Gov. Christie and New Jersey. Is he supposed to hire separate companies for each toll booth on the New Jersey Turnpike, each company being located in the town where the toll booth resides?  That would be stretching subsidiarity to the point of absurdity. 

The use of a private vendor will save taxppayers money in New Jersey because it will open up those services to competitive bidding, thus providing incentive for lower cost and improved responsiveness to the customer. This greater exposure to market forces — what individuals actually want for the money and effort — is one of the reasons subsidiarity works.

I asked my friend, Rev. Jerry Pokorsky, pastor of St. Michael’s Catholic Church in Annandale, VA, his take on the privatization/subsidiarity question.  This is what he wrote:

If the meaning of life (yes, I have it wrapped up in just a few words!) is to worship God in freedom, all of Catholic social teaching is designed to achieve that end.  The social unit (however defined) closest to the problem should solve the problem.  This is a question of efficiency as well as freedom.  Outsiders would not be permitted to meddle except when the social unit (the family or the municipality) is incapable of effectively managing the problem. 

Subsidiarity is also, partly, a means to make sure the social operating system is not infected with anti-freedom viruses.  If viruses attack, it’s not the operating system that fails, individual applications fail.

Although I haven’t read the responses, I think I can see their point, as I can see yours.  Questions about social ethics and answers to the questions almost always involve prudential judgments.  In response to the question, “How best to apply the principle of subsidiarity under these circumstances?” you answer in part, “Privatization.” Privatization is certainly a means of decentralization, or at least in that direction provides the structure for future decentralization.  The counter argument, of course, is that the government still has control, which may be true. 

Privatization spins off from the state’s operating system (to a large extent) activities, not merely for financial efficiency purposes but to reduce the possibility of tyranny.  Would you rather get in line at the DMV for vehicle inspection or a local gas station?  There’s more freedom, of course, with a decentralized DMV activity (inspections) than with using the DMV bureaucracy for the purpose.  That’s not always true.  If a central government spins off its responsibility to provide for the common defense through the use of mercenary armies the propensity for tyranny may actually increase. 

On the face, Christie’s privatization efforts seem to be in the direction of decentralization and, it seems to me, is compatible with (or advances) the principle of subsidiarity.

More food for thought. 

Kevin Schmiesing at the Action Institute also notes the dispute, says he agrees with me, but doesn’t say much about why.

Hey Kevin, Help!