The word “privatization” first appeared in a dictionary in the year 1983. Its definition can be given in two types i.e. a narrow form and in a generous form. In a narrow sense it means control or ownership from public to private.
But in a liberal form, it is the duty of government to read the role of government in an action of ownership of privatization property or work to increase the role of private sector. Therefore, this is the transfer of property and service activities from public to private hands. In it, from selling the state-owned enterprises to the public services, the contract to private contractors is included.
Privatization in Britain means the transfer of ownership of such industries in the state to private institutions which are mainly producing for private buyers. In some years, many private industries were socialized by the successive labor party. These enterprises include British Steel, Coal Board, British Gas, British Air Services British Telecom and other services.
These government industries served each other and the government mostly did business with private firms and private families. In the United States, in the United States, privatization means that the Government has been taken primarily from the dependence on private sector producers for which the government is responsible for it has become a new name for the work on the contract. Work on contracts is a new thing for America itself.
This is a tradition at all levels of public works, and since 1960 it is a common practice in the rapid growth of human services. To expand the practice and implement it in such service areas which were not previously considered in this regard, it is new.
In the last decade, the question of privatisation of public sector enterprises has changed the perspective of developing countries. When the first privatization was initiated in England in the early 1980s, different kinds of doubts were expressed about this policy.
Later, in the latter half of the decade, many countries immersed in loans from Latin America Africa had to be forced to privatize. With the exception of today’s exceptions, almost all developing countries are in favor of privatization. One of the reasons for this change in attitudes is the collapse of heavy-control economies in many parts of the world.
Stronger privatization in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union made a notable example, and the second reason for this change is that even developing countries are unable to find alternative solutions to their public sector problems.
Changes in the perspectives of people began to be that the enterprise, whether private ownership or public, the real thing is the efficient execution of industrial work. In the study of primarily personalized industries of England and some Latin American countries, it was concluded that market competitiveness is the real thing for efficiency, but recent studies have concluded that the enterprises’ Their ownership in determining the level of functioning is an important factor.
Overall, the operation of private companies in the same market system has been better than the public companies. Another conclusion of these studies is that after the privatization, the satisfaction of the customers of their goods has increased and the working conditions of the workers have improved.
In one such study, 12 different types of cases of Chile, Malaysia, Mexico and the United Kingdom were taken into account and found that external and internal workings and improvements in 11 out of these 12 were improved with personalization.
The profit is mainly due to increasing productivity, increasing investment and better prices. In terms of competitiveness and monopoly, both of them benefited in the market conditions and those who benefited included private parties as well as government, customers and laborers.
The public enterprises that were sold during 1988-93 were from Latin America and Asia, where privatization started earlier than Eastern Europe. The companies that were sold in the 1980s were mainly producing agricultural based services, services or lightweight items.
In contrast, during 1988-93, large companies of electricity and water, transport and telecommunications and heavy industries of financial and industrial sector were disinvested. In the beginning of the eighties, the share of public investment in the total investment in developing countries was 22%, which fell to 19% in the beginning of the nineties.
In India starting from 1991-92, 15 phases of the disinvestment of government shareholding were completed and 48 percent of government sector 48 divisions were disinvested and a sum of Rs 49,214.03 crore was received.
In some countries, where the privatization plan was carefully created and the economy continued to run efficiently, it certainly made significant improvement in industrial work, while in some other countries privatization has not given good results for the entire economy (like That happened in component units of the former Soviet Union).
In some other countries the privatization process was either stopped or slowed (for example in Brazil and Hungary) for a variety of reasons. In essence, these experiences can be concluded that the success of privatization-failure depends on the entire state of the country and especially on its rough work.