What are the arguments for and against, greater control being exercised over business by government? How do these arguments differ between the countries of the group members?
We would like to start the answer by an example of USA when they were heavily involved in the industrialization and expansion. People of all different occupations were involved in some part of the industrial revolution. However there was a debate over the government intervening in the building of infrastructure. Chief Justice John Marshall made many landmark court decisions which played a role in defining the business climate that developed during the industrial revolution and strengthened the central government’s control over the business.
Thus finally the government was involved in the early stages of the industrial revolution. The government’s decision of this era laid the ground work of the future U.S. growth of the nation. Without these pro-business decisions, the United states would not have made the change from being agriculturally dependent to the industrialized nation it is today. [www.historyteacher.net/USProjects/myessay21.htm]
Hence it sounds better in some situation and it doesn’t in some.
For example in China, local governments stand passively by as private firms aggressively reject long-standing official right because the government officials in south China are increasingly anxious to shed their responsibility for economic management. Also they fear the risks and dangers associated with the more complete market system that has emerged during the 1990s.
As a result, China’s southern provinces have already begun the process of separating government from business, while, in the north, leading officials emphasize the slogan “separate government from enterprises” but, fearing slow growth, practice the opposite.
To what extent do you think a change of government in a) UK would affect the business community? b) the countries of group members?
It can have a great impact on businesses in UK or in other countries like India, China etc.
For example: Regulatory systems can be improved to provide faster access to exploration land and clarification of aboriginal disputes, taxes such as corporate taxes, income taxes etc can be reduced, Business leaders can hope for a complete overhaul of the resource-rich province’s economic structure, Economic growth can be affected by change in government, it is expected that the new government can come up with creative solutions on how to reduce government indebtedness during its term, the new government will aim to solve deficit of balance of payments by boosting production through attracting direct foreign investments, also new government can change the manufacturing scenario in the country like instead of importing products, they can plan to manufacture in their own land which will indirectly reduce the unemployment in the manufacturing field. Also it can provide grant to those regions in which unemployment is high. [http://www.rba.hr/web/pdf/rrr/rba-rrr-012-2003-12-18.pdf]
What are the implications of “privatising” a public sector business organisations?
With privatization programs still active in several countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, there is a growing debate on effects on economic development. To address such issues the representatives of privatization agencies of different nations established the African Privatization Network (APN) in November 1995. APN aims at promoting the concept of privatization and encouraging its implementation in African countries by sharing legislation and other relevant documentation; studying the nature and scope of privatization in each country according to its special circumstances and needs; and monitoring the process of privatization in Africa, identifying problems and obstacles and offering advice where required.
The positive view of privatization suggests that it went ahead, in spite of domestic opposition, because politicians and bureaucrats perceived real benefits to themselves and their supporters. They could influence the sales to their own benefit, while, on the other hand, a more focused public sector improved service delivery.
A well functioning private sector is essential for increasing economic growth and thus reducing poverty. Yet international development institutions recommend sophisticated policies to improve the business environment that governments in developing countries cannot successfully implement. The result is often a worsening of private sector performance.
The promotion, support, financing, marketing and management of small and medium sized enterprises and industries is the core business of any privatisation programme.