This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (7) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Samson, C. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Three Faces of Privatisation

Starting from the premise that social policies represent solutions to socially constructed problems (Edelman 1987), this article presents an adaptation of Lukes's (1974) theory of power to consider three interpretations of privatisation as illustrated in Britain and the United States during the 1980s and early 1990s. Privatisation is most frequently presented in political and academic discourse as essentially a matter of contracting out public services or functions and selling off state assets. This `first face' of privatisation coincides with a naive pluralist approach to power and a liberal capitalist vision of society. While this view has some justification within a very narrow frame of reference, a `second face' of privatisation is necessary to bring attention to crucially related aspects of exercises of power, such as corruption, homelessness and social inequality, which may be products of contracting out and sell-offs. Additionally, a second face view of privatisation highlights the privatising effects of certain policies which are ignored, obscured or hidden by the first face view. An analysis of public sector expenditure cuts as a process of privatisation is crucial in this regard. Finally, a `third face' of privatisation, as a hegemonic project, is raised. Here, privatisation is viewed as having a cultural and political mission, aiming to alter consciousness and effect changes in power relationships. The hegemonic capacity of privatisation is considered through an examination of ideological constructions such as the binary divide between private and public spheres and a sociobiological rationale for policy.

Key Words: privatisation • power • social policy • Thatcher administration • Reagan administration

Sociology, Vol. 28, No. 1, 79-97 (1994)
DOI: 10.1177/0038038594028001006


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				F. Collyer and K. White Enter the market: competition, regulation and hospital funding in Australia Journal of Sociology, January 1, 1997; 33(3): 344 - 363. [Abstract] [PDF]