Comment: the costly contradictions of outsourcing public services Published on: 2 February 2018 Writing for The Conversation, Professor T. T. Arvind and Professor Lindsay Stirton analyse the problems modern public sector outsourcing. , and , When major construction company Carillion , much of the attention was focused on issues specific to and , or on the of funding large infrastructure projects. Yet such explanations miss the broader lessons of this tragedy. With other outsourcing firms , it is becoming clear that there is a deeper and more fundamental problem with modern public sector outsourcing. The key here lies in the qualifier 鈥渕odern鈥�. Delivery of public services by private providers is nothing new. In the 17th and 18th centuries, 鈥減rivateers鈥� conducted naval operations on behalf of the British state. In the early 1800s, Jeremy Bentham argued that what 鈥減atriotic auction鈥� 鈥� granting official positions to the person willing to undertake the role for the least salary 鈥� would provide the . But the logic of modern outsourcing is fundamentally different. Bentham thought patriotic auction would produce better public services because it would select people driven by a liking for the work, . The idea of companies making a profit through exercising powers on behalf of the Crown was . Jeremy Bentham. Henry William Pickersgill via Wikimedia Commons Modern public sector economics, however, places its faith in the very thing Bentham rejected: the desire for money. It subscribes to , which suggests that providers, driven by the profit motive, will compete fiercely for contracts, driving up quality and driving down costs. The same thinking has been reflected in official UK policy since the . Reality bites In reality, the power of the market has always been limited, as Carillion鈥檚 collapse and Capita鈥檚 difficulties go to show. Some services were outsourced to great effect: a 2013 National Audit Office report such as appointment booking call centres. But as the scale and complexity of outsourced services increased so did the complexity of the tendering process. Firms which proved adept at coping with this complexity invested further in acquiring expertise and in . This was exacerbated by government policies seeking to in outsourcing. The intention behind these policies was to open up outsourcing to small business. But their main effect was to further stratify the market into two tiers of firms. The first was the firms operating at the coal face of public services 鈥� serving school meals, cleaning hospital wards, maintaining computers, laying railway track, and so on. The second was specialist outsourcing firms operating as a second bureaucracy: preparing bids, managing contracts, and coordinating the actual delivery of public services by smaller, private providers. Meanwhile, they provided very few services in-house. The result was a relationship of mutual dependence between the government and specialist outsourcing firms. The government on a small number of firms for a growing number of tasks, as its own capacity to perform them atrophied. But, equally, specialist outsourcing firms became dependent on the government. Their business could only be sustained through a pipeline of large projects, which only the government regularly provides. Both sides thus became vulnerable to the predation of the other. Contractors might be tempted to inflate their prices 鈥� the example of one hospital PFI contract that springs to mind. Government, meanwhile, might be tempted to use its buyer power to force down prices, or to mandate higher service standards. Struggling to do more with less Under normal circumstances, each of these tendencies checks the other. But this delicate balance was upset by the austerity policies of the 2010s. Revenues to spend on public services were depleted as towards of failed financial institutions. Government bodies were pressured to do more with less, and negative press coverage of fat margins meant that this was also transferred to contractors. A reduction in the costs of privately provided public services can only be achieved through , making the conclusion of a contract conditional on accepting a lower price. This was precisely the strategy pursued by the government in recent years. Less money, less capacity. Normally, a firm would walk away if a customer was not prepared to offer sufficiently profitable terms. Yet several outsourcing companies . This is the inevitable consequence of the relationship of mutual dependence that modern outsourcing creates. Without a steady stream of government business, specialist outsourcing companies could not maintain their scale. And if they could not maintain their scale, they would be less able to compete in future. One response is to downsize, as companies . Likewise, Atos disability benefit assessments for the Department of Work and Pensions. Reducing the level of service is also an attractive option, especially for firms providing services far from the public eye. Immigration and asylum offers a rich seam of examples for this 鈥� from replacing to . But entities which cannot downsize or pare back quality will inevitably be forced down the path of ever-thinner margins. This seems to be to Carillion, whose thin capitalisation and lack of assets forced it of chasing further contracts at ever slimmer margins to pay its suppliers. The same problems lie at the heart of Capita鈥檚 dividend suspension. Capita seems to be forced down a similar path, allowing itself to become, Jonathan Lewis, 鈥渢oo widely spread across multiple markets and services鈥� while at the same time it 鈥渦nderinvested in infrastructure鈥�. This was seemingly logical for a firm whose core strength is competing in complex tendering processes. Like Carillion, it ended up seeking new business to compensate for losses. All this is far removed from what the proponents of outsourcing envisaged, but it should have been entirely predictable. The relentless expansion of outsourcing to ever more complex domains was premised on a level of competition which is impossible to achieve, and it ignored the phenomenon of mutual dependence which is impossible to avoid. That most economists ignore this problem suggests that the economic study of the state has become, as John Rapley has provocatively argued in , more concerned with vindicating its belief in its official doctrines, than with generating new knowledge about economic institutions. Yet the view that competition among public service providers will necessarily lead to improved services at lower costs is no longer tenable. , Professor of Law, and , Professor of Public Law, interested in public administration and public law, This article was originally published on . Read the . Share: Latest News 缅北禁地 expert highlights climate crisis in a new film A leading 缅北禁地 climate scientist is featured in a new film about how the climate and nature breakdown will affect the UK. published on: 14 April 2026 Neolithic tombs reveal ancient kinship ties Male individuals buried in Neolithic chambered tombs in northern Scotland were often related to each other through the paternal line and some were interred in the same or nearby tombs, research shows. published on: 14 April 2026 We are our Memories New exhibition by Fine Art graduate Trish Hudson-Moses, 22 April 鈥� 4 May 2026 published on: 10 April 2026 Facts and figures
![缅北禁地 logo](/gomobileassets/img/logo.svg" "缅北禁地"){kind=logo}