Smartdigital

I know many will criticise me for my stand at this point contention but the fact is that, privatization will help in ending prolonged Nigerian economic problems. For this reasons there will be need for you to know what privatization is actually all about.
Privatization according to wikipedia “can mean several different things, most commonly referring to moving something from the public sector into the private sector. It is also sometimes used as a synonym for deregulation when a heavily regulated private company or industry becomes less regulated. Government functions and services may also be privatised (which may also be known as “franchising” or “out-sourcing”); in this case, private entities are tasked with the implementation of government programs or performance of government services that had previously been the purview of state-run agencies. Some examples include revenue collection, law enforcement, water supply, and prison management.
Another definition is that privatization is the sale of a state-owned enterprise or municipally owned corporation to private investors; in this case shares may be traded in the public market for the first time, or for the first time since an enterprise’s previous nationalization. This type of privatization can include the demutualization of a mutual organization, cooperative, or public-private partnership in order to form a joint-stock company.”
Now from the above definition, we can easily understand that Privatization will be one of the best tool to end Nigerian economic problems because moving government owned properties to private sectors will help in making the country’s economy very strong as it will help in tackling corruption and other problems. For this reason I can further say that:
A number of studies have shown that private market factors can more efficiently deliver many goods or service than governments due to free market competition. Proponents of privatization argue that, over time, this can lead to lower prices, improved quality, more choices, less corruption, less red tape, and/or quicker delivery. Many proponents do not argue that everything should be privatized. According to them, market failures and natural monopolies could be problematic. However, anarcho-capitalists prefer that every function of the state be privatized, including defense and dispute resolution.
Proponents of privatization make the following arguments:
Performance: state-run industries tend to be bureaucratic. A political government may only be motivated to improve a function when its poor performance becomes politically sensitive.
Increased efficiency: private companies and firms have a greater incentive to produce goods and services more efficiently to increase profits.
Specialization: a private business has the ability to focus all relevant human and financial resources onto specific functions. A state-owned firm does not have the necessary resources to specialize its goods and services as a result of the general products provided to the greatest number of people in the population.
Improvements: conversely, the government may put off improvements due to political sensitivity and special interests—even in cases of companies that are run well and better serve their customers’ needs.
Corruption: a state-monopolized function is prone to corruption; decisions are made primarily for political reasons, personal gain of the decision-maker (i.e. “graft”), rather than economic ones. Corruption (or principal–agent issues) in a state-run corporation affects the ongoing asset stream and company performance, whereas any corruption that may occur during the privatization process is a one-time event and does not affect ongoing cash flow or performance of the company.
Accountability: managers of privately owned companies are accountable to their owners/shareholders and to the consumer, and can only exist and thrive where needs are met. Managers of publicly owned companies are required to be more accountable to the broader community and to political “stakeholders”. This can reduce their ability to directly and specifically serve the needs of their customers, and can bias investment decisions away from otherwise profitable areas.
Civil-liberty concerns: a company controlled by the state may have access to information or assets which may be used against dissidents or any individuals who disagree with their policies.
Goals: a political government tends to run an industry or company for political goals rather than economic ones.
Capital: a privately held companies can sometimes more easily raise investment capital in the financial markets when such local markets exist and are suitably liquid. While interest rates for private companies are often higher than for government debt, this can serve as a useful constraint to promote efficient investments by private companies, instead of cross-subsidizing them with the overall credit-risk of the country. Investment decisions are then governed by market interest rates. State-owned industries have to compete with demands from other government departments and special interests. In either case, for smaller markets, political risk may add substantially to the cost of capital.
Security: governments have had the tendency to “bail out” poorly run businesses, often due to the sensitivity of job losses, when economically, it may be better to let the business fold.
Lack of market discipline: poorly managed state companies are insulated from the same discipline as private companies, which could go bankrupt, have their management removed, or be taken over by competitors. Private companies are also able to take greater risks and then seek bankruptcy protection against creditors if those risks turn sour.
Natural monopolies: the existence of natural monopolies does not mean that these sectors must be state owned. Governments can enact or are armed with anti-trust legislation and bodies to deal with anti-competitive behavior of all companies public or private.
Concentration of wealth: ownership of and profits from successful enterprises tend to be dispersed and diversified—particularly in voucher privatization. The availability of more investment vehicles stimulates capital markets and promotes liquidity and job creation.
Political influence: nationalized industries are prone to interference from politicians for political or populist reasons. Examples include making an industry buy supplies from local producers (when that may be more expensive than buying from abroad), forcing an industry to freeze its prices/fares to satisfy the electorate or control inflation, increasing its staffing to reduce unemployment, or moving its operations to marginal constituencies.
Profits: corporations exist to generate profits for their shareholders. Private companies make a profit by enticing consumers to buy their products in preference to their competitors’ (or by increasing primary demand for their products, or by reducing costs). Private corporations typically profit more if they serve the needs of their clients well. Corporations of different sizes may target different market niches in order to focus on marginal groups and satisfy their demand. A company with good corporate governance will therefore be incentivized to meet the needs of its customers efficiently.
Job gains: as the economy becomes more efficient, more profits are obtained and no government subsidies and less taxes are needed, there will be more private money available for investments and consumption and more profitable and better-paid jobs will be created than in the case of a more regulated economy.
I am sure by reading through this you can understand that Nigeria need privatization so as to tackles all her economic problems. A country full of corruption and lack of commitment from civil servants need to privatize her economy in order to cause more competition which will lead to better productivities and economic stabilities.

Ali Ahmed Munkaila
NCE/B.sc Computer/Biology
CEO/Founder Smartdigital