If, as part of their core services review, the Campbell government decides to proceed with privatization initiatives and with public-private partnerships, they will have plenty of worldwide examples from which to draw. As it concerns privatization, the sale of state-owned enterprises has spread to over 100 countries over the past two decades.

A recent survey from the Journal of Economic Literature noted that due to privatization, state-owned enterprises (SOEs) have declined from more than 10 percent of "global gross domestic product" to less than six percent today.

In addition, the survey found that divested firms are more profitable, and increase their capital investment in comparison to government-owned firms. (The reason for this is not difficult to discern. In British Columbia for example, any Crown corporation that wants to keep money for long-term operations will likely lose the political fight when governments want Crown revenues in the short-term. Private firms, obviously, have no such pressure and thus can spend money on capital investment instead of dividends should they identify the former as more necessary.)

Privatization proceeds (and proceeded) in multiple countries for many reasons but one stands out in particular: it allows markets to allocate resources more effectively than is usually possible via-government directed agencies. In British Columbia, examples of government inefficiency over the past decade make for a very long list: A partial one includes Forest Renewal British Columbia (nailed by the Auditor General for not spending $2 billion in the most efficient manner) and the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. ICBC overpaid for the former Telus building in Burnaby and then proceeded to empire-build in Surrey with Tech-BC as opposed to looking for existing space. There is of course the mother of all examples of B.C. government inefficiencies - the shipbuilding program for the fast ferries - which will serve as an eternal example of why governments should stick to their knitting, knitting which does not include setting up, running, or continue to operate enterprises.
While governments around the world have privatized some government-owned businesses, some countries have long used the private sector to deliver desired services. In France, one-quarter of the hospitals are provided by private companies. In the Netherlands, three-quarters of primary and secondary students go to schools that are publicly financed but privately run, in many cases by non-profits. This method of service delivery by governments is known as "public-private partnerships," and is so widely used already (and in fact always has been used by governments) that to call it a "new" concept would be mistaken.

For example, consider Canada's healthcare system. Doctors are not government employees but instead contract out their services to governments, sometimes from their own private offices and sometimes in a government facility (i.e., hospitals). Medically necessary services (as defined by government) are then paid for via the public purse. One key difference between most public-private partnerships and that of the government-doctor relationship is that doctors cannot "sell" services defined as medically necessary to anyone except government. Nevertheless, a form of public-private partnership already exists and in an area where most people would not think that it did.

Perhaps a clearer example of public-private partnerships exists in Canada's welfare system. While all provincial governments in Canada provide welfare, no province runs the grocery stores. Instead, it is assumed that welfare recipients can choose from a variety of private sector providers for their food, i.e., any grocery store. Privatization and private-public sector partnerships have been the norm for most governments around the world, Canada included. The BC government should keep all of those models in mind as they consider how to reform government.