In the spirit of Brecht, it is my duty on occasion to give the reader what he wants. And clearly, the reader wishes to know about garbage collection. Game of Thrones, deep dives into sci-fi technology, and tits are too dull for this blog; the intricacies of garbage collection are what enervates us.
Currently reading Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. Highly recommended. Presumably an accomplished economist like Sowell chose the title, and the title is accurate. Basic does not mean idiot. The book requires attention and critical thinking, and the non-economist can have it handy, when wishing to refresh his memory. And what is this to do with garbage? There is a section on government functions, which discusses the role of government in providing goods and services. Sowell is not a zero-government libertarian, and concedes it can be effective in providing certain services.
Prior to reading, I had a somewhat misty-eyed view of garbage collection, if that is possible. In the great state of NSW, garbage is collected routinely, and without problems, 52 weeks a year. In my apartment, like many, there are separate bins for recycling, cardboard, paper, bottles. This is the case in food courts everywhere. In itself, this can be considered a minor marvel. Sydney population is currently 5.2 million, approx. Servicing this busy metropolitan city is a difficult and impressive task, carried out at ungodly hours by hard-working people in what is generally considered a low-status job. This, surely, is an example of tax-payer money well spent?
Perhaps. However, it is a now-typical mish-mash of government and private sector, and whilst your taxes do indeed pay for a service, it is not run on a nationalized basis. The City of Sydney recently granted a contract to Cleanaway Services, which has all sorts of ‘solutions’ babble on its’ website. I hold no grudge against Cleanaway Services, who I’m sure will do a sterling job, but the public private model is so well-established now, it has become dual party policy. Is this an example of Government providing an effective service? Or, is this an example of private sector efficiency? One may also add: does it matter?
I contend that the answer to the first question is: no. It is not, in fact, a service provided by ‘the government’ at all, albeit the contracts are dolled out by elected representatives. The service is provided by the private sector, who presumably bid for contracts in the usual manner, after building up their business, and a strategy. I make no accusation against the one named company, who I had literally never heard of until one hour ago. But the wiser citizen knows that such bids are, potentially, rife with politics as usual. And politics as usual, we may observe, is not necessarily illegal. Indeed, it is safer to assume it is entirely legal. Perhaps a few official functions are attended. Perhaps donations are made, entirely within the limit, and entirely above board. Perhaps a business owner is well connected, and makes significant contributions – legally – to causes, candidates, and churches. At council level, the suspicion remains that some are asking to be bought, and whore themselves for a few dinners, and a meeting with a Higher Entity, but at the lower level, hardly enough to get the police involved.
The answer to the second question is more difficult. The actual work done is of a high standard, and Sydney benefits in terms of health, beauty, and standard of living. Economies of scale make it a venture where too many companies would not be beneficial. This is a good example, in principal, of private sector efficiency, albeit trammelled by the state sector decision makers. Examples from Scotland, my home nation, serve to give us pause. Gordon Brown’s now infamous PFI has proved to be bad deals for the citizen, where profit margins are absurd, services suffer, and nobody who pays is happy. The very model appears easy to game, for government entities are rarely good negotiators, are subject to at the very least flattery, more often blackmail, and can always be relied upon, thanks to the tax payer, to pay up, even when the demands are ridiculous. My answer to the garbage question is a tentative yes, until I discover otherwise; also that this one positive example cannot be said to be representative.
And the last question: does it matter? Probably not. The public private model is so well established that it is no longer discussed, or controversial. This is of itself deeply suspicious. It's a model that politicians love, as it gives them power without responsibility - though voters are often suspicious. But voters don’t matter; if they did, they’d ban them. And some day, they will.
[For further details of NSW Environmental Protection agency: https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/your-environment/waste]