Framing proposal: privatization; the "Reverse Robin Hood Rule"
This proposal for framing arises from work done by the Canadian health economist, Robert Evans. He elucidated the principle described below with regard to health policy, but it is my belief that it works across the board for privatization that takes the form of replacing a tax-supported service or activity with something paid for by private user fees. (Note that this does not include "privatization" that takes the form of contracting with a private firm to provide a service, and laying off the government workers that used to provide it, since the taxpayer still pays for it.)
The principle is: ANY SUCH PRIVATIZATION IS A NET TRANSFER OF WEALTH FROM THE POOR TO THE RICH. I give myself credit for thinking of a catchy title for Evans's idea-- I call it the Reverse Robin Hood Rule.
The basic idea is this. Let's take for example a bus system that is heavily subsidized by tax funds. The city decides to do away with the bus system and let people drive their cars instead, with the tax savings going into their pockets. Let's also assume, in this example, a progressive income tax.
Now we ask what impact this privatization scheme has on two people, rich and poor.
The rich person pays a high tax rate so the tax relief is proportionately greater. The rich person puts a lot of money back into his own pocket. With that money he can aford to buy a nicer car; or buy more gas for it; or even to take a cab. He has no need for the bus system and does not miss it.
The poor person probably needed the bus system to get to work or whatever. His tax rate is very low so the amount of tax relief he gets back is minimal. He could not use that small sum of money to buy a new car if he did not have one, or to repair his old clunker if that is the only car he can afford. Deprived of the bus system, he suffers a serious loss of resources-- he may have to quit his job, and he lacks reliable transportation when he cannot depend on his own car starting up on any given day.
Result: the rich person gains a lot and gives up nothing; the poor person gains little and gives up a lot. It is a net transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor.
I believe that if you work out any other privatization example-- school vouchers, etc.-- you would get the same basic answer.
When conservatives propose privatizing services and cutting taxes, they sell it to us as a "tax cut" and "shrinking big government." If they had to come clean and explain why they are "robbing from the poor to give to the rich," I believe that they would have a much harder sell.
I'd be interested in reactions or criticisms to this proposal.
Thanks, Howard Brody
Not specified
N/A
Not specified
Possible typographical error?
In the paragraph which has the first word: RESULT: The wording that follows contradicts the wording used earlier.
First: ANY SUCH PRIVATIZATION IS A NET TRANSFER OF WEALTH FROM THE POOR TO THE RICH
Second: Result: the rich person gains a lot and gives up nothing; the poor person gains little and gives up a lot. It is a net transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor.
If I'm misunderstanding, I'd be glad to understand more clearly.
Thanks, CBakke
Typo in original story
CBakke is correct. In the 7th paragraph in the orignal story, there is a typo aznd the correct word order is reversed. It should read as follows:
Result: the rich person gains a lot and gives up nothing; the poor person gains little and gives up a lot. IT IS A NET TRANSFER OF WEALTH FROM THE POOR TO THE RICH.
Thanks a lot for the correction! Howard Brody
New! Reconceptualizing Framing
Hi Howard,
I resonate with your concerns and agree that privatization generally acts in a trickle-up manner that redistributes wealth by taking it from the poor and delivering it to the rich. I have explored the framing of privatization by looking at two semantic forms of the verb "to own". Here is what I have come up with so far:
Ownership Framing Number 1: Right to Control
In this framing, to own something is to have the right to control it. Examples include owning a car and owning a permit to emit pollution (like with carbon trading). This is a conservative framing in that it expresses the authority of a property owner to be morally unquestioned.
Ownership Framing Number 2: Responsibility through Identification
In this framing, to own something is to feel responsible for it by identifying with it as being associated with you who are. Examples include
my own motherandto own a debt. This is a progressive framing in that it expresses empathy with the object of ownership and morally obligates the owner to nurture it.While I see your discussion of the Reverse Robin Hood Rule being an accurate narrative of what typically occurs with privatization, it does not explicitely frame ownership in progressive terms.
My own critiques of privatization have been in the format of
(i) Clarify the two distinct frames for "own";
(ii) Point out how the "Responsibility through Identification" frame is used to quell dissent, while the hidden motive is based in the "Right to Control" frame.
(iii) Discuss what privatization would look like if it were based on the progressive frame by emphasizing responsibilities of owners instead of privileges.
By approaching the topic in this manner, I have been able to clarify for myself how my values are contradicted by privatization schemes. I would recognize my sense of responsibility for things that are in my care and immediately feel an intuitive understanding of my relationship to the broader community. This compulsion toward nurturance emerges in the context of "relating empathetically to others" that provides intuition from past experiences of relationships based on nurturance and care.
Keep up the good work. I am also very concerned about privatization and want to help undo the immense damage of privatization schemes throughout the world.
All the best,
Joe Brewer