Is the privatization of state functions always, and only intrinsically, wrong? On Chiara Cordelli’s The Privatized State

IF 1.3 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE European Journal of Political Theory Pub Date : 2021-08-12 DOI:10.1177/14748851211038725
Lisa Herzog
{"title":"Is the privatization of state functions always, and only intrinsically, wrong? On Chiara Cordelli’s The Privatized State","authors":"Lisa Herzog","doi":"10.1177/14748851211038725","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The legitimacy of putting public activities – such as providing education and welfare, but also running prisons or providing military services – into the hands of private companies is hotly contested. In The Privatized State, Chiara Cordelli puts forward an original argument, from a Kantian perspective, for why it is problematic: it replaces the omnilateral will of all citizens, which is realized through public institutions, with the unilateral will of agents to whom these activities have been delegated. While adding an important dimension to the debate, I am not fully convinced that private institutions always fail to realize the omnilateral will, and that this is the only, or always most central, normative problem of privatization. Instead, many concrete cases of privatization seem normatively overdetermined in their wrongness. Nonetheless, Cordelli’s brilliant discussion invites us to rethink these phenomena from an important angle and helps us to better understand what an ideal civil service would look like.","PeriodicalId":46183,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Political Theory","volume":"22 1","pages":"657 - 665"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Political Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14748851211038725","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The legitimacy of putting public activities – such as providing education and welfare, but also running prisons or providing military services – into the hands of private companies is hotly contested. In The Privatized State, Chiara Cordelli puts forward an original argument, from a Kantian perspective, for why it is problematic: it replaces the omnilateral will of all citizens, which is realized through public institutions, with the unilateral will of agents to whom these activities have been delegated. While adding an important dimension to the debate, I am not fully convinced that private institutions always fail to realize the omnilateral will, and that this is the only, or always most central, normative problem of privatization. Instead, many concrete cases of privatization seem normatively overdetermined in their wrongness. Nonetheless, Cordelli’s brilliant discussion invites us to rethink these phenomena from an important angle and helps us to better understand what an ideal civil service would look like.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
国家职能的私有化是否总是,而且只是在本质上是错误的?论基亚拉·科德利的《私有化的国家
将公共活动——比如提供教育和福利,但也包括管理监狱或提供军事服务——交给私人公司的合法性受到了激烈的争论。在《私有化的国家》一书中,基娅拉·科德利(Chiara Cordelli)从康德的角度提出了一个原创的论点,解释了私有化的问题所在:它取代了通过公共机构实现的所有公民的单边意志,取而代之的是这些活动被委托给代理人的单边意志。虽然给辩论增加了一个重要方面,但我并不完全相信私人机构总是不能实现多边意志,这是私有化的唯一或始终是最核心的规范问题。相反,许多具体的私有化案例似乎在其错误上被规范地过度确定。尽管如此,科德利的精彩论述还是让我们从一个重要的角度重新思考这些现象,并帮助我们更好地理解理想的公务员制度是什么样子的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
9.10%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Political Theory provides a high profile research forum. Broad in scope and international in readership, the Journal is named after its geographical location, but is committed to advancing original debates in political theory in the widest possible sense--geographical, historical, and ideological. The Journal publishes contributions in analytic political philosophy, political theory, comparative political thought, and the history of ideas of any tradition. Work that challenges orthodoxies and disrupts entrenched debates is particularly encouraged. All research articles are subject to triple-blind peer-review by internationally renowned scholars in order to ensure the highest standards of quality and impartiality.
期刊最新文献
Night labour, social reproduction and political struggle in the ‘Working Day’ chapter of Marx's Capital Lottocracy or psephocracy? Democracy, elections, and random selection Bearing witness, animal rights and the slaughterhouse vigil The dignitarian return Political theory and the politics of need
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1