Why have government attempts to introduce competition and market-like behavior in public services been controversial, and to what extent can they be said to have been successful? Illustrate with particular reference to a public service of your choice.
The past 30 years have seen the British way of providing public services has changed dramatically. The Government is now rarely the sole provider of government-funded services. In education, employment, health - in fact, almost every area - private, public and voluntary sector organizations to fight for the rights of the majority of services, with users often have at their service, they get a say. Today, about one pound per three pounds spent on public services to the government of independent suppliers. The huge impact of change, to be honest, is not very clear. Evidence does suggest that there are independent suppliers have signed contracts simpler, transaction services worked well, like waste management - in particular, also provide services to the private sector suppliers.
In a more complex services, such as health effects or educational, competition is not clear, especially since the government has little embodiment changes the way, they can easily be assessed. Clearly, however, - as a direct management services - the government does not always succeed in providing value for money. In the past few years, independent investigation and media investigations have found that the renegotiation of the rail franchising issues, electronic monitoring of offenders and housing asylum seekers to name a few. Failure tends to have a higher cost for service users and taxpayers. (Timmins, N. (2012))
Literature review and Mail body
Choice and competition lays in the coalition government's ambitious series of public service reform in the center. More and more choices have been given the leading causes of major reforms in schools, health...