There’s a quick note in the Financial Times from Tim Harford (author of The Underground Economist) about a recent finding that, despite free healthcare, education, and other services offered by governments around the world, the poor still choose the private option. Harford makes the standard market-oriented case that private service providers tend to be more easily held accountable to fee-paying customers.
In more human terms, private service providers in poor countries tend to be members of the community they serve, rather than well-meaning but undeniably outsiders. By either perspective, the poor seem to vote by their wallet that private, community-based healthcare and education beats public, centralized services. Although you might argue all it means is that public options need dramatic improvement, you might also ask how can private providers also access more resources to improve the services they’re already providing. If the poor are already choosing to spend money on services they can get elsewhere for free, can they get more bang for their buck?
Published Date: August 24, 2009