|>>|| No. 15510
a) economies of scale
b) project risk
It's much cheaper if one company like Tazer builds electronic equipment for a dozen different countries than if each country establishes its own technology companies to do similar work, or contracts out to a specialist to build something especially for them from scratch. Tazer have a proven track record and will deliver the contract at a fixed price per unit, whereas commissioning it yourself entails the risk of all sorts of delays and budget overruns.
Technology is particularly tricky, because of the chicken-and-egg problem of hiring competent people. It's very hard to tell whether someone is a competent programmer or electrical engineer unless you yourself have those skills, which is why successful technology companies tend to be co-founded by at least one engineer. Public servants with backgrounds in law or finance just don't have the knowledge to tell expert consultants from total bullshitters.
Government IT projects tend to be a catastrophe for this reason, which is why there's a big move towards buying off-the-shelf technology with a proven track record wherever possible, rather than commissioning something bespoke. The off-the-shelf solution might not perfectly fit your needs, but at least you know that it works.
I think it is perhaps easier to understand it from the other direction. In the early days of electricity, before the development of a national grid, companies who used electrical power had to have their own generating equipment, powered by a gas or oil turbine. That seems bizarre now, but for decades that was just how things worked. Alternatively, you could think about why the NHS doesn't make bandages and scalpels, why it doesn't have an in-house construction company to build hospitals, why it doesn't own quarries and brick kilns to make their own building materials. Try and imagine the Soviet madness of that situation for a moment.
The BBC are a very good practical example of this. Until quite recently, they were fanatical about designing their own technology from scratch, rather than buying in commercial equipment. They designed and built nearly everything in-house where possible - loudspeakers, mixing desks, plugs and sockets, even some furniture and hardware. BBC equipment therefore tended to be either utterly cutting-edge or hopelessly obsolete, depending on what the Designs Department thought was a priority. The equipment they did buy in usually needed to be specially produced or modified to work with BBC equipment, usually at a substantial cost.
This led to all sorts of idiosyncrasies unique to the BBC, many of which remain to this day. You can spot an engineer who trained at the BBC within five minutes of meeting them, because they speak a slightly different language to engineers who learned to do things the industry standard way. The BBC eventually realised that it made much more sense to buy in standard equipment wherever possible rather than constantly reinventing the wheel.
The debate tends to be over privatisation rather than nationalisation, which skews our perspective. Rather than pushing the boundaries between public and private sector back and forth bit by bit like the Western Front, it makes more sense to ask the more general question "what does the government need to do for itself, and what can it simply buy in from the private sector?". Framed in that way, we can see the question of privatisation as a practical rather than ideological matter, in which the inevitable answer is some sort of healthy balance between two extremes.