Search This Blog


Jindal use of scare tactic not suasion causes retreat

The Gov. Bobby Jindal Administration seems to have lost its nerve, at least temporarily, in its quest to improve in limited ways the efficiency of state government. If only it had relied more on persuasion than fear if it actually seriously wishes to reduce the size of government, suasion would triumph over special interests on this issue.

Faced with determined opposition, this week the Jindal Administration announced postponement of its strategy to privatize prisons and their operations, which promised to save $86 million this year in state expenditures and tens of millions more annually thereafter. Essentially, Jindal announced he would punt to the Revenue Estimating Conference on the desirability of the plan, saying if it determined sufficient additional revenues could be forecast, no need may exist for the plan to go through to save money.

These feet of clay illustrated the tactical error the Administration had made on the issue, and its disappointing lack of commitment to cutting state costs.
Early on it had tried to tie the issue to revenue needs for health care and higher education, saying that failure to approve of such changes would require cutting in these areas marked already by sharp recent reductions, instead of framing the debate in terms of the very high likelihood of continuing cost savings by pursuing contracting and sales, which is supported by research. Boxing itself in this way surrendered the latter course as a means of getting this policy enacted.

Even a partial ceding of ground over the issue of sale of facilities still would have allowed Jindal to proceed with some enduring cost reductions had he relied upon cost effectiveness as his justification. He had proposed selling the two prisons already contracted out (and successfully, as a study by Louisiana State University faculty members revealed this privatization saved money with no aggregate reduction in quality) and a couple of more, but he could have just dropped the idea of sales and continue to stump for contracting out operations of those other two. Yet he folded completely on the issue, making a perverse implication that efficiency in government was worth going after only if revenues were too low, rather than pursuing it for its own sake and to the benefit of taxpayers.

Of course, he faced the good old boys that infest the Legislature and state government who define government’s primary purpose as not to perform few and basic necessary services that otherwise might not get done, but as to provide jobs and to transfer wealth to favored classes and constituencies. That populist passion takes much energy to overcome, but especially for that middle of course of more contracting only that doesn’t even need legislation. Jindal showed shallow belief in reasoned privatization by failing to back even that. This sends a disturbing signal about the success under this administration of a continued needed agenda for the state along these lines.


Mr. Harris Plutocrat said...

You can tell that southern conservatives are bankrupt of any redeeming ideas because all they do is bleat about free markets and privatization. The reflexive instinct of hatred of the left and worship of the right always leads to the ill-conceived proposal to privatize everything in sight. "Capitalism good; communism bad." Sure, privatization may be good, but is not necessarily good. But if we are going to annoint corporations to run prisons, we should at least reflect on this scheme as played out in other states. If one were to poke around to learn more (not that conservatives do so - rest assured that any poking around by the likes of Jeff is to find a scientific-sounding study to buttress his preexisting inclinations) you'd find quite a few instances where a private company's profit motive when bundled up with a captive profit center has led to problems. Unlike Jeff, who found one single study (and ignored all the rest) to support his position, on balance studies suggest otherwise. See Practt, Maahs: "Are Private Prisons More Cost-Effective Than Public Prisons? A Meta-Analysis of Evaluation Research Studies" (reviewing 33 evaluations and 24 independent studies). Of course, Jeff teaches a course on empiricism in public policy, which makes this efforts all the more laughable.

Jeff Sadow said...

No doubt our zombified commenter here has no familiarity with the literature on prison privatization beyond what he's told to think by his favorite liberal rags and websites. Let his education begin:

Here is an early one:

Here is a later one, an edited volume (this is a review):

And a description of some more:

And even more:

Certainly seems there are many sources (each of these reference many others as well) demonstrating the utility of prison privatization. In this post I referenced only the LSU one, but in other posts I have referenced others above.

(A note about using meta-studies -- something you would learn if you had taken my course on public policy and evaluation -- is that they do not discriminate among better and worse studies, in terms of the quality of work. So they at best provide a general consensus of undifferentiated opinion on a subject, but don't really give any insight into the validity of that opinion.)

As with many liberals, our commenter must learn that critical thinking about an issue and using a search engine are two different things.