PUBLICZNE − CZYLI CZYJE?
Loading...
Date
2011
Authors
Advisor
Editor
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Wydział Prawa i Administracji UAM
Title alternative
PUBLIC – SO WHOSE?
Abstract
„Publiczne” intuicyjnie rozpoznawane było zawsze przez ludzi jako „nasze” – w ostatnich latach procesy liberalizacyjne w gospodarce spowodowały, że stało się „i nasze i nie nasze”, bowiem po wykonaniu aktu wyborczego podatnicy tracą realny wpływ na sposób, zakres i wielkość dystrybuowanych usług publicznych finansowanych z danin obywateli, niekompetencja decydentów zaś błędy alokacji i złe gospodarowanie środkami publicznymi nie mają innej niż polityczna odpowiedzialności.
Znaczenia zatem nabierają pytania o to, kto, za co płaci i co w zamian otrzymuje, kto powinien organizować oraz świadczyć usługi, kto zyskuje, a kto traci na quasi-rynku usług publicznych, jakie są kryteria bezpieczeństwa socjalnego, które usługi te winny chronić, a także co jest publiczne, a co prywatne w systemie świadczeń i usług socjalnych itp.
Zbyt daleko posunięta ekonomizacja usług publicznych, tracąca z pola widzenia wartości i cele społeczne spotyka się z coraz większą społeczną krytyką – wykazywana w badaniach socjoekonomicznych narastająca nieefektywność sektora usług publicznych wymaga z całą pewnością nie tylko przemyślenia na nowo sposobu definiowania polityki w tym sektorze (zasady, normy, wartości, cele), ale i narzędzi realizacyjnych (strategie, priorytety). Konieczna przebudowa sektora usług publicznych nie może jednakże oznaczać powrotu do monopolu państwowego i rozwiązań mających w tle stosowanie uproszczonej zasady egalitaryzmu − nie może także prowadzić do „państwa minimum” przerzucającego odpowiedzialność za warunki i jakość usług i życia na jednostki i niepubliczne podmioty sceny publicznej.
In the past, the word ‘public’ was always understood as being ‘ours’. In recent years, however, the liberalisation processes in the economy have made it to be ‘ours and not ours’. This is because having once voted in the universal suffrage, the tax payers lose the real power to influence the manner, scope, and magnitude of the public services that are financed by the citizens, whereas the errors made in the allocation of public funds, the incompetence of the decision-makers, and the overall poor management of public funds are subject to nothing else but political liability. Hence the following questions become important: who pays and for what? and what does he get in return? who should organise and provide services, who gains and who loses on the quasi-market of public services, what are the social safety criteria that those services should protect, and, also, what is public, and what is private, when it comes to the provision of social welfare and services. The business approach to public services seems to have reached too far these days, especially, if the public objectives and values are getting lost on the way. Hence the growing criticism of the society. Indeed, as the business-sociological studies show, the increasing inefficiency of the public service sector that can be observed requires a complete redefinition of the policy that is currently carried in that sector (principles, norms, values, targets), as well as the tools with which they may be realised (strategies, priorities). It is necessary to rebuild the sector of public finance but that should never mean a return to the state monopoly and the solutions based on a simplified idea of egalitarism – in other words, it cannot lead to the ‘minimal state’ that pushes the responsibility for the living conditions and the quality of life on individuals and non-public subjects of the public scene.
In the past, the word ‘public’ was always understood as being ‘ours’. In recent years, however, the liberalisation processes in the economy have made it to be ‘ours and not ours’. This is because having once voted in the universal suffrage, the tax payers lose the real power to influence the manner, scope, and magnitude of the public services that are financed by the citizens, whereas the errors made in the allocation of public funds, the incompetence of the decision-makers, and the overall poor management of public funds are subject to nothing else but political liability. Hence the following questions become important: who pays and for what? and what does he get in return? who should organise and provide services, who gains and who loses on the quasi-market of public services, what are the social safety criteria that those services should protect, and, also, what is public, and what is private, when it comes to the provision of social welfare and services. The business approach to public services seems to have reached too far these days, especially, if the public objectives and values are getting lost on the way. Hence the growing criticism of the society. Indeed, as the business-sociological studies show, the increasing inefficiency of the public service sector that can be observed requires a complete redefinition of the policy that is currently carried in that sector (principles, norms, values, targets), as well as the tools with which they may be realised (strategies, priorities). It is necessary to rebuild the sector of public finance but that should never mean a return to the state monopoly and the solutions based on a simplified idea of egalitarism – in other words, it cannot lead to the ‘minimal state’ that pushes the responsibility for the living conditions and the quality of life on individuals and non-public subjects of the public scene.
Description
Sponsor
Keywords
publiczne, public, podatnicy, tax payers, usługi publiczne, public services, środki publiczne, public funds, alokacja, allocation, złe gospodarowanie, poor management
Citation
Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny 2011, z. 3, s. 137-159