The notion that Western governments have become like corporations stems from several key observations about how these governments operate. Firstly, the influence of corporate money in politics is significant, with large companies and wealthy individuals contributing vast sums to political campaigns, potentially swaying policy decisions and legislative agendas. This corporate lobbying can lead to government policies that prioritise business interests over public welfare. Secondly, the adoption of corporate management styles and efficiency-driven approaches within public agencies may lead to a focus on profitability and metrics, sometimes at the expense of broader social goals. Additionally, the revolving door between public service and high-level corporate positions blurs the lines between government and business, with former politicians and government officials often taking roles in companies that were once under their regulatory purview. This intermingling of corporate and government roles can make it appear as though government actions are increasingly driven by corporate logic and interests, rather than purely public ones.
Customers and clients
In recent years, there has been a notable shift in the language used by government departments to refer to citizens, increasingly characterizing them as “clients” or “customers.” This change in terminology reflects a broader trend towards the corporatization of public services, where government agencies adopt business-like practices and principles. By referring to citizens as clients, the implication is that public services are transactions, where service delivery is measured on efficiency, customer satisfaction, and performance metrics similar to those used in the private sector. While this approach aims to improve service quality by adopting a customer service model, it also raises concerns about the depersonalization of civic engagement and the potential neglect of the non-transactional aspects of citizenship, such as rights, civic responsibilities, and community involvement. This shift suggests a move away from viewing citizens primarily as members of a democratic polity to viewing them more as consumers of services provided by the state.
Performance-based outcomes
Governments around the world have increasingly embraced performance-based outcomes as a model for public service delivery, a shift inspired by corporate practices focused on efficiency and accountability. This approach involves setting specific, measurable goals for government agencies and departments, and assessing their performance based on their ability to meet these targets. Metrics such as service delivery times, customer satisfaction ratings, and cost efficiency are used to evaluate performance, much like a business would assess its success in meeting quarterly sales targets or profit margins. The intention behind this shift is to increase transparency and improve public services by holding them to standards that are clear and quantifiable. However, this focus on quantifiable outcomes can also lead to challenges, such as the potential overlooking of broader societal impacts and the quality of service that are harder to measure but critical for comprehensive public welfare.
Adopting performance-based outcomes in government can inadvertently or strategically foster a ‘passing the buck’ attitude among departments and agencies. As each unit strives to meet specific metrics, there can be a tendency to prioritise those metrics over comprehensive solutions, leading to situations where problems that do not directly impact a department’s key performance indicators are ignored or handed off to another department. This siloed approach to problem-solving can result in a lack of holistic responsibility for issues, with departments focusing narrowly on their quantifiable targets rather than embracing a collaborative and integrated approach to public service challenges. Consequently, this can create gaps in service and accountability, as each department avoids taking responsibility for issues that might negatively affect their performance evaluations.
Privatisation of public services
The privatisation of public services refers to the process by which governments transfer the ownership and management of certain public sector operations, such as water supply, electricity, healthcare, and transportation, to private entities. This shift is often driven by beliefs in increased efficiency, cost reduction, and improved quality of services that competition in the private sector is presumed to bring about. Advocates argue that private companies can deliver services more effectively due to their profit-driven motive to cut costs and optimise operations. However, this strategy can also lead to concerns about accessibility and equity. When profit becomes a driving force, there’s a risk that essential services may become less accessible to lower-income populations or that the quality of service may become uneven, as private entities may prioritise areas where profits are higher. Furthermore, the transfer of public assets to private control often sparks debates about accountability, as citizens lose direct influence over how these essential services are managed.
Branding and Public Relations
Governments are increasingly recognising the importance of branding and public relations as essential tools in shaping public perception and managing the dissemination of information. This strategic approach involves carefully crafted messaging, cohesive visual identities, and targeted communication campaigns designed to promote governmental policies, achievements, and initiatives. By adopting techniques from the corporate world, such as the use of news outlets, social media, advertising, and public engagement events, governments aim to build trust, foster loyalty, and influence public opinion. This emphasis on branding not only helps governments communicate more effectively with their citizens but also attempts to enhance their image both domestically and internationally. However, this approach has raised concerns about potential manipulation of information and the prioritisation of image over substance, as well as the ethical implications of using public funds for campaigns that can sometimes veer into the promotion of particular political agendas.
Feudal corporatism
The corporatisation of governments is accelerating the drift towards a ‘feudalistic corporate world,’ where power and resources are increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, resembling the stratified structure of feudal societies. This trend is exemplified by the growing influence of corporate interests in public policy, the privatization of essential services, and the adoption of business practices within government operations, which prioritize efficiency and profitability over equitable public service. As governments adopt these corporate models, the public sector’s traditional role as a provider of social goods and protector of common interests is compromised, potentially leading to greater disparities in wealth and power. This shift not only diminishes democratic accountability but also risks creating a societal structure where the majority serves the interests of a privileged few, echoing the hierarchical and dependent relationships of feudalism.