The privatization of industries and firms was a feature of the 1980s and early 1990s. The arguments in favour of transferring assets to the private sector were based on the belief that the incentives of the market led to more efficient outcomes, lower costs and fairer prices for consumers. The belief in the efficiency of the market, of course, is based on the existence of competition. In many larger industries, it may be that any competition that does exist could be artificial at best.
In the UK, the experience of many customers who use the railway network is mixed. There is a division between firms who run the rolling stock – the engines and carriages, which are mostly private companies – and the ownership of the rail infrastructure – the track, signals and bridges, which is run on behalf of the Department of Transport. The UK rail system, therefore, could be seen as being half nationalized (or half privatized). The railway system in the UK could be argued to be a victim of its own success. Since it was privatized in 1994, passenger journeys have increased from around 700 million to 1.7 billion. However, dissatisfaction with the railways has been widely reported in the press.
Problems with timetable changes, ongoing disputes between train operating companies (TOCs) and unions, strikes, delays, and above CPI inflation increases in rail fares have been at the heart of the dissatisfaction. The National Rail Passenger Survey, published in January 2019, reported that overall satisfaction in TOCs varied between 68 per cent and 96 per cent. The percentage of journeys rated as satisfactory by passengers in terms of value for money for the price of their ticket was rated at 46 per cent nationally, marginally up from 45 per cent in spring 2018 and down from 47 per cent in spring 2017.
The debate about whether the whole of the rail system should be renationalized has emerged in the UK. Left Foot Forward, a political news and comment group, reported that ‘A new poll has shown that 56 per cent of people in the UK want the railways to be re-nationalised while just 15 per cent oppose nationalisation.’ The website does not specify the source of the poll, but there is a link which refers to ‘previous polls’, which links to a website called Full Fact – ‘the UK’s independent fact checking charity’. Full Fact reports on a BMG Research poll in June 2018, in which just under 1,500 people were asked whether they would ‘support or oppose re-nationalising the railways so they are not run by private companies but run in the public sector’.
The results were that 30 per cent ‘strongly supported’ renationalizing, 34 per cent ‘somewhat supported’, 17 per cent ‘didn’t know’, 13 per cent were ‘somewhat opposed’ and 6 per cent ‘strongly opposed’. It appears that this poll also asked respondents the question:
‘In your view, has the privatisation of Britain’s railways been a success or failure.’ Some 56 per cent said ‘failure’.

Critical Thinking Questions
1 Privatization has been a key element of supply-side policies, not only in the UK but in many other developed countries. To what extent are you convinced by the arguments that the private sector is more likely to operate more efficiently than the public sector?
2 The rail network in the UK was also privatized, but the company, Railtrack, collapsed in 2002 with debts of £3.5 billion (€4.05bn). Network Rail, which is effectively a nationalized firm, has reported debts of £51.2 billion (€59.3bn). Does this suggest that certain types of public investment, particularly in infrastructure, must be run by the state?
3 To what extent would you agree that the railway in the UK is a victim of its own success, a success which has been due to privatization?
4 Critically assess the poll information presented in the article. How valuable is such information in decision-making on a subject such as the renationalization of the rail system?
5 To what extent does the debate over the problems which seem to be evident in the UK’s rail system mirror the debate over supply-side policies in general?