Can the Free Market Secure Airlines
Federal screeners may wave wands in airports, writes Abby Johnson, but they aren't magic. The show of government force against security is anything but consistent across the country, yet the American public clamors for more government intervention, and policymakers continue to oblige. Despite the need for security, there is no guarantee that the government is the best one to provide it. On the contrary, the risk merits the best security, which is provided by the free market. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (6)
Although economic analysis wholely supports your article, one obvious rebuttal (mentioned in the paper) would be the psyhological aspect to privatization - the fact that the public really does equate state control with a certain minimum standard of safety and enforcement no matter what. A "psychic reward", so to speak, for maintaining government control. The irrational views of people persist.
Of course education can change this, so keep it up. Good article.
Published: February 8, 2006 7:03 PM
Of all the areas of commerce in which the provision of security services might well be in the hands of private (for-profit) groups, Ms. Johnson has chosen one where the case is among the most difficult to make.
The difficulty does not lie in comparisons of gov't. vs. private enterprise of the classic sort, where the specific enfeebling characteristic of the government is its lack of any method whereby to sum up the value of its existence as a resource, part of which is being expended (in addition to actual devotion of revenues). I speak of this as "classic" merely in identifying it as similar to the "calculation problem" seen intrinsic to socialism by Mises over 80 years ago.
It is a misplaced vision that sees the provision of "security" as being provided by security companies: like it or not, the extent of the security they are able to provide depends entirely on their doing so within a legal framework provided directly by one or another state apparatus of compulsion (at either the State or Federal level).
Compounding the difficulty in making any assessment and drawing any conclusion whatever
(one way or the other) is the matter of the "value" of the "good" whose security is to be furnished. Property values (both of airline property and of that of goods being shipped either in commerce or adjunct to the transport of persons) are relatively straightforward and simple and are easily disposed by ordinary cost/benefit analysies and computations. That still leaves the question of the protection--the "security"--to be provided to peoples' lives, including not only the lives of those actually flying and ancilliary to operation of the airlines and terminals but, as well, to all those threatened as potential victims on the ground, whether of accidental plane crashes or those caused deliberately (as in the case of 9/11).
Even though it is entirely possible--even likely--that a private entity might provide better and more cost-effective methods for baggage or passenger screening (to mention but two of many separate functions necessarily involved in comprehensive air-travel security) there is simply no way to relieve government of responsibility for protection of life, most especially against known criminal aggression: it is the most fundamental responsibility for which gov't. has been recognized as necessary by all except those who maintain that no gov't. whatever is necessary. But that's another--and different--argument.
Published: February 12, 2006 2:28 PM
Using market efficiencies to achieve public benefits:
It is not efficient to have airlines provide security. Rather than increasing competition and efficiency it would decrease competition. Only very large carriers could be efficient, small carriers could simply not exist. Even large carriers would not be able to operate at small airports, or airports where they do not have a large presence.
There are two problems with the current system:
2) It is done by a government agency, rather than private companies. This situation should not have been allowed to arise. The government is going to play some role in setting standards and ensuring safety. However, when the responsible agency is also providing the service, it is like the fox guarding the hen - house. Also, allowing the authority to tax the carriers means they have no need to seek efficiencies or limit costs.
2)It is done at the Federal level, rather than the local level. Setting optimum standards and procedures for the entire nation is impossible. Local innovation becomes impossible, and system wide innovation becomes cumbersome.
The Fed should set some standards. Local airports and authorities should be responsible for insuring they are met, either by providing service or hiring service providers.
Published: February 13, 2006 3:48 PM
Gene,
The government does not currently take responsibility for the protection of the lives and properties of "its" citizens, if only by the example of police protection. While almost all police officers consider this their duty, they can't be everywhere at once, and usually are involved in the aftermath of crime rather than its prevention. The State disavows any responsibility should a crime occur, and in the United States at least, this attitude has been confirmed in case law.
An airline has much more to lose from an act of sabotage or terrorism than the State does. It also has much more to lose by angering its customers with intrusive security measures. Indeed, from the airlines' perspectives, it might well be best to socialize these costs!
Published: February 13, 2006 4:01 PM
Gene,
When you say,
"Even though it is entirely possible--even likely--that a private entity might provide better and more cost-effective methods for baggage or passenger screening (to mention but two of many separate functions necessarily involved in comprehensive air-travel security) there is simply no way to relieve government of responsibility for protection of life, most especially against known criminal aggression: it is the most fundamental responsibility for which gov't. has been recognized as necessary by all except those who maintain that no gov't. whatever is necessary. But that's another--and different--argument."
do you mean that although the state almost certainly cannot protect the airlines and their customers as well as the private sector could, it must provide this protection anyways, because we have always “recognized� this is the government’s responsibility?
The state legislates away the right of the airlines to protect their own property and customers, and then the state fails to provide competent protection in its place, and then we still insist that the state is the entity for the job of protecting us? Ouch.
Published: February 13, 2006 6:02 PM
I love the article, it's very well spoken. However, I do think it's a losing battle with our socialist mindset in this country.
Two areas I'd like to point out that can easily be rebutted are:
"...but remember the weeks after 9/11. Speculations about the next terrorist target ranged from reservoirs to football stadiums. These other industries are also vulnerable, yet football fans are not subject to federal screening and wand-waving before entering the stadium." - Actually at big sporting events there are security measures taken due to terrorism, although not entirely federal. The Super Bowl in Detroit is an example of this, as well as state college football games. I know this is not federally mandated, but there are certainly state police officers there. Actually, now that I think about it, maybe that's a good example of "private security" to some degree, because those sporting event sponsors pay for that extra security don't they?
"Airlines are no more vital to America than electricity, waste disposal, water plants, or food." - And the government more or less controls these industries, too, with local and federal regulations.
Other than that, great article, but I know the public will never agree to privatization for airline security, even though I agree it should be privatized.
I think something that should be allowed is allowing people to choose, so for example you could have some flights that are screened by the airlines private screening process, and let people choose if they want to fly on those flights or the ones with federal screening.
Cheers...
Published: February 14, 2006 12:20 PM