Is public or private ownership better? Law, economic theories, and what the data says

What should be publicly owned or privately owned, and what is the role or regulation and democratic voice in the economy either way? Theories of law and economics have not yet given us complete answers, yet the data on what countries do, and their results, points to a solution. For instance, health care and central banks are almost always public. Clothing and manufacturing are almost always private. The fact that something is a human right in international law – such as health care and clothing – does not answer how it should be provided. The fact that there is a ‘market failure’ – such as a financial crisis or manufacturing externalities – does not answer who should own what, except to say that regulation should change the general laws of contract, property or corporations. So, where law and economics end, data can begin, for a more complete theory. This is that if property for production is broadly, equally accessible, private competitive enterprise works. If not, the enterprise works best in public hands. With experience, if not theory, this is what most wealth, democratic countries do. To name a few, the data shows us that public ownership prevails, with superior socio-economic results, in education, health, central banking, water, energy grids, rail, and telecom networks. Private ownership works, with superior results, in manufacturing, clothing, restaurants, professional services and most consumer goods. State aid or a strong public option alongside private enterprise is suited for retail banks, housing, energy generation, and media. Good governance is an issue distinct from wise ownership, and modern trends support democratic voice for service-users, and staff, plus investors, electing directors on the enterprise board.