<Li> Job gains . As the economy becomes more efficient, more profits are obtained and no government subsidies and less taxes are needed, there will be more private money available for investments and consumption and more profitable and better - paid jobs will be created than in the case of a more regulated economy . </Li> <P> Opponents of certain privatizations believe that certain public goods and services should remain primarily in the hands of government in order to ensure that everyone in society has access to them (such as law enforcement, basic health care, and basic education). There is a positive externality when the government provides society at large with public goods and services such as defense and disease control . Some national constitutions in effect define their governments' "core businesses" as being the provision of such things as justice, tranquility, defense, and general welfare . These governments' direct provision of security, stability, and safety, is intended to be done for the common good (in the public interest) with a long - term (for posterity) perspective . As for natural monopolies, opponents of privatization claim that they aren't subject to fair competition, and better administrated by the state . </P> <P> Although private companies will provide a similar good or service alongside the government, opponents of privatization are careful about completely transferring the provision of public goods, services and assets into private hands for the following reasons: </P> <Ul> <Li> Performance . A democratically elected government is accountable to the people through a legislature, Congress or Parliament, and is motivated to safeguarding the assets of the nation . The profit motive may be subordinated to social objectives . </Li> <Li> Improvements . the government is motivated to performance improvements as well run businesses contribute to the State's revenues . </Li> <Li> Corruption . Government ministers and civil servants are bound to uphold the highest ethical standards, and standards of probity are guaranteed through codes of conduct and declarations of interest . However, the selling process could lack transparency, allowing the purchaser and civil servants controlling the sale to gain personally . </Li> <Li> Accountability . The public has less control and oversight of private companies . </Li> <Li> Civil - liberty concerns . A democratically elected government is accountable to the people through a parliament, and can intervene when civil liberties are threatened . </Li> <Li> Goals . The government may seek to use state companies as instruments to further social goals for the benefit of the nation as a whole . </Li> <Li> Capital . Governments can raise money in the financial markets most cheaply to re-lend to state - owned enterprises . </Li> <Li> Cuts in essential services . If a government - owned company providing an essential service (such as the water supply) to all citizens is privatized, its new owner (s) could lead to the abandoning of the social obligation to those who are less able to pay, or to regions where this service is unprofitable . </Li> <Li> Natural monopolies . Privatization will not result in true competition if a natural monopoly exists . </Li> <Li> Concentration of wealth . Profits from successful enterprises end up in private, often foreign, hands instead of being available for the common good . </Li> <Li> Political influence . Governments may more easily exert pressure on state - owned firms to help implementing government policy . </Li> <Li> Profit . Private companies do not have any goal other than to maximize profits . A private company will serve the needs of those who are most willing (and able) to pay, as opposed to the needs of the majority, and are thus anti-democratic . The more necessary a good is, the lower the price elasticity of demand, as people will attempt to buy it no matter the price . In the case of a price elasticity of demand of zero (perfectly inelastic good), the demand part of supply and demand theories does not work . </Li> <Li> Privatization and poverty . It is acknowledged by many studies that there are winners and losers with privatization . The number of losers--which may add up to the size and severity of poverty--can be unexpectedly large if the method and process of privatization and how it is implemented are seriously flawed (e.g. lack of transparency leading to state - owned assets being appropriated at minuscule amounts by those with political connections, absence of regulatory institutions leading to transfer of monopoly rents from public to private sector, improper design and inadequate control of the privatization process leading to asset stripping). </Li> <Li> Job loss . Due to the additional financial burden placed on privatized companies to succeed without any government help, unlike the public companies, jobs could be lost to keep more money in the company . </Li> <Li> Reduced wages and benefits . A 2014 report by In the Public Interest, a resource center on privatization, argues that "outsourcing public services sets off a downward spiral in which reduced worker wages and benefits can hurt the local economy and overall stability of middle and working class communities ." </Li> <Li> Inferior quality products . Private, for - profit companies might cut corners on providing quality goods and services in order to maximize profit . </Li> </Ul>

Privatisation in india has initially been adopted from