Private Versus Public Enterprise for Change?

Private and public enterprises complement each other in their advantages and disadvantages and our society needs both of them, in my perspective. Private organizations stimulate the economy on a micro level and prioritize in maximizing its profits, which is not to say that it will seldom serve the common good. For example, a lot of positive social events are funded by private companies and I feel we should not ignore their contribution due to their money-drive nature. Another benefit of private enterprise is that they really contribute to social innovation and creation. The example of Starbucks staff refer to customers by their first name can be considered as a social innovation, which enhance interpersonal warmth and may help decrease life pressure in a small way. This is something that public organizations may have a lot of difficulty doing because they aim at bigger picture of communal and societal change. Hence, they often would not bother making small changes that they do not see the longer effect. In a word, we can combine the public and private enterprises to make a better change in our social action after we consider how and to what extent we are going to utilize both of them.

Hi Emma and Miaoting,

Thanks a lot for responding. Emma, I think you are right about how the slow and steady movement of the government is actually full of checks to ensure that they are serving the public well. We both agree that private enterprise is better for social change and innovation but is fettered by the hunt for profit and the M'.

Miaoting, I like your Starbucks example and want to challenge the social innovation of using the customer's first name. I feel that this mechanism being a friendly gesture is illusory and more so yet another mechanism to capture profit and that ever sought after M'. I feel that by writing first and more importantly writing the name INCORRECTLY is to make the customer post or share their cup on social media like snapchat or instagram. . Thus, using the customer as a free advertisement or billboard for Starbucks. It is similar to clothing stores that do not ask if you need a bag but pack one for you without hesitation. You will walk down Robson Street or 4th Avenue as a human, moving advertisement for that store. All this in an effort for profit.

Hi Hugh. I am sorry but I would rather not be misunderstood. I see all of your points, but it is a misreading of my argument to say that we both agree that private enterprise is better for social change and innovation. As I wrote in my previous comments, I see the flaws you point in the government, but I still believe it's better than private enterprise, at least assuming that it's a functioning democracy and in a realm where we have already agreed to the fact it exists. In simpler words, that is to say that if we could get rid of any form of government and be sufficiently evolved to coexist peacefully in anarchism, I would be happiest. However, as we daily prove not to be even close to any communitarian utopia, I think that an accountable and elected government is a much better option than a profit-driven private company to promote social change. Not only the latter will base its actions on individual interests related to market profitability, but developing a societal expectation for social actions to come from private institutions further delegitimizes the state and lets the market aquire even more power, while hiding the political nature of structural problems which need political and communal, accountable intervention for change.