Private Industry Case Analysis

711 Words2 Pages

In each of the three scenarios presented in the case, opponents and proponents have divergent views of government regulations. One view is on the public benefit, the other is on the cost to private industry. How can you decide which view to accept?
Currently being a member of the public, I would side with the benefit viewpoint. I also must imagine that people in the private industry, albeit concerned with their company and its profits, also enjoy the world that they live in and don’t want to see it burned to the ground. This being the case I feel that the public benefit view of government regulation is more widely accepted over concern of the private industry costs. One way to gauge which view to accept is the benefit/cost ratio (BCR). The …show more content…

The benefits of DHS’s actions are rooted in safety. The thought is that human

life is more valuable than profit. I think that the public benefits outweigh the private cost in this scenario. Second is federal legislation guidelines on tractors, making them more environmentally friendly. The chief cost here is financial. New model tractors that meet regulations cost upwards of $10,000 more than the old models, and they are more expensive to service. This can lead to other problems like farms failing from their inability to afford the new equipment. The benefit is environmental. Through cleaner technologies the environment is improved helping people
(theoretically) globally. I am unconvinced that public benefit is the right viewpoint here. The costs seem to outweigh benefits.
Lastly is the legislation pertaining to increased inspections on imported containers to the
U.S. The benefit here is similar to the DHS airport security regulations mentioned earlier; the value and safety of human life is of utmost importance. The fear is that terrorist attempt to ship dangerous things in these containers. The more containers that are searched, the more …show more content…

3. Should the government intervene in setting regulations to increase security and help the environment? Or should private industry take on this role?

I think that government taking on a regulatory role can be very beneficial to both the public and private parties. An appropriate example can be found in the transportation policy.
The text describes a scenario on page 73 where the private sector is incapable of developing a transcontinental highway. “Efficient rail and highway routes require government assistance in securing land from private owners; if the government did not assert its power of eminent domain, routes would be quite circuitous and inefficient.” Here government intervention is the right idea.
As the text states, “the public agency is concerned about costs and benefits to all parties affected by the project.” I am not sure that there is always one viewpoint that proves correct over the other. I am relatively sure that often times a happy medium is what many in the private industries strive for. Government regulations are meant to help more than just the one entity; the greater good as it were. As the aforementioned example of highway development describes,

Open Document