There are a number of features of current ownership models that prove particularly toxic to the public at large in the context of providing public services and infrastructure. Wider stakeholders simply do not trust that private ownership is in their interest. The underlying causes of mistrust are structural; if companies focus on maximising shareholder value, with a particular short-term focus, then this mistrust will always prevail.
It could be argued that the private sector method of delivering infrastructure is wholly rational; looking for opportunities to reduce costs of delivery, refinancing completed projects and taking capital gain, performing at the contractual or regulatory minimum to reduce costs and increase profits, to the long-term benefit of taxpayers come the next regulatory review or post PFI contract. Indeed, the whole purpose of both privatisation and PFI was to introduce that cool-headed efficiency into the domain of public services.
But perhaps we are now in a more mature market where the private sector is a victim of its own success. Utilities may have massively reduced their cost base and invested in new infrastructure, PFIs may have delivered a large swathe of projects, but now the public are seeing a second, mature phase and are asking whether it is time for a new model; just delivering what the contract or regulator stipulates is not enough, profits through re-gearing sit poorly with infrastructure, inflexible contracts and high costs to change specification are not acceptable. The public are now asking whether they can retain the benefits of that private sector delivery but do so without the disbenefits of private sector ownership.
And in general, the public do not trust that private ownership is in their interest. They see profit as being at their expense rather than for their benefit. This is to the dismay of so many in the private sector, who are dedicated to the delivery of successful infrastructure. But despite their good intentions, the public perception is unlikely to change because the underlying causes are structural rather than the fault of particular individuals or companies.