Centre for Policy Studies recalls detailed case for privatisation under Thatcher

12th April 2013

The Thatcherite Centre for Policy Studies has dug out research from the early 1990s which looked at the UK’s privatisation programme during Margaret Thatcher’s premiership and beyond. Having advocated greater competition and private capital in the state industries, the CPS itself then help formulate and plan many of the privatisations. Unsurprisingly it says it proved to be a very good idea.

Indeed it quotes this view from Margaret Thatcher approvingly. “Too many people and industries preferred to rely on easy subsidies rather than apply the financial discipline necessary to cut their costs and become competitive. Others preferred the captive customers that a monopoly can command or the secure job in an overmanned industry, rather than the strenuous life of liberty and enterprise. But we understood that a system of free enterprise has a universal truth at its heart: to create a genuine market in a state you have to take the state out of the market.”

In the early 1990s it then commissioned research into privatisation in a competitive tender – what else – with National Economic Research Associates winning out and researching 33 firms in total for four reports on the subjects of safety, finance, efficiency and Prices and Service Quality. The CPS argues that the research work confounds the critics.


Safety issues were cited as a matter of public policy concern. Opponents of privatisation argued that commercial pressures on newly-privatised companies would lead to cuts in expenditure on safety programmes. It can be argued that such fears were naive – no private company wants to risk its reputation as a reliable employer or a safety-conscious provider of goods or services.  The important question is whether they were justified. The report found that

In terms of employee safety, in five out of the seven industries reviewed, the privatised enterprises concerned were said to ‘…have performed [in terms of safety] as well as or better than the performance of the economy as a whole since they were privatised.’ In four of these industries – gas, electricity, water and steel – there has been a marked fall in the number of non-fatal major injuries (the steel industry displays this trend to a less consistent extent), as well as industrial injuries which necessitated more than 3 days off work since the companies were privatised.

The performance of the privatised companies in relation to the safety of consumers and the general public improved very significantly. In the gas industry, for example, they found there had been a prolonged downward trend in the number of serious explosions involving natural gas; which had become more evident in the post privatisation period.


When the Conservatives came to power in 1979, the major nationalised companies were receiving large sums of taxpayers’ money. NERA’s report revealed that in the year to March 1980, the 33 companies it examined were contributing nothing to the exchequer: in fact they absorbed a total of £483 million between them, including £1.2 billion in loan finance. British Steel was one of the worst companies requiring £1.0 billion in the financial year 1980/81 on a turnover of just under £3 billion (thereby earning itself a place in the Guinness Book of Records).This dismal state of affairs was shown to have been reversed. In 1987, the 33 companies examined by NERA contributed £8.4 billion to the exchequer. Net contributions then continued right up until 1995:

In its detailed study NERA found that:

The sale of shares in the 33 companies generated average net proceeds of £3.5 billion a year between 1984/85 and 1994/95.

In addition, from 1986/87 onwards, the Government received further net receipts (from taxation, dividends etc.) of between £3.3 billion and £5.8 billion a year from these 33 companies. As the chart above shows, these companies, taken as a whole, were net recipients of public sector funds in the early 1980s.

NERA concluded that this remarkable turn-round is attributable to three main factors:

‘a dramatic improvement in the profitability of the companies, which has led to significantly higher corporation tax receipts’;

‘dividend receipts in respect of the Government’s residual shareholdings, particularly for companies (such as BT, National Power and PowerGen) in which the Government initially retained a substantial shareholding’;

‘continued interest receipts and repayments in respect of Government debt (including that owed by privatised companies)’.

The precise extent of the tax contribution made by these 33 companies is revealed in the chart below. Note that all but the electricity and water companies had been privatised by the end of 1988, when tax contributions began to soar. By mid-1991 both the electricity and the water industries had been privatised. The rising trend in tax paid can be attributed to the considerable improvement in corporate profitability brought about by improved efficiency and the private sector’s ability to identify and meet consumer needs.


In the third study of the series, NERA pointed out that there had been a lack of serious work done on the productivity performance attained by companies which had been freed from state ownership. To a large extent, this was because of the problems of quantifying productivity performance across a wide range of industries. In particular, there was a problem of specifying what the researchers term a ‘counterfactual’: what would the efficiency trend have been if the industry had remained in state ownership?

NERA’s study on efficiency revealed that the most impressive labour productivity performance was achieved by companies such as Associated British Ports, British Airways, British Steel and BT which were privatised in the 1980s and operated in competitive markets, or markets which were opened up to competition following the transfer of nationalised industries to the private sector.

Four points are highlighted, namely:

each of the three most comprehensive studies of productivity concluded that in most of the firms concerned there was a significant increase in the annual rate of growth of labour productivity, not only in absolute terms but relative to labour productivity growth economy-wide. In some cases, notably British Steel, British Coal, British Telecom, Associated British Ports and NFC (National Freight Consortium), the improvement was quite dramatic.

the improvement in labour productivity outstripped the improvements in total factor productivity performance, although there have been some striking improvements in total factor productivity growth post–privatisation, especially in British Airways and Associated British Ports, the latter no doubt linked in part to the abolition of the Dock Labour Scheme.

the prospect of privatisation began to affect conduct and performance well in advance of the privatisation date; impressive improvements in labour productivity in the period leading up to privatisation were recorded in British Airways, British Steel, Jaguar, NFC and Associated British Ports.

the improvement in labour productivity has been associated with a rapid reduction in employment in the publicly owned firms, whether or not these firms were privatised.

Prices and Service Quality

In the most thorough study of prices and service quality across the regulated industries ever undertaken, the evidence overwhelmingly showed that privatisation benefited the customer – in terms of both lower prices and improved levels of service.NERA’s research team concludes that, in real terms by 1995:

industrial gas prices fell by nearly 50% since privatisation;

domestic gas prices fell by nearly 25% since privatisation;

electricity prices fell by 2 – 2.5% p.a. since privatisation;

telecoms fell by over 40% since privatisation;

prices charged by BAA declined in real terms after privatisation, with prices falling more noticeably after the first regulatory price review.

The CPS concludes: “Only in the water industry did prices rise. These price increases were driven by the need to renew the water and sewerage infrastructure, originally built in the Victorian era, and much in need of an overdue investment programme to meet the much stricter environmental standards demanded by the regulatory authorities. NERA’s analysis showed that higher prices for water and sewerage services led to considerable improvement in water purity and consistent advances in the task of cleaning up sewage disposal. The percentage of the population at risk of water shortage dropped dramatically following privatisation, a reality running counter to popular perceptions.”

9 thoughts on “Centre for Policy Studies recalls detailed case for privatisation under Thatcher”

  1. dutch says:


    ‘Zoé Shepard, her pen name, confirmed France’s worst fears about its “fonctionnaires”
    – its 5.2 million civil servants – in a book recounting how they compete to
    see who will hover longest at the coffee machine, draw up sick notes to stay
    weeks away from the office or while away the day on Facebook.

    In Absolument Dé-bor-dé (Absolutely Snowed Under), subtitled How to Make 35
    hours Last a Month, nepotism is rife and taxpayer’s money wasted, with one
    local civil servant even signing off his visit to a prostitute as “travel

    1. dutch says:

      It was 2010 but little has changed from what I’ve heard.

      1. Forbin says:

        sounds like the entire EU project …. no wonder other countries politcos want to join

        just done tell the Germans they’re paying for it …. ( or Greece or Cyprus for missing out )


        1. Anonymous says:

          Hi Guys

          Actually this is perhaps the strangest story about the French economy right now I think.


          Apparently sanctions exclude weapons exports..

    1. Anonymous says:

      Hi Digger

      Yes the rising national debt to GDP ratio does illustrate an increasing vulnerability. For now the lower bond yields that France is experiencing mask this but she would find rises in them increasingly expensive. In a way we return to the major problem which is the lack of economic growth. For example the UK was not far short of the French ratio at the end of 2013 but is experiencing much more growth in 2014.

  2. Paul C says:

    Hi Shaun, I am intrigued to see the French ratio of public o private sector jobs. This ratio has always been appropriate for the French way of life but don’t you see it as more relevant for the UK these days post GFC? I do not detect any enthusiasm from the politicos to be held to this measure, especially if we forced them to add “arms length” contractors such as: Housing Associations, Network Rail, Highways Agency and of course compounded by ever burgeoning NHS monster of mis-management. I guess that we can match their 57% easily, you can put me right! Paul

  3. Anonymous says:

    Hi ExpatInBG

    Thanks for raising the energy issue which I had not thought of like that. If EDF charges the French government for nuclear energy at a similar rate to what it plans to charge the UK one then there is going to be a very large shift upwards in French electricity costs. From the BBC.

    “The two sides have now agreed the “strike price” of £92.50 for every megawatt hour of energy Hinkley C generates. This is almost twice the current wholesale cost of electricity.”

  4. Anonymous says:

    France surprises me as I’d expect it to be doing worse. I note it’s balance of payments has turned negative.

    France imports little hydrocarbons to generate energy. It is an interesting question how much France benefits or otherwise from it’s nuclear program. Iceland and Norway both benefit from cheap electricity – geothermal and hydro respectively. that is something to remember when we compare Iceland’s excellent performance to Greece’s problems.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *