Introduction

This collection brings together authors struggling with the implications and effects of privatization. They are from a variety of countries and using vulnerability theory they consider privatization and its effects in their distinct legal and political cultures. Their contributions remind us that privatization is neither straightforward as a concept nor in practice as its proponents suggest it is. Privatization can be broadly defined as an active “withdrawal of the state from many areas of social life” (Harvey, 2005). However, this withdrawal can take many forms. The state may shift responsibility for social goods and services onto individuals or families, or it may actively engage the market in providing those goods or services. Engagement of the market takes many forms, from deregulation to provision of “choice” through vouchers and competition among providers to contracting out full areas of government responsibility (Blomqvist, 2004). State decisions to defund public goods or services often result in shifting responsibility onto private actors and also can be considered a form of privatization (Starr, 1988).