|
|
|
|
|
|
by cantankerous
3231 days ago
|
|
|
Yes but in this case the government's own estimation on doing the work itself sets a bar. Also sufficiently bidding out work drives prices down by competition if the contractors aren't conspiring against the public. Big if. |
|
|
Regulation should determine the minimum number of competitors a market should have (N).
Say there are 5 companies bidding for service (each targeting 1/N of the market).
* 100 for 1/N
* 120 for 1/N
* 125 for 1/N
* 150 for 1/N
* 200 for 1/N
The lowest N bids win, the less expensive winners receive some percentage of the difference between the highest rate and their rate as a bonus. (Which could be 100%, could be 0%, I feel 1/N % is fair)
I also think that N should be targeted based on the type of work. Things which require /many/ bodies, like utilities, construction/repair, etc should favor far more successful businesses within a market. Things that require more substantial investment of resources should be more tightly regulated; vertical and horizontal integration (but not public feedback loops such as 'it would be really beneficial if your processes were nicer for this type of target') should be broken up where-ever possible.
Most crucially the regulating bodies should be thin. They should have extremely clear mission statements. They should also be directly accountable to, and elected by, the public. That process should not have the defects of today's elections, no artificial sub-regional representation and no pre-election filtering of choices (other than, perhaps, a minimum signature requirement to get /on/ the ballot).