Privatisation was pioneered in Britain. The programme, launched aggressively by prime minister Margaret Thatcher and continued by successive governments, ranged from the hugely popular sale of British Telecom in 1984 to the shambolic giveaway of the railways in 1995-96. The collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe provided fertile ground for the privatisation concept to develop further.
Here in Hong Kong, eager, perhaps, to be seen to be acting quickly on the budgetary problem, new financial secretary Henry Tang Ying-yen's first significant policy announcement was the planned part-privatisation of the Airport Authority. What benefits could this bring?
Could a privatised Airport Authority be more efficient? A major motivation in the British privatisations was the wish to distance management from government and so assist in breaking the stranglehold which the public-sector trade unions held on large parts of the economy, and the excessive overmanning which they preserved. But Hong Kong does not suffer from these problems. The government prides itself on the fact that the youthful Airport Authority is already regarded as an efficient and well-run organisation, with good commercial instincts. If someone has perhaps identified scope for further efficiency gains, they could be implemented now. It is unclear how privatisation itself is suddenly going to reveal new avenues.
Even if the body was eventually to become more than part-privatised, it would still be subject to government regulation, not least to ensure it did not exploit its monopoly position. Thus, the government would always have a strong influence on its profits, balancing the need to keep faith with the new shareholders (a commitment which might wane over time) against pressures from other suitors to hold down airport charges.
In fact, once we have decent road links to other airports in the region - Macau, Shenzhen and Zhuhai - Chek Lap Kok's charges may come under more intense competitive pressure, anyway. Is the stock market going to induce better strategic thinking into the Airport Authority, or improved corporate governance? Possibly, but the arguments have yet to be demonstrated; it is not obvious where the present arrangement is deficient.
Meanwhile, landing rights are largely the preserve of inter-governmental negotiation. Neither their evolution, nor Cathay Pacific's status as our principal flag-carrier - which are both huge influences on the body's operations - are likely to be materially dependant on the ownership structure of the Airport Authority.
