Search results

Liberal democratic states have involved the use of private companies for purposes of detention and the debate is whether such involvement is only for immigration control or whether they are primarily for macro-economic benefits. This paper aims to present the argument that a State wishing to detain migrants must do so within the purview of immigration control and in conformity to international human rights standards rather than other latent reasons such as macro-economic benefits. The exponential growths of immigration detention over the years, this paper argues, smack of latent reasons with unarguably macro-economic benefits accruing to these States.

The methodology is doctrinal research focusing on immigration detention and privatization. Doctrinal research is library-based and reliance will be placed on primary and secondary materials such as legislations, case laws, soft laws on the one hand and textbooks, journals, articles, legal encyclopedia, databases and many valuable websites on the other hand.

Findings have been made of similarities in State practice between the UK, the USA and Australia and conclude that the trend is worrying given that privatization of the detention estate lends credence to the fact that growing international prison industry influences prison and detention policies.

These have portent implications for the violations of the rights of detainees and weaken the protection of rights under international human rights law.

The originality of this paper lies in its ability to unravel the legitimacy of immigration detention in the face of privatization and macro-economic benefits accruing to States, thereby querying the availability of the rights of migrants within the remit of State practice.

Queensland’s first private prison became operational in January 1990 under contract to Corrections Corporation of Australia. The major reason for privatization was to attempt to reduce alleged public sector bureaucratic complexities and to increase the efficiency of the delivery of corrective services. Compares two Queensland prisons of similar security status (one public, one private) in terms of the nature of the inmate population in an attempt to determine whether either has a cost advantage. Compares actual cost data and suggests reasons for the apparent differences.

In an attempt to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of correctional facilities the Australian Government has recognised the need for their privatisation. Consequently, the Victorian Government initiated an “Infrastructure Investment Policy”, which led to the development of a portfolio called the “New Prisons Project”. This paper presents findings from several prison projects that have been developed using different procurement methods by both the public and private sector. The findings reveal that prisons procured by the private sector using BOO systems are more cost‐efficient, specifically in relation to construction and operating costs, than those procured by other means. Discussions on the future of privatising correctional services using BOO systems are also presented.

This paper outlines the concept of the Private Finance Initiative. It covers some of the basic PFI mechanisms and provides the reader with a general understanding of PFI and the purpose it serves. The paper will look at how the policy has been received specifically within the construction industry and the problems highlighted to date.

The transition from a product driven to market driven culture has enforced changes in management style in previously nationalised companies. This article examines the background to the phenomenon of privatisation in the United Kingdom and explores current practice. The transition to change over two decades has brought about more demanding and value conscious customers along with a technological revolution in information technology. Corporate culture is seen as the litmus test in shaping changes in performance, and a strong culture is an important factor in unifying the social dimensions of an organisation. Privatisation has seen changes emerge in some companies more dominantly than in others. The principal purpose of this paper is to use this background as a building block to describe the detailed empirical research that has been conducted within three previously nationalised companies. This research is reported in the next issue of this journal.

It has, until recently, been usual to argue that the small group of pure public goods is made up of defence and “law and order” and that these are inviolably the true province of governments. These pure public goods are defined as being both non‐excludable in supply and non‐rival in consumption, that is, they must be equally available to everyone and one individual's consumption of them must not affect the benefit accruing to any other individual. Peston and others have, however, demonstrated a general definitional confusion in the literature and it is increasingly being argued that “law and order” is a mixed or quasi‐public good and that the fact that it has historically been publicly provided does not necessarily imply that it is, in principle, a public good. In the same vein Blaug, has also argued that education, health care as well as internal law and order are all examples of quasi‐public goods. In the case of pure public goods we may be able to establish the marginal cost schedule but it may be very difficult to determine the marginal benefit schedule, without which we cannot identify the optimal level of public goods provision.

Building on the literature of hybrids in the context of public organizations, this paper aims to discuss under which conditions hybrids can adequately provide “critical services”, a subset of public services characterized by their simultaneous exposure to externalities, socio-economic cohesion and legitimacy concerns.

The authors collect indications from two stylized examples, prisons and defense, to develop propositions as a step toward assessing the potential role of hybrids as alternatives to direct public provision or full privatization in the delivery of critical services.

This paper examines the conditions under which hybrid arrangements outperform the polar cases of public bureaus and full privatization in the delivery of a specific subset of public goods that the authors identify as “critical services”.

The authors suggest that there might be comparative advantages in relying on hybrid arrangements rather than the usual solutions of fully private or fully governmental provision. However, they also submit that these advantages are conditional to the capacity of hybrids to reconcile competing interests to achieve socio-economic cohesion, to combine capabilities dispersed among partners to benefit from positive externalities and to satisfy legitimacy concerns with respect to the role of government.

To report on architect reactions to the use of non‐prescriptive design and construction briefs in the delivery of private prison projects in Australia.

The introduction of the private prison projects in Australia saw the introduction of alternative delivery methods, such as Design‐Construct, for the delivery of prison facilities. The resulting design brief, forwarded as the “Request for Proposal”, was typically a non‐prescriptive document. Those architects who participated in such private prison design projects were interviewed using a semi‐structured interview questionnaire. Beliefs regarding the use of such briefs were gauged from the interview data.

The interviews revealed conflicting beliefs regarding the usefulness and appropriateness of the design brief. The responses were divided between a minority who found the briefs adequate, owing principally to the belief that it facilitated innovation. However, the majority considered the briefs as inadequate for prison construction. They believed that it allowed for manipulation by contractors, and that it compromised the design process and the integrity of the facility. As architects question the suitability of such design briefs for the delivery of prison facilities, the paper highlights the advantages and limitations in using prescriptive and non‐prescriptive prison design briefs.

This paper fulfils a need for data regarding the role of design briefs in prison design and construction. It offers a valuable comparison of the diverse approaches that can be taken, and the impacts this has upon how architects operate in prison projects.

Examines the background to privatisation in the UK and explores current practice. The transition to change over two decades has brought about more demanding and value‐conscious customers along with an information technology revolution. Corporate culture is seen as a litmus test, shaping changes in performance and unifying the social dimensions of an organisation. Privatisation has seen changes emerge in some companies more dominantly than in others. Uses this background as a building block to articulate detailed empirical research that has been conducted within three formerly nationalised companies: The National Remote Sensing Centre, Royal Ordnance Environmental and The Stationery Office. Concludes that pre‐privatisation, notions of quality of service, lower prices and working for the good of consumers was not achieved, as profits were not seen as a commercial requirement. Of the companies researched, two seemed to be strongly influenced by the culture of their parent company. Two companies that have adapted a marketing culture seem to have fared better than the company with a strong financial culture. All three companies experienced difficulty in breaking free from an inbred philosophy of production orientation.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.