I assume that performance of a system depends largely on how efficient its administration is. Why private firms perform far better than public ones? I think it is because a private company has “a” owner. The owner has direct interest in running the system efficiently. And he can manage very well as he has the sole authority. Yeah, it is an example of central administration and no one other than the owner has “complete” autonomy to take any decision.
Competition makes things better
What if the owner of a private firm is not able to manage efficiently? The answer is very simple, he will make loss in business and some other private companies will conquer his business empire. For e. g., Hero-Honda motorbikes almost kicked Bajaj scooter manufacturer out of business and Google became king in online business.
Monarchy is a centralized system just like private companies, so it can be run efficiently if the monarch is able enough. What if the monarch is not efficient? The answer is same, he will loss his kingdom to an efficient monarch. Take the example of Chandragupta. Dhana Nanda had a very big empire but he was not a efficient manager. Chandragupta not only annexed Nanda’s kingdom but also he conquered most part of present day's India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. And really Chandragupta’s rule was one of the most prosperous epochs in Indian history. There are many other examples like Kharavela, Kaniska, Vikramadiya and Sher Shah Suri.
The only difference being, in the case of capitalism the mode competition is business whereas monarchs have to go to war.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment