Globalization means different things to different people. Privatization has come to mean the same thing with the concept of globalization. This is because privatization like, liberal democracy is a gospel of Europe and America meant to collapse the entire world system into a global village.
Thus, the world has now become bigger and complex in outlook with near free entry and exit in terms of market formations, fewer barriers, faster and better communications and transport linkages, freer and easier and more global capital flows, large and vicious competition for market at both local, national, regional, international and, in fact global levels (Kande, 2005). Thus organizations and nations state are constantly repositioning for their own advantage as product cycles and design cycles have become shorter bringing about faster reaction cycles.
From the foregoing, privatization and liberalization have almost become a collective development responsibility of nation-states with each synchronizing and harmonizing its socio-economic, political and cultural interests with other nations of the world. The import of the mutual relationship, to this researcher is largely to share with others the responsibility for repair and maintenance of building natural development plans for overall socio-economic growth, development and sustainability.
Privatization and liberalization in global perspective therefore preoccupies itself with the setting of bench-marks and the adoption of new innovations and best socio-economic practices, discipline and the aspirations to kick-start ailing economies of backward and nations of the world. Globalization and liberalization therefore is not only an African content. It is a practice emanating from the West, and then, imposed on undeveloped worlds as a way out of misery. In Africa as a whole, various concerns have been expressed on anticipated benefits of privatization and liberalization. Central to this school of thought are questions of ownership, the fate of labour, the idea of transparency, the socio-economic implications of these practices and the considerations of social contracts and responsibility and responsiveness on the part of state actors in the interest of all and sundry (Wogu, 2007).
However, social science scholars who have professed privatization and liberalization have equally outlined long term advantages, particularly in the area of promoting economic growth, development and sustainability. A critical assessment of this trends of global dimension could and of course, may subject Third World states on highly disadvantaged position. Conversely, despite the many sides of privatization and liberalization as a universal tradition, the issue of ownership and participation becomes a major stumbling block in the development concerns of the people of Africa (Ake, 2001). Of utmost interest to this researcher is that these appears to be gross absence of any form of mass privatization or capitalization programme anywhere in sub-Saharan Africa.
It is therefore indisputable that privatization process in Africa, like those of the European countries of Britain, Germany, Ireland, among others, have been very slow. However, it is not surprising to equally judge the low level of performance and subsistence of privatization programme in this part of the world due to general lack of transparency, low political will, corruption and lack of policy implementation on a general scale (Erunke, 2007). This scenario appears to be an existing gap in literature as it concerns privatization and liberalization in global scale.
Apparently, the European Union appears to have created a single market for goods and services in the 1990s in principle. In actual practice, many barriers to cross border transactions have remained in place (Cole, 1998). A glaring case of cross-border distortions assumes greater dimensions when one consider the upward and/or downward swing of global crude oil prices in the international market until recently where there appear to be sudden skyrocketing of crude oil prices.
The researcher is of the view that while privatization and liberalization in Europe (especially in such areas as telecom, education, railway and water supply, among others) and America has assumed a successful dimensions, African privatization process has failed (Cole, 1988). For example, the European Union Commission has vowed to continue to promote access to local loop to force down call charges and internet costs. This is rather strange in the African context. Nigeria, for example has restricted its communications industry to only few companies (MTN, ZAIN, MTEL, and GLO networks).
This largely accounts for why there has been poor network and service delivery in recent times. However, it can be argued that the liberalization of the energy sectors in Europe has proved considerately difficult in recent times. However, in 2002, the EU reached an agreement for full energy liberalization by 2007 which was a major step forward. Needless to say that EU countries like France, Belgium, Greece and Ireland, for example, still control about 90 percent of the electricity market (Majone, 2003). These quasi-monopolies use their dominant position to keep out competitors. It is rather very doubtful that without the push from the EU, these countries would have succeeded in opening their energy market for competition (Majone, 2003).