Nationalization

Nationalization was one of the major mechanisms advocated by reformist socialists and social democrats for gradually transitioning to socialism. In this context, the goals of nationalization were to dispossess large capitalists, redirect the profits of industry to the public purse, and establish some form of workers' self-management as a precursor to the establishment of a socialist economic system.^[6]

Although sometimes undertaken as part of a strategy to build socialism, more commonly nationalization was also undertaken and used to protect and develop industries perceived as being vital to a nation's competitiveness (such as aerospace and shipbuilding), or to protect jobs in certain industries.

Nationalization has had varying levels of support throughout history. After the Second World War, nationalization was supported by some social democratic parties throughout Western Europe, such as the British Labour Party. In the United States, potentially nationalizing healthcare is often a topic of political disagreement and makes frequent appearances in debates between political candidates. A 2019 poll found that about half of residents support the measure.^[7]

A re-nationalization occurs when state-owned assets are privatized and later nationalized again, often when a different political party or faction is in power. A re-nationalization process may also be called "reverse privatization". Nationalization has been used to refer to either direct state-ownership and management of an enterprise or to a government acquiring a large controlling share of a publicly listed corporation.^{[citation needed]}

According to research by Paasha Mahdavi, leaders who consider nationalization face a dilemma: "nationalize and reap immediate gains while risking future prosperity, or maintain private operations, thereby passing on revenue windfalls but securing long-term fiscal streams."^[8] He argues that leaders "nationalize extractive resources to extend the duration of their power" by using "this increased capital to secure political support."^[8]

Nationalization can have positive and negative effects.^[9] In 2019 research based on studies from Greenwich University found that the nationalization of key services such as water, bus, railways and broadband in the United Kingdom could save £13bn every year.^[10]

Conversely, a 2019 assessment from the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that the Labour Party's proposed policies for nationalization would add at least £150bn to the national debt and make it harder for the United Kingdom to hit its climate change targets. This analysis was based on the assumption that the UK Government would have to pay the market rate for these industries.^[11]

Nationalization can produce adverse effects, such as reducing competition in the marketplace, which in turn reduces incentives to innovation and maintains high prices. In the short run, nationalization can provide a larger revenue stream for government but can cause the industry to falter in the longer run.^[12] The collapse of the Venezuelan oil industry, due to government mismanagement, is a case in point.^[13]

Expropriation is the seizure of private property by a public agency for a purpose deemed to be in the public interest. It may also be used as a penalty for criminal proceedings.^[14] Expropriation differs from eminent domain in that the property owner is not compensated for the seized property. Unlike eminent domain, expropriation may also refer to the taking of private property by a private entity authorized by a government to take property in certain situations.

Due to political risks that are involved when countries engage in international business, it is important to understand the expropriation risks and laws within each of the countries in which business is conducted in order to understand the risks as an investor in that country.^[15]

Studies have found that nationalization follows a cyclical trend. Nationalization rose in the 1960s and 1970s, followed by an increase in privatization in the 80s and 90s, followed again by an increase in nationalization in the 2000s and 2010s.^[16]

The term appears as "expropriation of expropriators (ruling classes)" in Marxist theory, and also as the slogan "Loot the looters!" ("грабь награбленное"), which was very popular during the Russian October Revolution.^[17] The term is also used to describe nationalization campaigns by communist states, such as dekulakization and collectivization in the USSR.^[18]

However, nationalization is not a specifically socialist strategy, and Marxism's founders were skeptical of its value. As Engels put it:

Therein precisely lies the rub; for, so long as the propertied classes remain at the helm, nationalisation never abolishes exploitation but merely changes its form — in the French, American or Swiss republics no less than in monarchist Central, and despotic Eastern, Europe.

— Friedrich Engels, Letter from Engels to Max Oppenheim, 24 March 1891

Nikolai Bukharin also criticised the term nationalisation, preferring the term statisation instead.^[19]

Look up nationalization in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

• The importance of public banking^[usurped], article on Indian public sector banks
• Time for Permanent Nationalization by economist Fred Moseley in Dollars & Sense, January/February 2009
• The Corporate Governance of Banks – a concise discussion of concepts and evidence
• Davies, Albert Emil (1922). "Nationalization" . Encyclopædia Britannica (12th ed.).