Governments worldwide face an enduring challenge: delivering efficient public services while maintaining democratic accountability. Traditional public sector management often suffers from political interference, bureaucratic inefficiency, and weak financial controls. Yet full privatisation frequently triggers public backlash, particularly in healthcare, education, and essential services.
Corporatisation emerges as a middle path—creating government-owned entities managed like private businesses. However, this approach generates its own scepticism, with critics viewing it as “privatisation by stealth” or a betrayal of public service principles.
Historical precedent spans millennia, from Persian Empire state enterprises to modern Scandinavian public service companies. Sweden pioneered systematic disaggregation of public service provision in the 17th century. Today, corporatised entities dominate public sectors across Western Europe, managing utilities, hospitals, airports, and universities.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s Health Transformation Program exemplifies large-scale corporatisation. Since 2016, the programme has restructured healthcare delivery for 168 million patients through 20 provider clusters, demonstrating that systematic reform can achieve both efficiency gains and improved service quality when properly implemented.
Research shows corporatised entities typically achieve greater financial transparency, reduced political interference, and enhanced managerial accountability. They can access capital markets more easily and implement performance-based management systems. However, success depends critically on design and implementation quality.
Five core concerns drive public scepticism about corporatisation initiatives. First, the “corporate” terminology itself creates confusion about public ownership and democratic accountability. Citizens struggle to reconcile business-like management with public service missions.
Second, many view corporatisation as incremental privatisation—a way to introduce market mechanisms without political risks associated with direct asset sales. This perception stems from neoliberal reform patterns across multiple jurisdictions.
Third, corporatised entities often become isolated silos, abandoning cross-subsidisation that traditionally supported non-revenue services like primary healthcare or libraries. Managers focus narrowly on their organisation rather than on broader public objectives.
Fourth, performance incentives can create perverse outcomes. Market-oriented management styles may prioritise short-term financial metrics over long-term public value, treating citizens as customers rather than stakeholders with democratic rights.
Healthcare corporatisation presents unique complexities requiring careful contractual arrangements. Private ownership models create inherent tensions between profit generation and universal access principles.
Key risks include service withdrawal based purely on financial considerations, cherry-picking profitable patients while deterring complex cases, and supplier-induced demand when payment links to activity volumes. Cost-shifting to patients through parking fees or premium services can undermine equity principles.
Quality concerns emerge when profit pressures encourage lower staffing levels or reduced training investment. Prevention and community health programmes may suffer if they don’t generate immediate revenue returns.
Ten strategic principles can transform corporatisation from a source of public anxiety into a driver of improved services. First, terminology matters—calling entities “Public Service Companies” or “Public Service Vehicles” clearly signals public benefit orientation from the outset.
Second, mandate explicit equity requirements ensuring fair service provision across social groups. Third, establish robust monitoring systems preventing under-investment or aggressive cost-cutting that compromises long-term sustainability.
Fourth, implement transparent quality improvement frameworks with public reporting requirements. Fifth, create formal accountability mechanisms linking service providers directly to public oversight bodies.
Sixth, ensure transparent communication of operating mandates and service decisions to maintain democratic legitimacy. Seventh, prioritise merit-based recruitment at competitive salary levels while fostering accountability culture throughout organisations.
Eighth, demonstrate financial and political sustainability through adequate resource allocation and multi-level government support. Ninth, invest in comprehensive coaching and mentoring programmes showing genuine commitment to staff development.
Tenth, maintain proactive communication strategies preventing rumour circulation and negative media narratives that can undermine public confidence.
Successful corporatisation requires rejecting false choices between pure public provision and full privatisation. The model works when designed with public purpose at its centre, supported by robust governance frameworks and transparent accountability mechanisms.
Ring-fencing financial and managerial responsibilities need not create impermeable barriers. Effective corporatisation includes cooperation mechanisms and holistic planning approaches that preserve public service integration where beneficial.
Leadership appointments must balance private sector efficiency expertise with public service commitment. Merit-based selection should draw from both sectors while ensuring appointees understand democratic accountability requirements.
Corporatisation represents neither panacea nor betrayal of public service principles. Success depends on implementation quality, governance design, and sustained commitment to public value creation alongside operational efficiency.
Governments considering corporatisation should prioritise public engagement from the outset, clearly articulating how the model serves citizen interests rather than simply copying private sector practices. Transparency about trade-offs and constraints builds trust more effectively than overselling potential benefits.
The Saudi experience shows that large-scale transformation is possible when supported by clear vision, adequate resources, and systematic implementation. However, context matters—successful models require adaptation to local political culture, institutional capacity, and citizen expectations.
Future reform initiatives should embed evaluation mechanisms from the beginning, enabling course corrections based on evidence rather than ideology. The goal remains better public services that serve all citizens effectively while maintaining democratic accountability and public trust.
From a footnote in the annual report to an integral part of business strategy, the understanding of sustainability has changed dramatically since the 1960s. We ask: what next?
The transformation that’s needed in healthcare can be overwhelming and necessitate substantial investments in finance, technology, human capital, operations, infrastructure, substantial disinvestment of legacy resources, redesign of workflows and pathways, and enhancement of collaboration across the system.
As the traditional avenues of corporate growth become less attractive, many companies find the appeal of new venture strategies harder to resist. Though difficult to implement and often slow to repay investment, these strategies do offer the promise of facilitating entry into new business areas with innovative, usually technology-based products. And for large companies with many layers of management and detailed control systems, ventures offer the special promise of recapturing some vital spark of entrepreneurial energy.
Get in touch with us or Find an office closest to you
