This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Privatization article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Business Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Economics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: Libertarianism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as Mid-importance). Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Absolute Majority agreed about Privatization in Eastern Europe which was strong Positive Some economists wrote down "this is No brainer" I think this source is useful http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/privatization-in-central-and-eastern-europe Shfur0306 (talk) 12:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Privatization unquestionably allowed corruption to take greater hold in eastern europe. The mechanism is obvious: while state capitalism implied concentrated corruption intranationally, privatization allowed corruption to flow into these countries internationally.

Eastern europe is not filled with miracle economies like the spanish miracle or the chinese miracle. The contrast should be obvious, and it would have been famous otherwise. Houseratz (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a specific mechanism created by IMF, World Bank and USA to impose privatizations on the poorer countries, it even has an article here in wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus

So, why is there no mention here? This article is like as if privatization is a matter of taste. It's not! 79.166.6.229 (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some points in the section regarding arguments against privatization have catches and ", but..." while the ones on the arguments for privatization don't. Considering that this article is politics-adjacent it might be a good idea to review some of them. Potential solutions could be attaching individual reference markers on each point to prevent potential opinionated arguments or just cutting of the sentence in the arguments that denounces itself. ~2025-40881-93 (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]