There are a lot of opinions being floated here, so I feel free to float mine. I think that the use of private contractors for public works leads to corruption a

There are a lot of opinions being floated here, so I feel free to float mine. I think that the use of private contractors for public works leads to corruption and large cost overruns. It is a truism that government agencies lack competition, and thus can be less efficient and/or innovative compared to private enterprise. However, as we know, private enterprise's goal is profit, and profit only requires efficiency in the face of competition and price sensitivity of the consumer. While there can be competition and price sensitivity during contract bidding process, this can be corrupted through back door dealings, political donations, etc. Perhaps even more dire, is that government agencies may be bad at keeping contractors to the terms of their contract, being responsible for cost over-runs, etc, who actively wish to get the government to pay as much as possible. I think that infrastructure would be much cheaper if it were designed and built by government employees of the relevant agencies, because although they might not have extreme efficiency, they have no profit motive to swindle an inattentive government consumer. It is my opinion anyway. I do not have the resources to find the relevant data to see if there is a correlation in cost and private vs public employee construction. I'd like to see some empirical meat on my hunch. I did find several articles: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/us/13contractor.html https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/us/13contractor.html https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/09/18/do-private-contractors-save-the-government-money/#320b057e6266 https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/09/18/do-private-...