2 ms·

I don't know of any study showing they are more efficient, but if they were, they would achive that efficiency by refusing to serve difficult markets. As part o

I don't know of any study showing they are more efficient, but if they were, they would achive that efficiency by refusing to serve difficult markets. As part of their charter, USPS provides coverage to remote and rural areas that can't be easily served and that private services neglect. Also, the USPS has had potentially businesss-killing policies legislated into their finances by a hostile Congress, like requring pensions to be pre-funded seventy-five years in advance over a ten-year period. That's not to say the Post Office is as efficient as it could be. But the services it offers (e.g., bank substitute in impoverished neighborhoods for check cashing/money orders, not to mention significant employer) are vital to American small businesses and communities.

arp242 6y ago
In the Netherlands the postal service was privatized over 20 years ago, but they're still beholden to various special laws which says they need to service everyone, need to deliver mail within a fixed timeframe, etc. Similar rules apply to the privatized railways, telephone system, health insurance, etc. I don't really know if any of this was a good move or not – I'm too young to remember the pre-privatisation era – but overall it seems to work reasonably well; certainly not as dysfunctional as the USPS seems to be. Either way, my point is that privatisation doesn't need to lead to the USPS refusing to serve difficult markets.