The problem with this approach is that these are entities which were entirely paid for by the population. Tax dollars built the company, and further taxes plus

The problem with this approach is that these are entities which were entirely paid for by the population. Tax dollars built the company, and further taxes plus operating fees were paid by the population to keep it running. Unless the business was able to sell services to foreign states (like how electricity is often exported), then the entity exists solely on the backs of the population. A sell off is rarely going to result in more than what the population has already paid towards the business. It turns into a short-sighted budget booster while depriving the population of the unique advantages of state-held entities, such as not needing to turn a profit, having to answer to elected representatives, the power to change the management, or hold priorities that solely benefit the population (such as performing costly upgrades for economic or national security purpose). When looking at utilities there are few avenues that the new owner can take to improve profit other than cost-cutting exercises and increasing fees. Neither of these weren't possible beforehand, but an entity that needs to make profit to justify the purchase price will find ways of generating that profit. This is usually where the problems start - it's the assumption that a private profit driven entity possesses unique market knowledge, efficiencies and access to larger scales of economies that weren't available to prior company management. In most situations these benefits are overstated and don't render any real benefit to the population, instead the business usually increases costs at an outpaced rate (hello inflation) due to having a state granted monopoly and this levies the entire population with a higher cost of doing business for the long term.