Chandra Wijayanto
PARIS – Essential public services in various countries are reportedly on the brink of crisis. Two prominent sociologists, Dominique Glaymann and Nadege Vezinat, have expressed deep concern regarding the impact of policies that have adopted private enterprise models over the last fifty years. They warn that this approach systematically weakens public service functions and places excessive pressure on its agents, as articulated in their opinion piece in the daily newspaper Le Monde.
This critique comes as a crucial call amidst a global debate about efficiency and humanism in governance. Glaymann and Vezinat explicitly state that the obsession with profitability and corporate-style performance metrics has eroded the very core of public service: dedication to the community.
Private business models, prioritizing cost efficiency and market orientation, have been aggressively applied to vital sectors such as education, healthcare, transport, and administration. Consequently, instead of improving quality, there has been an erosion of quality and accessibility for the wider public.
The sociologists highlight how this pressure manifests among public service agents. They are often confronted with unrealistic targets, a lack of resources, and stifling bureaucracy. This impacts not only their work motivation but also their mental and physical well-being.
Dominique Glaymann states, Rather than sacrificing public services and their users, we advocate for giving them back resources and meaning. This statement underscores the necessity of a paradigm shift from a market-based approach towards restoring the fundamental values of public service.
Nadege Vezinat adds that policies adopted over the last half-century based on the private enterprise model lead to the weakening of public services and put pressure on their agents. This is an accumulation of problems that can no longer be ignored.
The implications of these policies are extensive. Society, especially vulnerable groups, directly experiences the impact through long queues, complicated procedures, and reduced access to basic services. This phenomenon is ironic, considering the initial purpose of public service is to serve without discrimination.
In several parts of the world, similar issues have come into focus. For instance, in Germany, criticism of slow national infrastructure has sparked debate about the effectiveness of management models. As reported in Germany a 'Banana Republic'? Entrepreneurs Criticize Slow National Infrastructure, public infrastructure problems hindered by slow decision-making or bureaucracy reflect pressure on the public service system.
The pressure on public service agents is also felt in the education sector. A clear example occurred in Berlin, where an educational crisis was exacerbated by hundreds of teachers suffering from chronic illness, highlighting extreme workloads and a lack of support. The article Berlin Education Crisis: Hundreds of Teachers Chronically Ill, Workload Under Scrutiny illustrates how human resources in public services experience significant pressure.
Glaymann and Vezinat propose that governments and policymakers re-evaluate the philosophy behind public services. They call for reinvestment in infrastructure, training, and agent well-being, as well as an emphasis on service quality over mere quantity or financial targets.
Restoring the meaning of public services means prioritizing the collective interest above short-term economic calculations. This requires political courage to reject market logic, which tends to objectify people and reduce social values.
Both sociologists argue that society also has a role in demanding accountability and quality of service. Public support can be a catalyst for the necessary changes to restore the dignity of public services.
This debate becomes even more relevant in 2026, as the world faces complex challenges such as climate change, social inequality, and economic instability. Strong and competitive public services are the primary foundation for building community resilience.
The transformation towards human-centered public services will require multi-stakeholder dialogue involving governments, trade unions, academics, and civil society. The main goal is to create a system that is just, responsive, and sustainable.
Ultimately, Glaymann and Vezinat's appeal is a reminder that public services are not merely bureaucratic machines, but vital lifelines connecting citizens with the state, ensuring basic rights and collective well-being. Sacrificing them for illusory efficiency is too great a gamble.
Editorial Insight:
Glaymann and Vezinat's perspective opens our eyes to the latent dangers of overly market-oriented policies in the public sector. With this report, it is hoped that governments can take concrete steps to restore the essence of public service, which is oriented towards the community, not profit figures. A swift response to such criticism is crucial to maintain public trust and ensure the continued function of the state in serving its people in this 2026 era.
