Is security a collective good? What are the theoretical and practical implications if it is conceptualised as a commodity? This article from the European Journal of International Relations examines the implications of the shift from states to markets in the provision of security. It argues that the shift from public to private provision of security is not merely a change of means. Rather it has significant implications for the conceptualisation and implementation of security in the new millennium.
A collective good is non-excludable – potential users cannot be excluded from it – it provides the same benefits irrespective of the number of beneficiaries. Three forms of security can be distinguished: prevention, deterrence and protection. Prevention is non-excludable and non-rival, deterrence is typically excludable, but non-rival, and protection is both excludable and rival. Due to the free-rider problem, markets are more likely to provide excludable forms of security such as protection or deterrence rather than prevention. This suggests that the choice of market or state influences greatly the meaning and provision of security.
A theoretically grounded understanding of the differences between public and private provision of security is increasingly important, due to developments in Europe and North America:
- Private demand for security services has been expanding since the 1970s. Private protection has become the norm in previously public areas, while multinational corporations and NGOs increasingly use private security.
- The perceived upsurge in non-state security threats has fostered the impression that security can be better achieved by individual rather than collective measures.
- States are themselves becoming consumers of private security. As the range of services states buy from private security providers expands, so does the impact of the market on public security provision.
- At a general level, the market can shape state security policies by offering particular services. At a more specific level, the use of private contractors in defining and assessing threats and responses allows them to influence public security policies.
- who acquires security – commodification of security promotes an increase in the supply of security at the individual level, while national or international security provision remains steady or declines;
- the values that are secured – since private security suppliers profit from rivalry of consumption, they can be expected to promote individual over collective values;
- how much security is necessary – private security service providers have an interest in overstating the need for security in order to increase demand for their services;
- what threats are addressed – the private security market will focus more on individual threats, such as the threat of terrorism to individuals and businesses, rather than collective threats;
- the cost of security – while private security providers can provide security more cost-efficiently in some cases, private security can also lead to increased costs for both governments and individuals; and
- the period in which security is provided – the market is likely to offer only short-term security, since it fails to address the causes of a threat.
