I had seen that article in my research, but hadn't gotten around to reading through it yet. It actually seems to agree with an article I just finished from the Reason Foundation, as far as the reasons for the failure in Westchester.
From the nytimes article you cited:
New York Times wrote:Officials here say there were many causes of Rural Metro's problems, including hostility from unionized firefighters across the New York region who conducted a campaign intended to make residents of Rye Brook fear that they were being inadequately protected by the company. There was also hostility from volunteer firefighters who saw the company as a threat to old social traditions in many small towns.
...
Robert W. Bailey, a professor of public policy at Rutgers University in Camden, said that in many community fire departments, there are social and union traditions that may be considered valuable, but that a corporate vendor may not understand. Officials should be skeptical of privatization of services like fire protection, Mr. Bailey said. Basic municipal services, he said, ''are associated with cultural and political values.''
It appears to me that some of the main causes are the "old social traditions", and "cultural and political values", present in those towns, as well as the organized unions opposing the introduction of private competition. The article from Reason indicates that in the areas in the U.S. where private fire-fighting services have gotten off the ground, they were founded while the communities they served were still relatively young and had no tradition of municipal provision of fire-fighting services, nor, of course, any unions present to oppose them. They cite numerous studies examining the quality of service provided, the costs incurred, and even the quality of the morale and job-satisfaction of the employees, (one of the companies, Rural/Metro, was sold to its employees by the owner), and find advantages in favor of the private companies across all of these areas.
Fire Protection Privatization: A Cost-Effective Approach to Public Safety wrote:This report looks at the experience of fire rotection privatization. The report uses two basic methods to accomplish this task. The first is to examine case studies to see how private fire protection services are provided in different contexts—subscription, special districts, municipal contract, and industrial—and why they are successful. This examination will include a look at how one private company provides fire services to half the population of Denmark, while simultaneously providing a number of other emergency services.
The second method is to look at empirical studies which evaluate the comparative performance of private-sector and public-sector fire services. The chief study examined is the University City Science Center's 1989 analysis of the privately operated Scottsdale (Arizona) Fire Department. This comprehensive study compares private- and public-sector performance in terms of cost and quality, and discusses how private-sector fire companies achieve cost savings.
From that study, you appear to be correct in your prediction that Denmark has strict regulations of both municipal and private fire brigades:
Fire Protection Privatization: A Cost-Effective Approach to Public Safety wrote:Like Danish municipal fire departments, Falck's fire brigades operate under strict national regulations which specify, for example, specific equipment and personnel levels. Danish law also requires that a publicly employed fire chief be assigned to each local fire department that relies on private contractors for its service, to ensure that all regulations are met.
But they draw the conclusion that competition is the driving force behind their lower costs, rather than the regulation:
Fire Protection Privatization: A Cost-Effective Approach to Public Safety wrote:As pointed out by Kristensen, the force which encourages Falck to constantly look for ways to expand its services, reduce its costs, and improve the quality of services, is competition. The ability of alternative service providers to step in and take away Falck's customers is what drives Falck to be a dynamic and flexible organization. Rarely facing competition and even more rarely capable of providing services beyond a given political boundary, municipal fire departments cannot be expected to operate as efficiently and innovatively as private fire and emergency companies.
In the Adam Smith Institute's 1989 report, The Burning Question, which examined British fire service, Michael Simmonds noted that while fire services in both the United Kingdom and Denmark were the responsibility of the local government but regulated by central government, the overall cost of Denmark's service was considerably lower than the U.K.'s. Citing the figures presented below on fire cost as a percentage of gross domestic product, Simmonds suggested that the competitive pressure provided by Falck is a major factor in Denmark's ability to provide low-cost fire service.
In any case, I think I shall take as my working conclusion in this matter an agreement with you that "Fire protection is certainly amenable to being privatized", and further, (in agreement with the article from Reason), that it appears to, in many cases, reduce costs while not suffering a reduction in quality.
Here is the link to the paper from Reason, if you or others are ever interested in reading it. It's 46 pages long, (since they do a rather thorough investigation), but 6 pages of that is citations and it didn't take me too long to read through.
"We may become the makers of our fate when we have ceased to pose as its prophets."
~ The Open Society and Its Enemies by Karl Popper
