29 Three questions of privatization

Privatization cuts through borders and cultures and is driven by a complex set of factors, partly ideological and partly economic. It can lead to new forms of government action and should therefore be a major focus of public law, both constitutional and adminis-trative.1 Privatization decisions are policy choices, but these choices also have legal rel-evance. Its opposite, nationalization, has always been discussed not only as a matter of public policy but also as a matter of law, due to its impact on property rights. This under-standing should serve as a catalyst for further study of the public law of privatization. The current fi nancial crisis has reinvigorated discussion of nationalization initiatives in the form of bailout programs or partial government takeovers. Nevertheless, nation-alization is still perceived as an exception, which retains as its long- term goal a return to private ownership. The current crisis is yet another illuminating example of the impor-tance of regulating private activities, a central issue to any discussion of the public law of privatization. Legal scholarship has already begun discussing the implications of privatization for public law but, so far, without off ering a general framework for analysis. By contrast