denationalising

简明释义

英[/ˌdiːˈnæʃənəlaɪzɪŋ/]美[/ˌdiːˈnæʃənəlaɪzɪŋ/]

v. （使）非国有化；（使）失去独立国地位（等于 denationalize）

第 三 人 称 单 数 d e n a t i o n a l i s e s

现 在 分 词 d e n a t i o n a l i s i n g

过 去 式 d e n a t i o n a l i s e d

过 去 分 词 d e n a t i o n a l i s e d

英英释义

单词用法

同义词

反义词

例句

1.The government is considering denationalising the telecommunications sector to encourage competition.

政府正在考虑去国有化电信行业以促进竞争。

2.Many argue that denationalising public services could lead to better efficiency.

许多人认为，去国有化公共服务可能会提高效率。

3.The process of denationalising state-owned enterprises can be complex and controversial.

对国有企业进行去国有化的过程可能是复杂且有争议的。

4.After denationalising the railways, the government saw an increase in private investment.

在去国有化铁路后，政府看到了私人投资的增加。

5.Critics of denationalising argue that it can lead to a decline in service quality.

反对去国有化的人士认为这可能导致服务质量下降。

作文

In recent years, the concept of denationalising has gained significant attention in various political and economic discussions. Denationalising refers to the process of transferring ownership or control of a public service or asset from the government to private entities. This shift can lead to a variety of outcomes, both positive and negative, depending on the context and implementation. In this essay, I will explore the implications of denationalising in different sectors, particularly in healthcare, education, and infrastructure. One of the most prominent examples of denationalising is the privatization of healthcare systems. Countries like the United Kingdom have seen debates surrounding the National Health Service (NHS), which has been under pressure to incorporate private providers. Proponents argue that denationalising healthcare can lead to increased efficiency, reduced wait times, and improved quality of care as competition drives innovation. However, critics warn that such a move could prioritize profit over patient care, leading to disparities in access and quality based on socioeconomic status. In the field of education, denationalising has manifested through the rise of charter schools and private institutions. Supporters claim that these alternatives provide parents with more choices and encourage schools to improve their performance through competition. However, opponents argue that denationalising education can result in a lack of accountability and oversight, potentially undermining the quality of education for students who remain in public schools. The debate continues as communities grapple with the implications of denationalising their educational systems. Infrastructure is another area where denationalising has sparked controversy. Governments often own and manage essential services such as transportation, utilities, and telecommunications. When these sectors are denationalised, private companies take over the operations, which can lead to improved services and investment in technology. However, there are concerns regarding the potential for monopolies to form, resulting in higher costs for consumers and decreased service quality. The balance between private profit and public good becomes a critical issue in the discussion of denationalising infrastructure. Ultimately, the decision to denationalise must be approached with caution and a thorough understanding of the potential consequences. While there can be benefits in terms of efficiency and innovation, it is crucial to ensure that the needs of the public are prioritized. Policymakers must consider the long-term effects on society, especially for vulnerable populations who may be disproportionately affected by denationalising essential services. In conclusion, denationalising represents a complex and multifaceted process that requires careful consideration and robust debate. As we navigate the challenges and opportunities presented by denationalising public services, it is essential to prioritize equity, accessibility, and the common good. Only through thoughtful dialogue and informed decision-making can we truly harness the potential benefits of denationalising while mitigating its risks.

近年来，“denationalising”这一概念在各种政治和经济讨论中引起了显著关注。Denationalising指的是将公共服务或资产的所有权或控制权从政府转移到私人实体的过程。这一转变可能导致多种结果，无论是积极的还是消极的，具体取决于背景和实施方式。在这篇文章中，我将探讨在医疗、教育和基础设施等不同领域中denationalising的影响。 Denationalising最明显的例子之一是医疗保健系统的私有化。像英国这样的国家在围绕国家健康服务体系（NHS）的辩论中，面临着将私人提供者纳入的压力。支持者认为，denationalising医疗保健可以提高效率、减少等待时间，并通过竞争推动创新，从而改善护理质量。然而，批评者警告说，这样的举动可能会优先考虑利润而非患者护理，导致基于社会经济地位的获取和质量差异。 在教育领域，denationalising通过特许学校和私人机构的兴起表现出来。支持者声称，这些替代方案为家长提供了更多选择，并通过竞争鼓励学校提高绩效。然而，反对者认为，denationalising教育可能导致缺乏问责制和监督，潜在地削弱留在公立学校学生的教育质量。随着社区努力应对denationalising教育系统的影响，辩论仍在继续。 基础设施是另一个引发争议的领域，当denationalising发生时，政府通常拥有和管理交通、公共事业和电信等基本服务。当这些部门被denationalised时，私人公司接管运营，这可能导致服务改善和技术投资。然而，人们担心垄断可能形成，导致消费者成本上升和服务质量下降。在讨论denationalising基础设施时，私人利益与公共利益之间的平衡成为关键问题。 最终，denationalise的决定必须谨慎对待，并深入理解潜在后果。尽管在效率和创新方面可能存在好处，但确保公众需求优先是至关重要的。政策制定者必须考虑对社会的长期影响，尤其是那些可能受到denationalising基本服务不成比例影响的弱势群体。 总之，denationalising代表了一个复杂而多面的过程，需要谨慎考虑和强有力的辩论。随着我们应对denationalising公共服务所带来的挑战和机遇，优先考虑公平、可及性和共同利益至关重要。只有通过深思熟虑的对话和明智的决策，我们才能真正利用denationalising的潜在好处，同时降低其风险。