Outsourcing is becoming an increasingly prevalent phenomenon not only in business life, but also in the affairs of governments and in the lives of individuals and families. But what exactly is outsourcing and what are its consequences? I will argue that outsourcing offers entities a set of freedoms (i.e., possibilities of action and non‐action) that are not considered possible in this practice’s absence. However, many of these freedoms are precarious in that they involve a multitude of risks and dangers both for those outsourcing their affairs and for those who take them on. Although there are multiple freedoms of this sort, one is focused upon here; how outsourcing allows entities to contract, in the sense of limiting, their responsibilities. Three specific ways in which outsourcing allows entities to do this are detailed. Recognizing this precarious aspect of the freedoms associated with outsourcing is important because it highlights the social risks involved in this practice.

No abstract

No abstract

In its Final Report to Congress, the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan (2011) highlighted how "U.S. agencies engaged contractors at unprecedented levels to help achieve mission objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan" (p. 16). On one hand, this Report notes how this extensive reliance on "contractors frees the military to use service members primarily for warfighting," presumably one of its core activities (Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, 2011, p. 29). On the other hand, this reliance on contractors "[c]reates unreasonable risks to mission objectives or other key U.S. interests" not found when the military keeps its affairs in-house (Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, 2011, p. 19). One such risk comes from the possibility of a contractor becoming unavailable as a result of them "walking off the job … [especially] when there is no timely backup available" (Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, 2011, p. 48). Another is how relying on contractors "for so much professional and technical expertise eventually leads to the government's losing much of its mission-essential organic [i.e. internal] capability" (Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, 2011, p. 19). A third relates to how even though some activities are so intimately tied to the core operations of the State they are designated as being inherently governmental thereby 845177S GOXXX10.

No abstract