It is always harder to fight for the good things which might have been, but aren't, than to deal with clear and present catastrophes. That is, until the absence of what should have been becomes an obvious catastrophe.

Actual losses are always more urgent than missed market opportunities; but in the longer run, a company that misses opportunities has only one way to go, and that is down.

In the area of privatisation of State companies, we generally don't hear urgent talk that "something has to be done". In general, the connection with real problems being solved is not made. An exception is transport, where the problems are seen and felt, and so the private sector operation of buses is being seen as part of a solution.

This explains the rather strange aura behind the question asked on Questions and Answers last Monday as to whether we had had enough privatisation now. Enough? Not much apart from Eircom and Cablelink has happened yet. There are plans for Aer Rianta, Aer Lingus, aspects of the digital broadcasting network, and even State-owned forests under Coillte. The State banks, ACC and ICC, have been through the privatisation process and emerged un-privatised.

People do not seem to have a good idea why privatisation or restructuring is needed or desirable. It seems remote from the real-life issues that concern them.

Part of the reason for this must be the Government's often-repeated policy that it will deal with semi-state companies on a "case-by-case basis". A "case-bycase" basis sounds good, like what a doctor does for each individual patient. Who would want a one-prescription-fits-all policy from their GP, let alone their surgeon? Why should company doctors be otherwise?

Surely there must be some common approach to help judge what is the appropriate medicine in each case.

A start would be to set out what problems are worth addressing. Cost-effective service levels for the public is an obvious one. Buses and trains matter a lot, but State banks don't. The public is not clamouring for a sale or restructuring of ACC Bank or ICC, as it is for better transport.

But if it understood that the capital - their taxes - tied up in ACC and ICC could be applied to the provision of buses or, even more vitally, health services, then it might be a different matter. One of the down sides of having extra cash in the State coffers is that these types of trade-offs are ignored and money is wasted.

The public is hardly very excited either about Aer Rianta, competition for airport services and what proportion of the company should be floated. Nor would it appear to be worked up about Sile de Valera's plans to keep RTE out of the digital TV network company. These issues are hotly contested by private interests who stand to gain or lose.

The public interest is not clearly communicated. The case-by-case approach means that each and every issue has to be gone into in depth, and that is too demanding of public attention. Who would want to read every consultant's report on each State company?

A case-by-case approach permits inconsistencies, deliberately. For example, there is no consistency between the approach taken to the role of competition in digital broadcasting infrastructure and airport infrastructure. In one, competition is to the fore; in the other, it is seen as irrelevant if a sound regulatory system is in place.

There is no consistency between the flotation of a minority stake in Aer Rianta for the purpose of allowing the company to raise capital because the State won't fund it, and the State funding is a national stadium.

There is no consistency between saying majority State ownership of Aer Rianta must be preserved to ensure the provision of a vital public service, and having no State control over equally vital infrastructure such as telecommunications. This is creative inconsistency, it could be said.

And yes, let us wheel out the Emerson quotation: "A foolish consistency is hobgoblin of small minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines". I could add by columnists too. But he did say a foolish consistency, not all consistency.

The public can be forgiven for failing to understand what benefits are sought for the public interest in the restructuring of State enterprises. What problems are being addressed? What benefits will accrue?

Is there nothing that can be said that would explain why everything from a small business bank, to a forestry company, to vital infrastructure, is being reorganised?

It will be no surprise if the public sees privatisation as technical fiddling about, another game of competing institutional interests slugging it out among themselves. And the good things that might have been will never be seen.

Oliver O'Connor is editor of the monthly publication, Finance. E-mail:ooconnor@indigo.ie