Scholars studying the privatization of security - both in the domestic and the international arena - increasingly recognize the relevance of "ideational" phenomena like ideas and norms. In particular neoliberal thinking is advertised as a crucial factor in explaining privatization. Yet, this relatively loosely defined variable –associated with a decentralized state, and/or superiority of private actors- cannot illuminate exactly what and how is privatized. Neoliberal thinking is presented as a driver of a series of distinct practices, which include not only direct state outsourcing to private military and security companies (PMSCs) but also the promotion of private-private contracts of PMSC and even private financing of states'' armed forces. Using the crisis of piracy at sea as an empirical example, this paper shows the limits of the misleading dichotomy of state and markets to account for the richness of the policy debate, and the variation in state’s policies. It follows an actor based discourse analysis approach, mixing inductive coding and deductive categories taken from Thompson, Ellis and Wildavsky’s Cultural Theory of Risk. Using examples from parliamentary debates in Spain, France, the US and the UK, it examines the interaction and evolution of different arguments and legitimatory practices for the use of private security. This paper suggests that there are competing discourses of privatization of security and that the use of PMSC against piracy is increasingly sustained by a particular one, which legitimates PMSC action, but also sets stricter limits to the future expansion of the security industry.
