Privatization in PolandWhat was the government trying to achieve?1

This article uses the sequencing of privatization to infer the objective pursued by the Polish government in the privatization of its large manufacturing firms in the second half of the 1990s. We construct a model of mixed oligopoly and use it to evaluate the privatization process; our analysis is based on the assumption that firms which furthered the government's objective function the most would be chosen to be privatized first. Based on the features of the firms that were chosen for early privatization, our empirical analysis suggests that welfare maximization was more important than the desire to maximize the revenues from privatization and the government's budget or to minimize employment losses.     

Entry decision of a vertically integrated foreign firm with downstream subsidization and upstream privatization

This study considers a vertical structure model in which an upstream state-owned enterprise (SOE) and a downstream domestic firm compete with a vertically integrated foreign firm (VIFF). We consider the cost-inefficiency of the SOE and examine the entry decisions of a VIFF under downstream subsidization. We find that without upstream privatization, the VIFF's entry decision might not be socially desirable unless it enters both markets and the cost inefficiency is intermediate. Additionally, a policy to reduce the cost inefficiency might cause a drastic welfare increase or loss when the VIFF changes its entry decision. We then examine upstream privatization and show that a substantial improvement in cost efficiency can increase welfare with privatization. When the SOE maximizes welfare, however, lesser (greater) cost efficiency improvement is necessary to increase welfare with privatization if the ex-ante cost inefficiency is high (low).     

Industry and Labour: Class Struggle at Work and Monopoly Capitalism; Social Standing in America: New Dimensions of Class; Class Structure and Social Mobility in Poland

A very well-established economic literature maintains that state-owned enterprises (SOEs) are inefficient as compared to privately owned ones (POEs). In this paper, I argue that SOEs' inefficiency is not due to state ownership per se, but is rather caused conditions other than ownership, to which SOEs often — though not necessarily always — relate. In particular, I focus on dynamic efficiency — specifically, the production of technological innovation — of SOEs in manufacturing industries, where SOEs should contend with POEs in a competitive environment. I suggest that targeted measures, which are aimed at increasing managers' commitment to long-term investment strategies and at reducing corruption and political interference — albeit complex and difficult to implement — can be much more (positively) impactful on long-run technical progress than the simple privatization of companies. This leaves room for exploration and implementation of policies that might reconcile state ownership and market competition in industrial sectors.     

Of Carts and Horses: Regulation and Privatization in Telecommunications Reforms

In the early 1990s, many advocated quick privatization of state‐owned monopolies in developing countries, assuming that market institutions would develop once firms were privately owned. More recent thinking emphasizes establishing institutions conducive to promoting competition before privatization. To date little empirical work has informed the debate. This paper addresses this gap by testing whether establishing a regulatory authority prior to privatizing incumbent telecommunications firms matters. I find that countries that established regulatory authorities prior to privatization saw increased telecom investment and telephone penetration compared to countries that did not. Moreover, investors paid more for telecom firms in countries that established a regulator prior to privatization.     

Market and public provision in the presence of human capital externalities

For many goods and services, such as health, education, legal services, police protection, the cost incurred by an individual supplier for providing quality is affected by the human capital of her colleagues. The paper shows that this human capital externality is crucial to determine whether such goods and services should be privately or publicly provided. Public and private provisions give individuals different incentives to acquire human capital, and the paper shows that either may be socially preferable, depending on the nature of the human capital externality: private provision of the final goods and services gives stronger incentives to human capital acquisition (and may therefore be socially preferable) if own human capital and one's colleagues' human capital are substitutes, and if suppliers with high human capital benefit more than suppliers with low human capital from their colleagues' human capital, but not excessively so.     

HORIZONTAL MERGERS WITH CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT: WORKERS' COOPERATIVES AND THE MERGER PARADOX

We study the incentives towards horizontal merger among firms when the amount of capital is the strategic variable. We focus on workers' cooperatives, but our conclusions apply also to employment‐constrained profit maximizers. Within a simple oligopoly model, we prove that the horizontal merger, for any merger size, is: (i) privately efficient for insiders as well as for outsiders; (ii) socially efficient if market size is large enough, even in the case of merger to monopoly.     

Public Enterprise Privatization: A General Equilibrium Analysis

This paper develops a general equilibrium model to examine the short‐run and long‐run optimal privatization policies. By assuming that all firms are public firms initially, the paper focuses on how the degree of product differentiation γ and the average efficiency of the industry influence the determination of the optimal privatization policy. The paper shows that privatization decreases the more efficient firms' outputs while increases the less efficient firms' outputs in the short run, and reduces all firms' outputs in the long run. The paper also shows that the larger is γ and the smaller is the number of firms, the more privatized will be the public firm in the short run. Moreover, as γ or the entry barrier f_E is sufficiently small, full privatization is the best policy in the long run. On the contrary, as γ and f_E are large enough, partial privatization is optimal.     

Duopoly models with a joint capacity constraint

The paper proposes a two-stage mixed duopoly model of exhaustible resource market where at the first stage the government decides on the degree of privatization of public firm and at the second stage the public and private firms decide simultaneously on the two-period extraction paths. It is demonstrated that if the two firms have symmetric technologies with increasing marginal extraction costs and the same resource stocks, then neither full nationalization of any of the two firms nor full privatization will be socially desirable. It is shown that the presence of a semi-public firm improves intertemporal allocation of the fixed resource stock. Thus, partial privatization is optimal even under exogenously fixed total outputs of each firm. For asymmetric cost case, when the public firm is less efficient than the private firm, we derive the conditions under which full nationalization or full privatization is optimal.     

Optimal sequential contract with a risk‐averse supplier

We study optimal contracts in environments where a risk‐averse supplier discovers cost information privately and gradually over time: the supplier is privately informed about its cost uncertainty at the time of contracting and discovers the realization of cost condition privately after contracting and before production. We show that both the buyer and the supplier prefer more cost uncertainty when the supplier is not very risk‐averse but less cost uncertainty when the supplier is sufficiently risk‐averse. However, the buyer always prefers to contract before the cost uncertainty resolves regardless of the supplier's degree of risk aversion. The nature of the optimal contract also depends on the supplier's risk preference. A separating contract is optimal when the supplier is not very risk‐averse; however, a pooling contract, which offers the same contract terms regardless of the cost uncertainty, can be optimal when the supplier becomes sufficiently risk‐averse. Moreover, the optimal production schedule is often characterized by “inflexible rules.”     

Mixed duopoly, cross-ownership and partial privatization

This paper investigates the effects of cross-ownership on optimal privatization, and vice-versa, in mixed duopoly. It shows that cross-ownership is profitable to the private firm only if the level of privatization of the public firm is sufficiently high. In equilibrium, cross-ownership does not take place even if there is partial privatization. However, the possibility of cross-ownership significantly limits the socially optimal level of privatization in most of the situations. Moreover, it demonstrates that full nationalization is socially optimal, in case of sufficiently convex identical cost functions and homogeneous goods. These results have strong implications to both divestment and competition policies.     

Trade,tasks and training: The effect of offshoring on individual skill upgrading

We offer a theoretical explanation and empirical evidence for a positive link between increased offshoring and individual skill upgrading. Skill upgrading takes the form of on‐the‐job training, complementing the existing literature, which mainly focuses on the retraining of displaced workers. To establish a link between offshoring and on‐the‐job training, we introduce an individual skill upgrading margin into the Grossman and Rossi‐Hansberg ( 2008 ) model of offshoring. By scaling up worker's wages, offshoring creates previously unexploited skill upgrading possibilities, which lead to more training. Using data from German manufacturing, we establish a causal link between industry‐level offshoring growth and increased individual skill upgrading.     

Tariffs and privatization policy in a bilateral trade with corporate social responsibility

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become a global business strategy and thus it provides significant welfare implications for designing optimal policies. This paper investigates the impact of CSR on policy interaction between tariffs and privatization in an international bilateral trade model. We find that CSR is closely related to the government's policy decisions on tariffs. In particular, we find that the strategic tariff for increasing domestic welfare is always higher (lower) than the efficient tariff for improving global welfare when the degree of CSR is low (high). We also show that a privatization policy raises tariff and worsens (improves) domestic welfare when the degree of CSR is low (high). Finally, we demonstrate that both countries choose a nationalization policy even though the privatization policy is globally optimal when the degree of CSR is high.     

Privatization,Underpricing, and Welfare in the Presence of Foreign Competition

We analyze privatization in a differentiated oligopoly setting with a domestic public firm and foreign profit‐maximizing firms. In particular, we examine pricing below marginal cost by the public firm, the optimal degree of privatization, and the relationship between privatization and foreign ownership restrictions. When market structure is exogenous, partial privatization of the public firm improves welfare by reducing public sector losses. Surprisingly, even at the optimal level of privatization, the public firm's price lies strictly below marginal cost, resulting in losses. Our analysis also reveals a potential conflict between privatization and investment liberalization (i.e., relaxing restrictions on foreign ownership) in the short run. With endogenous market structure (i.e., free entry of foreign firms), partial privatization improves welfare through an additional channel: more foreign varieties. Furthermore, at the optimal level of privatization, the public firm's price lies strictly above marginal cost and earns positive profits.     

Supply function competition in a mixed electric power market

In this paper, we present a mixed oligopoly model where electric power generators compete in supply functions in a liberalized market. A former monopolist, the state‐owned generator, is assumed to be (partially) privatized. First, we obtain that there is a relationship between privatization and the number of electric power generators concerning the level of consumer surplus and total welfare. Indeed, a fully state‐owned generator is socially optimal, lowering private generators' profits and enhancing consumer surplus; that is, if the degree of privatization decreases, consumer surplus increases compensating the damage imposed on generators' profits. Second, as the number of generators increases, full privatization may provide similar levels of consumer surplus and social welfare than those observed in a mixed oligopoly. Moreover, it is also obtained that price‐cost margins increase as marginal cost increases. Overall, our results suggest that the state‐owned generator should be privatized when entry barriers are low enough, and competitiveness is enhanced. Otherwise, a state‐owned generator may protect consumers, enhancing consumer surplus.     

Vertically Related Markets,Foreign Competition and Optimal Privatization Policy

This paper examines the optimal privatization policy in vertically related markets in which an upstream public firm competes with a foreign private rival in supplying a produced input to the domestic and foreign downstream firms competing in the domestic market. It shows that if the upstream public firm's market share is sufficiently high, full nationalization is optimal and the resulting profit margin is positive. However, complete privatization is never optimal. Numerical simulations reveal both the diverse optimal privatization regimes and the patterns of optimal privatization levels with varying numbers of the domestic and foreign downstream firms.     

Can privatization be a catalyst for environmental R&D and result in a cleaner environment?

In this paper we explore whether privatization helps to catalyze a firm's environmental research and development (ER&D) and improve environmental quality. By defining ER&D as the effort undertaken by a firm to reduce its pollution per unit of output, we find in a duopoly framework that privatization cannot catalyze both public and private firms’ ER&D efforts simultaneously; it can increase one but decrease the other firm's investment, or it may even lower both firms’ ER&D investments. Moreover, when production causes severe environmental damage, or the imposition of environmental taxes poorly internalize the pollution externality, privatization may result in a poorer environment. For the sake of having a cleaner environment, policy-makers can impose higher environmental taxes on a highly polluting industry when it is being privatized.     

The Optimal Privatization Policies under an International Mixed Duopoly

This paper explores the socially optimal privatization policies under the setting of international mixed duopoly. We find that partial privatization is socially optimal under Cournot competition and private leadership competition, whereas full nationalization is socially optimal under public leadership competition. Moreover, the equilibrium social welfare under private leadership competition is higher than that observed under Cournot competition and that observed under private leadership competition, which differs from the findings of Matsumura ( 2003b ). We also show that the endogenous timing game has a subgame perfect Nash equilibrium outcome, under which the government chooses a partial privatization policy, and private leadership competition emerges as the optimal output decision sequence of firms. An important policy implication from this paper is that the government should partially privatize the public firm and facilitate the emergence of private leadership competition in an international mixed market.     

The determinants of privatization prices: evidence from Turkey

This paper analyses the determinants of privatization prices in a multi-industry study using a sample of 68 recently privatized firms from Turkey. Results show that revenue and market characteristics are significant determinants of privatization prices while current cost and profit indicators are not. It is argued that potential buyers regard these state firms as inefficient, therefore do not take into consideration their current costs and profits in determining their value. When the dependent variable is altered by dividing the firm's privatization price by the firm's sales (revenues), it is found that sales-adjusted privatization prices are responsive to firms profit margins. However, this result does not hold when the sample is restricted to a single industry. Profit margins along with other profitability and firm efficiency measures are no longer significant determinants of sales-adjusted privatization prices in the cement industry analysis. Unexploited production opportunities measured by capacity utilization ratios, and complete private ownership resume a more important role.     

Emission tax and optimal privatization in Cournot–Bertrand comparison

We compare a Cournot with a Bertrand duopoly in a differentiated mixed market when both emission tax and privatization policies are used together. We find that the optimal emission tax is always lower than the marginal environmental damage, and it is always lower under Cournot than under Bertrand. We also find that the optimal privatization is always a partial privatization, and it is always higher under Cournot than under Bertrand. The socially optimal combinations of emission tax and privatization will damage the environment most, but Cournot yields lower environmental damage and social welfare than those under Bertrand. Finally, we show that the environmental damage is non-monotone in the level of privatization under both Cournot and Bertrand competitions.     

Privatization and Reformation*

This paper presents a simple model of a government contemplating the pre-sale reform of a public enterprise. While the government is less efficient at such reform than the eventual owner, failure to reform may be considered an indicator of low commercial value by potential purchasers. Consequently, the government may be unable to avoid socially wasteful restructuring if it wishes to maximize its net sales revenue. The results presented in this paper provide a number of insights and policy recommendations for governments embarking on a privatization program.