Taxation and Capital Structure Choice: The Role of Ownership

Applying firm fixed‐effects estimations to European firm‐level data, I analyze how ownership structure affects the relationship between taxation and capital structure. I find that an increase in the corporate tax rate affects the debt‐to‐assets ratio positively, and that this effect is stronger for firms with concentrated ownership. These results hold independently of whether firms are standalone or subsidiaries, and are also valid if subsidiaries are divided into those that are foreign‐owned and those domestically owned. Lastly, ownership plays a role even when controlling for other potentially important determinants of the relation between corporate taxation and capital structure.     

Post-privatization corporate governance and firm performance: The role of private ownership concentration,identity and board composition

We examine and analyze the post-privatization corporate governance of a sample of 52 newly privatized Egyptian firms over a period of 10 years, from 1995 to 2005. We look at the ownership structure that results from privatization and its evolution; the determinants of private ownership concentration; and the impact of private ownership concentration, identity and board composition on firm performance. We find that the state gives up control over time to the private sector, but still controls, on average, more than 35% of these firms. We also document a trend in private ownership concentration over time, mostly to the benefit of foreign investors. Firm size, sales growth, industry affiliation, and timing and method of privatization seem to play a key role in determining private ownership concentration. Ownership concentration and ownership identity, in particular foreign investors, prove to have a positive impact on firm performance, while employee ownership concentration has a negative one. The higher proportion of outside directors and the change in the board composition following privatization have a positive effect on firm performance. These results could have some important policy implications where private ownership by foreign investors seems to add more value to firms, while selling state-owned enterprises (SOEs) to employees is not recommended. Also, the state is highly advised to relinquish control and allow for changes in the board of directors following privatization as changing ownership, per se, might not have a positive impact on firm performance unless it is coupled with a new management style.     

Political Connections and Firm Performance in Chinese Companies

This study uses panel data analysis to examine the relationship between political connections and firm performance in Chinese firms from 2004 to 2008. We define firm‐level political connections and demonstrate a robust result for the positive relationship between political connections and firm performance. In addition, we integrate the effects of ownership structure, related‐party transactions and political connections into our analysis and continue to show a positive relationship. We show that political connections dampen the negative effect on firm value of related‐party transactions. Finally, we demonstrate channels through which the benefits of political connections are realized in terms of greater cash holdings, larger long‐term loans, lower financing costs, larger sales and lower sales costs. Our results indicate that state‐owned and non‐state‐owned enterprises use political connections equally effectively to enhance performance.     

The effects of foreign direct investment on domestic firms

This paper uses firm‐level panel data to investigate empirically the effects of foreign direct investment on the productivity performance of domestic firms in three emerging economies of Central and Eastern Europe: Bulgaria, Romania and Poland. To this end, a unique firm‐level panel dataset is used with detailed information on foreign ownership at the firm level. Two main questions are addressed in the present paper: (1) do foreign firms perform better than their domestic counterparts? (2) do foreign firms generate spillovers to domestic firms? The estimation technique in this paper takes potential endogeneity of ownership, spillovers and other factors into account by estimating a fixed effects model using instrumental variables in the general methods of moment technique for panel data. Only in Poland, do foreign firms perform better than firms without foreign participation. Moreover, for all three countries studied here, I find no evidence of positive spillovers to domestic firms, on average. In contrast, on average, there are negative spillovers to domestic firms in Bulgaria and Romania, while there are no spillovers to domestic firms in Poland. This suggests a negative competition effect that dominates a positive technology effect. JEL classification: D24, F14, O52, P31.     

Foreign ownership wage premia in emerging economies

In this article we examine the relationship between wages, labour productivity and ownership using a linked employer–employee dataset covering a large fraction of the Czech labour market in 2006. We distinguish between different origins of ownership and study wage and productivity differences. The raw wage differential between foreign and domestically‐owned firms is about 23 percent. The empirical analysis is carried out on both firm‐ and individual‐level data. A key finding is that industry, region and notably human capital explain only a small part of the foreign–domestic ownership wage differential. Both white and blue collar workers as well as skilled and unskilled employees obtain a foreign ownership wage premium. Foreign ownership premia are more prevalent in older and less technologically advanced firms. Joint estimation of productivity and wage equations show that, controlling for human capital, the difference in productivity is about twice as large as the wage differential. Overall, results indicate that the international firms share their rents with their employees.     

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.     

Love conditionally: The ownership structure and bribery behavior of Chinese firms

This paper studies empirically the determinants of firm bribery activities from the perspective of ownership structure. Using data on Chinese firms obtained from the Enterprise Surveys conducted by the World Bank, we compare the bribery activities of firms with various forms of ownership. We find that compared with private and foreign firms, state‐owned firms in China are not only more likely to receive bribe requests from government officials, but are also more likely to pay bribes. Meanwhile, firms are more likely to bribe if they are extorted, or if they expect to reduce infrastructural obstacles to their business operations. Other factors such as manager experience and external audits also exhibit significant influence upon firms’ bribery decisions.     

Origin of FDI and Intra‐Industry Domestic Spillovers: The Case of Greek and European FDI in Bulgaria

This paper uses firm‐level data to assess the horizontal impact of foreign firm ownership on domestic productivity in Bulgaria. We identify a theoretical tradeoff between technological distance (of domestic versus foreign firms) and internalization capacity (of spillovers) and examine the extent to which this is reflected in the impact on the domestic economy of different types and origins of FDI. Emphasis is placed upon the effects of Greek FDI, which is known to be of a distinctively “regional” character. We find that Greek FDI produces significantly larger positive spillovers, which appear more suitable for the Bulgarian context of transition and economic restructuring. We also unveil some notable “hysteresis” and “technology bias” effects for FDI spillovers of all origins, as well as some country‐specific ownership‐structure and threshold effects.     

The impact of private vs. public ownership on the level and structure of employment

We examine the effects of private vs. public ownership on the level and structure of employment using uncommonly rich data on the population of Portuguese firms from 1991 to 2009. We find that private ownership is associated with sizeable job losses. This occurs whether we consider privatizations or nationalizations, and the relationship tends to be stronger in the presence of foreign capital. We also find some evidence that private ownership is associated with higher skill utilization, particularly following privatizations and when foreign investment is present. The estimated job losses associated with private ownership are consistent with a theory in which the shift in ownership increases the degree of profit orientation and leads to lower job security.     

How Does the Minimum Wage Affect Firm Investments in Fixed and Human Capital? Evidence from China

This paper empirically analyzes the impact of Chinese minimum wage regulations on the firm decision to invest in physical and human capital. We exploit the geographical and inter‐temporal variations of county‐level minimum wages in a panel data set of all state‐owned and all above‐scale non‐state‐owned Chinese firms covering the introduction of the new Chinese minimum wage regulations in 2004. In our basic regressions including all Chinese firms, we find significant negative effects of the minimum wage on human capital investment rates and no overall effects on fixed capital investment rates. When grouping firms by their ownership structure, we find that these results hold for most firms. Foreign‐owned firms are an exception to some extent, because the likelihood that they invest in human capital has not decreased in response to the policy.     

The impact of privatization on firm performance in a transition economy

The Vietnamese privatization programme, launched in 1992, differs from the usual Western privatization programmes in terms of the residual percentage of shares owned by the state and the portion of shares owned by insiders. This begs the question whether these differences influence the effects of the programme on firm performance. This study measures the impact of privatization on firm performance in Vietnam by comparing the pre‐ and post‐privatization financial and operating performance of 121 former state‐owned enterprises (SOEs). We find significant increases in profitability, sales revenues, efficiency and employee income. Results of applying the ‘difference‐in‐difference’ (DID) method, wherein a control group of firms is used to pick up the influence of other determinants of firm performance, suggest that the performance improvements may indeed be associated with equitization. Regression analyses reveal that firm size, residual state ownership, corporate governance and stock market listing are key determinants of performance improvements.     

Competition and ownership structure: Substitutes or complements? Evidence from the Warsaw Stock Exchange

In this paper we analyse the impact of product market competition and ownership structure on firm performance. Our results show that product market competition has a positive and significant impact on performance. Concerning the effect of ownership concentration, we find a U–shaped relationship with performance. Firms with relatively dispersed and relatively concentrated ownership have higher productivity growth than firms with an intermediate level of ownership concentration. This correlation between concentration of ownership and productivity growth is not explained by the type of the controlling shareholder. Finally, product market competition and good governance tend to reinforce each other rather than to be substitutes. Competition has no significant effect on performance for the firms with ‘poor’ governance; on the contrary, it has a significant positive effect in the case of firms with ‘good’ corporate governance. JEL classification: D24, G32, L1, P2.     

State-owned enterprises going public The case of China

Public listing is a key reform measure for large state‐owned enterprises (SOEs) in China. We find evidence that public listing lowers state ownership significantly, lessens firms’ reliance on debt finance, and allows firms to increase capital expenditure, at least temporarily. We also find that ownership structure affects post‐listing performance. However, we find no statistical evidence of a positive effect of public listing on firms’ profitability. We suggest alternative interpretations of the last finding.     

The relationship among enterprise clustering,prices, and productivity in Ethiopia’s manufacturing sector

We use census panel data on Ethiopian manufacturing firms to analyze how enterprise clustering in local markets covaries with firm‐level output prices and physical productivity. We find a negative and statistically significant relationship between the density of firms that produce a given product in a given location and the local price of that product. We also find a positive and statistically significant relationship between the density of firms that produce a given product in a location and the physical productivity of same‐product firms in the location. These results are consistent with the notion that increased clustering of firms generates higher competitive pressure and positive externalities. Across firms that produce different products, we find no statistically significant relationship between enterprise clustering and firm‐level output prices and productivity. We also find no clustering effects across towns. Our results suggest that while clustering can impact firm performance, the advantages are narrow in scope.     

Is the effect really so large? Firm‐level evidence on the role of FDI in a transition economy1

Foreign subsidiaries usually perform better than domestic enterprises, but selection effects have been acknowledged in the literature. This article contributes by quantitatively evaluating the size of the selection effects and direct effects of FDI entry. We use a large panel of firm‐level data from Poland and match foreign‐owned firms to a control group of non‐foreign‐owned companies and analyse various performance indicators. In terms of efficiency measures, between 50 and 70 percent of the foreign affiliates advantage may be attributed to direct ownership effects. However, in the case of export intensity, the majority of the differential between the domestic companies and foreign subsidiaries is attributable to selection effects: MNEs choose export‐oriented companies and sectors.     

Can Production Subsidies Explain China's Export Performance? Evidence from Firm‐level Data*

This paper analyses the relationship between production subsidies and firms’ export performance using a very comprehensive and recent firm‐level database and controlling for the endogeneity of subsidies. It documents robust evidence that production subsidies stimulate export activity at the intensive margin, although this effect is conditional on firm characteristics. In particular, the positive relationship between subsidies and the intensive margin of exports is strongest among profit‐making firms, firms in capital‐intensive industries, and those located in non‐coastal regions. Compared to firm characteristics, the extent of heterogeneity across ownership structure (SOEs, collectives, and privately owned firms) proves to be relatively less important.     

POST‐PRIVATIZATION OWNERSHIP AND FIRM PERFORMANCE: A LARGE META‐ANALYSIS OF THE TRANSITION LITERATURE

This paper aims to perform a large‐scale meta‐analysis of the relationship between post‐privatization ownership and firm performance in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Baseline estimation of a meta‐regression model that employs a total of 2,894 estimates drawn from 121 previous studies indicated the superior impact of foreign ownership on firm performance in comparison with state and domestic private entities. Furthermore, the estimation of an extended meta‐regression model that explicitly controls for the idiosyncrasies of transition economies and privatization policies strongly suggested that differences between countries in location, privatization method, and speed of policy implementation strongly influence the link between post‐privatization ownership structure and firm performance. We also found that these factors not only cause a remarkable gap between countries in terms of ex post improvement in firm performance but also significantly affect the interrelationship between foreign investors, domestic outsider owners, and firm managers, and the relative superiority of various domestic outsiders. Conclusive evidence of the harm caused to ex post firm performance by voucher privatization is one of the most noteworthy empirical findings in this paper.     

Core competencies,matching and the structure of foreign direct investment

We develop a matching model of foreign direct investment to study how multinational firms choose between greenfield investment, acquisitions and joint ownership. Firms must invest in a continuum of tasks to bring a product to market. Each firm possesses a core competency in the task space, but the firms are otherwise identical. For acquisitions and joint ownership, a multinational enterprise (MNE) must match with a local partner that may provide complementary expertise within the task space. However, under joint ownership, investment in tasks is shared by multiple owners and, hence, is subject to a holdup problem that varies with contract intensity. In equilibrium, ex ante identical multinationals enter the local matching market, and, ex post, three different types of heterogeneous firms arise. Specifically, the worst matches are forgone and the MNEs invest greenfield; the middle matches operate under joint ownership; and the best matches integrate via full acquisition. We link the firm‐level model to cross‐country and industry predictions and find that a greater share of full acquisitions occur between more proximate markets, in hosts with greater revenue potential and within contract‐intensive industries. Using data on partial and full acquisitions across industries and countries, we find robust support for these predictions.     

Institutional environment,ownership and firm taxation

This paper examines how ownership type and institutional environment affect firm taxation. Using a sample of Chinese‐listed firms from 1999 to 2006, we find that private firms enjoy a lower effective tax rate than local state‐owned enterprises. In addition, the preferential taxation of private firms is associated with local government incentives to promote local economic growth. We find that private firms located in regions with a lower level of privatization receive preferential tax treatment. Our results also suggest that decentralization and interjurisdictional competition lead to financial interdependence between local governments and private firms.     

Home-country environment and firms’ outward foreign direct investment decision: Evidence from Chinese firms

This paper takes a holistic view and examines the environmental effect of the home country on firms’ outward foreign direct investment (OFDI) decisions. We construct an economic growth index to assess the overall economic environment of Chinese regions and find that the home country’s business environment is negatively associated with firms’ decisions to invest abroad, and that such a negative relationship can be intensified for firms with state ownership or without an export network. Moreover, unlike previous literature, we look at both the environmental effect on OFDI decisions and the consequential impact of OFDI on firm performance. We employ propensity score matching and difference-in-differences methods, as well as the Heckman two-step model, for our estimations. Our results show that OFDI does indeed improve Chinese firms’ productivity and sales. This paper, therefore, contributes to the literature by identifying a range of home country business environmental factors that have a combined effect on firms’ OFDI decisions, adding to a more comprehensive understanding of OFDI originating from emerging economies.