Does Autonomy Matter in State Owned Enterprises? Evidence from Performance Contracts in India

Empirical evidence on the effect of managerial autonomy on the performance of state‐owned enterprises (SOE) is surprisingly scant despite autonomy being a preferred reform instrument over partial privatization in many countries. Using longitudinal data on performance contracts of state‐owned enterprises in India, this paper finds that managerial autonomy is associated with significant increases in enterprise profitability and efficiency. Further, using India's unique reform experience where both managerial autonomy and partial privatization were pursued side by side, the paper finds that while the positive effects of autonomy continue post‐partial privatization, the effects of partial privatization on performance are ambiguous. Specifically, once autonomy is controlled for, partial privatization has a positive effect on SOE profitability only after it crosses a critical level of government disinvestment. The findings suggest that organizational reforms such as granting managerial autonomy can be an important policy instrument in improving SOE performance particularly in cases where governments are unable to make substantial disinvestments.     

Banking efficiency in transition economies

An increasing share of the banking sector is controlled by foreign capital in the majority of transition countries. To analyse the effects of this trend on the performance of the banking sector in these countries, this study conducts a comparative analysis of the performance of foreign‐owned and domestic‐owned banks operating in the Czech Republic and Poland. We use the stochastic frontier approach to compute cost efficiency scores. Following Mester (1996 ), financial capital is included in the cost frontier model to control for risk preferences. Our finding is that on average foreign‐owned banks are more efficient than domestic‐owned banks. We conclude, however, that this advantage does not result from differences in the scale of operations or the structure of activities.     

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.     

Bank efficiency in South‐Eastern Europe

This study examines the cost and profit efficiency of banking sectors in six transition countries of South‐Eastern Europe over the period 1998–2008. Using a stochastic frontier approach, our analysis reveals that the average cost efficiency of South‐Eastern European banks is 68.59 percent, and the average profit efficiency is 53.87 percent. Regressions on the determinants of bank efficiency show that foreign banks are characterized by higher profit efficiency but lower cost efficiency, and government‐owned banks are associated with lower profit efficiency than domestic private banks. However, the efficiency gap between foreign‐, domestic private‐ and government‐owned banks narrows over time. We also find that the market power of a bank has a positive association with both cost and profit efficiency. Institutional development, proxied by progress in banking regulatory reforms, privatization and enterprise corporate governance restructuring, also has a positive impact on bank efficiency.     

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.     

POLITICAL SELECTION OF FIRMS INTO PRIVATIZATION PROGRAMS. EVIDENCE FROM ROMANIAN COMPREHENSIVE DATA

Exploiting a unique institutional feature of early Romanian privatization, when a group of firms was explicitly barred from privatization and another was partially privatized by management–employee buyouts, we test how politicians select firms into privatization programs. Using comprehensive firm data, we estimate the relation between preprivatization firm characteristics – the information known to politicians at the time of decision‐making – and the effect of privatization on employment, efficiency, and wages. With the estimated coefficients we simulate the effect of privatization on non‐privatizable and privatizable firms. We find that politicians expected privatization to increase employment in the privatizable group by 7%–10%, while to decrease it in the non‐privatizable group by 10%–30%, depending on the first‐stage estimation method, ordinary least squares with or without matching. We do not find such discrepancies in the expected change in firm efficiency; the simulated efficiency effect of privatization is large and positive for both groups of firms, and it is 52%–65% for non‐privatizable and 41%–43% for privatizable firms. The analysis does not support the hypothesis that wages played an important role in privatization decisions. Our study suggests that employment concerns played the key role in selecting firms for privatization, even if efficiency gains had to be sacrificed.     

Rent‐Sharing and Workers' Bargaining Power: An Empirical Cross‐Country/ Cross‐Industry Panel Analysis

In this paper, we study how rents are shared between capital and labour, using industry‐level panel data for 19 OECD countries from 1988 through to 2007. The first step is an explanation of the rent‐creation process. We provide evidence of a significant impact of regulation on value‐added prices at the industry level relative to the value‐added price for the overall economy (rent). In the second step, we dissect the value‐added sharing process. By running ordinary least‐squares and instrumental variables estimations, we obtain results that confirm the Blanchard–Giavazzi prediction: the impact of rents on the capital share depends on workers' bargaining power.     

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.     

HOW DID STATE‐OWNED BANKS RESPOND TO PRIVATIZATION? EVIDENCE FROM THE INDIAN EXPERIMENT

ABSTRACT ** : The paper examines the response of banks to privatization. Using data on all state‐owned banks for the period 1990–2006, the findings indicate that fully state‐owned banks are significantly less profitable than partially privatized ones. The improvements in performance by partially privatized banks are, in fact, sustained after privatization. In addition, the analysis indicates that privatization improves profitability, efficiency and improves bank soundness, while lowering bank risk. While the improvement in bank risk is typically spread out over a much longer period, the progress in terms of profitability and economic efficiency typically occurs in the post‐privatization period.     

国有企业改制对就业的影响——来自11个城市的证据

在20世纪90年代中后期,中国工业企业的就业规模大幅度下降,许多人认为,企业改制是其主要原因。本文通过对11个城市386家企业从1995年到2001年的面板数据的研究,评估了企业改制对就业的影响。我们的面板数据回归结果显示,和一般印象相反,改制显著地减缓了就业的下降趋势。我们还发现,改制对企业的就业增长有持续的和递增的积极作用。即使在控制了企业的绩效、就业条件、资产结构以及改制前就业历史之后,我们仍然得到相同的结论。另外,我们还使用了倾向分值匹配基础上的差分内差分方法对我们的结果进行了验证,也得到了相似的结论。     

Institutions and Cultural Heterogeneity as Determinants of National Income: A Random‐coefficients Stochastic Frontier Model

Previous research on total factor productivity (TFP) shows that cross‐country differences in income cannot be fully explained by stocks of capital (K), labor (L) and human capital (E). In addition, the omission of major production inputs or the use of proxies to estimate unobservable inputs leads to biased estimation results. This study addresses the above issues by employing a novel econometric approach and provides empirical evidence that a fixed production input, and therefore a country's income, is positively correlated with the existence of British‐style institutions and negatively correlated with cultural heterogeneity and Spanish‐style institutions. Our methodology is twofold. First, using data for 62 countries from 1980 to 2004, we regressed a random‐coefficients stochastic production frontier that allows estimating a fixed unobservable production input without using proxies. Second, the estimated fixed production input is shown to be related to colonial institutions and cultural heterogeneity by means of ordinary least squares and feasible generalized least squares regressions.     

The land that lean manufacturing forgot?

We have conducted the first large ‐ scale survey on management practices in transition countries. We found that Central Asian transition countries, such as Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, have on average very poor management practices. Their average scores are below developing countries such as India. In contrast, the Central European transition countries such as Poland and Lithuania operate with management practices that are only moderately worse than those of Western European countries such as Germany. As we find these practices are strongly linked to firm performance, this suggests that poor management practices may be impeding the development of Central Asian transition countries. We find that competition, multinational ownership, private ownership and human capital are all strongly correlated with better management. If causally interpreted, this would imply that the continued opening of markets to domestic and foreign competition, privatization of state ‐ owned firms and increased levels of workforce education should promote better management, and ultimately faster economic growth.     

Structural change and misallocation: Firm‐level evidence from Poland*

Early transition literature linked a large number of firm failures with the inability to overcome the pre‐transition misallocation of resources, that is, the inadequate capital–labour ratio. We look at the link between misallocation and firm survival using a rich firm‐level dataset of over 1,600 manufacturing plants established in a centrally planned economy after 1945. Our duration models include the standard Olley–Pakes misallocation measures as well as a firm‐level measure of the counterfactual level of capital that takes into account the present‐day market allocation and productivity. We show that while privatization is positively related to firm survival, misallocation (a) was more of a firm‐level than sector‐level phenomenon and, more importantly, (b) it, in general, did not have a sizeable effect on the actual firm survival nor it had an impact on the outcome of privatization.     

Electricity sector reform in developing countries: an econometric assessment of the effects of privatization,competition and regulation

Electricity sectors in both developed and developing countries have been subject to restructuring to introduce private capital and increase competition. Although the effects of such reforms in a number of the developed economies are now well documented, the experience of developing countries is much less well researched. This paper provides an econometric assessment of the effects of privatization, competition and regulation on the performance of the electricity generation industry using panel data for 36 developing and transitional countries, over the period 1985–2003. The study identifies the impact of these reforms on generating capacity, electricity generated, labor productivity in the generating sector and capacity utilization. The main conclusions are that on their own privatization and regulation (PR) do not lead to obvious gains in economic performance, though there are some positive interaction effects. By contrast, introducing competition does seem to be effective in stimulating performance improvements.      

Does foreign ownership matter?

The paper both compares productivity of Russian firms that have foreign direct investments with productivity of fully domestically owned firms and analyses spillovers from foreign‐owned firms to domestic firms. Foreign firms are found to be more productive than domestic ones, but productivity of the former is negatively affected by slow progress of reforms in the regions where they operate. It is also found that there are positive spillovers from foreign‐owned firms to domestic firms in the same industry, but negative effects on domestic firms that are vertically related to foreign‐owned firms. The stock of human capital in regions where foreign firms operate is one of the factors which help domestic firms to benefit from the entry of foreign firms.     

Privatizations around the world: economic or political determinants?

The article examines economic, political, and institutional determinants of privatization using a panel of 50 countries over the period of 1988–2006. Our sample includes developed, developing, and transition economies. Privatization activity is measured by the number of privatization deals as well as the revenue raised and analyzed using the negative binomial regression and Tobit regression respectively. Although more privatization activity is usually taking place in countries displaying satisfactory economic performance in some respect, the role of economic factors turns out to be limited. The results identify a number of political and institutional determinants but some effects are specific to a particular type of economy. For example, in developing countries, right‐wing governments are associated with privatizations while new, not necessarily right‐wing governments, are behind privatization in Eastern Europe. The role of financial development is also varied, with sound financial institutions related to successful privatization in developed and developing countries but not in transition economies.     

Post–Privatization Effects of Management and Employee Buy–outs

Management and employee buy–outs have played a significant role in the privatization of state–owned enterprises. Key research and policy issues are raised concerning whether insider ownership promotes or impedes restructuring and adaptation. This paper reviews and synthesizes studies of the effects of privatization management and employee buy–outs in both developed and transition economies. Trends in privatization buy–outs and conceptual issues concerning the expected effects of privatization buy–outs both in terms of performance and survival are discussed. A review of empirical evidence is presented in terms of the impact of buy–outs on employee attitudes, human resource management, strategy and restructuring, financial and economic performance, together with fresh evidence on survival. Privatization buy–outs can lead to significant restructuring but their impact depends on institutional context and policy. Restructuring may be greater where insiders purchase shares rather than acquiring them virtually free through voucher programmes.     

Does foreign aid really raise per capita income? A time series perspective

Abstract. We analyze the relationship between per capita income and foreign aid. We employ annual data and five‐year averages and carefully examine the time‐series properties of the data. Panel estimations with dynamic feasible generalized least‐squares (DFGLS) show that aid generally has an insignificant or minute negative significant impact on per capita income (particularly in highly aid‐dependent countries). This holds true for countries with different levels of human development and income, as well as for different regions. We also find that aid has a small positive impact on investment, but a significant negative impact on domestic savings (crowding out) and the real exchange rate (appreciation). JEL classification: F35, O11, C23, C51     

Determinants of labour productivity: Comparison between developing and developed countries of Asia‐Pacific

The current study investigates the trends in labour productivity of the major developing and developed economies of the Asia‐Pacific region and examines its determinants over the period 1980–2014. The study analyses capital deepening, human capital, technology, share of agriculture in GDP, financial development, institutional quality, inflation as well as macroeconomic variables as potential determinants of productivity, and identifies the differences in the impact of these factors on the productivity of developing and developed countries. Using panel cointegration and group‐mean fully modified ordinary least squares estimation, the study finds that capital deepening, human capital, technology, institutional quality and macroeconomic variables (i.e. government size and openness) are significant determinants of labour productivity of both developing and developed economies of the Asia‐Pacific region. The study further finds that while both trade openness and foreign direct investment affect productivity of developing economies positively, only trade openness has a positive and significant impact on the productivity of developed economies. The share of agriculture in GDP affects the labour productivity of developing Asia‐Pacific economies significantly but not that of developed economies. Furthermore, capital deepening has a much higher impact on the productivity of developing Asia‐Pacific economies than that of developed economies.     

PRIVATIZATION IN AUSTRIA: causes and consequences

ABSTRACT*: This paper examines the privatization experiences in Austria. Nationalized industries historically played a great role in Austria. Mainly for budgetary reasons a far reaching privatization was rapidly effected, the state holding company acting as the privatization agency. In privatization decisions not only micro-economic but also macro-economic and structural aspects had been considered, such as the impact on national research and development, employment perspectives and market structures, all this being of special relevance for privatization projects in small countries. From the point of view of both the privatized enterprises and the economy as a whole, privatization in Austria has been successful. Privatizations also had a strong impact on Austrian capital markets: 90 per cent of privatizations were carried out on the stock exchange. In 1995 30 per cent of the turnover of the Vienna stock exchange was accounted for by shares of private enterprises.