IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/halshs-00001306.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

L'échec de l'introduction d'institutions de marché dans une économie en transition : les limites du consensus de Washington dans un secteur de rente

Author

Listed:
  • Catherine Locatelli

    (LEPII-EDDEN - équipe EDDEN - LEPII - Laboratoire d'Economie de la Production et de l'Intégration Internationale - UPMF - Université Pierre Mendès France - Grenoble 2 - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Dominique Finon

    (LEPII - Laboratoire d'Economie de la Production et de l'Intégration Internationale - UPMF - Université Pierre Mendès France - Grenoble 2 - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

La privatisation est au cœur des réformes structurelles pour les économies en transition. En théorie son principal objectif est de changer les structures de corporate governance dans le but d'améliorer l'efficience des entreprises. En théorie, l'adoption des institutions formelles de marché devrait suffire à sécuriser les nouveaux droits de propriété. Cette hypothèse ne s'est pas confirmée en Russie. Le papier discute de la vision étroite du changement institutionnel sans considération de l'environnement antérieur et des institutions formelles et informelles. Il offre une explication quant aux effets «inattendus» des réformes dans un secteur de ressource naturelle, très intensif en capital. Ce secteur est celui de l'industrie des hydrocarbures qui se caractérise par l'opportunité d'extraire de la rente au travers des exportations. Il démontre l'intérêt des propriétaires au maintien de la faiblesse de la rule of law. Il démontre l'incompatibilité de ces institutions avec les institutions formelles et informelles initiales ce qui a conduit à des adaptations path dependent sous la contrainte de préserver un minimum de cohérence interindustrielle.

Suggested Citation

  • Catherine Locatelli & Dominique Finon, 2004. "L'échec de l'introduction d'institutions de marché dans une économie en transition : les limites du consensus de Washington dans un secteur de rente," Post-Print halshs-00001306, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-00001306
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00001306
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00001306/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simeon Djankov & Peter Murrell, 2002. "Enterprise Restructuring in Transition: A Quantitative Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 40(3), pages 739-792, September.
    2. Karla Hoff & Joseph E. Stiglitz, 2004. "After the Big Bang? Obstacles to the Emergence of the Rule of Law in Post-Communist Societies," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(3), pages 753-763, June.
    3. Gérard Roland, 2004. "Transition and Economics: Politics, Markets, and Firms," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 026268148x, December.
    4. Catherine Locatelli, 1998. "Energie et transition en Russie : les nouveaux acteurs industriels," Post-Print halshs-00477251, HAL.
    5. Spiller, Pablo T, 1996. "Institutions and Commitment," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 5(2), pages 421-452.
    6. Sophie Brana & Mathilde Maurel, 2001. "Démonétisation en Russie. Un arbitrage favorable au maintien de l'emploi," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 52(4), pages 841-859.
    7. Jeffry M. Netter & William L. Megginson, 2001. "From State to Market: A Survey of Empirical Studies on Privatization," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 39(2), pages 321-389, June.
    8. Boycko, Maxim & Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1996. "A Theory of Privatisation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(435), pages 309-319, March.
    9. J. Stiglitz, 1999. "Whither Reform? Ten Years of the Transition," Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP Voprosy Ekonomiki, vol. 7.
    10. Nee, Victor, 1998. "Norms and Networks in Economic and Organizational Performance," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(2), pages 85-89, May.
    11. Joseph E. Stiglitz, 1999. "More instruments and broader goals: moving toward the Post-Washington Consensus," Brazilian Journal of Political Economy, Center of Political Economy, vol. 19(1), pages 101-128.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Catherine Locatelli & Dominique Finon, 2004. "The failure of introducing market institutions in a rent sector into an economy in transition," Post-Print halshs-00001302, HAL.
    2. Catherine Locatelli & Dominique Finon, 2003. "Les limites à l'introduction des institutions de marché dans un secteur de rente," Post-Print halshs-00177824, HAL.
    3. Jan Hagemejer & Joanna Tyrowicz, 2020. "A New Instrument for Measuring the Local Causal Effect of Privatisation on Firm Performance," Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, issue 3, pages 35-52.
    4. Ekaterina Zhuravskaya, 2007. "Whither Russia? A Review of Andrei Shleifer's A Normal Country," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 45(1), pages 127-146, March.
    5. Irina Denisova & Markus Eller & Timothy Frye & Ekaterina Zhuravskaya, 2007. "Who Wants to Revise Privatization and Why? Evidence from 28 Post-Communist Countries," Working Papers w0105, New Economic School (NES).
    6. J. David Brown & John S. Earle & Solomiya Shpak & Volodymyr Vakhitov, 2019. "Is Privatization Working in Ukraine?," Comparative Economic Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Association for Comparative Economic Studies, vol. 61(1), pages 1-35, March.
    7. Brown, David J. & Earle, John S. & Telegdy, Almos, 2016. "Where does privatization work? Understanding the heterogeneity in estimated firm performance effects," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 329-362.
    8. Sumon Bhaumik & Saul Estrin, 2003. "Why Transition Paths Differ: Russian and Chinese Enterprise Performance Compared," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 525, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    9. repec:dau:papers:123456789/3860 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Jan Hagemejer & Joanna Tyrowicz & Jan Svejnar, 2014. "Measuring the Causal Effect of Privatization on Firm Performance," Working Papers 2014-14, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    11. Campos, Nauro F & Giovannoni, Francesco, 2006. "The Determinants of Asset Stripping: Theory and Evidence from the Transition Economies," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 49(2), pages 681-706, October.
    12. Chen, Ruiyuan & El Ghoul, Sadok & Guedhami, Omrane & Wang, He, 2017. "Do state and foreign ownership affect investment efficiency? Evidence from privatizations," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 408-421.
    13. Jan Hanousek & Ev??en Ko?enda & Jan Svejnar, 2004. "Ownership, Control and Corporate Performance After Large-Scale Privatization," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 2004-652, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    14. Gupta, Nandini & Ham, Jhon C. & Svejnar, Jan, 2008. "Priorities and sequencing in privatization: Evidence from Czech firm panel data," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 183-208, February.
    15. Klara Sabirianova Peter & Jan Svejnar & Katherine Terrell, 2012. "Foreign Investment, Corporate Ownership, and Development: Are Firms in Emerging Markets Catching Up to the World Standard?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 94(4), pages 981-999, November.
    16. Omran, Mohammed, 2009. "Post-privatization corporate governance and firm performance: The role of private ownership concentration, identity and board composition," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 658-673, December.
    17. Mykhayliv, Dariya & Zauner, Klaus G., 2017. "The impact of equity ownership groups on investment: Evidence from Ukraine," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 20-25.
    18. Sangeetha Gunasekar & Jayati Sarkar, 2014. "Does autonomy matter in state owned enterprises? Evidence from performance contracts in India," Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai Working Papers 2014-034, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, India.
    19. Diana Oliveros & Mauricio Mendoza, 2013. "¿Es la privatización la solución a los problemas de ineficiencia de las empresas públicas?: Revisión de la literatura," Revista Lebret, Universidad Santo Tomás - Bucaramanga, December.
    20. Ádám Szentpéteri & Álmos Telegdy, 2010. "Political Selection Of Firms Into Privatization Programs. Evidence From Romanian Comprehensive Data," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(3), pages 298-328, November.
    21. Bhaumik, Sumon Kumar & Estrin, Saul, 2007. "How transition paths differ: Enterprise performance in Russia and China," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 374-392, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-00001306. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.