This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Political Selection of Firms into Privatization Programs - Evidence from Romanian Comprehensive Data

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Adam Szentpeteri () (Central European University, Eotvos Lorand University)
Almos Telegdy () (Institute of Economics - Hungarian Academy of Sciences)

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

Exploiting a unique institutional feature of the early Romanian privatization setup, when a group of firms was explicitly barred from any privatization, we test how politicians select firms into privatization programs. Using a comprehensive dataset that includes all firms inherited from socialism, we estimate the relation between pre-privatization firm characteristics (the information known to politicians at the time of decision making) and the effect of privatization on employment, efficiency and wages. We argue that other objectives, such as revenue maximization or bribe collection were of secondary importance in the early Romanian privatization. Using the estimated coefficients, we simulate the effect of privatization on non-privatizable and privatizable firms, including in the latter group both privatized and not privatized enterprises. The simulations show that politicians expected the reduction of employment by 5.2 percent of the non-privatizable group, as a consequence of privatization. Contrary to this expectation, employment in the privatizable group was likely to grow by the same proportion. We do not find such discrepancies in the expected change in firm efficiency, as the simulated efficiency effect of privatization is large and positive for both groups of firms, and it is around 40 percent. The analysis does not support the hypothesis that wages played an important role in privatization decisions. These results do not change qualitatively if the privatizable group is disaggregated into privatized and not privatized groups. Our study suggests that employment concerns played the key role in selecting firms for privatization, even if efficiency gains had to be sacrificed.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://econ.core.hu/file/download/mtdp/MTDP0826.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Institute of Economics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences in its series IEHAS Discussion Papers with number 0826.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length: 31 pages
Date of creation: Dec 2008
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:has:discpr:0826

Contact details of provider:
Postal: 1112 Budapest, Budaorsi ut 45.
Phone: (36-1) 319-3119
Fax: (36-1) 319-3136
Web page: http://econ.core.hu
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Zsuzsa Balabán).

Related research
Keywords: Privatization; Government objectives; Firm behavior; Romania;

Find related papers by JEL classification:
L33 - Industrial Organization - - Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise - - - Boundaries of Public and Private Enterprise; Privatization; Contracting Out
P26 - Economic Systems - - Socialist Systems and Transition Economies - - - Political Economy

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
  1. Earle, John S. & Telegdy, Almos, 2002. "Privatization Methods and Productivity Effects in Romanian Industrial Enterprises," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 657-682, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  2. Andrei Shleifer, 1998. "State Versus Private Ownership," NBER Working Papers 6665, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  3. Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes & Andrei Shleifer & Robert Vishny, 1997. "Privatization in the United States," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 28(3), pages 447-471, Autumn. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  4. J. David Brown & John S. Earle & Almos Telegdy, 2005. "The Productivity Effects of Privatization: Longitudinal Estimates from Hungary, Romania, Russia, and Ukraine," Staff Working Papers 05-121, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  5. Kai Guo & Yang Yao, 2005. "Causes of privatization in China," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 13(2), pages 211-238, 04. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. Schmidt, Klaus M, 1996. "The Costs and Benefits of Privatization: An Incomplete Contracts Approach," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(1), pages 1-24, April.
  7. Roman Frydman & Cheryl Gray & Marek Hessel & Andrzej Rapaczynski, 1999. "When Does Privatization Work? The Impact Of Private Ownership On Corporate Performance In The Transition Economies," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 114(4), pages 1153-1191, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  8. Roland, Gerard & Sekkat, Khalid, 2000. "Managerial career concerns, privatization and restructuring in transition economies," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1857-1872, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  9. Villalonga, Belen, 2000. "Privatization and efficiency: differentiating ownership effects from political, organizational, and dynamic effects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 43-74, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  10. Djankov, Simeon & Murrell, Peter, 2002. "Enterprise Restructuring in Transition: A Quantitative Survey," CEPR Discussion Papers 3319, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  11. 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. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  12. Megginson, William L & Nash, Robert C & van Randenborgh, Matthias, 1994. " The Financial and Operating Performance of Newly Privatized Firms: An International Empirical Analysis," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 49(2), pages 403-52, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  13. William L. Megginson & Jeffry M. Netter, 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. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  14. Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1994. "Politicians and Firms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 109(4), pages 995-1025, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  15. Bortolotti, Bernardo & Fantini, Marcella & Siniscalco, Domenico, 2004. "Privatisation around the world: evidence from panel data," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(1-2), pages 305-332, January. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  16. Kay, J A & Thompson, D J, 1986. "Privatisation: A Policy in Search of a Rationale," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 96(381), pages 18-32, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  17. Druk-Gal, Bat-Sheva & Yaari, Varda, 2006. "Incumbent employees' resistance to implementing privatization policy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 374-405, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  18. Bhaskar, V & Khan, Mushtaq, 1995. "Privatization and Employment: A Study of the Jute Industry in Bangladesh," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(1), pages 267-73, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? RePEc encourages publishers to make their bibliographic data freely available to the public.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-25.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.