IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wdi/papers/2000-323.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Priorities and Sequencing in Privatization: Theory and Evidence from the Czech Republic

Author

Listed:
  • Nandini Gupta
  • John C. Ham
  • Jan Svejnar

Abstract

While privatization of state-owned enterprises has been one of the most important aspects of economic transition from a centrally planned to a market system, no transition economy has privatized all its firms simultaneously. This raises the issue of whether governments strategically privatize firms. In this paper we examine theoretically and empirically the determinants of the sequencing of privatization. First, we develop new and adapt existing theoretical models in order to obtain testable predictions about factors that may affect the sequencing of privatization. In doing so, we characterize potentially competing government objectives as (i) maximizing sales revenue from privatization or public goodwill from transferring shares of firms to voters, (ii) increasing economic efficiency, and (iii) reducing political costs due to layoffs. Next, we use an enterprise-level data set from the Czech Republic to test the competing theoretical predictions about which firm characteristics affect the sequencing of privatization. We find strong evidence that more profitable firms were sold first. This suggests that the government sequenced the sale of firms in a way that is consistent with our theories of sale revenue maximization and/or maximizing public goodwill from subsidized share transfers to citizens. Our results are also consistent with Shleifer and Vishny's (1994) prescription for increasing efficiency when there are political costs to employment losses caused by privatization. We also find that the Glaeser-Scheinkman (1996) recommendations for increasing efficiency by privatizing first firms subject to large informational shocks are consistent with our results. Finally, our findings are inconsistent with the government pursuing a static Pareto efficiency objective. In addition to enhancing the general understanding of privatization, our evidence suggests that many empirical studies of the effects of privatization on firm performance may suffer from selection bias since privatized firms are likely to have observable and unobservable characteristics that make them more profitable than firms that remain under state ownership.

Suggested Citation

  • Nandini Gupta & John C. Ham & Jan Svejnar, 2000. "Priorities and Sequencing in Privatization: Theory and Evidence from the Czech Republic," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 323, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
  • Handle: RePEc:wdi:papers:2000-323
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/39707/3/wp323.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cheryl W. Gray & Arnold Holle, 1997. "Bank‐led restructuring in Poland (II): bankruptcy and its alternatives," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 5(1), pages 25-44, May.
    2. Gérard Roland, 2004. "Transition and Economics: Politics, Markets, and Firms," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 026268148x, December.
    3. Lawrence J. Lau & Yingyi Qian & Gerard Roland, 2000. "Reform without Losers: An Interpretation of China's Dual-Track Approach to Transition," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(1), pages 120-143, February.
    4. Claessens, Stijn & Djankov, Simeon, 1999. "Ownership Concentration and Corporate Performance in the Czech Republic," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 498-513, September.
    5. 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 403-452, June.
    6. Aghion, Philippe & Blanchard, Olivier & Burgess, Robin, 1994. "The behaviour of state firms in eastern Europe, pre-privatisation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 1327-1349, June.
    7. Demsetz, Harold & Lehn, Kenneth, 1985. "The Structure of Corporate Ownership: Causes and Consequences," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(6), pages 1155-1177, December.
    8. Barberis, Nicholas & Maxim Boycko & Andrei Shleifer & Natalia Tsukanova, 1996. "How Does Privatization Work? Evidence from the Russian Shops," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(4), pages 764-790, August.
    9. Svejnar, Jan, 1982. "On the theory of a participatory firm," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 313-330, August.
    10. Rafael La Porta & Florencio López-de-Silanes, 1999. "The Benefits of Privatization: Evidence from Mexico," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(4), pages 1193-1242.
    11. Hingorani, Archana & Lehn, Kenneth & Makhija, Anil K., 1997. "Investor behavior in mass privatization: The case of the Czech voucher scheme," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 349-396, June.
    12. Vining, Aidan R & Boardman, Anthony E, 1992. "Ownership versus Competition: Efficiency in Public Enterprise," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 73(2), pages 205-239, March.
    13. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    14. Glaeser, Edward L. & Scheinkman, Jose A., 1996. "The Transition to Free Markets: Where to Begin Privatization," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 23-42, February.
    15. 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, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(4), pages 1153-1191.
    16. Heckman, James J. & Robb, Richard Jr., 1985. "Alternative methods for evaluating the impact of interventions : An overview," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1-2), pages 239-267.
    17. Andrei Shleifer & Robert W. Vishny, 1994. "Politicians and Firms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 109(4), pages 995-1025.
    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. 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.
    2. Jan Hanousek & Evžen Kočenda & Jan Svejnar, 2007. "Origin and concentration," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 15(1), pages 1-31, January.
    3. 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.
    4. Saul Estrin & Jan Hanousek & Evzen Kocenda & Jan Svejnar, 2009. "The Effects of Privatization and Ownership in Transition Economies," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(3), pages 699-728, September.
    5. Simeon Djankov & Stijn Claessens, 1997. "Enterprise Performance and Managers' Profiles," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 115, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    6. 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.
    7. Mr. Alexander Pivovarsky, 2001. "How Does Privatization Work? Ownership Concentration and Enterprise Performance in Ukraine," IMF Working Papers 2001/042, International Monetary Fund.
    8. Claessens,Constantijn A.*Djankov, Simeon, 1998. "Politicians and firms in seven central and eastern European countries," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1954, The World Bank.
    9. Schnytzer, Adi & Andreyeva, Tatiana, 2002. "Company performance in Ukraine: is this a market economy?," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 83-98, June.
    10. Aaron Tornell, 1999. "Privatizing the Privatized," NBER Working Papers 7206, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Clarke, George R.G. & Cull, Robert, 2005. "Bank privatization in Argentina: A model of political constraints and differential outcomes," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 133-155, October.
    12. Driffield, Nigel L. & Mickiewicz, Tomasz & Temouri, Yama, 2013. "Institutional reforms, productivity and profitability: From rents to competition?," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 583-600.
    13. Pan, Xia & Cheng, Wenyin & Gao, Yuning, 2022. "The impact of privatization of state-owned enterprises on innovation in China: A tale of privatization degree," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    14. Clarke, George R.G. & Cull, Robert & Shirley, Mary M., 2005. "Bank privatization in developing countries: A summary of lessons and findings," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 29(8-9), pages 1905-1930, August.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Jan Svejnar & Evzen Kocenda, 2002. "The Effects of Ownership Forms and Concentration on Firm Performance after Large-Scale Privatization," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 471, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    18. 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.
    19. Jana Fidrmucova, 2000. "Channels of Restructuring in Privatized Czech Companies," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 1358, Econometric Society.
    20. Rousseau, Peter L. & Xiao, Sheng, 2008. "Change of control and the success of China's share-issue privatization," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 605-613, December.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wdi:papers:2000-323. 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: WDI (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/wdumius.html .

    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.