IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wdi/papers/2000-76.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Chinese Enterprise Reform as a Market Process

Author

Listed:
  • Gary H. Jefferson
  • Thomas G. Rawski

Abstract

The reform of China's enterprise system increasingly reflects the outcome of China's emerging property rights market. We distinguish between a centrally-directed reform strategy, with characteristics similar to those of a Pigouvian tax, and a market-driven reform process, which captures the essential features of a Coasian approach to social cost. The Coase Theorem postulates that eliminating transaction costs and attaching well specified property rights to public goods that generate externalities will allow uncoordinated economic agents to negotiate institutional arrangements that produce socially efficient allocation of resources. Extending Coase's reasoning to the case of socialist transition ' we argue that reforms that expand competition, move toward well-specified assignment of ownership rights to public enterprises, and reduce transaction costs will motivate the "ultimate" owners, including officials of national and sub-national government agencies, to reconfigure their assets or to combine their assets with those of other jurisdictions and/or private investors to create more efficient ownership arrangements. We review the extent to which China's reforms have established the conditions for an effective market in ownership rights to industrial property. We tabulate progress from 1 980 to present along the three major analytic dimensions inherent in Coase's analysis: competition, property rights, and transaction costs. We conclude that the sheer size and diversity of China's industrial economy will motivate a continuation of decentralized reform initiatives. To support this Coasian reform process, central and provincial governments need to expand initiatives to clarify property rights, particularly the right of alienation, reduce impediments to competition, and facilitate the reduction of transaction costs.

Suggested Citation

  • Gary H. Jefferson & Thomas G. Rawski, 2000. "Chinese Enterprise Reform as a Market Process," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 76, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
  • Handle: RePEc:wdi:papers:2000-76
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/39466/3/wp76.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Komiya, Ryutaro, 1987. "Japanese firms, Chinese firms: Problems for economic reform in China Part I," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 31-61, March.
    2. Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
    3. Jefferson, Gary H, 1998. "China's State Enterprises: Public Goods, Externalities, and Coase," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(2), pages 428-432, May.
    4. R. H. Coase, 2013. "The Problem of Social Cost," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 837-877.
    5. Steinfeld,Edward S., 1998. "Forging Reform in China," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521633352.
    6. Komiya, Ryutaro, 1987. "Japanese firms, chinese firms: Problems for economic reform in China Part II," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 229-247, June.
    7. Gary H. Jefferson & Thomas G. Rawski, 1994. "Enterprise Reform in Chinese Industry," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(2), pages 47-70, Spring.
    8. Stanley Fischer & Alan Gelb, 1991. "The Process of Socialist Economic Transformation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(4), pages 91-105, Fall.
    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. Gary H. Jefferson, 1999. "Missing Market in Labor Quality: The Role of Quality Markets in Transition," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 260, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    2. Simon Johnson & Andrei Shleifer, 2004. "Privatization and Corporate Governance," NBER Chapters, in: Governance, Regulation, and Privatization in the Asia-Pacific Region, pages 13-29, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Holz, Carsten A., 2002. "Long live China's state-owned enterprises: deflating the myth of poor financial performance," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 493-529.
    4. Nolan, Peter & Xiaoqiang, Wang, 1999. "Beyond privatization: Institutional innovation and growth in China's large state-owned enterprises," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 169-200, January.
    5. Thomas Doleys, 2009. "Incomplete Contracting, Commission Discretion and the Origins of EU Merger Control," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47, pages 483-506, June.
    6. Alley Ibrahim S. & Adebayo Abimbola L. & Oligbi Blessing O., 2016. "Corporate Governance and Financial Performance Nexus: Any Bidirectional Causality?," International Journal of Management and Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of World Economy, vol. 50(1), pages 82-99, June.
    7. Amar Gande & Kose John & Vinay B. Nair & Lemma W. Senbet, 2020. "Taxes, institutions, and innovation: Theory and international evidence," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 51(9), pages 1413-1442, December.
    8. Nakamura, Tamotsu, 2000. "Seniority-Wage System and the Growth of a Labor-Managed Firm," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 606-618, September.
    9. Kenneth Ayotte & Patrick Bolton, 2011. "Optimal Property Rights in Financial Contracting," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 24(10), pages 3401-3433.
    10. Iavor Marangozov, 2005. "From Practice to Theory of the International Joint Ventures," Economic Studies journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 2, pages 44-77.
    11. Sagebiel, Julian & Müller, Jakob R. & Rommel, Jens, 2013. "Are Consumers Willing to Pay More for Electricity from Cooperatives? Results from an Online Choice Experiment in Germany," MPRA Paper 52385, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Olivier Meier & Aurélie Sannajust, 0. "The smart contract revolution: a solution for the holdup problem?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-16.
    13. Jayesh Kumar, 2003. "Ownership Structure and Corporate Firm Performance," Finance 0304004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Williamson, Oliver E., 2010. "Transaction Cost Economics: The Natural Progression," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 86(3), pages 215-226.
    15. Art Durnev & E. Han Kim, 2005. "To Steal or Not to Steal: Firm Attributes, Legal Environment, and Valuation," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 60(3), pages 1461-1493, June.
    16. Evans, Lewis, 1998. "The Theory and Practice of Privatisation," Working Paper Series 19035, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    17. Wang, Sen & Bogle, Tim & van Kooten, G. Cornelis, 2012. "Forestry and the New Institutional Economics," Working Papers 130818, University of Victoria, Resource Economics and Policy.
    18. Ng, Desmond W. & Salin, Victoria, 2012. "An Institutional Approach to the Examination of Food Safety," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 15(2), pages 1-26, May.
    19. Jankovic Ivan & Block Walter, 2019. "Private Property Rights, Government Interventionism and Welfare Economics," Review of Economic Perspectives, Sciendo, vol. 19(4), pages 365-397, December.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    China; ownership; property rights; Coarse theorem; transition; merger; transaction costs;
    All these keywords.

    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:2000-76. 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.