State owned enterprises, shirking and trade liberalization
We explore the implications of trade liberalization in economies with State Owned enterprises (SOEs) and shirking. SOEs are modelled as controlled by the members of the enterprise who determine output and effort levels, while facing output prices and wage rates set by government. Enterprise members must collectively meet a budget constraint that the value of sales equals the enterprise wage bill plus an exogenous enterprise commitment to the state budget. Labour can shirk either through low on the job effort (leisure), or through moonlighting to second jobs in the private sector. Three alternative formulations of equilibria in SOE economies are explored, and in these trade liberalization can produce effects opposite from conventional competitive models. In particular, the output of competing SOEs increases rather than falls, and negative effects on imports can also occur. These models when calibrated to 1995 data for Vietnam also suggest quantitatively much larger impacts from trade liberalization than is the case for comparable conventional competitive models. This is because departures from Pareto optimality in SOE economies can be large and trade liberalization acts to discipline shirking associated with these inefficiencies. The implication we draw from our analysis is that to evaluate policy initiatives, such as trade liberalization, in developing and transistion economies without explicitly recognizing the role that SOEs can play may be misleading. This is especially the case where SOEs account for a significant fraction of economic activity and shirking is involved.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. 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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
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.:
- Bertero, Elisabetta & Rondi, Laura, 2000. "Financial pressure and the behaviour of public enterprises under soft and hard budget constraints: evidence from Italian panel data," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 73-98, January.
- Nguyen Chan & Madanmohan Ghosh & John Whalley, 1999. "Evaluating Tax Reform in Vietnam Using General Equilibrium Methods," UWO Department of Economics Working Papers 9906, University of Western Ontario, Department of Economics.
- Bai, Chong-En & Li, David D. & Tao, Zhigang & Wang, Yijiang, 2000. "A Multitask Theory of State Enterprise Reform," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 716-738, December.
- Qian, Yingyi & Roland, Gerard, 1998.
"Federalism and the Soft Budget Constraint,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1143-1162, December.
- Yingyi Qian & Gerard Roland, "undated". "Federalism and the Soft Budget Constraint," Working Papers 97045, Stanford University, Department of Economics.
- Boardman, Anthony E & Vining, Aidan R, 1989. "Ownership and Performance in Competitive Environments: A Comparison of the Performance of Private, Mixed, and State-Owned Enterprises," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 32(1), pages 1-33, April.
- Alwyn Young, 1994. "The Tyranny of Numbers: Confronting the Statistical Realities of the East Asian Growth Experience," NBER Working Papers 4680, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Piggott, John & Whalley, John, 1996. "The Tax Unit and Household Production," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(2), pages 398-418, April.
- John Piggott & John Whalley, 1994. "The Tax Unit and Household Production," NBER Working Papers 4820, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- James A. Schmitz, 1996. "The role played by public enterprises: how much does it differ across countries?," Quarterly Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, issue Spr, pages 2-15.
- James Bennett & Manuel Johnson, 1979. "Public versus private provision of collective goods and services: garbage collection revisited," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 55-63, March.
- Dong Xiao-yuan & Dow Gregory K., 1993. "Does Free Exit Reduce Shirking in Production Teams?," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 472-484, June.
- Theodore Groves & Yongmiao Hong & John McMillan & Barry Naughton, 1994. "Autonomy and Incentives in Chinese State Enterprises," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 109(1), pages 183-209.
- Caves, Douglas W & Christensen, Laurits R, 1980. "The Relative Efficiency of Public and Private Firms in a Competitive Environment: The Case of Canadian Railroads," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 88(5), pages 958-976, October.
- Mori, Pier Angelo, 1991. "The role of employers' authority when jobs are partially enforceable," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 89-93, January.
- David O’Connor, 1996. "Labour Market Aspects of State Enterprise Reform in Viet Nam," OECD Development Centre Working Papers 117, OECD Publishing. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)