IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Can cost asymmetry be a rationale for privatisation?

  • Mukherjee, Arijit
  • Sinha, Uday Bhanu

Cost asymmetries between the public and the private firms create a rationale for privatising the public firms. We show that this argument is restrictive, since it does not allow for other ways of reducing production inefficiency, which creates the motivation for privatisation. If the profit maximising private firm is technologically superior to that of the welfare maximising public firm, the society and the private firm benefit from technology licensing. Under technology licensing, both the equilibrium output of the private firm and the equilibrium degree of privatisation are zero. However, if cost asymmetry cannot be bridged by technology licensing due to costly and/or imperfect technology transfer, the argument in favour of privatisation remains.

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.

File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1059056013000737
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal International Review of Economics & Finance.

Volume (Year): 29 (2014)
Issue (Month): C ()
Pages: 497-503

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:reveco:v:29:y:2014:i:c:p:497-503
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620165

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.:

as in new window
  1. Soumyananda Dinda & Arijit Mukherjee, . "International Outsourcing, Tax and Patent Protection," Discussion Papers 08/46, University of Nottingham, GEP.
  2. VISHWASRAO, Sharmila & GUPTA, Srabana & BENCHEKROUN, Hassan, 2004. "Optimum Tariffs and Patent Length in a Model of North-South Technology Transfer," Cahiers de recherche 05-2004, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
  3. Fershtman, Chaim, 1990. "The Interdependence between Ownership Status and Market Structure: The Case of Privatization," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 57(227), pages 319-28, August.
  4. Debashis Pal & Mark D. White, 1998. "Mixed Oligopoly, Privatization, and Strategic Trade Policy," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 65(2), pages 264-281, October.
  5. Schmidt, Klaus M. & Schnitzer, Monika, 1997. "Methods of Privatization: Auctions, Bargaining and Give-Aways," CEPR Discussion Papers 1541, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  6. Arijit Mukherjee, 2007. "Optimal licensing contract in an open economy," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 12(3), pages 1-6.
  7. Matsumura, Toshihiro, 1998. "Partial privatization in mixed duopoly," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 473-483, December.
  8. Mukherjee, Arijit & Tsai, Yingyi, 2013. "Multi-sourcing as an entry deterrence strategy," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 108-112.
  9. Winston Chang, 2007. "Optimal trade, industrial, and privatization policies in a mixed duopoly with strategic managerial incentives," The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(1), pages 31-52.
  10. Ishida, Junichiro & Matsushima, Noriaki, 2009. "Should civil servants be restricted in wage bargaining? A mixed-duopoly approach," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(3-4), pages 634-646, April.
  11. Mujumdar, Sudesh & Pal, Debashis, 1998. "Effects of indirect taxation in a mixed oligopoly," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 199-204, February.
  12. Kangsik Choi, 2011. "Strategic Budget Constraints In A Unionized Mixed Oligopoly," The Japanese Economic Review, Japanese Economic Association, vol. 62(4), pages 504-516, December.
  13. Pal, Debashis, 1998. "Endogenous timing in a mixed oligopoly," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 181-185, November.
  14. Bibhas Saha & Rudra Sensarma, 2004. "Divestment and Bank Competition," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 81(3), pages 223-247, 03.
  15. Nandini Gupta, 2005. "Partial Privatization and Firm Performance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 60(2), pages 987-1015, 04.
  16. Mukherjee, Arijit & Suetrong, Kullapat, 2009. "Privatization, strategic foreign direct investment and host-country welfare," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(7), pages 775-785, October.
  17. Gelves, J. Alejandro & Heywood, John S., 2013. "Privatizing by merger: The case of an inefficient public leader," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 69-79.
  18. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:12:y:2007:i:3:p:1-6 is not listed on IDEAS
  19. Pack, Howard & Saggi, Kamal, 2001. "Vertical technology transfer via international outsourcing," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 389-415, August.
  20. Toshihiro Matsumura, 2003. "Endogenous Role in Mixed Markets: A Two-Production-Period Model," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 70(2), pages 403-413, October.
  21. Aniruddha Bagchi & Arijit Mukherjee, . "Technology licensing in a differentiated oligopoly," Discussion Papers 10/16, University of Nottingham, School of Economics.
  22. John Vickers & George Yarrow, 1991. "Economic Perspectives on Privatization," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(2), pages 111-132, Spring.
  23. Sanjo, Yasuo, 2013. "Country size and tax policy for international joint ventures in an integrated market," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 37-53.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:reveco:v:29:y:2014:i:c:p:497-503. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.