IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reveco/v29y2014icp497-503.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can cost asymmetry be a rationale for privatisation?

Author

Listed:
  • Mukherjee, Arijit
  • Sinha, Uday Bhanu

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Mukherjee, Arijit & Sinha, Uday Bhanu, 2014. "Can cost asymmetry be a rationale for privatisation?," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 497-503.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:reveco:v:29:y:2014:i:c:p:497-503
    DOI: 10.1016/j.iref.2013.07.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vishwasrao, Sharmila & Gupta, Srabana & Benchekroun, Hassan, 2007. "Optimum tariffs and patent length in a model of North-South technology transfer," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 1-14.
    2. 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 319-328, August.
    3. Arijit Mukherjee, 2007. "Optimal licensing contract in an open economy," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 12(3), pages 1-6.
    4. 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.
    5. Soumyananda Dinda & Arijit Mukherjee, 2011. "International Outsourcing, Tax, and Patent Protection," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 13(1), pages 139-154, February.
    6. Schmidt, Klaus M. & Schnitzer, Monika, . "Methods of privatization: Auctions, bargaining, and giveaways," Chapters in Economics, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Mujumdar, Sudesh & Pal, Debashis, 1998. "Effects of indirect taxation in a mixed oligopoly," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 199-204, February.
    10. Nandini Gupta, 2005. "Partial Privatization and Firm Performance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 60(2), pages 987-1015, April.
    11. Mukherjee, Arijit & Tsai, Yingyi, 2013. "Multi-sourcing as an entry deterrence strategy," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 108-112.
    12. Bagchi, Aniruddha & Mukherjee, Arijit, 2014. "Technology licensing in a differentiated oligopoly," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 455-465.
    13. Pack, Howard & Saggi, Kamal, 2001. "Vertical technology transfer via international outsourcing," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 389-415, August.
    14. 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.
    15. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:12:y:2007:i:3:p:1-6 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. John Vickers & George Yarrow, 1991. "Economic Perspectives on Privatization," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(2), pages 111-132, Spring.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Matsumura, Toshihiro, 1998. "Partial privatization in mixed duopoly," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 473-483, December.
    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. Pal, Debashis, 1998. "Endogenous timing in a mixed oligopoly," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 181-185, November.
    22. 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.
    23. Bibhas Saha & Rudra Sensarma, 2004. "Divestment and Bank Competition," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 81(3), pages 223-247, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Leonard Wang & Tien-Der Han, 2015. "Better governance matters optimal privatization policy," Eurasian Economic Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 5(2), pages 189-206, December.
    2. Beladi, Hamid & Chakrabarti, Avik & Hollas, Daniel, 2016. "A public firm in a vertically linked price discriminating spatial duopoly," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 59-63.
    3. Nabin, Munirul H. & Nguyen, Xuan & Sgro, Pasquale M. & Chao, Chi-Chur, 2014. "Strategic quality competition, mixed oligopoly and privatization," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 142-150.
    4. Nakamura, Yasuhiko, 2014. "Capacity choice in a duopoly with a consumer-friendly firm and an absolute profit-maximizing firm," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 105-117.
    5. Wang, Chia-Chi & Chiou, Jiunn-Rong, 2015. "An analysis of policy harmonization on privatization and trade liberalization," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 279-290.
    6. Wang, Leonard F.S. & Lee, Jen-yao & Hsu, Chu-chuan, 2014. "Privatization, foreign competition, and social efficiency of free entry," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 138-147.
    7. Chen, Yi-Wen & Yang, Ya-Po & Wang, Leonard F.S. & Wu, Shih-Jye, 2014. "Technology licensing in mixed oligopoly," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 193-204.
    8. repec:kap:jeczfn:v:124:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s00712-017-0564-2 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Zhang, Huaige & Wang, Xuejun & Qing, Ping & Hong, Xianpei, 2016. "Optimal licensing of uncertain patents in a differentiated Stackelberg duopolistic competition market," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 215-229.
    10. Benchekroun, H. & Benchekroun, S., 2015. "Harvests' lifespan and North–South market share rivalry," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 114-124.
    11. Nakamura, Yasuhiko, 2015. "Endogenous choice of strategic incentives in a mixed duopoly with a new managerial delegation contract for the public firm," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 262-277.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Privatisation; Technology licensing; Welfare;

    JEL classification:

    • L33 - Industrial Organization - - Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise - - - Comparison of Public and Private Enterprise and Nonprofit Institutions; Privatization; Contracting Out
    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • L24 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Contracting Out; Joint Ventures
    • H42 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Publicly Provided Private Goods
    • H44 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Publicly Provided Goods: Mixed Markets

    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: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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620165 .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.