IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ifs/fistud/v3y1982i2p68-81.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The comparative performance of public and private enterprise

Author

Listed:
  • Richard Pryke

Abstract

The nationalised industries' performance was unsatisfactory during the 1970s. However the same can be said of much of the private sector. Poor management and low productivity are by no means confined to public enterprise and financial assistance, which has had such an adverse effect on the efficiency of the nationalised concerns, might-in the absence of public ownership-have been afforded to private firms in the way that it has abroad. Moreover, for many of the industries the alternative to state ownership is not competition under private ownership but private monopoly operating under public regulation. Hence many of the weaknesses which appear to spring from public ownership could be the result of monopoly. It is therefore a matter of judgement as to whether the ownership of the nationalised industries by the state helps to explain why they have, in general, performed so badly. In my latest book The Nationalised Industries: Policies and Performance since 1968 I concluded that public ownership has had a deleterious effect but this was at best no more than an informed opinion (and in an earlier survey of the industries, which covered the period up to 1968, I reached a different verdict).

Suggested Citation

  • Richard Pryke, 1982. "The comparative performance of public and private enterprise," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 3(2), pages 68-81, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:ifs:fistud:v:3:y:1982:i:2:p:68-81
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Cook, Paul & Fabella, Raul V., 1997. "The Welfare and Political Economy Dimensions of Private vs State Enterprise," General Discussion Papers 30561, University of Manchester, Institute for Development Policy and Management (IDPM).
    2. Bozec, Richard, 2004. "L’analyse comparative de la performance entre les entreprises publiques et les entreprises privées : le problème de mesure et son impact sur les résultats," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 80(4), pages 619-654, Décembre.
    3. Jean-Jacques Santini, 1986. "Les dénationalisations britanniques : objectifs et réalisations," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 76(5), pages 47-69.
    4. Villalonga, Belen, 2000. "Privatization and efficiency: differentiating ownership effects from political, organizational, and dynamic effects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 43-74, May.
    5. Bjuggren, Per-Olof & af Donner, Henrik, 2002. "Ownership of a cultural landmark: The case of Gotha Canal," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 499-519, May.
    6. Chen, Gongmeng & Firth, Michael & Rui, Oliver, 2006. "Have China's enterprise reforms led to improved efficiency and profitability?," Emerging Markets Review, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 82-109, March.
    7. Juan Carlos Morales Piñero & Joaquim Vergés i Jaime, 2007. "Public Enterprise Reforms and Efficiency in Regulated Enviroments," Working Papers 0702, Departament Empresa, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, revised Jan 2007.
    8. Cooper, William W. & Gallegos, Armando & Granof, Michael H., 1995. "A Delphi study of goals and evaluation criteria of state and privately owned Latin American airlines," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 273-285, December.
    9. Kamath Shyam J., 1994. "Privatization: A Market Prospect Perspective," Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 1-52, March.

    More about this item

    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:ifs:fistud:v:3:y:1982:i:2:p:68-81. 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: (Emma Hyman). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/ifsssuk.html .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.