IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pid/journl/v35y1996i4p649-656.html

Why Regulate a Privatised Firm?

Author

Listed:
  • A.R. Kemal

    (Planning Commission, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad.)

Abstract

The paper examines changes in the levels of efficiency as a result of privatisation in Pakistan. By comparing the growth rates of the privatised industries in pre- and post- Privatisation period, changes in relative prices and the rate of return on equity, it concludes that producers may have indulged in monopolistic exploitation. The paper argues that even if the private firms have lower cost curves as compared to public sector at all the levels of output, at the equilibrium, public-sector firms may have lower cost. Accordingly, the regulation of the private monopoly, especially in the non-traded sector, is absolutely necessary. However, if regulation implies uncertainty and less flexibility to private sector firms, even compared with public sector enterprises, then regulated privatesector firms would be counter-productive. It suggests that the perfect contest-ability model which allows the firm to make sufficient profits and leave them free to take the decisions will be a better alternative. The price caps in line with changes in productivity and the general inflation rates may be a more efficient intervention.

Suggested Citation

  • A.R. Kemal, 1996. "Why Regulate a Privatised Firm?," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 35(4), pages 649-656.
    • Handle: RePEc:pid:journl:v:35:y:1996:i:4:p:649-656
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.pide.org.pk/pdf/PDR/1996/Volume4/649-656.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Foreman-Peck, James, "undated". "Ownership, Competition And Productivity Growth: The Impact Of Liberalisation And Privatisation Upon British Telecom," Economic Research Papers 268372, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    3. William J. Baumol, 1996. "Rules For Beneficial Privatization: Practical Implications Of Economic Analysis," Islamic Economic Studies, The Islamic Research and Training Institute (IRTI), vol. 3, pages 1-32.
    4. Syed Nawab Haider Naqvi & A. R. Kemal, 1991. "The Privatization of the Public Industrial Enterprises in Pakistan," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 30(2), pages 105-144.
    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. Abdullah Muhammad Iqbal & Iram Khan & Zeeshan Ahmed, 2015. "Earnings Management and Privatisations: Evidence from Pakistan," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 54(2), pages 79-96.
    2. A. R. Kemal, 2002. "Regulatory Framework in Pakistan," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 41(4), pages 319-332.
    3. Iram A. Khan, 2003. "Impact of Privatisation on Employment and Output in Pakistan," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 42(4), pages 513-536.

    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. Richard Bozec, 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.
    2. David H. Good, 1992. "Productive Efficiency and Contract Management: Some Evidence From Public Transit Agencies," Public Finance Review, , vol. 20(2), pages 195-215, April.
    3. Yarmukhamedov, Sherzod & Smith, Andrew S.J. & Thiebaud, Jean-Christophe, 2020. "Competitive tendering, ownership and cost efficiency in road maintenance services in Sweden: A panel data analysis," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 194-204.
    4. Schmidt, Klaus-Dieter, 1998. "Privatization and local government reform in Germany: A slow train," Kiel Working Papers 891, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
    5. Jason Coupet & Abagail McWilliams, 2017. "Integrating Organizational Economics and Resource Dependence Theory to Explain the Persistence of Quasi Markets," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-13, August.
    6. John Vickers & George Yarrow, 1991. "Economic Perspectives on Privatization," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(2), pages 111-132, Spring.
    7. Stiglitz, Joseph, 1991. "Theoretical Aspects of the Privatization: Applications to Eastern Europe," Institute for Policy Reform Working Paper Series 294670, Institute for Policy Reform.
    8. Álvarez, María José & González de la Fe, Pedro, 1998. "Las cuentas de las privatizaciones: el caso de Seat," DEE - Documentos de Trabajo. Economía de la Empresa. DB 6398, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía de la Empresa.
    9. Luisa Affuso & Alvaro Angeriz & Michael Pollitt, 2009. "The Impact of Privatisation on the Efficiency of Train Operation in Britain," Working Papers 28, Queen Mary, University of London, School of Business and Management, Centre for Globalisation Research.
    10. J. David Brown & John S. Earle & Solomiya Shpak & Volodymyr Vakhitov, 2019. "Is Privatization Working in Ukraine?," Comparative Economic Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Association for Comparative Economic Studies, vol. 61(1), pages 1-35, March.
    11. Inwood, Kris & Keay, Ian, 2006. "Assessing Economic Performance among North American Manufacturing Establishments, 1870/71: Data, Methodology and Measurement Issues," Queen's Economics Department Working Papers 273468, Queen's University - Department of Economics.
    12. John E. Kwoka, 2005. "The comparative advantage of public ownership: evidence from U.S. electric utilities," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(2), pages 622-640, May.
    13. Ghosh, Madanmohan & Whalley, John, 2008. "State owned enterprises, shirking and trade liberalization," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 1206-1215, November.
    14. Sanghamitra Das & Kala M. Krishna & Sergey Lychagin & Rohini Somanathan, 2011. "Lifting the Veil: The Face of TFP in an Indian Rail Mill," CESifo Working Paper Series 3515, CESifo.
    15. Carlos Pestana Barros & António Gomes de Menezes & Jos頠 Cabral Vieira, 2013. "Measurement of hospital efficiency, using a latent class stochastic frontier model," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(1), pages 47-54, January.
    16. Masudul Alam Choudhury, 2000. "Regulation in the Islamic Political Economy: Comparative Perspectives تدخل الدولة في الاقتصاد السياسي الإسلامي: وجهات نظر مقارنة," Journal of King Abdulaziz University: Islamic Economics, King Abdulaziz University, Islamic Economics Institute., vol. 12(1), pages 21-51, January.
    17. Cristina Gaio & Inês Pinto & Luís Rodrigues, 2016. "Are State-Owned Firms Less Profitable Than Non-State-Owned Firms? European Evidence," Portuguese Journal of Management Studies, ISEG, Universidade de Lisboa, vol. 21(1), pages 3-24.
    18. Michael G. Kirby & Robert P. Albon, 1985. "Property Rights, Regulation and Efficiency: A Further Comment on Australia's Two‐Airline Policy," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 61(2), pages 535-539, June.
    19. Ronald Teeples & Susan Feigenbaum & David Glyer, 1986. "Public versus Private Water Delivery: Cost Comparisons," Public Finance Review, , vol. 14(3), pages 351-366, July.
    20. Confraria, João, 1996. "Az iparpolitika megváltozott szerepe - Portugália és Magyarország egybevetése [The changing role of industrial policy - a comparison between Portugal and Hungary]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(1), pages 72-86.

    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:pid:journl:v:35:y:1996:i:4:p:649-656. 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: Khurram Iqbal (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/pideipk.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.