IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/jeurec/v3y2005i2-3p567-575.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why did Transition Economies Choose Mass Privatization?

Author

Listed:
  • John Bennett

    (Brunel University,)

  • Saul Estrin

    (London Business School,)

  • James Maw

    (University of Wales Swansea,)

Abstract

In many transition countries privatization has taken the form of distribution of states assets at a zero price (mass privatization), and the state has retained some ownership in many companies.We provide a rationale for these policies in terms of a political feasibility constraint, preventing sale at a negative price. The government may choose to retain some ownership in order to make the constraint bite, in effect raising its bargaining power. As a result, mass privatization may actually have been revenue-maximizing; that is, may have been rational in an economic sense, as well as in the political sense previously claimed. (JEL: L33, P21) Copyright (c) 2005 The European Economic Association.

Suggested Citation

  • John Bennett & Saul Estrin & James Maw, 2005. "Why did Transition Economies Choose Mass Privatization?," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 3(2-3), pages 567-575, 04/05.
  • Handle: RePEc:tpr:jeurec:v:3:y:2005:i:2-3:p:567-575
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1542-4774/issues
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Tian, Lihui & Estrin, Saul, 2008. "Retained state shareholding in Chinese PLCs: Does government ownership always reduce corporate value?," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 74-89, March.
    2. Bhaumik, Sumon Kumar & Estrin, Saul, 2007. "How transition paths differ: Enterprise performance in Russia and China," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 374-392, March.
    3. Bennett, John & Estrin, Saul & Maw, James, 2007. "The choice of privatization method in a transition economy when insiders control a firm," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 806-819, September.
    4. Ran Zhang & Zabihollah Rezaee & Jigao Zhu, 2010. "Corporate Philanthropic Disaster Response and Ownership Type: Evidence from Chinese Firms’ Response to the Sichuan Earthquake," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 91(1), pages 51-63, January.
    5. Jan Hanousek & Evžen Kočenda, 2011. "Rozsah integrovaného státního vlastnictví a vliv firemní kontroly na výkonnost českých podniků
      [Extent of the Integrated State Ownership and Effect of the State Control on Performance of Czech Firm
      ," Politická ekonomie, University of Economics, Prague, vol. 2011(1), pages 82-104.
    6. Wenjing Li & Ran Zhang, 2010. "Corporate Social Responsibility, Ownership Structure, and Political Interference: Evidence from China," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 96(4), pages 631-645, November.
    7. Iwasaki, Ichiro & Kočenda, Evžen, 2017. "Are some owners better than others in Czech privatized firms? Even meta-analysis can’t make us perfectly sure," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 537-568.
    8. Choon-Yin Sam, 2013. "Partial privatisation and the role of state owned holding companies in China," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 17(3), pages 767-789, August.
    9. Evžen Kočenda & Jan Hanousek, 2012. "State ownership and control in the Czech Republic," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 157-191, August.
    10. Jan Hanousek & Evžen Kočenda, 2008. "Potential of the state to control privatized firms," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 167-186, June.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • L33 - Industrial Organization - - Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise - - - Comparison of Public and Private Enterprise and Nonprofit Institutions; Privatization; Contracting Out
    • P21 - Economic Systems - - Socialist Systems and Transition Economies - - - Planning, Coordination, and Reform

    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:tpr:jeurec:v:3:y:2005:i:2-3:p:567-575. 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: (Ann Olson). General contact details of provider: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/jeea .

    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.