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

Ownership and Firm Performance After Large-Scale Privatization

  • Kocenda, Evzen
  • Svejnar, Jan

We analyse the effect of ownership on post-privatization performance in a virtually complete population of medium and large firms privatized in a model large-scale privatization economy (Czech Republic). We find that concentrated foreign ownership improves economic performance, but domestic private ownership does not, relative to state-owned firms. Foreign firms engage in strategic restructuring by increasing profit and sales, while domestic firms reduce sales and labour cost without increasing profit. Ownership concentration is associated with superior performance, thus providing support to the agency theory and contradicting theories stressing the positive effects of managerial autonomy and initiative. Our results are also consistent with the thesis that the presence of a large domestic stockholder may not result in a superior performance if this shareholder ‘loots’ the firm. We find support for the hypothesis that firms restructure by lowering and later increasing employment. The state as a holder of the golden share stimulates profitable restructuring, while pursuing a socially understandable employment objective in a period of rising unemployment. Our results hence depict the state in transition economies as a much more economically and socially beneficial agent that many recent theoretical studies.

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.cepr.org/active/publications/discussion_papers/dp.php?dpno=4143
Download Restriction: CEPR Discussion Papers are free to download for our researchers, subscribers and members. If you fall into one of these categories but have trouble downloading our papers, please contact us at subscribers@cepr.org

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.

Paper provided by C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers in its series CEPR Discussion Papers with number 4143.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: Dec 2003
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:4143
Contact details of provider: Postal: Centre for Economic Policy Research, 77 Bastwick Street, London EC1V 3PZ.
Phone: 44 - 20 - 7183 8801
Fax: 44 - 20 - 7183 8820

Order Information: Email:


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. Roman Frydman & Cheryl Gray & Marek Hessel & Andrzej Rapaczynski, 1999. "When Does Privatization Work? The Impact Of Private Ownership On Corporate Performance In The Transition Economies," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 114(4), pages 1153-1191, November.
  2. Patrick BOLTON & Ernst-Ludwig VON THADDEN, 1996. "Blocks, Liquidity, and Corporate Control," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du Département d'Econométrie et d'Economie politique (DEEP) 9619, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, DEEP.
  3. Orley Ashenfelter & David Card, 1984. "Using the Longitudinal Structure of Earnings to Estimate the Effect of Training Programs," Working Papers 554, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
  4. Djankov, Simeon & Murrell, Peter, 2002. "Enterprise Restructuring in Transition: A Quantitative Survey," CEPR Discussion Papers 3319, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  5. Saul Estrin & Jozef Konings & Zbigniew Zolkiewski & Manuela Angelucci, 2001. "The Effect of Ownership and Competitive Pressure on Firm Performance in Transition Countries. Micro Evidence from Bulgaria, Romania and Poland," LICOS Discussion Papers 10401, LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance, KU Leuven.
  6. Lubomir Lizal & Evzen Kocenda, 2000. "Corruption and Anticorruption in the Czech Republic," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 345, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
  7. Wendy Carlin & Steven Fries & Mark Schaffer & Paul Seabright, 2001. "Competition and Enterprise Performance in Transition Economies: Evidence from a Cross-country Survey," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 376, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
  8. Grosfeld, Irena & Tressel, Thierry, 2001. "Competition, Corporate Governance: Substitutes or Complements? Evidence from the Warsaw Stock Exchange," CEPR Discussion Papers 2888, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  9. Jeffry M. Netter & William L. Megginson, 2001. "From State to Market: A Survey of Empirical Studies on Privatization," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 39(2), pages 321-389, June.
  10. Barberis, Nicholas & Boycko, Maxim & Shleifer, Andrei & Tsukanova, Natalia, 1996. "How Does Privatization Work? Evidence from the Russian Shops," Scholarly Articles 3451306, Harvard University Department of Economics.
  11. Claessens, Stijn & Djankov, Simeon, 1999. "Ownership Concentration and Corporate Performance in the Czech Republic," CEPR Discussion Papers 2145, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  12. Shirley, Mary & Walsh, Patrick, 2000. "Public versus private ownership : the current state of the debate," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2420, The World Bank.
  13. Aghion, Philippe & Tirole, Jean, 1994. "Formal and Real Authority in Organizations," IDEI Working Papers 37, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse.
  14. Morris Bornstein, 2001. "Post-privatisation Enterprise Restructuring," Post-Communist Economies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 189-203.
  15. Andrei Shleifer & Robert W. Vishny, 1996. "A Survey of Corporate Governance," NBER Working Papers 5554, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  16. Mike Burkart & Denis Gromb & Fausto Panunzi, 2000. "Agency Conflicts in Public and Negotiated Transfers of Corporate Control," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 55(2), pages 647-677, 04.
  17. Jonathan Temple, 1999. "The New Growth Evidence," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 37(1), pages 112-156, March.
  18. Münich, Daniel & Svejnar, Jan & Terrell, Katherine, 2000. "Returns to Human Capital under the Communist Wage Grid and During the Transition to a Market Economy," IZA Discussion Papers 122, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  19. Pohl, G. & Anderson, R.E. & Claessens, S. & Djankov, S., 1997. "Privatization and Restructuring in Central and Eastern Europe: Evidence and Policy Options," Papers 368, World Bank - Technical Papers.
  20. Holmstrom, Bengt & Tirole, Jean, 1993. "Market Liquidity and Performance Monitoring," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(4), pages 678-709, August.
  21. Randall K. Filer & Jan Hanousek, 2001. "Data Watch: Research Data from Transition Economies," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 416, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
  22. 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 958-76, October.
  23. Nandini Gupta & John C. Ham & Jan Svejnar, 2000. "Priorities and Sequencing in Privatization: Theory and Evidence from the Czech Republic," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 323, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
  24. Evžen Kočenda, 1999. "Residual State Property in the Czech Republic," Eastern European Economics, M.E. Sharpe, Inc., vol. 37(5), pages 6-35, October.
  25. Jan Svejnar & Miroslav Singer, 1994. "Using vouchers to privatize an economy: the Czech and Slovak case," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 2(1), pages 43-69, 03.
  26. Alan Bevan & Saul Estrin & Mark E. Schaffer, 1999. "Determinants of Enterprise Performance during Transition," CERT Discussion Papers 9903, Centre for Economic Reform and Transformation, Heriot Watt University.
  27. Wendy Carlin & Philippe Aghion, 1996. "Restructuring outcomes and the evolution of ownership patterns in Central and Eastern Europe," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 4(2), pages 371-388, October.
  28. Gérard Roland, 2004. "Transition and Economics: Politics, Markets, and Firms," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 026268148x, June.
  29. Evžen Kočenda & Juraj Valachy, 2002. "Firm ownership structures: dynamic development," Prague Economic Papers, University of Economics, Prague, vol. 2002(3).
  30. Cornelli, Francesca & Portes, Richard & Schaffer, Mark E, 1996. "The Capital Structure of Firms in Central and Eastern Europe," CEPR Discussion Papers 1392, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  31. Demsetz, Harold & Lehn, Kenneth, 1985. "The Structure of Corporate Ownership: Causes and Consequences," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(6), pages 1155-77, December.
  32. Irena Grosfeld & Jean-Francois Nivet, 1997. "Firms' Heterogeneity in Transition: Evidence from a Polish Data Set," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 47, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
  33. White, Halbert, 1982. "Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Misspecified Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(1), pages 1-25, January.
  34. Smith, Stephen C. & Cin, Beom-Cheol & Vodopivec, Milan, 1997. "Privatization Incidence, Ownership Forms, and Firm Performance: Evidence from Slovenia," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 158-179, October.
  35. Lubomír Lízal & Jan Svejnar, 2002. "Investment, Credit Rationing, And The Soft Budget Constraint: Evidence From Czech Panel Data," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(2), pages 353-370, May.
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:cpr:ceprdp:4143. 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: ()

The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask to update the entry or send us the correct address

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.