IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/aareco/2003_017.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Effects of Privatization and Competitive Pressure on Firms’ Price-Cost Margins: Micro Evidence from Emerging Economies

Author

Listed:
  • Konings, Jozef

    (Department of Economics, Aarhus School of Business)

  • Van Cayseele, Patrick

    (Department of Economics, Aarhus School of Business)

  • Warzynski, Frédéric

    () (Department of Economics, Aarhus School of Business)

Abstract

This paper uses representative panel data of 1,701 Bulgarian and 2,047 Romanian manufacturing firms to analyze how price-cost margins are affected by privatization and competitive pressure. Privatization is associated with higher price-cost margins. This effect is stronger in highly competitive sectors, which suggests that the creation of competitive markets and privatization go together. This also suggests that privatized firms reduce costs, rather than increase prices, as in highly competitive markets firms are more likely price-takers. Import penetration is associated with lower price-cost margins in sectors where product market concentration is high, but in more competitive sectors this effect is reversed.

Suggested Citation

  • Konings, Jozef & Van Cayseele, Patrick & Warzynski, Frédéric, 2003. "The Effects of Privatization and Competitive Pressure on Firms’ Price-Cost Margins: Micro Evidence from Emerging Economies," Working Papers 03-17, University of Aarhus, Aarhus School of Business, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:hhs:aareco:2003_017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.hba.dk/fsk/pdfs/0003135.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jan Svejnar & Evzen Kocenda, 2002. "The Effects of Ownership Forms and Concentration on Firm Performance after Large-Scale Privatization," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 471, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    2. Saul Estrin, 2002. "Competition and Corporate Governance in Transition," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(1), pages 101-124, Winter.
    3. Nina Pavcnik, 2002. "Trade Liberalization, Exit, and Productivity Improvements: Evidence from Chilean Plants," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 69(1), pages 245-276.
    4. Simeon Djankov & Peter Murrell, 2002. "Enterprise Restructuring in Transition: A Quantitative Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 40(3), pages 739-792, September.
    5. Walsh, Patrick Paul & Whelan, Ciara, 2001. "Firm performance and the political economy of corporate governance: survey evidence for Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia and Slovenia," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 85-112, June.
    6. Dewatripont, Mathias & Roland, Gerard, 1995. "The Design of Reform Packages under Uncertainty," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1207-1223, December.
    7. Gérard Roland, 2004. "Transition and Economics: Politics, Markets, and Firms," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 026268148x, September.
    8. Levinsohn, James, 1993. "Testing the imports-as-market-discipline hypothesis," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1-2), pages 1-22, August.
    9. James Levinsohn & Steven Berry & Ariel Pakes, 1999. "Voluntary Export Restraints on Automobiles: Evaluating a Trade Policy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 400-430, June.
    10. S Estrin & P Hare, 1992. "Firms in Transition: Modelling Enterprise Adjustment," CEP Discussion Papers dp0089, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    11. Wei Li, 1999. "A Tale of Two Reforms," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 30(1), pages 120-136, Spring.
    12. Hall, Robert E, 1988. "The Relation between Price and Marginal Cost in U.S. Industry," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 96(5), pages 921-947, October.
    13. Harrison, Ann E., 1994. "Productivity, imperfect competition and trade reform : Theory and evidence," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1-2), pages 53-73, February.
    14. Lubomir Lizal & Miroslav Singer & Jan Svejnar, 2001. "Enterprise Breakups And Performance During The Transition From Plan To Market," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 83(1), pages 92-99, February.
    15. Rafael La Porta & Florencio López-de-Silanes, 1999. "The Benefits of Privatization: Evidence from Mexico," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 114(4), pages 1193-1242.
    16. Olley, G Steven & Pakes, Ariel, 1996. "The Dynamics of Productivity in the Telecommunications Equipment Industry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 64(6), pages 1263-1297, November.
    17. 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.
    18. Jan Hanousek & Evzen Kocenda & Jan Svejnar, 2004. "Ownership, Control and Corporate Performance after Large-Scale Privatization," Microeconomics 0406002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Domowitz, Ian & Hubbard, R Glenn & Petersen, Bruce C, 1988. "Market Structure and Cyclical Fluctuations in U.S. Manufacturing," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 70(1), pages 55-66, February.
    20. Roeger, Werner, 1995. "Can Imperfect Competition Explain the Difference between Primal and Dual Productivity Measures? Estimates for U.S. Manufacturing," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(2), pages 316-330, April.
    21. Chang-Tai Hsieh, 2002. "What Explains the Industrial Revolution in East Asia? Evidence From the Factor Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(3), pages 502-526, June.
    22. Jean Tirole, 1991. "Privatization in Eastern Europe: Incentives and the Economics of Transition," NBER Chapters, in: NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1991, Volume 6, pages 221-268, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    23. Paul Joskow & Richard Schmalensee, 1995. "Privatization in Russia: What Should be a Firm?," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(2), pages 297-327.
    24. Krishna, Pravin & Mitra, Devashish, 1998. "Trade liberalization, market discipline and productivity growth: new evidence from India," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 447-462, August.
    25. 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, Oxford University Press, vol. 114(4), pages 1153-1191.
    26. Blanchard, Olivier Jean, 1994. "Transition in Poland," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 104(426), pages 1169-1177, September.
    27. Konings, Jozef & Vandenbussche, Hylke, 2002. "Does Antidumping Protection Raise Market Power? Evidence from Firm Level Data," CEPR Discussion Papers 3571, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    28. James R. Tybout, 2001. "Plant- and Firm-Level Evidence on "New" Trade Theories," NBER Working Papers 8418, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Jozef Konings & Patrick Van Cayseele & Frederic Warzynski, 2003. "The Effects Of Privatization And International Competitive Pressure On Firms??? Price-Cost Margins: Micro Evidence From Emerging Economies1," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 2003-603, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    2. Asaftei, Gabriel & Parmeter, Christopher F., 2010. "Market power, EU integration and privatization: The case of Romania," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 340-356, September.
    3. Holger Görg & Frederic Warzynski, 2003. "Price Cost Margins and Exporting Behaviour: Evidence from Firm Level Data," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 365, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    4. Matteo Bugamelli & Silvia Fabiani & Enrico Sette, "undated". "The age of the dragon: Chinese competition and the pricing behavior of the Italian firms," Working Papers 4, Department of the Treasury, Ministry of the Economy and of Finance.
    5. Konings, Jozef & Vandenbussche, Hylke, 2005. "Antidumping protection and markups of domestic firms," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 151-165, January.
    6. Frederic Warzynski & Jan De Loecker, 2010. "Markups and Firm-level Exports," 2010 Meeting Papers 438, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    7. Rosen Marinov, 2010. "Competitive Pressure in Transition: A Role for Trade and Competition Policies?," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 1-31, March.
    8. Matteo Bugamelli & Silvia Fabiani & Enrico Sette, 2015. "The Age of the Dragon: The Effect of Imports from China on Firm‐Level Prices," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 47(6), pages 1091-1118, September.
    9. Eleni A Kaditi, 2011. "Market Dynamics in Supply Chains: The Impact of Globalisation and Consolidation on Food Companie's Mark-ups," Working Papers id:4430, eSocialSciences.
    10. Kee Hiau Looi, 2004. "Estimating Productivity When Primal and Dual TFP Accounting Fail: An Illustration Using Singapore's Industries," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-40, October.
    11. Jacques-Bernard Sauner-Leroy, 2003. "The impact of the implementation of the Single Market Programme on productive efficiency and on mark-ups in the European Union manufacturing industry," European Economy - Economic Papers 2008 - 2015 192, Directorate General Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN), European Commission.
    12. Danny Leung, 2008. "Markups in Canada: Have They Changed and Why?," Staff Working Papers 08-7, Bank of Canada.
    13. Hylke Vandenbussche & Ziga Zarnic, 2006. "Did US Safeguard Protection on Steel Affect Market Power of European Steel Producers?," LICOS Discussion Papers 17606, LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance, KU Leuven.
    14. Peltonen, Tuomas A. & Skala, Martin & Santos Rivera, Alvaro & Pula, Gabor, 2008. "Imports and profitability in the euro area manufacturing sector: the role of emerging market economies," Working Paper Series 918, European Central Bank.
    15. Mary Amiti & Jozef Konings, 2007. "Trade Liberalization, Intermediate Inputs, and Productivity: Evidence from Indonesia," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1611-1638, December.
    16. Saul Estrin & Jan Hanousek & Evzen Kocenda & Jan Svejnar, 2009. "The Effects of Privatization and Ownership in Transition Economies," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(3), pages 699-728, September.
    17. Miaojie Yu, 2010. "Processing Trade, Firm's Productivity, and Tariff Reductions : Evidence from Chinese Products," Macroeconomics Working Papers 22799, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    18. Jan De Loecker & Frederic Warzynski, 2012. "Markups and Firm-Level Export Status," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2437-2471, October.
    19. Jan De Loecker & Pinelopi K. Goldberg & Amit K. Khandelwal & Nina Pavcnik, 2016. "Prices, Markups, and Trade Reform," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 84, pages 445-510, March.
    20. Devashish Mitra, 2019. "Responses to Trade Opening: Evidence and Lessons from Asia," Working Papers id:12977, eSocialSciences.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Competition; privatization; firm performance; transition;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L33 - Industrial Organization - - Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise - - - Comparison of Public and Private Enterprise and Nonprofit Institutions; Privatization; Contracting Out

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hhs:aareco:2003_017. 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: (Helle Vinbaek Stenholt) The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Helle Vinbaek Stenholt to update the entry or send us the correct email address. General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/nihhadk.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.

    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.