IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lec/leecon/04-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Who gets privatised? An empirical analysis of Polish manufacturing

Author

Listed:
  • Katarzyna Mikolajczyk
  • Barbara M. Roberts

    ()

Abstract

This paper employs a multinomial logit model to examine what determines the choice of a particular firm for a given privatisation method. A variety of hypotheses about possible determinants of ownership change are tested using an extensive data set for Polish manufacturing at the beginning of transition. The results at a firm as well as at a sector level give strong support to the hypothesis of the importance of resource constraints on the choice of ownership. Large firms with high financing requirement are more likely to be owned by outsiders. High sectoral capital intensity discourages small insider owned firms while high degree of product differentiation is a constraint for different investors, with the exception of outsiders. We also find that firm quality, measured by profitability and exporting outside the Soviet block, appeals to all types of investors but, additionally, privatisation offers outsiders ways of entering sectors with substantial entry barriers.

Suggested Citation

  • Katarzyna Mikolajczyk & Barbara M. Roberts, 2004. "Who gets privatised? An empirical analysis of Polish manufacturing," Discussion Papers in Economics 04/9, Division of Economics, School of Business, University of Leicester.
  • Handle: RePEc:lec:leecon:04/9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.le.ac.uk/economics/research/RePEc/lec/leecon/dp04-9.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bernard, Andrew B. & Bradford Jensen, J., 1999. "Exceptional exporter performance: cause, effect, or both?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 1-25, February.
    2. Shapiro, Daniel & Khemani, R. S., 1987. "The determinants of entry and exit reconsidered," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 15-26, March.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Anton Marcinèin & Sweder van Wijnbergen, 1997. "The impact of Czech privatization methods on enterprise performance incorporating initial selection‐bias correction1," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 5(2), pages 289-304, November.
    6. Carlin, Wendy & Landesmann, Michael, 1997. "From Theory into Practice? Restructuring and Dynamism in Transition Economies," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(2), pages 77-105, Summer.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Barbara Roberts & Steve Thompson, 2003. "Entry and Exit in a Transition Economy: The Case of Poland," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 22(3), pages 225-243, May.
    10. Philippe Aghion & Olivier J. Blanchard, 1998. "On privatization methods in Eastern Europe and their implications1," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 6(1), pages 87-99, May.
    11. Robert H. McGuckin & Sang V. Nguyen, 1995. "On Productivity and Plant Ownership Change: New Evidence from the Longitudinal Research Database," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(2), pages 257-276, Summer.
    12. Geroski, P. A., 1995. "What do we know about entry?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 421-440, December.
    13. Jones, Derek C. & Mygind, Niels, 1999. "The Nature and Determinants of Ownership Changes after Privatization: Evidence from Estonia," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 422-441, September.
    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. Barbara Blaszczyk & Iraj Hashi & Alexander Radygin & Richard Woodward, 2003. "Corporate Governance and Ownership Structure in the Transition: The Current State of Knowledge and Where to Go from Here," CASE Network Studies and Analyses 0264, CASE-Center for Social and Economic Research.
    2. Sprenger, Carsten, 2011. "The choice of ownership structure: Evidence from Russian mass privatization," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 260-277, June.
    3. Marko Simoneti & Joze P. Damijan & Matija Rojec & Boris Majcen, 2004. "Case-by-case versus Mass Privatization in Transition Economies: Owner and Seller Effects on Performance of Firms in Slovenia," LICOS Discussion Papers 14304, LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance, KU Leuven.
    4. Derek Jones & Panu Kalmi & Niels Mygind, 2005. "Choice of Ownership Structure and Firm Performance: Evidence from Estonia," Post-Communist Economies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(1), pages 83-107.
    5. Jan Hanousek & Ev??en Ko?enda & Jan Svejnar, 2004. "Ownership, Control and Corporate Performance After Large-Scale Privatization," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 2004-652, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    6. Le, Manh-Duc & Pieri, Fabio & Zaninotto, Enrico, 2019. "From central planning towards a market economy: The role of ownership and competition in Vietnamese firms’ productivity," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 693-716.
    7. Norback, Pehr-Johan & Persson, Lars, 2006. "Endogenous asset ownership structures in deregulated markets," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 50(7), pages 1729-1752, October.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Mickiewicz, Tomasz & Gerry, Christopher J. & Bishop, Kate, 2005. "Privatisation, corporate control and employment growth: Evidence from a panel of large Polish firms, 1996-2002," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 98-119, March.
    11. Ugur Soytas, 2006. "Long run relationship between entry and exit: time series evidence from Turkish manufacturing industry," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 12(11), pages 1-12.
    12. Hagemejer, Jan & Svejnar, Jan & Tyrowicz, Joanna, 2018. "Are Rushed Privatizations Substandard? Analyzing Firm-level Privatization under Fiscal Pressure," CEPR Discussion Papers 12991, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    13. J. David Brown & John Earle & Almos Telegdy, 2005. "Does Privatization Hurt Workers? Lessons from Comprehensive Manufacturing Firm Panel Data in Hungary, Romania, Russia, and Ukraine," CERT Discussion Papers 0509, Centre for Economic Reform and Transformation, Heriot Watt University.
    14. Stefan Bojnec & Ana Xavier, 2004. "Entry and exit in transition economies: the Slovenian manufacturing sector," Post-Communist Economies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(2), pages 191-214.
    15. Driffield, Nigel L. & Mickiewicz, Tomasz & Temouri, Yama, 2013. "Institutional reforms, productivity and profitability: From rents to competition?," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 583-600.
    16. Gan, Jie & Guo, Yan & Xu, Cheng-Gang, 2015. "China’s Decentralized Privatization and Change of Control Rights," CEPR Discussion Papers 10331, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    17. Calá, Carla Daniela, 2014. "Regional issues on firm entry and exit in argentina: core and peripheral regions," Nülan. Deposited Documents 2023, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    18. J. DavidBrown & JohnS. Earle & Álmos Telegdy, 2010. "Employment and Wage Effects of Privatisation: Evidence from Hungary, Romania, Russia and Ukraine," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 120(545), pages 683-708, June.
    19. John S. Earle & Solomiya Shpak, 2019. "Impact of privatization on employment and earnings," IZA World of Labor, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), pages 1-93, June.
    20. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:12:y:2006:i:11:p:1-12 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. J. David Brown & John Earle & Almos Telegdy, 2004. "Does Privatization Raise Productivity? Evidence from Comprehensive Panel Data on Manufacturing Firms in Hungary, Romania, Russia, and Ukraine," CERT Discussion Papers 0410, Centre for Economic Reform and Transformation, Heriot Watt University.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    privatisation methods; ownership change; multinomial logit;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • P21 - Economic Systems - - Socialist Systems and Transition Economies - - - Planning, Coordination, and Reform
    • P31 - Economic Systems - - Socialist Institutions and Their Transitions - - - Socialist Enterprises and Their Transitions
    • L33 - Industrial Organization - - Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise - - - Comparison of Public and Private Enterprise and Nonprofit Institutions; Privatization; Contracting Out
    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities

    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:lec:leecon:04/9. 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: (Abbie Sleath). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/deleiuk.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.