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

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

  • Jozef Konings
  • Patrick Van Cayseele
  • Frederic Warzynski

This paper uses representative firm level panel data of 1,701 Bulgarian and 2,047 Romanian manufacturing firms to estimate market power (i.e. price-cost margins) and to analyze how these are affected by privatization and increased competitive pressure. In contrast to earlier work that analyzes the effect of ownership on firm performance, the estimation method we use deals with potential endogeneity problems that are associated with estimating firm performance, by making use of the properties of the primal and dual Solow residual. State owned enterprises have lower price-cost margins than privatized and foreign owned firms, which suggests that state owned enterprises price closer to marginal costs and are more concerned with maximizing social welfare (allocative efficiency). An alternative interpretation is that state owned firms have higher costs than private firms. Foreign owned firms have the highest price-cost margins. Also privatized domestic owned firms have higher price-cost margins than state owned enterprises. In addition, our results give support to the idea that opening to trade has a disciplining effect on firms?market power. We find that increased import penetration is associated with lower price cost margins in sectors where product market concentration is relatively high.

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.econ.kuleuven.be/licos/publications/dp/dp125.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance, KU Leuven in its series LICOS Discussion Papers with number 12502.

as
in new window

Length: 42 pages
Date of creation: 2002
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:lic:licosd:12502
Contact details of provider: Postal: De Bériotstraat 34, B-3000 Leuven
Phone: +32 (0) 16 / 32 6598
Fax: +32 (0) 16 / 32 6599
Web page: http://www.econ.kuleuven.be/licos
Email:


More information through EDIRC

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. Jan Hanousek & Evžen 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.
  2. Dewatripont, Mathias & Roland, Gérard, 1993. "The Design of Reform Packages Under Uncertainty," CEPR Discussion Papers 860, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  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. Patrick Paul Walsh & Ciara Whelan, 2000. "Firm Performance and the Political Economy of Corporate Governance: Survey Evidence for Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia and Slovenia," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 338, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
  5. 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 316-30, April.
  6. Saul Estrin, 2002. "Competition and Corporate Governance in Transition," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(1), pages 101-124, Winter.
  7. Olley, G Steven & Pakes, Ariel, 1996. "The Dynamics of Productivity in the Telecommunications Equipment Industry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 64(6), pages 1263-97, November.
  8. Evzen Kocenda & Jan Svejnar, 2003. "Ownership and Firm Performance after Large-Scale Privatization," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp209, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
  9. Levinsohn, James, 1993. "Testing the imports-as-market-discipline hypothesis," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1-2), pages 1-22, August.
  10. 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.
  11. Gérard Roland, 2004. "Transition and Economics: Politics, Markets, and Firms," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 026268148x, June.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. Rafael La Porta & Florencio López-De-Silanes, 1999. "The Benefits Of Privatization: Evidence From Mexico," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 114(4), pages 1193-1242, November.
  15. 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 921-47, October.
  16. Lubomir Lizal & Jan Svejnar, 2001. "Investment, Credit Rationing and the Soft Budget Constraint: Evidence from Czech Panel Data," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 363, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
  17. Wei Li, 1999. "A Tale of Two Reforms," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 30(1), pages 120-136, Spring.
  18. 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.
  19. Nina Pavcnik, 2000. "Trade Liberalization, Exit, and Productivity Improvements: Evidence from Chilean Plants," NBER Working Papers 7852, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  20. 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.
  21. James R. Tybout, 2001. "Plant- and Firm-Level Evidence on "New" Trade Theories," NBER Working Papers 8418, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  22. Blanchard, Olivier Jean, 1994. "Transition in Poland," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 104(426), pages 1169-77, September.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
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:lic:licosd:12502. 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: ()

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.