IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mil/wpdepa/2011-28.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Public enterprises, policy adoption and planning: three welfare propositions

Author

Listed:
  • Chiara F. DEL BO
  • Massimo FLORIO

Abstract

Public enterprises are production units of goods or services under government control. In spite of wide privatizations in the last two decades, public provision in this form can be observed in many countries and sectors, particularly in education, health, transport, energy and environment. This paper uses social Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) theory to explore the rationale for public enterprises. Three welfare propositions arise from CBA theory in a general equilibrium setting: (1) Under symmetric information and benevolent government, public provision is socially beneficial if: (a) there is a well defined production plan for some goods; (b) optimal policy and socially desirable projects are selected in such a way as to pass a social cost-benefit test at shadow prices; (c) production can never be shut down for some socially desirable goods and optimal procurement is equivalent to public production. (2) Under not (fully) benevolent government, and asymmetric information: (a) sub-optimal policy adoption leads to inconsistency in project selection; (b) the allocation of property rights will also be distorted, as privatization or government ownership are signals fixed by the government; (c) public provision and public procurement will be no more equivalent, because fo differences in information costs. (3) If the social planner is not fully benevolent, but cannot profit from policy design: (a) shadow prices are still sufficient statistics for the evaluating changes of the public plan; (b) public enterprises will be welfare superior to privately-owned enterprises (POEs) when the rents of the planner related to public ownership are less than the rents of the private providers under procurement, and shadow prices must be used to compare the outcomes. The message of the paper points to the overall quality of institutions as a pre-condition for socially desirable public enterprises as this environment provides policy-makers with the correct incentives to design and implement meaningful policies even when public administrators adopt sub-optimal plans. Hence, the building of a sound quality of institutions should be primarily focused on those mechanisms that select policies. Institutions should constrain self-interested policy-makers from disrupting the welfare signals for policy adoption as well as for project appraisal.

Suggested Citation

  • Chiara F. DEL BO & Massimo FLORIO, 2011. "Public enterprises, policy adoption and planning: three welfare propositions," Departmental Working Papers 2011-28, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
  • Handle: RePEc:mil:wpdepa:2011-28
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://wp.demm.unimi.it/files/wp/2011/DEMM-2011_028wp.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alberto Alesina & Guido Tabellini, 2003. "Bureaucrats or Politicians?," Working Papers 238, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    2. Peltzman, Sam, 1980. "The Growth of Government," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 23(2), pages 209-287, October.
    3. Bev Dahlby, 2008. "The Marginal Cost of Public Funds: Theory and Applications," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262042509.
    4. Dreze, Jean & Stern, Nicholas, 1990. "Policy reform, shadow prices, and market prices," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 1-45, June.
    5. Unknown, 2005. "Forward," 2005 Conference: Slovenia in the EU - Challenges for Agriculture, Food Science and Rural Affairs, November 10-11, 2005, Moravske Toplice, Slovenia 183804, Slovenian Association of Agricultural Economists (DAES).
    6. Laffont,Jean-Jacques, 2005. "Regulation and Development," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521549486.
    7. Peltzman, Sam, 1980. "The Growth of Government," Working Papers 1, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business, George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State.
    8. Laffont,Jean-Jacques, 2005. "Regulation and Development," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521840187.
    9. Schmidt, Klaus M., 1996. "Incomplete contracts and privatization," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 40(3-5), pages 569-579, April.
    10. repec:ucp:bkecon:9780226320625 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Lidia Ceriani & Massimo Florio, 2011. "Consumer surplus and the reform of network industries: a primer," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 102(2), pages 111-122, March.
    12. John Vickers & George Yarrow, 1988. "Privatization: An Economic Analysis," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262720116.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Mildred E. Warner, 2012. "Does Local Government Size Matter? Privatization and Hybrid Systems of Local Service Delivery," International Center for Public Policy Working Paper Series, at AYSPS, GSU paper1212, International Center for Public Policy, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    2. Chiara Del Bo & Massimo Florio, 2012. "Public enterprises, planning and policy adoption: three welfare propositions," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(4), pages 263-279, December.

    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. Elisa BORGHI & Chiara DEL BO & Massimo FLORIO, 2010. "The theory of public enterprise, social welfare and planning: a note," Departmental Working Papers 2010-20, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    2. Chiara Del Bo & Massimo Florio, 2012. "Public enterprises, planning and policy adoption: three welfare propositions," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(4), pages 263-279, December.
    3. Orietta DESSY & Massimo FLORIO, 2004. "Workers' earnings in the UK before and after privatisation: a study of five industries," Departmental Working Papers 2004-13, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    4. Sato, Susumu & Matsumura, Toshihiro, 2019. "Shadow cost of public funds and privatization policies," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    5. Mühlenkamp, Holger, 2013. "From state to market revisited: more empirical evidence on the efficiency of public (and privately-owned) enterprises," MPRA Paper 47570, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Nepal, Rabindra & Foster, John, 2015. "Electricity networks privatization in Australia: An overview of the debate," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 12-24.
    7. Lidia Ceriani & Massimo Florio, 2011. "Consumer surplus and the reform of network industries: a primer," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 102(2), pages 111-122, March.
    8. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 2002. "Political economics and public finance," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 24, pages 1549-1659, Elsevier.
    9. Elisabetta Iossa & David Martimort, 2012. "Risk allocation and the costs and benefits of public--private partnerships," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 43(3), pages 442-474, September.
    10. David Martimort & Aggey Semenov & Lars Stole, 2017. "A Theory of Contracts with Limited Enforcement," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 84(2), pages 816-852.
    11. Steven A. Meyer & Shigeto Naka, 1999. "The Determinants Of Japanese Local‐Benefit Seeking," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 17(1), pages 87-96, January.
    12. Xu, Jiajun & Ru, Xinshun & Song, Pengcheng, 2021. "Can a new model of infrastructure financing mitigate credit rationing in poorly governed countries?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 111-120.
    13. Randall Holcombe, 2005. "Government growth in the twenty-first century," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 124(1), pages 95-114, July.
    14. Anupama Sen and Tooraj Jamasb, 2012. "Diversity in Unity: An Empirical Analysis of Electricity Deregulation in Indian States," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1).
    15. Henrik Jacobsen Kleven & Claus Thustrup Kreiner & Emmanuel Saez, 2016. "Why Can Modern Governments Tax So Much? An Agency Model of Firms as Fiscal Intermediaries," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 83(330), pages 219-246, April.
    16. Fay, Marianne & Martimort, David & Straub, Stéphane, 2021. "Funding and financing infrastructure: The joint-use of public and private finance," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    17. Panayiotis C. Afxentiou & Apostolos Serletis, 1991. "A Time-Series Analysis of the Relationship Between Government Expenditure and Gdp in Canada," Public Finance Review, , vol. 19(3), pages 316-333, July.
    18. Arowolo, Wale & Perez, Yannick, 2020. "Market reform in the Nigeria power sector: A review of the issues and potential solutions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    19. John Bennett & Matthew D. Rablen, 2021. "Bribery, hold‐up, and bureaucratic structure," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(3), pages 880-903, July.
    20. Stephen King & Rohan Pitchford, 2008. "Private or Public? Towards a Taxonomy of Optimal Ownership and Management Regimes," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 84(266), pages 366-377, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cost Benefit Analysis; Publicly provided goods; Social welfare;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • H4 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods
    • I3 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty

    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:mil:wpdepa:2011-28. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/damilit.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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: DEMM Working Papers The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask DEMM Working Papers to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/damilit.html .

    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.