IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/6215.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Benefits of Privatization: Evidence from Mexico

Author

Listed:
  • Rafael La Porta
  • Florencio Lopez-de-Silane

Abstract

Criticisms of privatization have centered around the possibility that the observed higher profitability of privatized companies comes at the expense of the rest of society. In this paper we focus on two of the most likely channels for social losses: (1) increased prices as firms capitalize on the market power; and (2) layoffs and lower wages as firms seek to roll back generous labor contracts. Using data for all 218 non-financial privatizations that took place in Mexico between 1983 and 1991 we find that privatized firms quickly bridge the pre-privatization performance gap with industry-matched control groups. For example, privatization is followed by a 24 percentage point increase in the ratio of operating income to sales. We roughly decompose those gains in profitability as follows: 10 percent of the increase is due to higher product prices; 33 percent of the increase represents a transfer from laid-off workers; and productivity gains account for the residual 57 percent. Transfers from society to the firm are partially offset by taxes which absorb slightly over half the gains in operating income. Finally, we also find evidence indicating that deregulation is associated with faster convergence to industry benchmarks.

Suggested Citation

  • Rafael La Porta & Florencio Lopez-de-Silane, 1997. "The Benefits of Privatization: Evidence from Mexico," NBER Working Papers 6215, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:6215
    Note: CF PE
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w6215.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Caves, Richard E., 1990. "Lessons from privatization in Britain : State enterprise behavior, public choice, and corporate governance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 145-169, March.
    2. George J. Stigler, 1971. "The Theory of Economic Regulation," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 2(1), pages 3-21, Spring.
    3. Megginson, William L & Nash, Robert C & van Randenborgh, Matthias, 1994. "The Financial and Operating Performance of Newly Privatized Firms: An International Empirical Analysis," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 49(2), pages 403-452, June.
    4. Florencio López-de-Silanes, 1997. "Determinants of Privatization Prices," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 112(4), pages 965-1025.
    5. Alfred E. Kahn, 1988. "The Economics of Regulation: Principles and Institutions," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262610523, December.
    6. Jean-Jacques Laffont & Jean Tirole, 1993. "A Theory of Incentives in Procurement and Regulation," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262121743, December.
    7. John Vickers & George Yarrow, 1988. "Privatization: An Economic Analysis," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262720116, December.
    8. Andrei Shleifer & Robert W. Vishny, 1994. "Politicians and Firms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 109(4), pages 995-1025.
    9. Shapiro, C. & Willing, D.R., 1990. "Economic Rationales For The Scope Of Privatization," Papers 41, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - Discussion Paper.
    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. Máximo Torero, 2002. "Peruvian Privatization: Impacts On Firm Performance," Research Department Publications 3169, Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department.
    2. Filippo Belloc, 2014. "Innovation in State-Owned Enterprises: Reconsidering the Conventional Wisdom," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(3), pages 821-848.
    3. Rousseau, Peter L. & Xiao, Sheng, 2008. "Change of control and the success of China's share-issue privatization," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 605-613, December.
    4. Villalonga, Belen, 2000. "Privatization and efficiency: differentiating ownership effects from political, organizational, and dynamic effects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 43-74, May.
    5. Parker, David, 2001. "Economic Regulation: A Preliminary Literature Review and Summary of Research Questions Arising," Centre on Regulation and Competition (CRC) Working papers 30616, University of Manchester, Institute for Development Policy and Management (IDPM).
    6. Saibal Ghosh, 2010. "How Did State‐Owned Banks Respond To Privatization? Evidence From The Indian Experiment," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 81(3), pages 389-421, September.
    7. Wolf, Christian, 2009. "Does ownership matter? The performance and efficiency of State Oil vs. Private Oil (1987-2006)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(7), pages 2642-2652, July.
    8. Máximo Torero & Lorena Alcazar & Eduardo Nakasone, 2007. "El suministro de servicios públicos y bienestar social para los pobres. Aprendizaje de la privatización incompleta del sector eléctrico en Perú," Research Department Publications 3233, Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department.
    9. Lulfesmann, Christoph, 2007. "On the virtues of privatization when government is benevolent," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 17-34, September.
    10. Alberto Chong & Florencio de, 2003. "The Truth about Privatization in Latin America," Yale School of Management Working Papers ysm436, Yale School of Management.
    11. Mauricio Garrón B. & Carlos Gustavo Machicado & Katherina Capra, 2003. "Privatization in Bolivia: The Impact on Firm Performance," Research Department Publications 3154, Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department.
    12. Druk-Gal, Bat-Sheva & Yaari, Varda, 2006. "Incumbent employees' resistance to implementing privatization policy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 374-405, March.
    13. Nandini Gupta, 2001. "Partial Privatization and Firm Performance: Evidence from India," Industrial Organization 0112002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Willner, Johan & Parker, David, 2002. "The Relative Performance of Public and Private Enterprise Under Conditions of Active and Passive Ownership," Centre on Regulation and Competition (CRC) Working papers 30591, University of Manchester, Institute for Development Policy and Management (IDPM).
    15. Máximo Torero & Lorena Alcazar & Eduardo Nakasone, 2007. "Provision of Public Services and Welfare of the Poor: Learning from an Incomplete Electricity Privatization Process in Rural Peru," Research Department Publications 3232, Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department.
    16. Parker, David & Kirkpatrick, Colin, 2002. "Researching Economic Regulation in Developing Countries: Developing a Methodology for Critical Analysis," Centre on Regulation and Competition (CRC) Working papers 30665, University of Manchester, Institute for Development Policy and Management (IDPM).
    17. Boubakri, Narjess & Cosset, Jean-Claude & Saffar, Walid, 2008. "Political connections of newly privatized firms," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 14(5), pages 654-673, December.
    18. Elisabetta Bertero & Laura Rondi, 2002. "Hardening a Soft Budget Constraint Through 'Upward Devolution' to a Supranational Institution: The Case of Italian State-Owned Firms and the European Union," WIDER Working Paper Series DP2002-16, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    19. Warren Moskowitz & Stephen Yeaple, 1995. "The literature on privatization," Research Paper 9514, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
    20. Bongo Adi & Ernest Ndukwe & Nkemdilim Iheanachor & Chukwuma Dim, 2013. "Do Privatisation Model, Contractual and Institutional Factors Play Any Role in Infrastructure Post-privatisation Efficiency? Exploring Port Concessions in Nigeria," Journal of Infrastructure Development, India Development Foundation, vol. 5(2), pages 121-135, December.

    More about this item

    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:nbr:nberwo:6215. 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/nberrus.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: (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.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.