IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpdc/0207002.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Ownership and Firm Performance: Evidence from 25 Countries in Central and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union

Author

Listed:
  • Richard B. Goud Jr.

    (Reed College undergraduate student)

Abstract

Using the joint World Bank and EBRD Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey (BEEPS), compiled in 1999, this paper explores the relationship between firm performance and ownership in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and the Former Soviet Union (FSU). The literature on privatization and performance has been largely inconclusive, especially now that sample selection bias is taken into account. This paper provides evidence that foreign owned firms perform the best, performing significantly better than state owned enterprises, while firms whose owners are domestic outside companies or individuals also perform better than state owned enterprises but the result is somewhat sensitive to the specification of the model. The more significant, albeit puzzling result, is that insider owned firms perform worse than state owned firms. This result is not significant when looking at manager and worker owned firms separately. In further work, I will explore the determinants of this puzzling result.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard B. Goud Jr., 2002. "Ownership and Firm Performance: Evidence from 25 Countries in Central and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union," Development and Comp Systems 0207002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpdc:0207002
    Note: Type of Document - PDF; pages: 18; figures: No figures but a few tables all at the end of the paper.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/dev/papers/0207/0207002.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John S. Earle, 1999. "Post-Privatisation Ownership Structure and Productivity in Russian Industrial Enterprises," Working Papers 1999.19, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    2. Lubomir Lizal & Jan Svejnar, 1997. "Enterprise Investment During the Transition: Evidence from Czech Panel Data," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 60, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Nellis, J., 1999. "Time to Rethink Privatization in Transition Economies?," Papers 38, World Bank - International Finance Corporation.
    6. Hellman, Joel S. & Jones, Geraint & Kaufmann, Daniel & Schankerman, Mark, 2000. "Measuring governance, corruption, and State capture - how firms and bureaucrats shape the business environment in transition economies," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2312, The World Bank.
    7. 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.
    8. Roland, Gerard & Sekkat, Khalid, 2000. "Managerial career concerns, privatization and restructuring in transition economies," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1857-1872, December.
    9. Estrin, Saul & Rosevear, Adam, 1999. "Enterprise performance and ownership: The case of Ukraine," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(4-6), pages 1125-1136, April.
    10. Claessens, Stijn & Djankov, Simeon & Pohl, Gerhard, 1997. "Ownership and corporate governance : evidence from the Czech Republic," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1737, The World Bank.
    11. Konings, Jozef, 1997. "Firm growth and ownership in transition countries," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 413-418, September.
    12. Kikeri, Sunita & Nellis, John & Shirley, Mary, 1994. "Privatization: Lessons from Market Economies," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 9(2), pages 241-272, July.
    13. Boycko, Maxim & Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1996. "A Theory of Privatisation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(435), pages 309-319, March.
    14. A. Marcincin & S. van Wijnbergen, 1997. "The Impact of Czech Privatisation Methods on Enterprise Performance Incorporating Initial Selection Bias Correction," CERT Discussion Papers 9704, Centre for Economic Reform and Transformation, Heriot Watt University.
    15. Alan Bevan & Saul Estrin & Mark E. Schaffer, 1999. "Determinants of Enterprise Performance during Transition," CERT Discussion Papers 9903, Centre for Economic Reform and Transformation, Heriot Watt University.
    16. Nandini Gupta & John Ham & Jan Svejnar, 2000. "Priorities and Sequencing in Privatization: Theory and Evidence from the Czech Republic," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 1580, Econometric Society.
    17. Blanchard, O. & Aghion, P., 1996. "On insider privatization," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 40(3-5), pages 759-766, April.
    18. 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, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(4), pages 1153-1191.
    19. Georgiy Nikitin & Andrew Weiss, "undated". "Effects of Ownership Composition on Performance: Evidence from the Czech Republic," Boston University - Department of Economics - The Institute for Economic Development Working Papers Series dp-116, Boston University - Department of Economics, revised Dec 2001.
    20. Gourieroux,Christian, 2000. "Econometrics of Qualitative Dependent Variables," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521589857, June.
    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. Ichiro IWASAKI & Satoshi MIZOBATA, 2018. "Post-Privatization Ownership And Firm Performance: A Large Meta-Analysis Of The Transition Literature," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 89(2), pages 263-322, June.
    2. Juan Manuel San Martin-Reyna & Jorge A. Duran-Encalada, 2015. "Effects of Family Ownership, Debt and Board Composition on Mexican Firms Performance," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 3(1), pages 1-19, March.
    3. Jiang, Bing-Bing & LAURENCESON, James & Tang, Kam Ki, 2008. "Share reform and the performance of China's listed companies," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 489-501, September.
    4. Ruchi Kansil & Archana Singh, 2017. "Firm Characteristics and Foreign Institutional Ownership: Evidence from India," Institutions and Economies (formerly known as International Journal of Institutions and Economies), Faculty of Economics and Administration, University of Malaya, vol. 9(2), pages 35-53, April.

    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. Andreyeva, Tatiana, 2003. "Company Performance in Ukraine: What Governs Its Success," Conference papers 331071, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    2. 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.
    3. Yu, Wusheng & Jensen, Trine Vig, 2003. "Trade Preferences, WTO Negotiations and the LDCs: the case of the "Everything But Arms" Initiative," Conference papers 331124, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    4. Jana Fidrmucova, 2000. "Channels of Restructuring in Privatized Czech Companies," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 1358, Econometric Society.
    5. 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.
    6. Schnytzer, Adi & Andreyeva, Tatiana, 2002. "Company performance in Ukraine: is this a market economy?," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 83-98, June.
    7. Alberto Chong & Florencio de, 2003. "The Truth about Privatization in Latin America," Yale School of Management Working Papers ysm436, Yale School of Management.
    8. 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.
    9. Warzynski, Frederic, 2003. "Managerial change, competition, and privatization in Ukraine," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 297-314, June.
    10. Claessens,Constantijn A. & Djankov, Simeon, 1998. "Politicians and firms in seven central and eastern European countries," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1954, The World Bank.
    11. Ádám Szentpéteri & Álmos Telegdy, 2010. "Political Selection Of Firms Into Privatization Programs. Evidence From Romanian Comprehensive Data," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(3), pages 298-328, November.
    12. Monika Schnitzer, 2003. "Privatisierung in Osteuropa: Strategien und Ergebnisse," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 4(3), pages 359-378, August.
    13. Simeon Djankov & Stijn Claessens, 1997. "Enterprise Performance and Managers' Profiles," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 115, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    14. Laura Cabeza García & Silvia Gómez Ansón, 2012. "What Drives the Operating Performance of Privatised Firms?," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 59(1), pages 1-27, February.
    15. 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.
    16. Brown, David J. & Earle, John S. & Telegdy, Almos, 2016. "Where does privatization work? Understanding the heterogeneity in estimated firm performance effects," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 329-362.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Claessens, Stijn & Djankov, Simeon, 1999. "Ownership Concentration and Corporate Performance in the Czech Republic," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 498-513, September.
    20. Galyna Grygorenko & Stefan Lutz, 2007. "Firm performance and privatization in Ukraine," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 253-266, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

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

    JEL classification:

    • P - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems

    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:wpa:wuwpdc:0207002. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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: EconWPA The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask EconWPA to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.