IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/glodps/1554.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Deregulation Derailed: Evidence from Services Markets Liberalization in Croatia

Author

Listed:
  • Grajzl, Peter
  • Ćorić, Bruno
  • Srhoj, Stjepan

Abstract

Conventional wisdom suggests that when business regulation is excessive, deregulation should enhance efficiency. The liberalization of services markets in Croatia demonstrates that this is not necessarily the case, particularly when features of the reform process allow undue influence by those who stand to lose from the removal of regulatory barriers. To assess the effects of the Croatian reform, we determine the yearly volume of deregulation measures applicable to each affected sector and construct a sector-level panel dataset encompassing a wide range of outcomes. Exploiting within-sector, over-time variation in the volume of deregulation measures, we find that deregulation, on average, increased labor productivity but had no effect on entry, employment, or profit margins. While both new entrants and incumbents shared the labor-productivity gains, incumbents benefited more and also experienced an increase in profit margins. Heterogeneity analysis reveals that the reform was more effective in sectors with initial conditions indicative of weaker incumbent power. Our findings underscore the relevance of public-choice perspectives not only in understanding regulation, as emphasized by prior literature, but also in the context of deregulation.

Suggested Citation

  • Grajzl, Peter & Ćorić, Bruno & Srhoj, Stjepan, 2025. "Deregulation Derailed: Evidence from Services Markets Liberalization in Croatia," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1554, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:glodps:1554
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/308867/1/GLO-DP-1554.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Philippe Aghion & Robin Burgess & Stephen J. Redding & Fabrizio Zilibotti, 2008. "The Unequal Effects of Liberalization: Evidence from Dismantling the License Raj in India," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(4), pages 1397-1412, September.
    2. Juan S. Mora-Sanguinetti & Javier Quintana & Isabel Soler & Rok Spruk, 2024. "The heterogenous effects of a higher volume of regulation: evidence from more than 200k Spanish norms," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 65(1), pages 137-153, June.
    3. John Rand & Finn Tarp, 2012. "Firm-Level Corruption in Vietnam," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 60(3), pages 571-595.
    4. Clarke, George R. G. & Xu, Lixin Colin, 2004. "Privatization, competition, and corruption: how characteristics of bribe takers and payers affect bribes to utilities," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(9-10), pages 2067-2097, August.
    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. Hailiang Zou & Yunfeng Lu & Guoyou Qi, 2023. "Does Pay Disparity within Top Management Teams Lead to Bribery Activity? The Moderation of Demographic Diversity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-23, February.
    2. Brzić, Barbara & Dabić, Marina & Kukura, Frane & Podobnik, Boris, 2021. "The effects of corruption and the fraction of private ownership on the productivity of telecommunication companies," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    3. Krisztina Kis-Katos & Günther G. Schulze, 2013. "Corruption in Southeast Asia: a survey of recent research," Asian-Pacific Economic Literature, The Crawford School, The Australian National University, vol. 27(1), pages 79-109, May.
    4. Thuy Dieu Nguyen, 2020. "Does firm growth increase corruption? Evidence from an instrumental variable approach," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 55(1), pages 237-256, June.
    5. Lixin Colin Xu, 2011. "The Effects of Business Environments on Development: Surveying New Firm-level Evidence," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 26(2), pages 310-340, August.
    6. Nirosha Hewa Wellalage & Stuart Locke & Helen Samujh, 2020. "Firm bribery and credit access: evidence from Indian SMEs," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 55(1), pages 283-304, June.
    7. Soans, Aaron & Abe, Masato, 2016. "Bribery, corruption and bureaucratic hassle: Evidence from Myanmar," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 41-56.
    8. Peter Grajzl & Valentina Dimitrova-Grajzl & Katarina Zajc, 2016. "Inside post-socialist courts: the determinants of adjudicatory outcomes in Slovenian commercial disputes," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 85-115, February.
    9. Liu, Ye & An, Yunbi & Zhang, Jinqing, 2016. "Bribe payments under regulatory decentralization: Evidence from rights offering regulations in China," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 61-75.
    10. Ayyagari, Meghana & Demirguc-Kunt, Asli & Maksimovic, Vojislav, 2014. "Does local financial development matter for firm lifecycle in India ?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7008, The World Bank.
    11. Cao, Chunfang & Li, Xiaoyang & Xia, Changyuan, 2021. "The complicit role of local government authorities in corporate bribery: Evidence from a tax collection reform in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    12. Myint Moe Chit, 2018. "Political openness and the growth of small and medium enterprises: empirical evidence from transition economies," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 55(2), pages 781-804, September.
    13. Kyunga Na & Young-Hee Kang & Yang Sok Kim, 2018. "The Effect of Corporate Governance on the Corruption of Firms in BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India & China)," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-16, May.
    14. repec:hum:wpaper:sfb649dp2009-034 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Gani Aldashev, 2009. "Legal institutions, political economy, and development," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 25(2), pages 257-270, Summer.
    16. Susanne Prantl & Alexandra Spitz-Oener, 2020. "The Impact of Immigration on Competing Natives' Wages: Evidence from German Reunification," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 102(1), pages 79-97, March.
    17. Ulf von Lilienfeld‐Toal & Dilip Mookherjee & Sujata Visaria, 2012. "The Distributive Impact of Reforms in Credit Enforcement: Evidence From Indian Debt Recovery Tribunals," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 80(2), pages 497-558, March.
    18. Fernandes, Ana P. & Ferreira, Priscila & Alan Winters, L., 2014. "Firm entry deregulation, competition and returns to education and skill," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 210-230.
    19. Saibal Ghosh, 2022. "Firm Performance and Productivity: Is Labour an Obstacle?," The Indian Journal of Labour Economics, Springer;The Indian Society of Labour Economics (ISLE), vol. 65(3), pages 709-728, September.
    20. Francesco Bripi, 2016. "The Role of Regulation on Entry: Evidence from the Italian Provinces," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 30(2), pages 383-411.
    21. Changwatchai, Piyaphan & Dheera-aumpon, Siwapong, 2023. "Culture and bribe giving: Evidence from firm-level data," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    deregulation; liberalization; services markets; heterogeneity; special interests;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L51 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - Economics of Regulation
    • L80 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - General
    • D02 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Institutions: Design, Formation, Operations, and Impact
    • K20 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - General
    • P16 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Capitalist Economies - - - Capitalist Institutions; Welfare State

    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:zbw:glodps:1554. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/glabode.html .

    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.