IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The merits of insider privatization: What Russia can learn from Eastern Central Europe


  • Heinrich, Ralph P.


The debate on the privatization of enterprises in Eastern Europe often presumes that enterprises are still controlled by an identifiable entity called "the state". This, however, is no longer the case. Since the demise of tight central planning, the nominally state-owned enterprises are de facto steered by insiders such as incumbent managers, workers, and local administrators. As the customary property rights of insiders are not legally acknowledged and are thus not secure, insiders tend to adopt a myopic attitude, and neglect the long-run profitability of their firms. Centrally organized privatization programs to disburse ownership rights to non-insiders are usually advocated as the best way to improve the efficiency of the firms. However, such privatization programs challenge the present position of managers, workers, and local bureaucrats. The insiders therefore tend to resist the privatization programs. If the central government cannot quickly decide the ensuing power struggle in its favor, the establishment of secure and tradable private property rights is delayed and the performance of the enterprises may deteriorate even further in the meantime. The extent to which a central government needs to take the customary property rights of insiders into account in the design and implementation of its privatization policy depends on its political power. Whereas the government in former Czechoslovakia had been able to largely disregard the claims of insiders, governments such as the Polish one have been far less successful. The evidence supports the conclusion that a weak central state is ill posed to rapidly and successfully implement privatization strategies that disregard the customary rights of insiders. In Russia and most other successor states of the Soviet Union, the central authorities are in an extremely weak position relative to enterprises and local administrations. In order to privatize quickly, Russia should largely respect and formalize the customary property rights of insiders and make these rights tradable. Although Russia's present privatization approach grants managers, workers, and local bureaucrats more say in the privatization process than the respective programs in Eastern Central Europe, Russia would be well advised to enhance the preferential conditions for insiders even further and to scale down the scope of its voucher program. The criticisms voiced against insider privatization are not convincing. They either refer to general problems of the transformation process that no privatization method could avoid, or the criticisms refer to problems that only arise if insider privatization is deemed illegal by official policies that do not take customary property rights into account and that do not make the property rights openly tradable.

Suggested Citation

  • Heinrich, Ralph P., 1993. "The merits of insider privatization: What Russia can learn from Eastern Central Europe," Kiel Discussion Papers 201, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:ifwkdp:201

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Justin Yifu Lin, 1989. "An Economic Theory of Institutional Change: Induced and Imposed Change," Cato Journal, Cato Journal, Cato Institute, vol. 9(1), pages 1-33, Spring/Su.
    2. Jeffrey Sachs, 1992. "The Economic Transformation of Eastern Europe: The Case of Poland," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 36(2), pages 3-11, October.
    3. Murrell, Peter, 1992. "Evolutionary and Radical Approaches to Economic Reform," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 79-95.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Siegmund, Uwe, 1997. "Wie privatisieren und wer privatisiert? Zur Erklärung der Wahl der Privatisierungsmethode und -organisation," Kiel Working Papers 812, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW).
    2. Raiser, Martin & Nunnenkamp, Peter, 1993. "Output decline and recovery in Central Europe: the role of incentives before, during and after privatisation," Kiel Working Papers 601, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW).
    3. Holger Schmieding, 1993. "From plan to market: On the nature of the transformation crisis," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 129(2), pages 216-253, June.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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:ifwkdp:201. 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: (ZBW - German National Library of Economics). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

    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.