Enterprise performance, privatisation and the role of ownership in Bulgaria

• Autorzy: Motasam Tatahi

Warianty tytułu

PL

Kondycja przedsiębiorstwa, prywatyzacja i znaczenie właśności w Bułgarii

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

In both economically developed and developing countries, privatisation, budget austerity measures and market liberalisations have become key aspects of structural reform programs in the last three decades. These three recommended policies were parts of strong revival of classical and new-classical school of thought since the middle of 70s. Such programs aim to achieve higher microeconomic efficiency and foster economic growth, whilst also aspiring to reduce public sector borrowing requirements through the elimination of unnecessary subsidies. For firms to achieve superior performance a change in ownership from public (state ownership) to private has been recommended as a vital condition. To assess the ownership role, the economic performances of private, public and mixed enterprises in Bulgaria is compared through the use of factor analysis method. The extracted factors, using data of two years, 1998 and 2000, do not pick ownership as a key performance factor.

PL

Zarówno w gospodarczo rozwiniętych, jak i rozwijających się krajach, prywatyzacja, budżetowe środki oszczędnościowe oraz liberalizacja rynku stały się w ciągu trzech ostatnich dekad kluczowymi aspektami programów reform strukturalnych. Te trzy rekomendowane ścieżki polityczne stanowiły część silnego odrodzenia klasycznej i neoklasycznej myśli od połowy lat 70-tych. Takie programy mają na celu osiągnięcie wyższej mikroekonomicznej efektywności oraz przyspieszenie wzrostu gospodarczego, a jednocześnie w zamierzeniu doprowadzić mają do ograniczenia potrzeby zadłużania sektora publicznego poprzez eliminację niepotrzebnych subsydiów. Dla przedsiębiorstw rekomenduje się zmianę formy własności z publicznej (własność państwa) na prywatną w celu osiągnięcia lepszej kondycji. Aby ocenić znaczenie formy własności, porównano kondycję ekonomiczną przedsiębiorstw prywatnych, publicznych oraz mieszanych w Bułgarii, wykorzystując metodę analizy wskaźnikowej. Na podstawie uzyskanych wskaźniki dla lat 1998 oraz 2000 nie stwierdzono, iż forma własności to kluczowa determinanta kondycji przedsiębiorstw.

Słowa kluczowe

PL

Bułgaria; wydajność; kondycja przedsiębiorstw; prywatyzacja; analiza wskaźnikowa; relacje prywatno-publiczne; znaczenie własności

EN

Bulgaria; efficiency; performance measure; privatization; factor analysis; public and private relationship; role of ownership

• Wydawca: Uniwersytet Opolski, Wydział Ekonomiczny
• Czasopismo: Economic and Environmental Studies
• Rocznik: 2013
• Tom: 13
• Numer: 4(28)
• Strony: 387-413

Daty

online

2013-12

Twórcy

autor

Motasam Tatahi

• European Business School, England

Bibliografia

• Bourbakri, N.; Cosset J. C. (1998). The Financial and Operating Performance of Newly Privatized Firms: Evidence from Developing Countries. Mimeo. Universite Laval.
• Brown D.; Earle J.; Telegdy A. (2005). The Productivity Effects of Privatization: Longitudinal Estimates from Hungary, Romania, Russia, and Ukraine. Discussion Paper 8. Centre For Economic Reform And Transformation.
• Claessens, S.; Djankov S. (1998). Politicians and Firms in Seven Central and Eastern European Countries. Mimeo. The World Bank.
• Demirguc-Kunt, A.; Levine R. (1994). The Financial System and Public Enterprise Reform: Concepts and Cases. Policy Research Working Paper 1319. The World Bank.
• D'Souza, J.; Megginson W. (1998). The Financial and Operating Performance of Privatized Firms During the 1990's. Mimeo. Athens: Department of Finance, Terry College of Business, The University of Georgis.
• Eckel, C.; Eckel D.; Singhal V. (1997). Privatization and Efficiency: Industry Effects of the Sale of British Airways. Journal of Financial Economics 43: 275-298.
• Fraser R.; Wilson M. (1988). Privatization: The UK Experience and International Trends. Longman Group UK ltd.
• Frydman, R., C.W. Gray, M. Hessel, and A. Rapaczynski (1997); "Private Ownership and Corporate Performance: Evidence from Transition Economies", Research Report 97-28, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
• Frydman, R., M. Hessel, and A. Rapaczynski (1998); "Why Ownership Matters? Politicization and Entrepreneurship in the Restructuring of Enterprises in Central Europe", New York University, mimeo.
• Galal, A., L. Jones, P. Tandon, and I. Vogelsang (1994); The Welfare Consequences of Selling Public Sector Enterprises, Oxford University Press.
• Gupta,N., John C. Hamb, and Jan Svejnar (2008) “Priorities and sequencing in privatization: Evidence from Czech firm panel data”, European Economic Review ,52, 183–208
• Kay, Anthony and David Thompson (1986); "Privatization: A Policy in Search of a Rationale," Economic Journal, 96, 18-38.
• Kikeri, S. (1995); "Privatization and Labor: What Happens to Workers When Governments Divest," The World Bank, Technical Paper No. 396.
• Kikeri, S., J. Nellis, and M. Shirley (1994); "Privatization: Lessons from Market
• Economies," The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 9, no.2, July.
• Kornai, J. (1980); The Economics of Shortage, Amsterdam, North Holland.
• __________(1986); "The Soft Budget Constraint," KYKLOS 39(1), 3-30.
• LaPorta, R. and F. López-De-Silanes (1998); "The Benefits of Privatization: Evidence from Mexico," NBER Working Paper 6215.
• Larraín, F. and R. Vergara (1993); "Macroeconomic Effects of Privatization: Lessons from Chile and Argentina," mimeo.
• Lieberman, Ira W., et. al. (1995); Mass Privatization in Central and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union: A Comparative Analysis, the Wold Bank, Washington, D.C.
• MacKinlay, A.C. (1997), “Event Studies in Economics and Finance”, Journal of Economic Literature Vol. XXXV (March 1997), 13-39.
• McLindon, M. P. (1996); Privatization and Capital Market Development, Praeger Publishers.
• Megginson, W. L., R. C. Nash, and M. V. Randenborgh (1994); “The Financial and Operating Performance of Newly Privatized Firms: An International Empirical Analysis,” The Journal of Finance, Vol. XLIX, No. 2, June.
• Megginson, W.L., R. C. Nash, J. Netter, and A. Poulsen (1998); "The Choice of Privatization Method: An Empirical Analysis," mimeo, Department of Finance, Terry College of Business, The University of Georgis, Athens, GA.
• Megginson, W.L., R. C. Nash, J. Netter, and A. Schwartz (1998); "The Long-Run Return to Investors in Share Issue Privatizations," mimeo, Department of Banking and Finance, Terry College of Business, The University of Georgia.
• Megginson, W.L. and J. Netter (2000), “From State to Market: A Survey of Empirical Studies on Privatization,” Forthcoming in the Journal of Economic Literature.
• Mestiri R. K., (2010) “Can Privatization Improve the Performance of the Public Companies? The Case of the Tunisiar Company”, Research Journal of International Studies - Issue 13 (March).
• Nellis, J., (1997); "Is Privatization Necessary?" Public Policy for the Private Sector, The World Bank.
• Schmidt, K. (1990); "The Costs and Benefits of Privatization: An Incomplete Contracting Approach," Discussion Paper no. A-287, University of Bonn.
• Shapiro, C. and R. Willig (1990); "Economic Rationales for the Scope of Privatization," in Suleiman and Waterbury (1990).
• Smith, S., M. Vodopivek, and B.Ch. Cin (1996); "Privatization Incidence, Ownership Forms, and Firm Performance: Evidence from Slovenia," Paper presented at the NEUDC Conference, Boston University.
• Stiglitz, J. (1993); "Theoretical Aspects of the Privatization: Applications to Eastern Europe," Institute for Policy Reform, Working Paper Series.
• Vernon-Wortzel, Hiedi and L.H. Wortzel (1989); "Privatization: Not the Only Answer," World Development, Vo. 17, No. 5, 633-641.
• Vickers, J. and G. Yarrow (1989); Privatization: An Economic Analysis, MIT Press.
• Yarrow, G. (1992); "Privatization in Theory and Practice," Economic Policy 2, 324-364.

Identyfikatory

ISSN

2081-8319