Privatization

Last updated

Privatization (also privatisation in British English) can mean several different things, most commonly referring to moving something from the public sector into the private sector. It is also sometimes used as a synonym for deregulation when a heavily regulated private company or industry becomes less regulated. Government functions and services may also be privatised (which may also be known as "franchising" or "out-sourcing"); in this case, private entities are tasked with the implementation of government programs or performance of government services that had previously been the purview of state-run agencies. Some examples include revenue collection, law enforcement, water supply, and prison management. [1]

Contents

Another definition is that privatization is the sale of a state-owned enterprise or municipally owned corporation to private investors; in this case shares may be traded in the public market for the first time, or for the first time since an enterprise's previous nationalization. This type of privatization can include the demutualization of a mutual organization, cooperative, or public-private partnership in order to form a joint-stock company. [2]

Separately, privatization can refer to the purchase of all outstanding shares of a publicly-traded company by private equity investors, which is more often called "going private". Before and after this process the company is privately owned, but after the buyout its shares are withdrawn from being traded at a public stock exchange. [3] [4]

Etymology

The Economist magazine introduced the term privatisation (alternatively privatisation or reprivatisation after the German Reprivatisierung) during the 1930s when it covered Nazi Germany's economic policy. [5] [6] It is not clear if the magazine coincidentally invented the word in English or if the term is a loanword from the same expression in German, where it has been in use since the 19th century. [7]

Definition

The word privatization may mean different things depending on the context in which it is used. It can mean moving something from the public sphere into the private sphere, but it may also be used to describe something that was always private, but heavily regulated, which becomes less regulated through a process of deregulation. The term may also be used descriptively for something that has always been private, but could be public in other jurisdictions. [8]

There are also private entities that may perform public functions. These entities could also be described as privatized. Privatization may mean the government sells state-owned businesses to private interests, but it may also be discussed in the context of the privatization of services or government functions, where private entities are tasked with the implementation of government programs or the performance of government services. Gillian E. Metzger has written that: "Private entities [in the US] provide a vast array of social services for the government; administer core aspects of government programs; and perform tasks that appear quintessentially governmental, such as promulgating standards or regulating third-party activities." Metzger mentions an expansion of privatization that includes health and welfare programs, public education, and prisons. [9]

History

Pre-20th century

The history of privatization dates from Ancient Greece, when governments contracted out almost everything to the private sector. [10] In the Roman Republic private individuals and companies performed the majority of services including tax collection (tax farming), army supplies (military contractors), religious sacrifices and construction. However, the Roman Empire also created state-owned enterprises—for example, much of the grain was eventually produced on estates owned by the Emperor. David Parker and David S. Saal suggest that the cost of bureaucracy was one of the reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire. [10]

Perhaps one of the first ideological movements towards privatization came during China's golden age of the Han Dynasty. Taoism came into prominence for the first time at a state level, and it advocated the laissez-faire principle of Wu wei (無為), literally meaning "do nothing". [11] The rulers were counseled by the Taoist clergy that a strong ruler was virtually invisible.

During the Renaissance, most of Europe was still by and large following the feudal economic model. By contrast, the Ming dynasty in China began once more to practice privatization, especially with regards to their manufacturing industries. This was a reversal of the earlier Song dynasty policies, which had themselves overturned earlier policies in favor of more rigorous state control. [12]

In Britain, the privatization of common lands is referred to as enclosure (in Scotland as the Lowland Clearances and the Highland Clearances). Significant privatizations of this nature occurred from 1760 to 1820, preceding the industrial revolution in that country.

20th century onwards

The first mass privatization of state property occurred in Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1937: "It is a fact that the government of the National Socialist Party sold off public ownership in several state-owned firms in the middle of the 1930s. The firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyard, ship-lines, railways, etc. In addition to this, delivery of some public services produced by public administrations prior to the 1930s, especially social services and services related to work, was transferred to the private sector, mainly to several organizations within the Nazi Party." [13]

Great Britain privatized its steel industry in the 1950s, and the West German government embarked on large-scale privatization, including sale of the majority stake in Volkswagen to small investors in public share offerings in 1961. [10] However, it was in the 1980s under Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States that privatization gained worldwide momentum. Notable privatization attempts in the UK included privatization of Britoil (1982), Amersham International (1982), British Telecom (1984), Sealink ferries (1984), British Petroleum (gradually privatized between 1979 and 1987), British Aerospace (1985 to 1987), British Gas (1986), Rolls-Royce (1987), Rover Group (formerly British Leyland, 1988), British Steel Corporation (1988), and the regional water authorities (mostly in 1989). After 1979, council house tenants in the UK were given the right to buy their homes (at a heavily discounted rate). One million purchased their residences by 1986.

Such efforts culminated in 1993 when British Rail was privatized under Thatcher's successor, John Major. British Rail had been formed by prior nationalization of private rail companies. The privatization was controversial, and its impact is still debated today, as doubling of passenger numbers and investment was balanced by an increase in rail subsidy. [14] This has been reverted by the same party in Britain in the early 2020s with the state-owned Great British Railways. [15]

The United Kingdom's largest public share offerings were privatizations of British Telecom and British Gas during the 1980s under the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher when many state-run firms were sold off to the private sector. The privatization received very mixed views from the public and the parliament. Even former Conservative prime minister Harold Macmillan was critical of the policy, likening it to "selling the family silver". [16] There were around 3 million shareholders in Britain when Thatcher took office in 1979, but the subsequent sale of state-run firms saw the number of shareholders double by 1985. By the time of her resignation in 1990, there were more than 10 million shareholders in Britain. [17]

Privatization in Latin America was extensive in the 1980s and 1990s, as a result of a Western liberal economic policy. Companies providing public services such as water management, transportation, and telecommunication were rapidly sold off to the private sector. In the 1990s, privatization revenue from 18 Latin American countries totaled 6% of gross domestic product. [18] Private investment in infrastructure from 1990 and 2001 reached $360.5 billion, $150 billion more than in the next emerging economy. [18]

While economists generally give favorable evaluations of the impact of privatization in Latin America, [19] opinion polls and public protests across the countries suggest that a large segment of the public is dissatisfied with or have negative views of privatization in the region. [20]

In the 1990s, the governments in Eastern and Central Europe engaged in extensive privatization of state-owned enterprises in Eastern and Central Europe and Russia, with assistance from the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the German Treuhand, and other governmental and non-governmental organization.

Ongoing privatization of Japan Post relates to that of the national postal service and one of the largest banks in the world. After years of debate, the privatization of Japan Post spearheaded by Junichiro Koizumi finally started in 2007. The privatization process is expected[ by whom? ] to last until 2017. Japan Post was one of the nation's largest employers, as one-third of Japanese state employees worked for it. It was also said to be the largest holder of personal savings in the world. Criticisms against Japan Post were that it served as a channel of corruption and was inefficient. In September 2003, Koizumi's cabinet proposed splitting Japan Post into four separate companies: a bank, an insurance company, a postal service company, and a fourth company to handle the post offices and retail storefronts of the other three. After the Upper House rejected privatization, Koizumi scheduled nationwide elections for September 11, 2005. He declared the election to be a referendum on postal privatization. Koizumi subsequently won the election, gaining the necessary supermajority and a mandate for reform, and in October 2005, the bill was passed to privatize Japan Post in 2007. [21]

Nippon Telegraph and Telephone's privatization in 1987 involved the largest share offering in financial history at the time. [22] 15 of the world's 20 largest public share offerings have been privatizations of telecoms. [22]

In 1988, the perestroika policy of Mikhail Gorbachev started allowing privatization of the centrally planned economy. Large privatization of the Soviet economy occurred over the next few years as the country dissolved. Other Eastern Bloc countries followed suit after the Revolutions of 1989 introduced non-communist governments.

The largest public shares offering in France involved France Télécom.

Egypt undertook widespread privatization under Hosni Mubarak. Following his overthrow in the 2011 revolution, most of the public began to call for re-nationalization, citing allegations of the privatized firms practicing crony capitalism under the old regime. [23]

Forms of privatization

There are several main methods[ citation needed ] of privatization:

  1. Share issue privatization: shares sale on the stock market.
  2. Asset sale privatization: asset divestiture to a strategic investor, usually by auction or through the Treuhand model.
  3. Voucher privatization: distribution of vouchers, which represent part ownership of a corporation, to all citizens, usually for free or at a very low price.
  4. Privatization from below: start of new private businesses in formerly socialist countries.
  5. Management buyout: purchase of public shares by management of the company, sometimes by borrowing from external lenders
  6. Employee buyout: distribution of shares for free or at a very low price to workers or management of the organization.

The choice of sale method is influenced by the capital market and the political and firm-specific factors. Privatization through the stock market is more likely to be the method used when there is an established capital market capable of absorbing the shares. A market with high liquidity can facilitate the privatization. If the capital markets are insufficiently developed, however, it would be difficult to find enough buyers. The shares may have to be underpriced, and the sales may not raise as much capital as would be justified by the fair value of the company being privatized. Many governments, therefore, elect for listings in more sophisticated markets, for example, Euronext, and the London, New York and Hong Kong stock exchanges.

Governments in developing countries and transition countries more often resort to direct asset sales to a few investors, partly because those countries do not yet have a stock market with high capital.

Voucher privatization occurred mainly in the transition economies in Central and Eastern Europe, such as Russia, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia. Additionally, privatization from below had made important contribution to economic growth in transition economies.

In one study assimilating some of the literature on "privatization" that occurred in Russian and Czech Republic transition economies, the authors identified three methods of privatization: "privatization by sale", "mass privatization", and "mixed privatization". Their calculations showed that "mass privatization" was the most effective method. [24]

However, in economies "characterized by shortages" and maintained by the state bureaucracy, wealth was accumulated and concentrated by "gray/black market" operators. Privatizing industries by sale to these individuals did not mean a transition to "effective private sector owners [of former] state assets". Rather than mainly participating in a market economy, these individuals could prefer elevating their personal status or prefer accumulating political power. Instead, outside foreign investment led to the efficient conduct of former state assets in the private sector and market economy. [24]

Through privatization by direct asset sale or the stock market, bidders compete to offer higher prices, generating more revenue for the state. Voucher privatization, on the other hand, could represent a genuine transfer of assets to the general population, creating a sense of participation and inclusion. A market could be created if the government permits transfer of vouchers among voucher holders.

Secured borrowing

Some privatization transactions can be interpreted as a form of a secured loan [25] [26] and are criticized as a "particularly noxious form of governmental debt". [25] In this interpretation, the upfront payment from the privatization sale corresponds to the principal amount of the loan, while the proceeds from the underlying asset correspond to secured interest payments—the transaction can be considered substantively the same as a secured loan, though it is structured as a sale. [25] This interpretation is particularly argued to apply to recent municipal transactions in the United States, particularly for fixed term, such as the 2008 sale of the proceeds from Chicago parking meters for 75 years. It is argued that this is motivated by "politicians' desires to borrow money surreptitiously", [25] due to legal restrictions on and political resistance to alternative sources of revenue, viz, raising taxes or issuing debt.

Results of privatization

Privatization had different outcomes around the world. Results of privatization may vary depending on the privatization model employed. [27] According to Dr Irwin Stelzer, "it is somewhere between difficult and impossible to separate the effects of privatisation from the effects of such things as trends in the economy". [28]

According to research performed by the World Bank [29] and William L. Megginson [30] in the early 2000s, privatization in competitive industries with well-informed consumers, consistently improved efficiency. According to APEC, the more competitive the industry, the greater the improvement in output, profitability, and efficiency. [31] Such efficiency gains mean a one-off increase in GDP, but through improved incentives to innovate and reduce costs also tend to raise the rate of economic growth.[ citation needed ]

More recent research and literature review performed by Professor Saul Estrin and Adeline Pelletier concluded that "the literature now reflects a more cautious and nuanced evaluation of privatization" and that "private ownership alone is no longer argued to automatically generate economic gains in developing economies". [32] According to a 2008 study published in Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, liberalization and privatization has produced mixed results. [33]

Although typically there are many costs associated with these efficiency gains, [34] many economists argue[ who? ] that these can be dealt with by appropriate government support through redistribution and perhaps retraining.[ citation needed ] Yet, some empirical literature suggests that privatization could also have very modest effects on efficiency and quite regressive distributive impact. In the first attempt at a social welfare analysis of the British privatization program under the Conservative governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major during the 1980s and 1990s, Massimo Florio points to the absence of any productivity shock resulting strictly from ownership change. Instead, the impact on the previously nationalized companies of the UK productivity leap under the Conservatives varied in different industries. In some cases, it occurred prior to privatization, and in other cases, it occurred upon privatization or several years afterward. [35]

A 2012 study published by the European Commission argues that privatisation in Europe had mixed effects on service quality and has achieved only minor productivity gains, driven mainly by lower labour input combined with other cost cutting strategies that led to a deterioration of employment and working conditions. [36] Meanwhile, a different study by the Commission found that the UK rail network (which was privatized from 1994 to 1997) was most improved out of all the 27 EU nations from 1997 to 2012. The report examined a range of 14 different factors and the UK came top in four of the factors, second and third in another two and fourth in three, coming top overall. [37] Nonetheless, the impact of the privatisation of British Rail has been the subject of much debate, with the stated benefits including improved customer service, and more investment; and stated drawbacks including higher fares, lower punctuality and increased rail subsidies. [38] [39] [40]

Privatizations in Russia and Latin America were accompanied by large-scale corruption during the sale of the state-owned companies. Those with political connections unfairly gained large wealth, which has discredited privatization in these regions. While media have widely reported the grand corruption that accompanied those sales, according to research released by the World Bank there has been increased operating efficiency, daily petty corruption is, or would be, larger without privatization, and that corruption is more prevalent in non-privatized sectors. Furthermore, according to the World Bank extralegal and unofficial activities are more prevalent in countries that privatized less. [41] [ full citation needed ] Other research suggests that privatization in Russia resulted in a dramatic rise in the level of economic inequality and a collapse in GDP and industrial output. [42]

A 2009 study published in The Lancet medical journal has found that as many as a million working men died as a result of economic shocks associated with mass privatization in the former Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe during the 1990s, [43] [44] although a further study suggested that there were errors in their method and "correlations reported in the original article are simply not robust." [45] Historian Walter Scheidel, a specialist in ancient history, posits that economic inequality and wealth concentration in the top percentile "had been made possible by the transfer of state assets to private owners." [46]

In Latin America, on the one hand, according to John Nellis's research for Center for Global Development, economic indicators, including firm profitability, productivity, and growth, project positive microeconomic results. [18] On the other hand, however, privatisation has been largely met with a negative criticism and citizen coalitions. This neoliberal criticism highlights the ongoing conflict between varying visions of economic development. Karl Polanyi emphasizes the societal concerns of self-regulating markets through a concept known as a "double movement". In essence, whenever societies move towards increasingly unrestrained, free-market rule, a natural and inevitable societal correction emerges to undermine the contradictions of capitalism.[ citation needed ] This was the case in the 2000 Cochabamba protests.[ citation needed ]

Privatization in Latin America has invariably experienced increasing push-back from the public. Mary Shirley from The Ronald Coase Institute suggests that implementing a less efficient but more politically mindful approach could be more sustainable. [47]

In India, a survey by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) – Utilization of Free Medical Services by Children Belonging to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) in Private Hospitals in New Delhi, 2011–12: A Rapid Appraisal – indicates under-utilization of the free beds available for EWS category in private hospitals in Delhi, though they were allotted land at subsidized rates. [48]

In Australia a "People's Inquiry into Privatisation" (2016/17) found that the impact of privatisation on communities was negative. The report from the inquiry "Taking Back Control" [49] [ full citation needed ] made a range of recommendations to provide accountability and transparency in the process. The report highlighted privatisation in healthcare, aged care, child care, social services, government departments, electricity, prisons and vocational education featuring the voices of workers, community members and academics.

Some reports show that the results of privatization are experienced differently between men and women for numerous reasons: when public services are privatized women are expected to take on the health and social care of dependents, [50] women have less access to privatized goods, [51] public sector employs a larger proportion of women than does the private sector, [52] and the women in the public sector are more likely to be unionized than those in the private sector. [53] In Chile, women are disproportionately affected by the privatization of the pension system because factors such as “women’s longer life expectancy, earlier retirement age, and lower rates of labor-force participation, lower salaries” affect their ability to accumulate funds for retirement which leads to lower pensions. [51] Low-income women face an even greater burden; Anjela Taneja, of Oxfam India says "The privatization of public services...implies limited or no access to essential services for women living in poverty, who are often the ones more in need of these services.”

The increase in privatization since the 1980s has been a factor in rising income and wealth inequality in the United States. [54]

Opinion

Arguments for and against the controversial subject of privatization are presented here.

Support

A number of studies have shown that private market factors can more efficiently deliver many goods or service than governments due to free market competition. [29] [30] [31] Proponents of privatization argue that, over time, this can lead to lower prices, improved quality, more choices, less corruption, less red tape, and/or quicker delivery. Many proponents do not argue that everything should be privatized. According to them, market failures and natural monopolies could be problematic. However, anarcho-capitalists prefer that every function of the state be privatized, including defense and dispute resolution. [55]

Proponents of privatization make the following arguments:

Opposition

Opponents of privatization in general—or of certain privatizations in particular—believe that public goods and services should remain primarily in the hands of government in order to ensure that everyone in society has access to them (such as law enforcement, basic health care, and basic education). There is a positive externality when the government provides society at large with public goods and services such as defense and disease control. Some national constitutions in effect define their governments' "core businesses" as being the provision of such things as justice, tranquility, defense, and general welfare. These governments' direct provision of security, stability, and safety, is intended to be done for the common good (in the public interest) with a long-term (for posterity) perspective. As for natural monopolies, opponents of privatization claim that they aren't subject to fair competition, and better administrated by the state.

Although private companies may provide a similar good or service alongside the government[ according to whom? ], opponents of privatization are critical about completely transferring the provision of public goods, services and assets into private hands for the following reasons:

Economic theory

In economic theory, privatization has been studied in the field of contract theory. When contracts are complete, institutions such as (private or public) property are difficult to explain, since every desired incentive structure can be achieved with sufficiently complex contractual arrangements, regardless of the institutional structure. All that matters is who are the decision makers and what is their available information. In contrast, when contracts are incomplete, institutions matter. A leading application of the incomplete contract paradigm in the context of privatization is the model by Hart, Shleifer, and Vishny (1997). [61] In their model, a manager can make investments to increase quality (but they may also increase costs) and investments to decrease costs (but they may also reduce quality). It turns out that it depends on the particular situation whether private ownership or public ownership is desirable. The Hart-Shleifer-Vishny model has been further developed in various directions, e.g. to allow for mixed public-private ownership and endogenous assignments of the investment tasks. [62]

Privatization of private companies

Privatization can also refer to the purchase of all outstanding shares of a publicly-traded private company by private equity investors, which is more often called "going private". The buyout withdraws the company's shares from being traded at a public stock exchange. [3] [4] Depending on the involvement of internal and external investors, it may occur through a leveraged buyout or a management buyout, tender offer, or hostile takeover. [3]

See also

Notes

  1. Chowdhury, F. L. ‘’Corrupt Bureaucracy and Privatisation of Tax Enforcement’’, 2006: Pathak Samabesh, Dhaka.
  2. "Musselburgh Co-op in crisis as privatization bid fails". Co-operative News. 2005-11-01. Retrieved 2008-05-21.
  3. 1 2 3 Fernando, Jason. "Going Private Definition". Investopedia. Retrieved 2021-08-05.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  4. 1 2 Dumont, Marvin. "Why Do Public Companies Go Private?". Investopedia. Retrieved 2021-08-05.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  5. Edwards, Ruth Dudley (1995). The Pursuit of Reason: The Economist 1843–1993. Harvard Business School Press. p. 946. ISBN   978-0-87584-608-8.
  6. Compare Bel, Germà (2006). "Retrospectives: The Coining of 'Privatisation' and Germany's National Socialist Party". Journal of Economic Perspectives. 20 (3): 187–194. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.694.2842 . doi:10.1257/jep.20.3.187. S2CID   33815402.
  7. Kämmerer, Jörn Axel (2001). Privatisierung: Typologie – Determinanten – Rechtspraxis – Folgen. Mohr Siebeck Verlag. p. 7. ISBN   978-3-16-147515-3.
  8. Beerman, Jack (2001-01-01). "Privatization and Political Accountability". Fordham Urban Law Journal. 28 (5): 1507.
  9. Metzger, Gillian (2003-01-01). "Privatization as Delegation". Colum. L. Rev. 103 (6): 1367–1502. doi:10.2307/3593390. JSTOR   3593390.
  10. 1 2 3 International Handbook on Privatization by David Parker, David S. Saal
  11. Li & Zheng 2001 , p. 241
  12. Bouye, Thomas M., Manslaughter, markets, and moral economy
  13. Bel, Germà (2010-02-01). "Against the mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany1" (PDF). The Economic History Review. 63 (1): 34–55. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0289.2009.00473.x. hdl: 2445/11716 . ISSN   1468-0289. S2CID   154486694.
  14. Birrell, Ian (2013-08-15). "Forget the nostalgia for British Rail – our trains are better than ever". The Guardian .
  15. "Great British Railways : The Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail" (PDF). Assets.publishing.service.gov.uk. Retrieved 5 March 2022.
  16. https://web.archive.org/web/20120623162706/http://www.number10.gov.uk/history-and-tour/harold-macmillan-2/ [ dead link ]
  17. "Thatcher years in graphics". BBC News . 2005-11-18.
  18. 1 2 3 "Privatization in Latin America: The rapid rise, recent fall, and continuing puzzle of a contentious economic policy" by John Nellis, Rachel Menezes, Sarah Lucas. Center for Global Development Policy Brief, Jan 2004, p. 1.
  19. "The Distributive Impact of Privatization in Latin America: Evidence from Four Countries" by David McKenzie, Dilip Mookherjee, Gonzalo Castañeda and Jaime Saavedra. Brookings Institution Press, 2008, p. 162.
  20. "Why is Sector Reform So Unpopular in Latin America?" by Mary Shirley. The Ronald Coase Institute Working Papers, 2004, p. 1.
  21. Takahara, "All eyes on Japan Post"Faiola, Anthony (2005-10-15). "Japan Approves Postal Privatization". The Washington Post . p. A10. Retrieved 2007-02-09.
  22. 1 2 The Financial Economics of Privatisation By William L. Megginson, pp. 205–206
  23. Amos, Deborah, "In Egypt, Revolution Moves Into The Factories", NPR , April 20, 2011. Retrieved 2011-04-20.
  24. 1 2 John Bennett, Saul Estrin, and Giovanni Urga (2007). "Methods of privatization and economic growth in transition economies" (PDF). Economics of Transition. 15 (4): 661–683. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0351.2007.00300.x. hdl:10419/140745. S2CID   447407 . Retrieved 18 June 2017.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  25. 1 2 3 4 Roin, Julie (2011-07-06). "Privatization and the Sale of Tax Revenues". SSRN   1880033.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  26. U. of C. professor argues privatization of public assets just like borrowing money, July 22, 2011, Chicago Tribune, Ameet Sachdev's Chicago Law, Ameet Sachdev
  27. Alen Jugovič, Ante Bistričić & Borna Debelić (2010) Economic Effects of Privatisation of Public Services Sector in the Republic of Croatia Emphasising MaritimePassenger Traffic, Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 23:4, 114-126, DOI: 10.1080/1331677X.2010.11517437
  28. Stelzer, I. (2000). A review of privatisation and regulation experience in Britain. Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), Beesley series. Presentation at London Business School, 7 Nov 2000, Beesley series of lectures on regulation.
  29. 1 2 Kikeri, Sunita; Nellis, John (June 2002). "Privatisation in Competitive Sectors: The Record to Date, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2860". John Nellis and Sunita Kikeri. SSRN   636224.
  30. 1 2 "From State To Market: A Survey Of Empirical Studies On Privatisation" (PDF). William L. Megginson and Jeffry M. Netter. Journal of Economic Literature. June 2001. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2005-10-02.
  31. 1 2 "Privatising State-owned Enterprises" (PDF). 2010-02-22. p. 9. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-09-09. Retrieved 2011-07-11.
  32. Saul Estrin; Adeline Pelletier (22 March 2018). "Privatization in Developing Countries: What Are the Lessons of Recent Experience?". The World Bank Research Observer.
  33. Giuseppe Bognetti; Gabriel Obermann (11 September 2008). "Liberalization and privatization of public utilities: origins of the debate, current issues and challenges for the future". Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics. 79 (3–4): 461–485. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8292.2008.00367.x . S2CID   153538881.
  34. "Winners and Losers: Assessing the Distributional Impact of Privatisation, CGD Working Paper No 6" (PDF). Nancy Birdsall & John Nellis. Center for Global Development. March 9, 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2005-06-23. Retrieved 2005-06-23.
  35. Evenson, Robert E.; Megginson, William L. (2006). "Reviewed work: The Great Divestiture: Evaluating the Welfare Impact of the British Privatizations, 1979-1997, Massimo Florio". Journal of Economic Literature. 44 (1): 172–174. JSTOR   30032311.
  36. Dominik Sobczak; Elke Loeffler; Frankie Hine-hughes (10 November 2012). Liberalisation and privatisation in the EU. Publications Office of the EU. Publications Office of the European Union. ISBN   978-9279216367.
  37. "European rail study report". Archived from the original on 2015-11-17. Retrieved 2016-02-01.
  38. "Performance and punctuality (PPM) – Network Rail". Archived from the original on 8 December 2015. Retrieved 20 November 2015.
  39. "92% of UK trains arrive on time". Global Railway Review. Retrieved 2019-01-16.
  40. Have train fares gone up or down since British Rail?, BBC News, 22 January 2013
  41. Privatisation in Competitive Sectors: The Record to Date. Sunita Kikeri and John Nellis. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 2860, June 2002. Privatisation and Corruption. David Martimort and Stéphane Straub.
  42. Holmstrom, Nancy; Richard Smith (February 2000). "The Necessity of Gangster Capitalism: Primitive Accumulation in Russia and China". Monthly Review. Monthly Review Foundation. 51 (9): 1. doi:10.14452/MR-051-09-2000-02_1.
  43. "Death surge linked with mass privatisation". University of Oxford. 2009. Archived from the original on 2014-07-02. Retrieved 2015-06-28.
  44. Privatisation 'raised death rate'. BBC, 15 January 2009. Retrieved 29 June 2014.
  45. Earle, John S.; Gehlbach, Scott (2010-01-30). "Did mass privatisation really increase post-communist mortality?". The Lancet. 375 (9712): 372, author reply 372–374. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60159-6. PMID   20113819.
  46. Scheidel, Walter (2017). The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century. Princeton University Press. p. 222. ISBN   978-0691165028.
  47. "Why is Sector Reform So Unpopular in Latin America?" by Mary Shirley. The Ronald Coase Institute Working Paper, 2004, p. 1.
  48. Perappadan, Bindu shajan (August 17, 2013). "Private hospitals shun destitute children". The Hindu. Retrieved 21 August 2013.
  49. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-01-29. Retrieved 2018-12-03.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  50. "Privatisation and Women's Human Rights : Factsheet for CSW63 advocacy" (PDF). World-psi.org. Retrieved 5 March 2022.
  51. 1 2 Prizzia, Ross (Nov 2005). "An International Perspective of Privatization and Women Workers". Journal of International Women's Studies. 7: 54–68.
  52. "Five facts on gender equity in the public sector". blogs.worldbank.org. Retrieved 2021-11-29.
  53. Stinson, Jane. "Why Privatization is a Women's Issue". Canadian Women's Studies. 23: 18–22. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.925.3111 .
  54. Picchi, Aimee (December 7, 2021). "The new Gilded Age: 2,750 people have more wealth than half the planet". CBS News . Retrieved December 9, 2021.
  55. "Review of Kosanke's Instead of Politics – Don Stacy" Libertarian Papers Vol. 3, ART. NO. 3 (2011)
  56. Central Europe's Mass-Production Privatization Archived 2009-10-18 at the Wayback Machine , Heritage Lecture #352
  57. Dagdeviren (2006). "Revisiting privatisation in the context of poverty alleviation". Journal of International Development. 18 (4): 469–488. doi:10.1002/jid.1244.
  58. David Moberg (6 June 2014). Privatizing Government Services Doesn’t Only Hurt Public Workers. In These Times. Retrieved 28 June 2014.
  59. Race to the Bottom: How Outsourcing Public Services Rewards Corporations and Punishes the Middle Class Archived 2014-06-04 at the Library of Congress Web Archives. In the Public Interest, 3 June 2014. Retrieved 7 June 2014.
  60. Joshua Holland (17 July 2014). How a Bogus, Industry-Funded Study Helped Spur a Privatization Disaster in Michigan. Moyers & Company. Retrieved 20 July 2014.
  61. Hart, Oliver; Shleifer, Andrei; Vishny, Robert W. (1997). "The Proper Scope of Government: Theory and an Application to Prisons". The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 112 (4): 1127–1161. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.318.7133 . doi:10.1162/003355300555448. ISSN   0033-5533. S2CID   16270301.
  62. Hoppe, Eva I.; Schmitz, Patrick W. (2010). "Public versus private ownership: Quantity contracts and the allocation of investment tasks". Journal of Public Economics. 94 (3–4): 258–268. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2009.11.009.

Related Research Articles

A mixed economy is variously defined as an economic system blending elements of a market economy with elements of a planned economy, markets with state interventionism, or private enterprise with public enterprise. Common to all mixed economies is a combination of free-market principles and principles of socialism. While there is no single definition of a mixed economy, one definition is about a mixture of markets with state interventionism, referring specifically to a capitalist market economy with strong regulatory oversight and extensive interventions into markets. Another is that of active collaboration of capitalist and socialist visions. Yet another definition is apolitical in nature, strictly referring to an economy containing a mixture of private enterprise with public enterprise. Alternatively, a mixed economy can refer to a reformist transitionary phase to a socialist economy that allows a substantial role for private enterprise and contracting within a dominant economic framework of public ownership. This can extend to a Soviet-type planned economy that has been reformed to incorporate a greater role for markets in the allocation of factors of production.

Public finance Study of the role of government within the economy

Public finance is the study of the role of the government in the economy. It is the branch of economics that assesses the government revenue and government expenditure of the public authorities and the adjustment of one or the other to achieve desirable effects and avoid undesirable ones. The purview of public finance is considered to be threefold, consisting of governmental effects on:

  1. The efficient allocation of available resources;
  2. The distribution of income among citizens; and
  3. The stability of the economy.
State ownership Ownership of industry by the state or a public body

State ownership, also called government ownership and public ownership, is the ownership of an industry, asset, or enterprise by the state or a public body representing a community as opposed to an individual or private party. Public ownership specifically refers to industries selling goods and services to consumers and differs from public goods and government services financed out of a government's general budget. Public ownership can take place at the national, regional, local, or municipal levels of government; or can refer to non-governmental public ownership vested in autonomous public enterprises. Public ownership is one of the three major forms of property ownership, differentiated from private, collective/cooperative, and common ownership.

Public–private partnership Public project or service which is financed and operated through a partnership of government and one or more private sector companies

A public–private partnership is an arrangement between two or more public and private sectors of a long-term nature. Typically, it involves private capital financing government projects and services up-front, and then drawing profits from taxpayers and/or users over the course of the PPP contract. Public–private partnerships have been implemented in multiple countries and are primarily used for infrastructure projects. They have been used for building, equipping, operating and maintaining schools, hospitals, transport systems, and water and sewerage systems.

The socialist market economy (SME) is the economic system and model of economic development employed in the People's Republic of China. The system is a market economy with the predominance of public ownership and state-owned enterprises. The term "socialist market economy" was introduced by Jiang Zemin during the 14th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 1992 to describe the goal of China's economic reforms. Originating in the Chinese economic reforms initiated in 1978 that integrated China into the global market economy, the socialist market economy represents a preliminary or "primary stage" of developing socialism. Some commentators describe the system as a form of "state capitalism", while others describe it as an original evolution of Marxism, in line with Marxism–Leninism similar to the "New Economic Policy" of the Soviet Union, adapted to the cohabitation with a globalized capitalist system.

Nationalization is the process of transforming privately-owned assets into public assets by bringing them under the public ownership of a national government or state. Nationalization usually refers to private assets or to assets owned by lower levels of government being transferred to the state. Nationalization contrasts with privatization and with demutualization. When previously nationalized assets are privatized and subsequently returned to public ownership at a later stage, they are said to have undergone renationalization. Industries often subject to nationalization include the commanding heights of the economy - telecommunications, electric power, fossil fuels, railways, airlines, iron ore, media, postal services, banks, and water - though, in many jurisdictions, many such entities have no history of private ownership.

Water privatization is short for private sector participation in the provision of water services and sanitation. Water privatization has a variable history in which its popularity and favorability has fluctuated in the market and politics. One of the common forms of privatization is Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs). PPPs allow for a mix between public and private ownership and/or management of water and sanitation sources and infrastructure. Privatization, as proponents argue, may not only increase efficiency and service quality but also increase fiscal benefits. There are different forms of regulation in place for current privatization systems.

Privately held company Business with a small number of owners

A privately held company or private company is a company which does not offer or trade its company stock (shares) to the general public on the stock market exchanges, but rather the company's stock is offered, owned and traded or exchanged privately or over-the-counter. In the case of a close corporation, there are a relatively small number of shareholders or company members. Related terms are closely held corporation, unquoted company, and unlisted company.

Reprivatization refers to the process of restoring properties seized or otherwise nationalized from privately held owners by a government to privately held status. This may include returning seized property or compensating uncompensated former owners, or reprivatizing state held enterprises to new owners, especially banks, which were privately founded but came under state control due to economic crisis or other factors. The latter scenario is sometimes referred to as privatization, though scholars have specifically referred to the sale of nationalized Mexican and Korean banks to private shareholders as reprivatization. The terms reprivatization and privatization are sometimes used to describe similar processes. The term privatization is more often used to describe the transfer of property under long-term government control to private owners, while reprivatization implies the property being return to privately held status came under government control on a circumstantial basis. Both terms have been used in connection with larger privatization schemes in the former Soviet Bloc, particularly the process of assigning new property rights.

ZCCM Investments Holdings

ZCCM Investments Holdings is a successor company to Zambia Consolidated Copper Mines Limited, of Zambia.

Privatization in Croatia refers to political and economic reforms which include the privatization of state-owned assets in Croatia. Privatization started in the late 1980s under Yugoslav Prime Minister Ante Marković and mostly took place in the 1990s after the breakup of Yugoslavia, during the presidency of Franjo Tuđman and the rule of his party Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ), and continued in the 2000s with the privatization of large state enterprises. Many aspects of the privatization process are still seen as controversial as the political and economic turmoil, coupled with the events of the simultaneous 1991–95 independence war, are thought to have led to a degree of criminal activity.

The 30-year civil war and 20 years of Soviet command economy left Angola in ruins and produced a centralized government with authoritarian tendencies that has made possible the ownership of the nation's resources by the president and his associates. They have used the government apparatus to allow themselves and their patronage networks a variety of legal and extra-legal options to extract private profit from Angola's economy.

Privatization in Russia Post-Soviet reforms of the Russian economy in the 90s

Privatization in Russia describes the series of post-Soviet reforms that resulted in large-scale privatization of Russia's state-owned assets, particularly in the industrial, energy, and financial sectors. Most privatization took place in the early and mid-1990s under Boris Yeltsin, who assumed the presidency following the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Privatization is the process of transferring ownership of a business, enterprise, agency, charity or public service from the public sector or common use to the private sector or to private non-profit organizations.

Privatisation in Pakistan Economic programme

The Privatisation process in Pakistan is a continuous policy measure program in the economic period of Pakistan. It was first conceived and implemented by the then-people-elected Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and the Pakistan Muslim League, in an attempt to enable the nationalised industries towards market economy, immediately after the economic collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989–90. The programme was envisaged and visioned to improve the GDP growth of the national economy of Pakistan, and reversal of the nationalisation programme in 1970s— an inverse of the privatisation programme.

Economic liberalisation in Pakistan

Pakistan began a period of economic liberalisation in the 1990s to promote and accelerate economic independence, development, and GDP growth.

Disinvestment in Public sector undertakings in India, is a process of public asset sales done by the President of India on behalf of the Government of India. It can be directly offered for sale to the private sector or indirectly done through a bidding process. The Public Enterprises Survey (2015–16), brought out by the Department of Public Enterprises, Ministry of Heavy Industries, & Government of India on the performance of Central Public Sector Enterprises was placed in both the Houses of Parliament on 21 March 2017. There were 331 CPSEs in 2017-18, out of which 257 were in operation. The remaining 74 of the CPSEs were being established.

Privatisation in Australia is the process of transiting a public service or good to the private sector through a variety of mechanisms that was commenced by the Federal Government in the 1990s, receiving bipartisan support. More generally, privatisation is a set of economic policies that is part of a broader system of deregulation of government services, underpinned by the ideology of Liberalism, in order to achieve economic outcomes of growth, efficiency and productivity. Some examples of sectors that have been privatised include finance, telecommunications and infrastructure. Australia's public service has also transformed with the introduction of New Public Management (NPM) in the late twentieth century which altered public administration models to appear more "business-like" through performance evaluations that emphasise efficiency, productivity and service delivery.

The privatization of the electricity sector in Cameroon refers to the process by which the generation, transmission, distribution, and sale of electricity in Cameroon has been transferred from the state to the private sector. This includes the sale of assets and the granting of concessions to the private sector. The landmark event of this process is the sale of 56% of the Société National d'Electricité (SONEL), the fully integrated public company responsible for the generation, transmission, distribution, and sale of electricity in Cameroon, to AES Corporation in 2001. The deal also granted concessions for each sub-sector to the newly formed AES-SONEL company. The new regulatory framework to prepare for this privatization was implemented between 1998 and 2000.

References

Unindexed