Reprivatization

Last updated

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. [1] [2] 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. [2] [1] 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 returned to privately held status came under government control on a circumstantial basis. [3] Both terms have been used in connection with larger privatization schemes in the former Soviet Bloc, particularly the process of assigning new property rights. [4] [5]

Contents

Reprivatization to private owners has been sought by any number of parties whose property has been nationalized, including the traditional nobility in certain areas of Europe, Holocaust survivors, their descendants, and other survivors of persons who died in Nazi death camps and whose property was confiscated by the Nazis or by later Communist states and disposed of in various ways; and by corporations.

A significant barrier to reprivatization is created by larger political questions, which vary by country. In Eastern Europe, there is frequently a desire to avoid the inflammation of ethnic tensions and the ostensible reversal of Potsdam conference policies; see Federation of Expellees.

Outstanding reprivatization issues can sometimes be a barrier to foreign investment, as investors are wary of investing in a property to which the title is disputed or faulty.

Reasons for reprivatization

Reprivatization can be initiated due to a desire:

Forms and types of reprivatization

There are two main forms of reprivatization:

In their pure form, both these forms are rare. Most often they are used at the same time, compensating for part of the costs in the form of reimbursement of funds, the rest is provided in kind. In addition, reprivatization can also be accompanied by compensation for material damage (lost profits, downtime). Requirements for reimbursement can be put forward both by the former owner and by the state itself:

Reprivatization by country

Great Britain

Most often, when discussing reprivatization, it turns to the example of Margaret Thatcher. After becoming prime minister in 1979, she decided to handle the economic difficulties faced by the United Kingdom at the time by engaging in a campaign against the trade unions and changing the role of the state in the British economy. One of the ways to implement the plan was to choose reprivatization.

Large-scale reprivatization touched the oil, gas, electronic, aerospace and some other industries. Many enterprises that were in a difficult economic situation (including British Airways, British Petroleum), legally transferred to state ownership and received considerable financial support from it. And all this is only to be transferred to private hands through privatization ten years later.

Germany

The revival of entrepreneurship in the first period after World War II went on in the eastern lands in several forms. These were the creation of new firms, reprivatization, the organization of joint ventures with the participation of Western capital and former national enterprises. A kind of transitional measure is the decentralization of management within the former combines, as a result of which the former state enterprises begin to act as free producers in the market environment. Immediately after the unification of Germany, about 6,000 applications for the redemption of enterprises by their former owners were filed. With full redemption of the household enterprises had the opportunity to obtain a loan from the German Credit Bank under the collateral value of the land plot.

Spain

The history of privatization and nationalization in Spain is the story of the "nationalization of losses and the privatization of profits." In a crisis, the government bought up or otherwise nationalized loss-making enterprises, actually saving them from bankruptcy. Later, when for some reason they became profitable and successful companies, the government again sold them to private hands. At the same time, traditionally unprofitable industries, such as, for example, the coal industry, radio and television, railway and shipbuilding companies, remain in the hands of the state. Analysts state that the goals of privatization - to increase budget revenues as much as possible and to increase competition in different markets - are in general contradictory to each other, so it was possible to achieve either one or the other, but not both.

France

In France, as in many other European countries, a vast public sector of the economy was formed after World War II. However, subsequently, the country's leadership did not adhere to a unified policy regarding the management of state property and its fate as a whole. Here, in comparison with other developed countries, the most pronounced were the so-called waves of property transformation. The processes of nationalization and privatization consistently succeeded each other, depending on who was in power. The last large-scale nationalization took place in the early 80's. Large commercial banks and many industrial enterprises were nationalized. However, during the reign of President François Mitterrand, the French economy was already experiencing difficulties due to high state participation and a large number of state companies. In connection with this, in the presidency of Jacques Chirac in the late 1990s. processes of privatization of the state enterprises have begun.

Poland

Unlike the industrial sector, Poland's agricultural sector remained largely in private hands during the decades of communist rule. Most of the former state farms are now leased to farmer tenants. Lack of credit is hampering efforts to sell former state farmland. Currently, Poland's 2 million private farms occupy 90% of all farmland and account for roughly the same percentage of total agricultural production. These farms are small—8 hectares (20 acres) on average—and often fragmented. Farms with an area exceeding 15 hectares (37 acres) accounted for only 9% of the total number of farms but cover 45% of the total agricultural area. Over half of all farming households in Poland produce only for their own needs with little, if any, commercial sales.

Ukraine

Reforms in the more politically sensitive areas of structural reform and land privatisation are still lagging. The parliament has approved a foreign investment law allowing Westerners to purchase businesses and property, to repatriate revenue and profits, and to receive compensation in the event that property is nationalized by a future government. Outside institutions—particularly the IMF—have encouraged Ukraine to quicken the pace and scope of reforms and have threatened to withdraw financial support.

Reprivatization in both political and economic terms is noted by the authors of the monograph "Privatization and Reprivatization in Ukraine after the Orange Revolution" - proved to be an ineffective way of reviewing the results of privatization in Ukraine. Reprivatization, which was carried out through the courts, proved to be a long and exhausting process. "The process of reprivatization as a way to review the results of privatization was formed under the influence of the general revolutionary moods of the population and the character of the first government team led by Yulia Tymoshenko, accustomed to an irreconcilable opposition struggle".

Kryvorizhstal is Ukraine's largest integrated steel company. In 2004, the enterprise became an open joint-stock company "Kryvorozhskiy Mining and Metallurgical Combine". In the same year, the government of Ukraine allowed a consortium created by the structures of politicians and businessmen Rinat Akhmetov and Victor Pinchuk (son-in-law of President Leonid Kuchma) to privatize the largest steel plant for $803 million.

After the Tymoshenko government came to power in February 2005, the procedure of judicial return of the plant to state property was launched. On April 22, 2005, the Kyiv Economic Court declared illegal the sale of a 93.02% stake in Kryvorizhstal and decided to return them to the state.

On October 24, 2005, Kryvorizhstal was reprivatized. The world's largest metallurgical company Mittal Steel won the contest. It laid out a 93.02% stake in Kryvorozhstal OJSC 24.2 billion UAH ($4.8 billion).

Hungary

During the period immediately following the decline of communism in Eastern Europe, including Hungary, previously state-owned enterprises began the process of reprivatization of sectors that were nationalized during the communist era. The changes in ownership and property rights during this era have been referred to both as privatization and reprivatization, though in the Hungarian context former pre-communist property owners were given capital vouchers of little actual value as compensation. This meant that property may have been considered “reprivatized,” though the former owners incurred little actual benefit. [4] [6] The new democratic government set a public spending goal of 30% of GDP, and began to encourage the development of a domestic capital market to stimulate this change. [7]

Early on, the government focused on the reprivatization of the food industry, which was an early success in the new government's effort. Foreign investors were encouraged to participate in creating new ownership for these firms. By 1993, 47% of Hungarian private-sector earnings were in the food industry. [4] Certain sectors of the food industry, such as those which previously produced mainly for export to other former Soviet satellites, including the meat and dairy industries, had less liquidity and were slower to privatize. The impacts on Hungarians were mixed, with many Hungarians who worked for unprofitable state-owned enterprises becoming unemployed as a result of new private management. However, sectors that were able to successfully convert to profitable private enterprises saw more limited losses.

South Korea

After the 1997 Asian financial crisis, the recently elected South Korean opposition government of President Kim Dae-jung nationalized many financially defunct banks. While the previous government was entrenched in the chaebol patronage system between the state and large corporations, the new government owed its election to political and civil society organizations. [1] This fact meant that decision making for the recently nationalized banks would be driven more by political concerns rather than purely economic factors.

The reprivatization of banks in South Korea has proceeded slowly, and as of 2010 the state had still not relinquished all of its shareholdings. In the South Korean context, literature has specifically referred to the privatization of circumstantially nationalized banks as reprivatization, though the previous chaebol owners were in fact prohibited from having the bulk of their ownership returned. [1] [8] The Korean Banking Act prevented chaebol-affiliated corporations outside of the finance sector from owning more than 4% of voting shares in commercial banks. However, this reform slowed reprivatization as there were no domestic Korean buyers outside of the chaebol that could afford to purchase shares in the banks.

Mexico

Beginning in 1983, the Mexican state began a process of reprivatizing previously state-held companies, with the largest target being state-held banks, which were nationalized the previous year in response to an extremely high default debt faced by the state. [9] [2] In the 1990s President Carlos Salinas began to accelerate this process as part of a larger privatization campaign to fund social programs. [2] Both the privatization of state owned enterprises and the reprivatization of recently privatized banks were extremely lucrative to the state, though the latter carried political and economic consequences. [2] In the case of Mexico, banks were reprivatized to the same wealthy banking class, and though there was no formal compensation of the previous owners, the new owners were largely the same members of the financial elite. [2] The lack of banking regulations imposed during the reprivitization campaign in order to secure Salinas’ support among the banking elite eventually lead to the collapse of the State Bank Saving Protection Fund (Foboproa) later on in the decade. [10]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Economy of Hungary</span>

The economy of Hungary is a developing, high-income mixed economy, ranked as the 9th most complex economy according to the Economic Complexity Index. Hungary is a member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) with a very high human development index and a skilled labour force, with the 22nd lowest income inequality by Gini index in the world. The Hungarian economy is the 53rd-largest economy in the world with $265.037 billion annual output, and ranks 41st in the world in terms of GDP per capita measured by purchasing power parity. Hungary has an export-oriented market economy with a heavy emphasis on foreign trade; thus the country is the 35th largest export economy in the world. The country had more than $100 billion of exports in 2015, with a high trade surplus of $9.003 billion, of which 79% went to the European Union (EU) and 21% was extra-EU trade. Hungary's productive capacity is more than 80% privately owned, with 39.1% overall taxation, which funds the country's welfare economy. On the expenditure side, household consumption is the main component of GDP and accounts for 50% of its total, followed by gross fixed capital formation with 22% and government expenditure with 20%.

Privatization 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 ; 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.

A mixed economy is an economic system that accepts both private businesses and nationalized government services, like public utilities, safety, military, welfare, and education. A mixed economy also promotes some form of regulation to protect the public, the environment, or the interests of the state.

Public property is property that is dedicated to public use. The term may be used either to describe the use to which the property is put, or to describe the character of its ownership. This is in contrast to private property, owned by an individual person or artificial entities that represent the financial interests of persons, such as corporations. State ownership, also called public ownership, government ownership or state property, are property interests that are vested in the state, rather than an individual or communities.

A state-owned enterprise (SOE) is a business entity created or owned by a national or local government, either through an executive order or legislation. SOEs aim to generate profit for the government, prevent private sector monopolies, provide goods at lower prices, implement government policies, or serve remote areas where private businesses are scarce. The government typically holds full or majority ownership and oversees operations. SOEs have a distinct legal structure, with financial and developmental goals, like making services more accessible while earning profit. They can be considered as government-affiliated entities designed to meet commercial and state capitalist objectives.

A chaebol is a large industrial South Korean conglomerate run and controlled by an individual or family. A chaebol often consists of multiple diversified affiliates, controlled by a person or group. Several dozen large South Korean family-controlled corporate groups fall under this definition. The term first appeared in English text in 1972.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">State ownership</span> Ownership of industry, assets, or businesses by a public body

State ownership, also called public ownership or government ownership, is the ownership of an industry, asset, property, or enterprise by the national government of a country or 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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nicolae Văcăroiu</span> Romanian politician

Nicolae Văcăroiu is a Romanian politician, member of the Social Democratic Party (PSD), who served as Prime Minister between 1992 and 1996. Before the 1989 Revolution, he worked at the Committee for State Planning, together with Theodor Stolojan. He was the President of the Senate of Romania for almost eight years, during two legislatures.

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 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 telecommunications, electric power, fossil fuels, railways, airlines, iron ore, media, postal services, banks, and water, and in many jurisdictions such entities have no history of private ownership.

A transition economy or transitional economy is an economy which is changing from a centrally planned economy to a market economy. Transition economies undergo a set of structural transformations intended to develop market-based institutions. These include economic liberalization, where prices are set by market forces rather than by a central planning organization. In addition to this trade barriers are removed, there is a push to privatize state-owned enterprises and resources, state and collectively run enterprises are restructured as businesses, and a financial sector is created to facilitate macroeconomic stabilization and the movement of private capital. The process has been applied in China, the former Soviet Union and Eastern bloc countries of Europe and some Third world countries, and detailed work has been undertaken on its economic and social effects.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Miracle on the Han River</span> Rapid economic growth of South Korea

The Miracle on the Han River was the period of rapid economic growth in South Korea, following the Korean War (1950–1953), during which South Korea transformed from one of the least developed countries into a developed country.

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.

Between 1950 and 1960, the imperial government of Ethiopia enacted legislation and implemented a new policy to encourage foreign investment in the Ethiopian economy. This new policy provided investor benefits in the form of tax exemptions, remittances of foreign exchange, import and export duty relief, tax exemptions on dividends, and the provision of financing through the Ethiopian Investment Corporation and the Development Bank of Ethiopia. In addition, the government guaranteed protection to industrial enterprises by instituting high tariffs and by banning the importation of commodities that might adversely affect production of domestic goods. Protected items included sugar, textiles, furniture, and metal. The government also participated through direct investment in enterprises that had high capital costs, such as oil refineries and the paper and pulp, glass and bottle, tire, and cement industries. In 1963, with the Second Five-Year Plan under way, the government enacted Proclamation No. 51. The proclamation's objective was to consolidate other investment policies enacted up to that period, to extend benefits to Ethiopian investors, and to create an Investment Committee that would oversee investment programs. In 1966 the Ethiopian government enacted Proclamation No. 242, which elevated the Investment Committee's status as an advisory council to that of an authorized body empowered to make independent investment decisions. Thus, by the early 1970s, Ethiopia's industrialization policy included a range of fiscal incentives, direct government investment, and equity participation in private enterprises.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nationalization in Romania</span>

The nationalization of the means of production was a measure taken by Romania's new Communist authorities in order to lay the foundation of socialism. The act that allowed this measure to take place was Law 119, adopted by the Great National Assembly on June 11, 1948. Article 1 decreed subject to nationalization "all the wealth of the soil not in the property of the state at the time of entry into force of the Constitution of the Romanian People's Republic, as well as individual enterprises, societies of any type and private industrial, bank, insurance, mining, transport and telecommunications associations". Nationalized were 8,894 industrial, mining, transport, banking and insurance companies, followed in November 1948 by 383 cinemas and medical-sanitary facilities. By 1950, the measure was applied to chemical enterprises, pharmacies and remaining economic entities.

National champions are corporations which are technically private businesses but due to governmental policy are ceded a dominant position in a national economy. In this system, these large organizations are expected not only to seek profit but also to "advance the interests of the nation"; the government sets policies which favor these organizations. The policy is practiced by many governments, in some sectors more than others, but by giving an unfair advantage against market competition, the policy promotes economic nationalism domestically and global pre-eminence abroad contrary to the free market. The policy also deters or prevents venture capitalism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nationalisation in Pakistan</span> Pakistani economic policies

The nationalisation process in Pakistan was a policy measure programme in the economic history of Pakistan that negatively impacted the country's industrialization and undermined the trust of businessmen and investors. The process was first introduced, promulgated and implemented by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Pakistan Peoples Party to lay the foundation of socialist economics reforms to improve the growth of the national economy. Since the 1950s, the country had undergone a speedy industrialisation. But, as time progressed, the labour trade unions and labour-working class had increasingly strained relations with the industrial business oligarch class, having neglected to improve working conditions and failing to provide a healthy and safe environment for the workers in these industrial industries.

Socialist economics comprises the economic theories, practices and norms of hypothetical and existing socialist economic systems. A socialist economic system is characterized by social ownership and operation of the means of production that may take the form of autonomous cooperatives or direct public ownership wherein production is carried out directly for use rather than for profit. Socialist systems that utilize markets for allocating capital goods and factors of production among economic units are designated market socialism. When planning is utilized, the economic system is designated as a socialist planned economy. Non-market forms of socialism usually include a system of accounting based on calculation-in-kind to value resources and goods.

After the end of World War II, the Communist government in Poland instituted large scale nationalizations in Poland starting in 1944.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Provisional People's Committee of North Korea</span> 1946–1947 Soviet-backed government

The Provisional People's Committee of North Korea (Korean: 북조선림시인민위원회) was the provisional government of North Korea.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Cho, Hyekyung; Kalinowski, Thomas (2010-03-10). "Bank Nationalization, Restructuring and Reprivatization: The Case of Korea Since the Asian Financial Crisis". Korea Observer. Rochester, NY. SSRN   1907834.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Kessler, Timothy P. (1998). "Political Capital: Mexican Financial Policy under Salinas". World Politics. 51 (1): 46. doi:10.1017/s0043887100007784. ISSN   0043-8871. S2CID   154006989.
  3. ↑ Chowdhury, Faizul Latif (2006). Corrupt bureaucracy and privatization of tax enforcement in Bangladesh. Dhaka: Pathak Shamabesh. ISBN   984-8120-62-9. OCLC   69031034.
  4. 1 2 3 Harcsa, István (1991). Privatization and reprivatization in Hungarian agriculture. OCLC   822422269.
  5. ↑ Czarnota, Adam (2009). Transitional justice, the post-communist post-police state and the losers and winners : an overview of the problem. OCLC   922485034.
  6. ↑ Gelpern, A (1993). "Laws and politics of reprivatization in East-Central Europe: a comparison". U. Pa. J. Int'l Bus. L. 14 (1993): 315.
  7. ↑ "Economic Transition, Constitutional Choice, and Public Administration: Implementing Privatization in Hungary". Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. October 1994. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a037228. ISSN   1477-9803.
  8. ↑ Stallings, B. "Financial Sector Development in Latin America and East Asia: A Comparison of Chile and South Korea", Managing Development, Routledge, pp. 159–181, 2006-04-18, doi: 10.4324/9780203015292-16 , ISBN   9780203015292
  9. ↑ Ranieri, Steven (1991-05-01). "Reprivatization Of Mexican Banks: A "sweet Deal" Expected To Consolidate & Enhance Inequality". SourceMex.
  10. ↑ LADB Staff. "Independent Auditor Uncovers Corruption, Mismanagement in Bank Rescue Fund." (1999). https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/sourcemex/4104
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.