Author

  • Motasam Tatahi

    • European Business School-London Inner Circle, Regent's Park
    • United Kingdom

Abstract

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 newclassical 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 Finland 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.

Keywords

References

  • 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, Centre For Economic Reform And Transformation , October, Discussion Paper /08.
  • 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, Department of Finance, Terry College of Business, The University of Georgis, Athens, GA.
  • 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., Gray, C. W., Hessel, M. & Rapaczynski, A. (1997). Private Ownership and Corporate Performance: Evidence from Transition Economies, Research Report97-28, C.V. Starr Centre for Applied Economics, New York University.
  • Frydman, R., Hessel, M. & Rapaczynski, A. (1998). Why Ownership Matters? Politicization and Entrepreneurship in the Restructuring of Enterprises in Central Europe, New York University, mimeo.
  • Galal, A., Jones, L., Tandon, P. & Vogelsang, I. (1994). The Welfare Consequences of Selling Public Sector Enterprises, Oxford University Press.
  • Gupta, N., John, C. H. & Svejnar, J. (2008). Priorities and sequencing in privatization: Evidence from Czech firm panel data. European Economic Review , 52, 183–208
  • Kay, A. & Thompson, D. (1986). Privatization: A Policy in Search of a Rationale," Economic Journal , 96, 1838.
  • Kikeri, S. (1995): Privatization and Labor: What Happens to Workers When Governments Divest, The World Bank, Technical Paper No. 396.
  • Kikeri, S., Nellis, J. & Shirley, M. (1994). Privatization: Lessons from Market Economies. The World Bank Research Observer , 9(2).
  • Kornai, J. (1980). The Economics of Shortage, Amsterdam, North Holland.
  • Kornai, J. (1986). The Soft Budget Constraint. KYKLOS , 39(1), 3-30.
  • LaPorta, R. & López-De-Silanes, F. (1998). The Benefits of Privatization: Evidence from Mexico, NBER Working Paper 6215.
  • Larraín, F. & Vergara, R. (1993). Macroeconomic Effects of Privatization: Lessons from Chile and Argentina, mimeo.
  • MacKinlay, A. C. (1997). Event Studies in Economics and Finance. Journal of Economic Literature , XXXV, 13-39.
  • McLindon, M. P. (1996). Privatization and Capital Market Development, Praeger Publishers.
  • Megginson, W. L., Nash, R. C. & Randenborgh, M. V. (1994). The Financial and Operating Performance of Newly Privatized Firms: An International Empirical Analysis. The Journal of Finance , XLIX(2).
  • Megginson, W. L., Nash, R. C., Netter, J. & Poulsen, A. (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., Nash, R. C., Netter, J. & Schwartz, A. (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. & Netter, J. (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. & Willig, R. (1990). Economic Rationales for the Scope of Privatization, in Suleiman and Waterbury (1990).
  • Smith, S., Vodopivek, M. & Cin, B. C. H. (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, H. & Wortzel, L. H. (1989): Privatization: Not the Only Answer. World Development , 17(5), 633-641.
  • Vickers, J. & Yarrow, G. (1989). Privatization: An Economic Analysis, MIT Press.
  • Yarrow, G. (1992). Privatization in Theory and Practice. Economic Policy, 2, 324-364.

Downloads

No downloads have been recorded for this article yet. Figures appear here once readers begin downloading the full text.

How to Cite

Tatahi, M. (2013). Enterprise Performance, Privatization and the Role of Ownership in Finland. Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, 5(3), 122-135. https://doi.org/10.22610/jebs.v5i3.387

Share this article

License

Copyright (c) 2013 Motasam Tatahi (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Author (s) should affirm that the material has not been published previously. It has not been submitted and it is not under consideration by any other journal. At the same time author (s) need to execute a publication permission agreement to assume the responsibility of the submitted content and any omissions and errors therein. After submission of revised paper in the light of suggestions of the reviewers, the editorial team  edits and formats manuscripts to bring uniformity and standardization in published material.

This work will be licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) and under condition of the license, users are free to read, copy, remix, transform, redistribute, download, print, search or link to the full texts of articles and even build upon their work as long as they credit the author for the original work. Moreover, as per journal policy author (s) hold and retain copyrights without any restrictions.

Keywords

Section

Research Paper

Published in

Vol. 5 No. 3 (2013) Ownership, Forecasting & Consumer Subcultures View issue contents

Published

2013-03-30

Submissions

Have research to publish? Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies welcomes submissions.

Make a Submission