Privatization Methods and Economic Growth in Transition Economies

Source: RePEc

ABSTRACT We investigate, using dynamic panel data techniques, the impact of differences in privatization methods, and in private sector and capital market development, on economic growth in transition economies. Mass privatization is found to be the only privatization method to have had a significant positive effect on growth. Stock market development has also had a significant positive impact. Our analysis suggests that in economies with underdeveloped capital markets, the matching of owners to firms under full privatization will be inefficient. This finding has important implications for current privatization policy in developing economies.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Documenting the long term impact of structural policies on economic performance has generated tremendous interest in the development literature. In contrast, contemporary effects of structural policies are difficult to establish. Structural policies seldom change sufficiently in the short run, and accepted instruments to control for endogeneity in cross sections are inappropriate for time series analysis. In this paper we utilize an eleven year panel of 26 transition countries to identify short term effects of structural policies that are large and significant. A ten percent change in the quality of structural policies (or the Rule of Law) towards OECD standards is shown to raise annual growth by about 2.5%. To control for endogeneity, we develop an instrument using the hierarchy of institutions hypothesis and find that it holds a robust explanatory power. We also document that early reformers reap the greatest benefits, but that it is never too late to begin structural policy reforms.
    Journal of Development Economics 05/2012; 91(1):169-179. · 2.13 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The changes that took place after 1989 in the countries of Central-Eastern Europe were political, social and economic. They were especially combined with the economic transformation. Due to the lack of comparable transformation experiences, the governments and societies of the countires that took up the “challenge” of transformation were left on their own to organise their own programmes and activities. The aim of this study is to analyse and evaluate the economic transformation, with particular focus on three areas: the initial conditions, the progress, the results. At the same time, the fundamental hypothesis of this study is that from the very beginning od the systemic changes in the transitional economies there was a strong correlation between the actual changes and the scale and intensity of changes in the economy.
    Selected Problems of Market Economy in the Crisis Era, ed. D. Kopycińska, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego, Szczecin 2011. 07/2011;
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Why did the transition from socialism to capitalism result in improved growth in some countries and significant economic decline in others? Scholars have advanced three main arguments: (1) successful countries rapidly implemented neoliberal policies; (2) failures were not due to policies but to poor institutional environments; and (3) policies were counterproductive because they damaged the state. We present a state-centered theory and empirically demonstrate for the first time one of several possible mechanisms linking neoliberal policies to poor economic performance: mass privatization programs, where implemented, created a massive fiscal shock for post-communist governments, thereby undermining the development of private-sector governance institutions and severely exacerbating the transformational recession. We performed cross-national panel regressions for a sample of 25 post-communist countries between 1990 and 2000 and found that mass privatization programs negatively affected economic growth, state capacity, and property rights protection. We further tested these findings with firm-level data from a representative survey of managers in 3,550 companies operating in 24 post-communist countries. Within countries that implemented mass-privatized programs, newly privatized firms were substantially less likely to engage in industrial restructuring but considerably more likely to use barter and accumulate tax arrears than their state-owned counterparts.
    American Sociological Review - AMER SOCIOL REV. 01/2012; 77(2):295-324.

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jun 5, 2014