Privatization In Transition Countries Lessons From The First Decade

The authors' view is that any privatisation is better than none, regardless of whether a stable, competitive environment has been established first. However, private companies started from scratch perform best, followed by newly privatised firms run by outsiders, either local or foreign. Privatised companies dominated by insiders do less well, but even they regularly outperform state enterprises. Without an appropriate market environment though, managers may spend more time lobbying the government for support than undertaking painful restructuring measures.

A decade ago, with the breakup of the Soviet Union and the start of market-oriented reforms in many former socialist economies of Central andEastern Europe, the prospect of privatizing inefficient state-ownedcompanies figured prominently in both popular and academic writings. As the headline event symbolizing change from central planning to capitalism, privatization seemed to promise an end to the inefficienciesof central planning - the key to freeing the resources and talents of this huge area and lifting its living standards to those of the industrial countries. What broad lessons were learned from the experienceof the past ten years? Along with their successes, prominent failureshave also marked this recent history, especially in Russia and in othercountries of the former Soviet Union. The overall task ahead thus remains vast if the original vision of greater freedom and higher livingstandards is to be realized.

This paper reviews a selection of studies on privatization experiences in transition countries. Empirical studies almost invariably show privatized enterprises outperform state enterprises. Moreover, the literature identifies de novo firms as being clearly the best performers, followed by outsider-dominated firms, while insider-dominated firms are the least efficient among those newly privatized. The importance of de novo firms in enlarging the private sector in transition economies is reviewed, along with the question of whether privatization efforts support or hinder de novo private sector development. Finally, the paper discusses the importance of providing a suitable market environment for successful private-sector development.

Annotation.

A comparative analysis of eleven transition economies. The former socialist countries' transition to market economies is one of the momentous transformations in modern history. The pace and degree of success have varied widely, and there is increasing divergence in performance, structure, and institutions among the transition economies. These differences are largely determined by country-specific conditions and political configurations. This book compares the experiences of the countries involved over the first ten years to determine what has worked and failed, as well as the nature of the challenges that lie ahead.After two overviews of the transition process to date, the book presents eleven specific country cases: the reunification of East and West Germany; the most successful transition countries, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Croatia, and Slovenia; the less successful experience of countries in the former Soviet Union, namely, Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine; and the dissimilar developments in two major Balkan countries, Bulgaria and Romania. The final section summarizes the policy lessons of the different experiences. The contributors, who include ministers, government officials, academics, and leaders of international monetary institutions, stress the need for greater emphasis on institutional building and on the enforcement of contracts.

Electricity, natural gas, telecommunications, railways, and water supply, are often vertically and horizontally integrated state monopolies. This results in weak services, especially in developing and transition economies, and for poor people. Common problems include low productivity, high costs, bad quality, insufficient revenue, and investment shortfalls. Many countries over the past two decades have restructured, privatized and regulated their infrastructure. This report identifies the challenges involved in this massive policy redirection. It also assesses the outcomes of these changes, as well as their distributional consequences for poor households and other disadvantaged groups. It recommends directions for future reforms and research to improve infrastructure performance, identifying pricing policies that strike a balance between economic efficiency and social equity, suggesting rules governing access to bottleneck infrastructure facilities, and proposing ways to increase poor people's access to these crucial services.

The first decade of transition witnessed rapid and tumultuous financial sector development. Although, few transition economies have reached the point where institutions and markets fulfill all the functions of market based financial intermediation, progress has been much more rapid than had been anticipated. In many countries, active market-oriented financial institutions function where there was only a state planning mechanism a decade ago. Initial experiences showed that bank privatization programs often failed to achieve independence from government control and from undesirable weak clients. It is now widely accepted that the participation of foreign strategic investors in banking is an effective way of meeting these goals Capital market development is complicated by the need to support the development of institutional infrastructure and regulatory mechanisms while at the same time avoid interfering in the markets. In many instances policy makers expected immature markets and institutions to accomplish unattainable goals. Equity markets cannot be effectively support mass privatization programs. There are still many missing pieces in virtually all of the transition country capital markets.

IFC Discussion Paper No. 38.QUOTEIt is now universally acknowledged that ownership matters; that private ownership in and of itself is a major determinant of good performance in firms... Decent economic policy and well-functioning legal and administrative institutions... matter greatly as well.QUOTEThis paper looks at what happens when the shift to private ownership gets far out in front of the effort to build the institutional underpinnings of a capitalist economy. The emphasis is on what went wrong and why and what, if anything, can be done to be correct it. Proposals include renationalization and/or postponement of further privatization, both to be accompanied by measures to strengthen the managerial capacities of the state. Neither approach seems likely to produce short-term improvements. The regrettable fact is that governments that botch privatization are equally likely to botch the management of state-owned firms. In a number of Central European transition countries, privatization is living up to expectations; and there is no need for such measures. For institutionally-weak countries, the less dramatic but reasonable short-term course of action is to push ahead more slowly with case- by-case and tender privatization in cooperation with the international assistance community in hopes of producing some success stories that will lead by example.