The Experts below are selected from a list of 2005077 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Lasheng Yuan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
optimal Privatization of vertical public utilities
Canadian Journal of Economics, 2010Co-Authors: Lasheng YuanAbstract:We examine restructuring, divestiture, and deregulation of a vertically integrated public utility, (e.g., electricity), from a public finance perspective. How an optimal restructuring plan for the utility depends on the cost of public funds and on the X-efficiency gains from Privatization, how the optimal degree of competition in the upstream and downstream segments are connected, and implications of Privatization for consumer prices are examined. The higher the cost of public funds, the more likely the post-Privatization price will exceed the regulated public utility price. The greater the X-efficiency gains from Privatization, the more likely the post-Privatization price will fall.
Rafael Di Tella - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
reality versus propaganda in the formation of beliefs about Privatization
Journal of Public Economics, 2012Co-Authors: Rafael Di Tella, Sebastia Galiani, Ernesto SchargrodskyAbstract:Argentina privatized most public utilities during the 1990s but re-nationalized the main water company in 2006. We study beliefs about the benefits of the Privatization of water services measured immediately after the 2006 nationalization. Negative opinions about Privatization prevail. We find that “reality” can change beliefs: people who had first-hand experience observing the investments made by the privatized company have a better opinion of water Privatization (relative to other Privatizations) than people who did not gain access to water. The effect, while statistically significant, seems small adding only 0.8 points on a 1–10 scale. Moreover, the effect of priming subjects with government propaganda against Privatization has an effect that almost offsets the effect of gaining water. However, our evidence suggests that the presence of firm investments makes beliefs about the benefits of Privatization less susceptible to be affected by propaganda.
-
reality versus propaganda in the formation of beliefs about Privatization
National Bureau of Economic Research, 2008Co-Authors: Rafael Di Tella, Sebastia Galiani, Ernesto SchargrodskyAbstract:Argentina privatized most public utilities during the 1990's but re-nationalized the main water company in 2006. We study beliefs about the benefits of the Privatization of water services amongst low and middle income groups immediately after the 2006 nationalization. Negative opinions about the Privatization prevail. These are particularly strong amongst households that did not benefit from the Privatization and amongst households that were reminded of the government's negative views about the Privatization. A person's beliefs of the benefits of the water Privatization were almost 30% more negative (relative to other Privatizations) if his/her household did not gain access to water after the Privatization. Similarly, a person's view of the water Privatization (relative to other Privatizations) was 16% more negative if he/she was read a vignette with some of the negative statements about the water Privatization that Argentina's President expressed during the nationalization process. Interestingly, the effect of the vignette on households that gained water is insignificant, while it is largest (and significant) amongst households that did not gain water during the Privatization. This suggests that propaganda was persuasive when it had a basis on reality.
Jan Svejnar - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
effects of Privatization and ownership in transition economies
Journal of Economic Literature, 2009Co-Authors: Saul Estrin, Jan Hanousek, Evzen Kocenda, Jan SvejnarAbstract:The paper evaluates the effects of Privatization in the post-communist economies and China. In post-communist economies Privatization to foreign owners results in a rapid improvement in performance of firms, while performance effects of Privatization to domestic owners are less impressive and vary across regions, coinciding with differences in policies and institutional development. In China relatively more estimates suggest that Privatization to domestic owners improves the level of performance. Concentrated private ownership has a stronger positive effect on performance than dispersed ownership in the post-communist economies, but foreign joint ventures rather than wholly owned foreign firms have a positive effect in China. Worker or collective ownership does not have a negative effect. In the post-communist economies new firms are equally or more efficient than firms privatized to domestic owners, and foreign start-ups are more efficient than domestic ones. Privatization is not associated with lower employment. When accompanied by complementary reforms, Privatization has a positive effect on economic growth. Three factors appear to drive the more positive effect of Privatization to foreign than domestic owners. Domestic managers have more limited skills and access to world markets, domestically privatized firms have been more subject to tunneling and in some countries new large shareholders artificially decreased performance. The important policy implication is that Privatization per se does not guarantee improved performance, at least not in the short- to medium-run. Type of private ownership, corporate governance, access to know-how and markets, and the legal and institutional system matter for firm performance.
Ernesto Schargrodsky - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
reality versus propaganda in the formation of beliefs about Privatization
Journal of Public Economics, 2012Co-Authors: Rafael Di Tella, Sebastia Galiani, Ernesto SchargrodskyAbstract:Argentina privatized most public utilities during the 1990s but re-nationalized the main water company in 2006. We study beliefs about the benefits of the Privatization of water services measured immediately after the 2006 nationalization. Negative opinions about Privatization prevail. We find that “reality” can change beliefs: people who had first-hand experience observing the investments made by the privatized company have a better opinion of water Privatization (relative to other Privatizations) than people who did not gain access to water. The effect, while statistically significant, seems small adding only 0.8 points on a 1–10 scale. Moreover, the effect of priming subjects with government propaganda against Privatization has an effect that almost offsets the effect of gaining water. However, our evidence suggests that the presence of firm investments makes beliefs about the benefits of Privatization less susceptible to be affected by propaganda.
-
reality versus propaganda in the formation of beliefs about Privatization
National Bureau of Economic Research, 2008Co-Authors: Rafael Di Tella, Sebastia Galiani, Ernesto SchargrodskyAbstract:Argentina privatized most public utilities during the 1990's but re-nationalized the main water company in 2006. We study beliefs about the benefits of the Privatization of water services amongst low and middle income groups immediately after the 2006 nationalization. Negative opinions about the Privatization prevail. These are particularly strong amongst households that did not benefit from the Privatization and amongst households that were reminded of the government's negative views about the Privatization. A person's beliefs of the benefits of the water Privatization were almost 30% more negative (relative to other Privatizations) if his/her household did not gain access to water after the Privatization. Similarly, a person's view of the water Privatization (relative to other Privatizations) was 16% more negative if he/she was read a vignette with some of the negative statements about the water Privatization that Argentina's President expressed during the nationalization process. Interestingly, the effect of the vignette on households that gained water is insignificant, while it is largest (and significant) amongst households that did not gain water during the Privatization. This suggests that propaganda was persuasive when it had a basis on reality.
Jeffry M Netter - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
from state to market a survey of empirical studies on Privatization
Journal of Economic Literature, 2001Co-Authors: William L. Megginson, Jeffry M NetterAbstract:This study surveys the literature examining the Privatization of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) We review the history of Privatization, the theoretical and empirical evidence on the relative performance of state owned and privately owned firms, the types of Privatization, if and by how much Privatization has improved the performance of former SOEs in non-transition and transition countries, how investors in Privatizations have fared, and the impact of Privatization on the development of capital markets and corporate governance. In most settings Privatization "works" in that the firms become more efficient, more profitable, and financially healthier, and reward investors.
