Clearing the fog for an overall view on state-owned enterprises: quality of aggregate holdings reporting by public administrations in 12 countries

Abstract

In the context of current debates on sustainable public service provision, austerity, debts and cutback management, the governance and management of and in state-owned enterprises is a crucial issue. An aggregate holdings report is an important tool for public administrations to provide accountability and the necessary overall view on the institutional service provision structures of core administration and state-owned enterprises. On the basis of a developed quality index with 175 test criteria, this study analyses the diffusion of aggregate holdings reports in 17 countries and the quality of 12 existing reports at the national level. First, the study provides a conceptual contribution for assessing aggregate holdings reports and future research on the issues of the model categories. Second, for an empirical contribution, the analysis enhances our state of knowledge on aggregate holdings report diffusion and quality patterns. Findings show that, in many cases, public administrations do not meet the requirements from theory and practice. Newer Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and European Union members reach comparably higher quality scores. This comparative study offers new insights that can enhance the sustainable public management and control of state-owned enterprises.

Points for practitioners

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s OECD Guidelines on Corporate Governance of State-Owned Enterprises, which were published after an intensive consultation process in 2005 and revised in 2015, demand public authorities to develop aggregate holdings reports that cover all SOEs, and make them a key disclosure tool directed to the general public and politicians. This study develops a quality model for assessing the quality of aggregate holdings reports. The model can also answer questions that are often raised in reform debates, such as ‘Which is the best aggregate holdings report?’ or ‘Which aggregate holdings report can I use as a reference to further develop my own aggregate holdings report?’. The model is a conceptual contribution and the empirical results can be used for international bench-learning. They are also useful for international organisations such as the European Union, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, Chartered Institute of Public Finance & Accounting and development aid/cooperation agencies in each country. The results of this study indicate that policymakers at the national and international levels should give more emphasis to the diffusion and quality of aggregate holdings reports and should reflect on establishing and revising legal obligations for aggregate holdings reports because the recommendations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines, as a soft-law approach, are often not put into practice.

Keywords

aggregate holdings report public corporate governance quality state-owned enterprises

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Askim

(2007) How do politicians use performance information? An analysis of the Norwegian local government experience. International Review of Administrative Sciences 73(3): 453–472.

Bach

Jann

(2010) Animals in the administrative zoo: Organizational change and agency autonomy in Germany. International Review of Administrative Sciences 76(3): 443–468.

Bernier

(2015) Public Enterprises Today: Missions, Performance and Governance, Brussels: Peter Lang S.A.

Bertelsmann Foundation (2008) Municipal finance and debt report – a federal country comparison.

Bertelsmann Foundation (2013) Municipal finance report – income, spending and indebtedness in federal country comparison.

Bovaird

Löffler

(2003) Evaluating the quality of public governance: Indicators, models and methodologies. International Review of Administrative Sciences 69(3): 313–328.

Bovens

(2007) Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal 13(4): 447–468.

Bruton

Peng

Ahlstrom

et al. (2015) State-owned enterprises around the world as hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Perspectives 29(1): 92–114.

Bryson

(2004) What to do when stakeholders matter. Stakeholder identification and analysis techniques. Public Management Review 6(1): 21–53.

10.

Christensen

Yoshimi

(2000) A value-for-money pathway: A two-country case study of performance reporting. International Review of Administrative Sciences 66(3): 433–449.

11.

Crosby

(1992) Quality is Free, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

12.

Demsetz

(1967) Toward a theory of property rights. The American Economic Review 57(2): 347–359.

13.

DiMaggio

Powell

(1983) The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48: 147–160.

14.

Donaldson

Preston

(1995) The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review 20(1): 65–91.

15.

European Commission (2009) Commission Recommendation 2009/385/EC complementing Recommendations 2004/913/EC and 2005/162/EC as regards the regime for the remuneration of directors of listed companies.

16.

European Commission (2011) The EU corporate governance framework. COM 164 final.

17.

European Commission (2012) Directive Proposal COM/2012/614 on improving the gender balance among non-executive directors of companies listed on stock exchanges and related measure.

18.

European Parliament and the Council (2006a) Directive 2006/54/EC on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation.

19.

European Parliament and the Council (2006b) Directive 2006/43/EC on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts.

20.

European Parliament and the Council (2014a) Directive 2014/95/EU amending Directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large undertakings and groups. Official Journal of the European Union L 330/1.

21.

European Parliament and the Council (2014b) Regulation 537/2014/ on specific requirements regarding statutory audit of public-interest Entities and repealing Commission Decision 2005/909/EC. Official Journal of the European Union L 158/77.

22.

German Federation (2009) Public corporate governance code of the federation. Available at: www.bundesfinanzministerium.de (accessed 24 February 2016).

23.

Grossi

Papenfuß

Tremblay

(2015) Corporate governance and accountability of state-owned enterprises: Relevance for science and society and interdisciplinary research perspectives. International Journal of Public Sector Management 28(4): 274–285.

24.

Haque

(1999) Relationship between citizenship and public administration: A reconfiguration. International Review of Administrative Sciences 65(3): 309–325.

25.

Hodges

Wright

Keasy

(1996) Corporate governance in the public services: Concepts and issues. Public Money and Management 16(2): 34–40.

26.

ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2015) ISO 9000:2015, quality management systems. Available at: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:9000:ed-4:v1:en (accessed 16 February 2015).

27.

Jung

(2014) Why are goals important in the public sector? Exploring the benefits of goal clarity for reducing turnover intention. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 24(1): 209–234.

28.

Juran

(1988) Juran’s Quality Control Handbook, 4th edn. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

29.

Klein

Mahoney

McGahan

et al. (2012) Who is in charge? A property rights perspective on stakeholder governance. Strategic Organization 10(3): 304–315.

30.

Kwon

Berry

Jang

(2013) A theoretical framework on the determinants of strategic cities: Empirical results from Florida city governments. The American Review of Public Administration 43(4): 438–459.

31.

Lægreid

Roness

Rubecksen

(2007) Modern management tools in state agencies: The case of Norway. International Public Management Journal 10(4): 387–413.

32.

Massey

(2009) Policy mimesis in the context of global governance. Policy Studies 30(3): 383–395.

33.

Millward

(2011) Public enterprise in the modern Western world: An historical analysis. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 82(4): 375–398.

34.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2015) OECD Guidelines on Corporate Governance of State-Owned Enterprises, Paris: OECD Publishing.

35.

Osborne

(2014) A sustainable business model for public service organizations? Public Management Review 16(2): 165–172.

36.

Papenfuß

(2014) How (should) public authorities report on state-owned enterprises for financial sustainability and cutback management – a new quality model. Public Money & Management 34(2): 115–122.

37.

Proeller

(2007) Outcome-orientation in performance contracts: Empirical evidence from Swiss local governments. International Review of Administrative Sciences 73(1): 95–111.

38.

Schedler

Proeller

(2010) Outcome-Oriented Public Management: A Responsibility-Based Approach to the New Public Management, Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

39.

Schillemans

(2008) Accountability in the shadow of hierarchy: The horizontal accountability of agencies. Public Organization Review 8(2): 175–194.

40.

Tricker

(2012) Corporate Governance: Principles, Policies and Practices, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

41.

Van Slyke

(2007) Agents or stewards: Using theory to understand the government–nonprofit social service contracting relationship. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17(2): 157–187.

42.

Van Thiel

(2012) Comparing agencies across countries. In: Verhoest

Van Thiel

Bouckaert

et al. (eds) Government Agencies: Practices and Lessons from 30 Countries, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillian, pp. 18–26.

43.

Verhoest

Van Thiel

Bouckaert

et al. (2012) Lessons and recommendations for the practice of agencification. In: Verhoest

Van Thiel

Bouckaert

et al. (eds) Government Agencies: Practices and Lessons from 30 Countries, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillian, pp. 413–439.

44.

Veselý

(2013) Accountability in Central and Eastern Europe: Concept and reality. International Review of Administrative Sciences 79(2): 310–330.

45.

Whincop

(2005) Corporate Governance in Government Corporations, Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

46.

Wong

(2004) Improving corporate governance in SOEs: An integrated approach. Corporate Governance International 7(2): 5–15.

47.

World Bank (2014) Corporate Governance of State-Owned Enterprises: A Toolkit, Washington, DC: World Bank.