The impact of privatization on economic performance remains controversial. In this article, labour productivity gains pre- and post-privatization are compared using a sample of firms privatized in Taiwan between 1989 and 2002. To control for economic environmental effects independent of ownership, performance is assessed relative to the average performance of other firms in the same industry over the same period. Also, using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, the study examines the direct effects of competition, the continuing presence of state-appointed board members and the pre-privatization financial health of enterprises on productivity gains. In addition, the study considers how these different variables may interact to explain performance changes. The results underline the importance of competition in promoting productivity gains but, more surprisingly, find that continued majority government representation on boards seems to have no significant effect on labour productivity. The study does find a relationship between financial health under state control and productivity gains following privatization. Later in the article, performance is also measured in terms of profitability, and the results are the same.
Boardman, A.E. and A.R. Vining (1989) `Ownership and Performance in Competitive Environments: A Comparison of the Performance of Private, Mixed and State-Owned Enterprises ', Journal of Law and Economics32 (April): 1—33.
2.
Boardman, A.E. and A.R. Vining (1992) `Ownership versus Competition: Efficiency in Public Enterprise', Public Choice73(2): 205—39.
3.
Boubakri, N. and J.-C. Cosset (1998) `The Financial and Operating Performance of Newly Privatized Firms: Evidence from Developing Countries', Journal of Finance53(3): 1081—110.
4.
Buchanan, J.M. (1972) Theory of Public Choice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
5.
Caves, R.E. (1990) `Lessons from Privatization in Britain: State Enterprise Behavior, Public Choice, and Corporate Governance', Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization13(2): 145—69.
6.
CEPD (Council for Economic Planning and Development) (2004) Whitebook of Taiwan's Privatisation. Taiwan: CEPD.
7.
Claessens, S. and R.K. Peters (1997) `State Enterprise Performance and Soft Budget Constraints: The Case of Bulgaria', Economics of Transition5(2): 302—22.
8.
Chang, Y.S. (1998) `The Comparison of Operating Performances in the Pre- and Post-Privatization Periods: The Cases of Four Privatized Enterprises', Taiwan's SOEs Review, Technical Report#2. Kaohsiung: National Sun Yat-Sen University (in Chinese).
9.
Cuervo, A. and B. Villalonga (2000) `Explaining the Variance in the Performance Effects of Privatization', Academy of Management Review25(3): 581—90.
10.
Dewenter, K. and P.H. Malatesta (2001) `State-Owned and Privately-Owned Firms: An Empirical Analysis of Profitability, Leverage, and Labour Intensity', American Economic Review91(1): 320—34.
11.
Djankov, S. (1999) `The Enterprise Isolation Program in Romania.' Journal of Comparative Economics27(2): 281—94.
12.
D'Souza, J. and W.L. Megginson (1999) `The Financial and Operating Performance of Privatized Firms during the 1990s', Journal of Finance54(4): 1397—438.
13.
Durand, R. and V. Vargas (2003) `Ownership, Organization, and Private Firms' Efficient Use of Resources', Strategic Management Journal24: 667—75.
14.
Dyck, A. (2000) `Privatization and Corporate Governance: Principles, Evidence and Future Challenges', Working Paper, Harvard Business School.
15.
Fama, E.F. and M.C. Jensen (1983) `Separation of Ownership and Control', Journal of Law and Economics26: 301—25.
16.
Figueira, C., J.G. Nellis and D. Parker (2004a) `The Effects of Private versus State and Foreign versus Domestic Ownership on Bank Efficiency in Latin America', Working Paper, Cranfield University School of Management.
17.
Figueira, C., J.G. Nellis and D. Parker (2004b) `Does Ownership Affect the Efficiency of African Banks?', Working Paper, Cranfield University School of Management.
18.
Filatotchev, I. (2003) `Privatization and Corporate Governance in Transition Economies: Theory and Concepts', pp. 323—46 in D. Parker and D. Saal (eds) International Handbook on Privatization. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
19.
Flynn, F.J. and B.M. Staw (2004) `Lend Me Your Wallets: The Effect of Charismatic Leadership on External Support for an Organization', Strategic Management Journal25(4): 309—30.
20.
Frydman, R., C.W. Gary, M. Hessel and A. Rapaczynski (1999) `When Does Privatization Work? The Impact of Private Ownership on Corporate Performance in Transition Economies', Quarterly Journal of Economics114(4): 1153—91.
21.
Hayek, F.A. (1948) Individualism and Economic Order. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
22.
Jensen, M.C. and W.H. Meckling (1976) `Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and and Ownership Structure', Journal of Financial Economics3(4): 305—60.
23.
Kikeri, S. and J. Nellis (2004) `An Assessment of Privatization', World Bank Research Observer19(1): 87—118.
24.
Laffont, J.J. and J. Tirole (1993) A Theory of Incentives in Procurement and Regulation . Cambridge, MA: MITUniversity Press.
25.
La Porta, R. and F. Lopez-de-Silanes (1997) `Benefits of Privatization: Evidence from Mexico', Working Paper No. 6215, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
26.
Lopez-de-Silanes, F. (1997) `Determinants of Privatization Prices', Quarterly Journal of Economics112(4): 965—1025.
27.
Makhija, M. (2003) `Comparing the Resource-Based and Market-Based Views of the Firm: Empirical Evidence from Czech Privatization', Strategic Management Journal25(3): 433—51.
28.
Martin, S. and D. Parker (1997) The Impact of Privatisation: Ownership and Corporate Performance in the UK. London: Routledge.
29.
Megginson, W.L., R.C. Nash and M. van Randenborgh (1994) `Financial and Operating Performance of Newly Privatized Firms: An International Empirical Analysis' , Journal of Finance49(2): 403—52.
30.
Millward, R. and D. Parker (1983) `Public and Private Enterprise: Comparative Behaviour and Relative Efficiency', pp. 199—274 in R Millward, D. Parker, L. Rosenthal and M.T. Sumner (eds) Public Sector Economics. London: Longman.
31.
Nellis, J. (1994) `Is Privatization Necessary?', World Bank Viewpoint, note 17. Washington, DC: World Bank.
32.
Nellis, J. (1999) `Time to Rethink Privatization in Transition Economies ?', IFC Discussion Paper 38, World Bank Group, Washington, DC.
33.
Nellis, J. and S. Kikeri (1989) `Public Enterprise Reform: Privatization and the World Bank', World Development17: 659—72.
34.
Niskanen, W.A. Jr (1971) Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Parker, D. (1986) `Ownership Change and Improved Performance: Identifying the Critical Factors for Performance Improvement', British Journal of Management6(1): 29—43.
37.
Parker, D. (2002) `Inertia in the Implementation of a Privatisation Programme: The Case of a Policy Transfer in Taiwan', pp. 153—68 in W. Martin de Jong, K.D. Lalenis and V. Mamadouh (eds) The Theory and Practice of Institutional Transplantation: Experiences with the Transfer of Policy Institutions. Dordecht: Kluwer.
38.
Parker, D. (2003) `Privatization and Regulation of Public Utilities: Problems and Challenges for Developing Economies', pp. 537—59 in D. Parker and D. Saal (eds) International Handbook on Privatization. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
39.
Parker, D. and C. Kirkpatrick (2005) `The Impact of Privatization in Developing Countries: A Review of the Evidence and the Policy Lessons', Journal of Development Studies41(4): 513—41.
40.
Pistor, K. and J. Turkewitz (1996) `Coping with Hydra-State Ownership after Privatization: A Comparative Study of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Russia', pp. 192—246 in R. Fryman, C.W. Gray and A. Rapaczynski (eds) Corporate Governance in Central Europe and Russia, Vol. 2. Budapest: Central European University Press.
41.
Pratt, J.W. and R.J. Zeckhauser (1985) `Principals and Agents: An Overview', pp. 37— 51 in J.W. Pratt and R.J. Zeckhauser (eds) Principals and Agents: The Structure of Business. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
42.
Ramaswamy, K. (2001) `Organizational Ownership, Competitive Intensity and Firm Performance: An Empirical Study of the Indian Manufacturing Sector' , Strategic Management Journal22(10): 989—98.
43.
Sachs, J., C. Zinnes and Y. Eilat (2000) `The Gains from Privatization in Transition Economies: Is Change of Title Enough?', Consulting Assistance on Economic Reform II, Discussion Paper 63, Centre for International Development, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
44.
Shirley, M.M. and P. Walsh (2001) `Public vs Private Ownership: The Current State of the Debate', Working Paper, World Bank, Washington, DC.
45.
Shleifer, A. (1998) `State versus Private Ownership', Journal of Economic Perspectives12: 133—50.
46.
Shleifer, A. and R. Vishny (1994) `Politicians and Firms', Quarterly Journal of Economics109(4): 995—1025.
47.
Tullock, G. (1976) The Vote Motive. London: Institute of Economic Affairs.
48.
Vickers, J. and G. Yarrow (1988) Privatization: An Economic Analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
49.
Willner, J. (2003) `Privatization: A Sceptical Analysis', pp. 60—86 in D. Parker and D. Saal (eds) International Handbook on Privatization. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
50.
World Bank (2004) Doing Business in 2004: Understanding Regulation. Washington, DC: World Bank/Oxford University Press.
51.
Wu, H.-L. (2003a) `Measurement of Relative Performance and its Policy Implications', Proceedings of the 9th Asia Pacific Management Conference, Vol. 2, Osaka, Japan, pp. 987—97.
52.
Wu, H.-L. (2003b) `The Road to Liberalization: The Policy Design and Implementation of Taiwan's Privatization', TaiwanEconomic Forum1(7): 27—51.
53.
Wu, H.-L. (2006) `A Policy-Fit View on the Efficiency Effect of Privatization', Journal of Policy Modeling28(3): 281—92.
54.
Zhang, Y.-F., D. Parker and C. Kirkpatrick (2003) `Electricity Sector Reform in Developing Countries: An Econometric Assessment of the Effects of Privatisation, Competition and Regulation', Working Paper No. 31, Centre on Regulation and Competition, IDPM, University of Manchester.
