This article examines patterns of decline in the public ownership of the corporate sector in Indian industry over a 25–year period, 1973–74 to 1997–98, to assess whether a transformation in ownership has taken place and whether the boundaries of the state as a participant in industry have significantly declined. The data cover the entire industrial population of India, albeit at an aggregate level, with the findings having immediate salience and applicability to current concerns. Privatization has not taken place in India in a significant way; nevertheless, the boundaries of the state as an industrial participant have shrunk significantly as a result of the growth of private entrepreneurship in India. The numbers of private companies being established in India have grown and the volume of equity capital being invested has risen substantially, both in absolute volume terms as well as in investment per company. This trend has been pronounced in the post–1991 period after reforms were introduced in India. Associated with this relative shrinking of government ownership is a significant increase in industrial performance. When the data for 1973–74 to 1997–98 are augmented with data for the 1998–99 to 2001–02 periods, the shrinkage of the boundaries of the state is seen to be further enhanced. Autonomous private sector growth has had a substantial impact in enhancing performance. Thus, the role of privatization as a mechanism to enhance performance becomes moot in the Indian context, especially since the costs of adjustment can be high if the decline in relative government shareholding comes about as a result of other means such as the growth of entrepreneurship in India. Simultaneously, the resources of the state can be better spent on actively encouraging investment activities rather than in undertaking divestment activities.
Alchian, A. and H. Demsetz (1973), ‘ The Property Rights Paradigm ’, Journal of Economic History, 33(1): 16–27 .
2.
Anderson, J.H. , Y. Lee and P. Murrell (2000), ‘ Competition and Privatization amidst Weak Institutions: Evidence from Mongolia ’, Economic Inquiry, 38(4): 527–49 .
3.
Atkinson, S.E. and R. Halvorsen (1986), ‘ The Relative Efficiency of Public and Private Firms in a Regulated Environment: The Case of U.S. Electric Utilities ’, Journal of Public Economics, 29(3): 281–94 .
4.
Barberis, N. , M. Boycko , A. Shleifer and N. Tsukanova (1996), ‘ How Does Privatization Work? Evidence from the Russian Shops ’, Journal of Political Economy, 104(4): 764–90 .
5.
Bardhan, P. (1984), The Political Economy of Development in India. Oxford: Blackwell .
6.
Ben–Ner, A. , J.M. Montias and A. Neuberger (1993), ‘ Basic Issues in Organizations: A Comparative Perspective ’, Journal of Comparative Economics, 17(2): 207–42 .
7.
Bhagwati, J.N. (1993), India in Transition: Freeing the Economy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press .
8.
Birdsall, N. and J. Nellis (2003), ‘ Winners and Losers: Assessing the Distributional Impact of Privatization ’, World Development, 31(10): 1617–33 .
9.
Bishop, M. and D. Thompson (1992), ‘ Regulatory Reform and Productivity Growth in the UK's Public Utilities ’, Applied Economics, 24(11): 1181–90 .
10.
Bishop, M. , J. Kay and C. Mayer (1994), Privatization and Economic Performance.Oxford: Oxford University Press .
11.
Boardman, A. 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 Economics, 32, April: 1–33 .
12.
Borcherding, T.E. , W.W. Pommerehne and F. Schneider (1982), ‘Comparing the Efficiency of Private and Public Production: A Survey of the Evidence from Five Federal States’ , Zeitschrift fur Nationalokonomie Supplement, 2: 127–56 .
13.
Bortolotti, B. , J. D'Souza , M. Fantini and W.L. Megginson (2002), ‘ Privatization and the Sources of Performance Improvement in the Global Telecommunications Industry ’, Telecommunications Policy, 26(5–6): 243–68 .
14.
Bortolotti, B. , M. Fantini and D. Siniscalco (2004), ‘ Privatisation Around the World: Evidence from Panel Data ’, Journal of Public Economics, 88(1): 305–32 .
15.
Caves, R.E. (1990), ‘ Lessons from Privatization in Britain: State Enterprise Behavior, Public Choice, and Corporate Governance ’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organisation, 18, March: 145–69 .
16.
Caves, D.W. and L.R. Christiansen (1980), ‘ The Relative Efficiency of Public and Private Firms in a Competitive Environment: The Case of Canadian Railroads ’, Journal of Political Economy, 88(5): 958–76 .
17.
Chhibber, P.K. and S.K. Majumdar (1998), ‘ State as Investor and State as Owner: Consequences for Firm Performance in India ’, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 46(3): 561–80 .
18.
Das, Gurcharan (2002), India Unbound: A Personal Account of a Social and Economic Revolution. New York: Knopf .
19.
Davies, David G. (1971), ‘ The Efficiency of Public versus Private Firms, The Case of Australia's Two Airlines ’, Journal of Law and Economics, 14(1): 149–65 .
20.
D'Souza, J. and W.L. Megginson (1999), ‘ The Financial and Operating Performance of Privatized Firms During the 1990s ’, Journal of Finance, 54(4): 1397–424 .
21.
de Melo, M., C. Denizer and A. Gelb (1996), ‘ Patterns of Transition from Firm to Market ’, World Bank Economic Review, 10(3): 397–424 .
22.
Denison, E.F. (1974), Accounting for United States Economic Growth, 1929 to 1969.Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution .
23.
Dewenter, K. and P.H. Malatesta (2001), ‘State–owned and Privately–owned Firms: An Empirical Analysis of Profitability, Leverage, and Labor Intensity’, American Economic Review, 91, March: 320–34.
24.
Eckel, C. , D. Eckel and V. Singal (1997), ‘ Privatization and Efficiency: Industry Effects of the Sale of British Airways ’, Journal of Financial Economics, 43(2): 275–98 .
25.
Ehrlich, I. , G. Gallais–Hamonno Z. Liu , and R. Lutter (1994), ‘ Productivity Growth and Firm Ownership: An Empirical Investigation ’, Journal of Political Economy, 102(5): 1006–38 .
26.
Fare, R. , S. Grosskopf and J. Logan (1985), ‘ The Relative Performance of Publicly Owned and Privately Owned Electric Utilities ’, Journal of Public Economics, 26(1): 89–106 .
27.
Frank, Katherine (2001), Indira: The Life of Indira Nehru Gandhi. London: Harper .
28.
Frydman, R. , C.W. Gray , M. Hessel and A. Rapaczynski (1999), ‘ When does Privatization Work? The Impact of Private Ownership on Corporate Performance in Transition Economies ’ Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(4): 1153–91 .
29.
Frydman, R. , K. Pistor and A. Rapaczynski (1996), ‘ Exit and Voice after Mass Privatization: The Case of Russia ’, European Economic Review, 40(3–5): 581–88 .
30.
Funkhouser, R. and P.W. McAvoy (1979), ‘ A Sample of Observations on Comparative Prices in Public and Private Enterprises ’, Journal of Public Economics, 11(3): 313–31 .
31.
Galal, A. , L. Jones , P. Tandon and I. Vogelsang >(1994), Welfare Consequences of Selling Public Enterprises.New York: Oxford University Press .
32.
Gladwell, M. (2000), The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Boston: Little, Brown .
33.
Griliches, Z. and V. Ringstad (1971), Economies of Scale and the Form of the Production Function. Amsterdam: North–Holland .
34.
Grindle, M.S. and J.W. Thomas (1991), Public Choices and Policy Change: The Political Economy of Reform in Developing Countries. Baltimore, MD.: Johns Hopkins University Press .
35.
Gupta, N. (2005), ‘ Partial Privatization and Firm Performance ’, Journal of Finance, 60(2): 987–1016 .
36.
Haggard, S. and S.B. Webb (1993), ‘ What Do We Know About the Political Economy of Economic Policy Reform ’, World Bank Research Observer, 8(2): 143–68 .
37.
Jackson, P.M. and A.J. Palmer (1988), ‘The Economics of Internal Organization: The Efficiency of Parastatals in Less Developed Countries’, in P. Cook and C. Kirkpatrick (eds), Privatization in Less Developed Countries, pp. 195–216. New York: Martin's Press.
38.
Jalan, B. (1991), India's Economic Crisis: The Way Ahead. New Delhi: Oxford University Press .
39.
Kay, J.A. and D.J. Thompson (1986), lsquo; Privatization: A Policy in Search of a Rationale ’, Economic Journal, 96(381): 18–32 .
40.
Khilnani, S. (1999), The Idea of India. N ew York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux .
41.
Kikeri S. and J. Nellis (2002), ‘Privatization in Competitive Sectors: The Record to Date’. Policy Research Working PaperSeries 2860, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.
42.
Levy, B. and P.T. Spiller (1994), ‘ The Institutional Foundations of Regulatory Commitment: A Comparative Analysis of Telecommunications Regulation ’, Journal of Law, Economics and Organ–ization, 10(2): 201–46 .
43.
Lipton, D. , J. Sachs and L.H. Summers (1990), ‘Privatization in Eastern Europe: The Case of Poland’ , Brookings Paper on Economic Activity, 2: 293–341 .
44.
Majumdar, S.K. (1998), ‘ Assessing Comparative Efficiency of the State–owned, Mixed, and Private Sectors in Indian industry ’, Public Choice, 96(1–2): 1–24 .
45.
Marathe, S.S. (1989), Regulation and Development.New Delhi: Sage Publications .
46.
Megginson, W.L. and J. Netter (2001), ‘ From State to Market: A Survey of Empirical Studies on Privatization ’, Journal of Economic Literature, 39(2): 321–89 .
47.
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 Finance, 49(2): 403–52 .
48.
Newberry, D.M. and M.G. Pollitt (1997), ‘ The Restructuring and Privatization of Britain's CEGB—Was it Worth It? ’, Journal of Industrial Economics, 45(3(): 269–303 .
49.
Nickell, S.J. (1996), ‘ Competition and Corporate Performance ’, Journal of Political Economy, 104(4): 724–96 .
50.
Omran, M. (2004), ‘ The Performance of State–Owned Enterprises and Newly Privatized Firms: Does Privatization Really Matter? ’, World Development, 32(6): 1019–41 .
51.
Pinto, B. , M. Belka and S. Krajewski (1993), ‘Transforming State Enterprises in Poland: Evidence on Adjustment by Manufacturing Firms’ , Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1: 213–61 .
52.
Popov, V. (1991), ‘ Soviet Economic Reform: Possible Difficulties in the Application of Public Choice Theory ’, Journal of Comparative Economics, 15(2): 304–24 .
53.
Putterman, L. (1993), ‘ Ownership and the Nature of the Firm ’, Journal of Comparative Economics, 17(2): 243–63 .
54.
Reddy, Y.V. (1990), ‘Liberalization and Privatization of Public Enterprise in India’, in J. Heath (ed.), Public Enterprise at the Crossroads, pp. 98–109. London: Routledge.
55.
Rostow, W.W. (1960), The Stages of Economic Growth.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
56.
Shirley, M. (1999), ‘ Bureaucrats in Business: The Roles of Privatization versus Corporatization in State–owned Enterprise Reform ’, World Development, 27(1): 115–36 .
57.
Tandon, P. (1995), ‘ Welfare Effects of Privatization: Some Evidence from Mexico ’, Boston University International Law Journal, 13(2): 329–30 .
58.
Vickers, J. and G. Yarrow (1988), Privatization: An Economic Analysis.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
59.
Weingast, B. (1995), ‘ The Economic Role of Political Institutions: Market–Preserving Federalism and Economic Development ’, Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 11(1): 1–31 .
60.
Xu, L.C. (2000), ‘ Control, Incentives, and Competition: The Impact of Reform in Chinese State–Owned Enterprises ’, Economics of Transition, 8(1): 151–73 .
