DOCSLIB.ORG

A Survey of Empirical Studies on Privatization

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Survey of Empirical Studies on Privatization Forthcoming, Journal of Economic Literature FROM STATE TO MARKET: A SURVEY OF EMPIRICAL STUDIES ON PRIVATIZATION Prepared by: William L. Megginson Professor & Rainbolt Chair in Finance Michael F. Price College of Business The University of Oklahoma and Jeffry M. Netter Professor of Finance and Adjunct Professor of Law Terry College of Business University of Georgia Current Draft: August 31, 2000 This paper was developed with financial support from the SBF Bourse de Paris and the New York Stock Exchange, and the assistance of George Sofianos, Bill Tschirhart, and Didier Davidoff is gratefully acknowledged. We appreciate comments received on this paper from Anthony Boardman, Bernardo Bortolotti, Narjess Boubakri, Jean- Claude Cosset, Kathy Dewenter, Alexander Dyck, Ivan Ivanov, Ranko Jelic, Claude Laurin, Marc Lipson, Luis Lopez-Calva, John McMillan (the editor), Harold Mulherin, Rob Nash, John Nellis, David Newberry, David Parker, Enrico Perotti, Annette Poulsen, Ravi Ramamurti, Susan Rose-Ackerman, Nemat Shafik, Mary Shirley, Aidan Vining and three anonymous referees. Additionally, we appreciate comments received from participants at the NYSE/Paris Bourse Global Equity Markets conference (Paris, December 1998), the Harvard Institute for International Development Privatization Workshop (June 2000), the International Federation of Stock Exchanges’ Third Global Emerging Markets Conference (Istanbul, April 2000), four World Bank and/or International Finance Corporation meetings, two OECD conferences (Paris and Beijing), the 1999 Conference on Privatization and the Kuwaiti Economy in the Next Century, the 1998 Financial Management Association meeting, the 1999 European Financial Management Association meeting, the Fondazione ENI Enrico Mattei (FFEM), the Swiss Banking Institute and Credit Suisse, and seminars at the City University Business School (London), London Guildhall University and the University of Oklahoma. All remaining errors are the authors’ alone. Please address correspondence to: William L. Megginson Price College of Business 307 West Brooks, 205A Adams Hall The University of Oklahoma Norman, OK 73019-4005 Tel: (405) 325-2058; Fax: (405) 325-1957 e-mail: [email protected] http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/M/William.L.Megginson-1 From State to Market: A Survey of Empirical Studies on Privatization 1. Introduction The political and economic policy of privatization, broadly defined as the deliberate sale by a government of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) or assets to private economic agents, is now in use worldwide. Since its introduction by Britain’s Thatcher government in the early 1980s to a then-skeptical public (that included many economists), privatization now appears to be accepted as a legitimate – often a core — tool of statecraft by governments of more than 100 countries. Privatization is one of the most important elements of the continuing global phenomenon of the increasing use of markets to allocate resources. It is tempting to point to the spread of privatization programs around the world during the past two decades and conclude that the debate on the economic and political merits of government versus private ownership has been decided. But such a conclusion is flawed since twenty years ago proponents of state ownership could just as easily have surveyed the postwar rise of state-owned enterprises and concluded that their model of economic organization was winning the intellectual battle with free market capitalism. Instead of pointing to the spread of privatization and calling it destiny, our goal is to assess the findings of empirical research on the effects of privatization as a policy. Therefore, this paper surveys the rapidly growing literature on privatization, attempts to frame and answer the key questions this stream of research has addressed, and then describes some of its lessons on the promise and perils of selling state-owned assets. Throughout this survey, we adopt the perspective of an advisor to a government policymaker who is wrestling with the practical problems of whether and how to implement a privatization program. The policymaker asks “What does the research literature have to tell us about these aspects of privatization as an economic policy?” We attempt to answer these important questions. This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides a brief historical overview of privatization. We examine the impact that privatization programs have had in reversing SOE involvement in the economic life of developed and developing countries. Section 3 briefly surveys the recent theoretical and empirical research on the relative economic performance of state-owned and privately owned firms. Section 4 details the different types of transactions that are labeled “privatization” in different regions. We draw particular attention to the structure and pricing selected for share issue privatizations. We also evaluate the various forms of “voucher” or “mass” privatizations that have been implemented. This section also examines whether less radical methods of improving the performance of SOEs, such as deregulation and allowing greater competition (or more routine steps such as using management performance contracts), can effectively substitute for outright privatization. In Section 5, we examine the issue of whether, and by how much, privatization programs have actually improved the economic and financial performance of divested firms. Our discussion first evaluates privatization in industrialized and developing countries, and then assesses privatization’s overall impact in the transition economies. Section 6 asks whether domestic and international investors who purchase privatizing share offerings experience positive initial and long- term investment returns, and Section 7 evaluates the impact of privatization on the development of non-US capital markets over the past two decades. Finally, Section 8 discusses how privatization programs have impacted the development of—and interest in—corporate governance practices around the world. Section 9 concludes and summarizes our survey. 2. How Large Has the Impact of Privatization Been to Date? Given the attention the press has given to the global movement toward markets, especially the privatization of state-owned enterprises, some might conclude that privatization has almost ended the involvement of state-owned enterprises in global economic activity.1 This is a significant overstatement. To understand the impact of privatization on the state’s role in different economies, we must first briefly review the history behind both privatization and its precursor, nationalization. Throughout history, there has been a mixture of public (often including religious institutions) and private ownership of the means of production and commerce. Sobel (1999) writes that state ownership of the means of production, including mills and metal working, was common in the ancient Near East, while private ownership was more common in trading and money lending. In ancient Greece, the government owned the land, forests, and mines, but contracted out the work to individuals and firms. In the Ch'in dynasty of China, the government had monopolies on salt and iron. Sobel notes that in the Roman Republic the "publicani (private individuals and companies) fulfilled virtually all the of the state's economic requirements." Rondinelli and Iacono (1996) note that by the time of the Industrial Revolution in the western industrialized societies and their colonies, the private sector was the most important producer of commercial goods and was also important in providing public goods and services. This pattern, with more government involvement in some countries and less in others, continued into the twentieth century in both Western Europe and its colonies and former colonies. In the United States, there was less government involvement than many other countries. The Depression, World War II, and the final breakup of colonial empires pushed government into a more active role, including ownership of production and provision of all types of goods and services, in much of the world. In Western Europe, governments debated how deeply involved the national government should be in regulating the national economy and which industrial sectors should be reserved 1 Throughout this paper, we will use the World Bank’s definition of state-owned enterprises, as described in Haggarty and Shirley (1995): “government-owned or government-controlled economic entities that generate the bulk 2 exclusively for state ownership. Until the Thatcher government came to power in 1979, the answer to this debate in the U.K and elsewhere was that the government should at least own the telecommunications and postal services, electric and gas utilities, and most forms of non-road transportation (especially airlines and railroads). Many politicians also believed the state should control certain “strategic” manufacturing industries, such as steel and defense production. In many countries, state-owned banks were also given either monopoly or protected positions, as discussed in La Porta, Lopez-de-Silanes and Shleifer (2000a). Rondinelli and Iacono (1996) argue that government ownership grew in the developing world for slightly different reasons, primarily that government ownership was perceived as necessary to promote growth. In the post-colonial countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, governments sought rapid growth through heavy investment in physical facilities. Another reason for government ownership, often through nationalization,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chinese Privatization: Between Plan and Market
    CHINESE PRIVATIZATION: BETWEEN PLAN AND MARKET LAN CAO* I INTRODUCTION Since 1978, when China adopted its open-door policy and allowed its economy to be exposed to the international market, it has adhered to what Deng Xiaoping called "socialism with Chinese characteristics."1 As a result, it has produced an economy with one of the most rapid growth rates in the world by steadfastly embarking on a developmental strategy of gradual, market-oriented measures while simultaneously remaining nominally socialistic. As I discuss in this article, this strategy of reformthe mere adoption of a market economy while retaining a socialist ownership baseshould similarly be characterized as "privatization with Chinese characteristics,"2 even though it departs markedly from the more orthodox strategy most commonly associated with the term "privatization," at least as that term has been conventionally understood in the context of emerging market or transitional economies. The Russian experience of privatization, for example, represents the more dominant and more favored approach to privatizationcertainly from the point of view of the West and its advisersand is characterized by immediate privatization of the state sector, including the swift and unequivocal transfer of assets from the publicly owned state enterprises to private hands. On the other hand, "privatization with Chinese characteristics" emphasizes not the immediate privatization of the state sector but rather the retention of the state sector with the Copyright © 2001 by Lan Cao This article is also available at http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/63LCPCao. * Professor of Law, College of William and Mary Marshall-Wythe School of Law. At the time the article was written, the author was Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Choice: Substance Depends Upon Process
    Rural Development, Privatization and Public Choice: Substance Depends upon Process James Hite’ Abstract Whether or not privatization facilitates rural development depends upon what rural development means. In practice, rural development often is the result of a struggle between rent defenders and rent seekers. A positivist concept of rural development is proposed, and the institutions of public choice are examined to determine how they might influence privatization decisions. The conclusion is that whether or not privatization improves efficiencyof adjustmentin rural economies depends upon the specifics of political deals required to achieve a particular act of privatization. Key words: privatization, rural development, public choice, rent-seeking Introduction development itself. In attempting to do so, privatization, which is a topic worthy of Privatization is a term applied to a political considerable discussion on its own, receives process whereby local and even state governments somewhat secondary treatment. across the United States spin off certain services to private sector operatives. This term is also applied Summarized briefly, the argument advanced to the process by which the Thatcher government in in this paper is as follows: rural development can the United Kingdom devolved to private investors be thought of positivistically, as well as certain industries previously nationalized by Labor normatively. Positivistically, rural development is an governments, and it is the popular term applied to observable, potentially predictable process of the process of transforming Russia and its former adjustment on the part of rural economies to satellite nations into market economies (Vickers and Schumpeterian change in a market system. It is in Yarrow 1988; 1991). Ostensibly this paper is about the material interest of society that this process of privatization and rural development.
    [Show full text]
  • Recession of 1797?
    SAE./No.48/February 2016 Studies in Applied Economics WHAT CAUSED THE RECESSION OF 1797? Nicholas A. Curott and Tyler A. Watts Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and Study of Business Enterprise What Caused the Recession of 1797? By Nicholas A. Curott and Tyler A. Watts Copyright 2015 by Nicholas A. Curott and Tyler A. Watts About the Series The Studies in Applied Economics series is under the general direction of Prof. Steve H. Hanke, co-director of the Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and Study of Business Enterprise ([email protected]). About the Authors Nicholas A. Curott ([email protected]) is Assistant Professor of Economics at Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana. Tyler A. Watts is Professor of Economics at East Texas Baptist University in Marshall, Texas. Abstract This paper presents a monetary explanation for the U.S. recession of 1797. Credit expansion initiated by the Bank of the United States in the early 1790s unleashed a bout of inflation and low real interest rates, which spurred a speculative investment bubble in real estate and capital intensive manufacturing and infrastructure projects. A correction occurred as domestic inflation created a disparity in international prices that led to a reduction in net exports. Specie flowed out of the country, prices began to fall, and real interest rates spiked. In the ensuing credit crunch, businesses reliant upon rolling over short term debt were rendered unsustainable. The general economic downturn, which ensued throughout 1797 and 1798, involved declines in the price level and nominal GDP, the bursting of the real estate bubble, and a cluster of personal bankruptcies and business failures.
    [Show full text]
  • Privatization in Russia: Catalyst for the Elite
    PRIVATIZATION IN RUSSIA: CATALYST FOR THE ELITE VIRGINIE COULLOUDON During the fall of 1997, the Russian press exposed a corruption scandal in- volving First Deputy Prime Minister Anatoli Chubais, and several other high- ranking officials of the Russian government.' In a familiar scenario, news organizations run by several bankers involved in the privatization process published compromising material that prompted the dismissal of the politi- 2 cians on bribery charges. The main significance of the so-called "Chubais affair" is not that it pro- vides further evidence of corruption in Russia. Rather, it underscores the im- portance of the scandal's timing in light of the prevailing economic environment and privatization policy. It shows how deliberate this political campaign was in removing a rival on the eve of the privatization of Rosneft, Russia's only remaining state-owned oil and gas company. The history of privatization in Russia is riddled with scandals, revealing the critical nature of the struggle for state funding in Russia today. At stake is influence over defining the rules of the political game. The aim of this article is to demonstrate how privatization in Russia gave birth to an oligarchic re- gime and how, paradoxically, it would eventually destroy that very oligar- chy. This article intends to study how privatization influenced the creation of the present elite structure and how it may further transform Russian decision making in the foreseeable future. Privatization is generally seen as a prerequisite to a market economy, which in turn is considered a sine qua non to establishing a democratic regime. But some Russian analysts and political leaders disagree with this approach.
    [Show full text]
  • The Neoliberal Privatization in Kosovë: a Deconstructed Myth
    Rochester Institute of Technology RIT Scholar Works Theses 2-13-2015 The Neoliberal Privatization in Kosovë: A Deconstructed Myth Edison Jakurti Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.rit.edu/theses Recommended Citation Jakurti, Edison, "The Neoliberal Privatization in Kosovë: A Deconstructed Myth" (2015). Thesis. Rochester Institute of Technology. Accessed from This Senior Project is brought to you for free and open access by RIT Scholar Works. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses by an authorized administrator of RIT Scholar Works. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Student: Edison Jakurti Supervisor: Michele Pomberg Title: The Neoliberal Privatization in Kosovë: A Deconstructed Myth Date of Submission: February 2015 Keywords: 1. Kosovë 2. Privatization 3. Neoliberalism 4. Post and Telecommunications of Kosovo (PTK) 5. Kosovo Electricity Distribution and Supply (KEDS) Submitted to A.U.K. as part of requirement for graduation The Neoliberal Privatization in Kosovë: A Deconstructed Myth Honors Society Project Presented to The Academic Faculty By Edison Jakurti In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Membership in the Honors Society of the American University in Kosovo Acknowledgments I want to thank and acknowledge everyone who has helped me to complete this project. Specifically, I want to thank my professor and my project supervisor, Michele Pomberg, PhD, whose patience and advice have greatly contributed to the improvement and successful completion of this work. Each passing day enforced my belief that choosing Professor Pomberg as my project adviser was the right decision. This work would have not been at this state without the professional advice and motivation by my professor and technical advisor, Mrika Kotorri, PhD.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bank Restriction Act and the Regime Shift to Paper Money, 1797-1821
    European Historical Economics Society EHES WORKING PAPERS IN ECONOMIC HISTORY | NO. 100 Danger to the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street? The Bank Restriction Act and the regime shift to paper money, 1797-1821 Patrick K. O’Brien Department of Economic History, London School of Economics Nuno Palma Department of History and Civilization, European University Institute Department of Economics, Econometrics, and Finance, University of Groningen JULY 2016 EHES Working Paper | No. 100 | July 2016 Danger to the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street? The Bank Restriction Act and the regime shift to paper money, 1797-1821* Patrick K. O’Brien Department of Economic History, London School of Economics Nuno Palma Department of History and Civilization, European University Institute Department of Economics, Econometrics, and Finance, University of Groningen Abstract The Bank Restriction Act of 1797 suspended the convertibility of the Bank of England's notes into gold. The current historical consensus is that the suspension was a result of the state's need to finance the war, France’s remonetization, a loss of confidence in the English country banks, and a run on the Bank of England’s reserves following a landing of French troops in Wales. We argue that while these factors help us understand the timing of the Restriction period, they cannot explain its success. We deploy new long-term data which leads us to a complementary explanation: the policy succeeded thanks to the reputation of the Bank of England, achieved through a century of prudential collaboration between the Bank and the Treasury. JEL classification: N13, N23, N43 Keywords: Bank of England, financial revolution, fiat money, money supply, monetary policy commitment, reputation, and time-consistency, regime shift, financial sector growth * We are grateful to Mark Dincecco, Rui Esteves, Alex Green, Marjolein 't Hart, Phillip Hoffman, Alejandra Irigoin, Richard Kleer, Kevin O’Rourke, Jaime Reis, Rebecca Simson, Albrecht Ritschl, Joan R.
    [Show full text]
  • A Critique of John Stuart Mill Chris Daly
    Southern Illinois University Carbondale OpenSIUC Honors Theses University Honors Program 5-2002 The Boundaries of Liberalism in a Global Era: A Critique of John Stuart Mill Chris Daly Follow this and additional works at: http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/uhp_theses Recommended Citation Daly, Chris, "The Boundaries of Liberalism in a Global Era: A Critique of John Stuart Mill" (2002). Honors Theses. Paper 131. This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the University Honors Program at OpenSIUC. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of OpenSIUC. For more information, please contact [email protected]. r The Boundaries of Liberalism in a Global Era: A Critique of John Stuart Mill Chris Daly May 8, 2002 r ABSTRACT The following study exanunes three works of John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, Utilitarianism, and Three Essays on Religion, and their subsequent effects on liberalism. Comparing the notion on individual freedom espoused in On Liberty to the notion of the social welfare in Utilitarianism, this analysis posits that it is impossible for a political philosophy to have two ultimate ends. Thus, Mill's liberalism is inherently flawed. As this philosophy was the foundation of Mill's progressive vision for humanity that he discusses in his Three Essays on Religion, this vision becomes paradoxical as well. Contending that the neo-liberalist global economic order is the contemporary parallel for Mill's religion of humanity, this work further demonstrates how these philosophical flaws have spread to infect the core of globalization in the 21 st century as well as their implications for future international relations.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fourth Industrial Revolution: How the EU Can Lead It
    EUV0010.1177/1781685818762890European ViewSchäfer 762890research-article2018 Article European View 2018, Vol. 17(1) 5 –12 The fourth industrial © The Author(s) 2018 https://doi.org/10.1177/1781685818762890DOI: 10.1177/1781685818762890 revolution: How the EU journals.sagepub.com/home/euv can lead it Matthias Schäfer Abstract The fourth industrial revolution is different from the previous three. This is because machines and artificial intelligence play a significant role in enhancing productivity and wealth creation, which directly changes and challenges the role of human beings. The fourth industrial revolution will also intensify globalisation. Therefore, technology will become much more significant, because regions and societies that cope positively with the technological impact of the fourth industrial revolution will have a better economic and social future. This article argues that the EU can play an important role in developing an environment appropriate for the fourth industrial revolution, an environment that is vibrant and open to new technologies. Member states would profit from an EU-wide coordinated framework for this area. The EU has to establish new common policies for the market-oriented diffusion and widespread use of new technologies. Keywords Fourth industrial revolution, Technology policy, Industrial policy, Leadership Introduction Historically there have been four industrial revolutions (see Schwab 2016). The first began in the early nineteenth century, when the power of steam and water dramatically increased the productivity of human (physical) labour. The second revolution started almost a hundred years later with electricity as its key driver. Mass industrial production Corresponding author: M. Schäfer, Department Politics and Consulting, Head of the Team for Economic Policy, Konrad-Adenauer- Stiftung, Berlin, Germany.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Worries About the Coherence of Left-Libertarianism Mathias Risse
    John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Faculty Research Working Papers Series Can There be “Libertarianism without Inequality”? Some Worries About the Coherence of Left-Libertarianism Mathias Risse Nov 2003 RWP03-044 The views expressed in the KSG Faculty Research Working Paper Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the John F. Kennedy School of Government or Harvard University. All works posted here are owned and copyrighted by the author(s). Papers may be downloaded for personal use only. Can There be “Libertarianism without Inequality”? Some Worries About the Coherence of Left-Libertarianism1 Mathias Risse John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University October 25, 2003 1. Left-libertarianism is not a new star on the sky of political philosophy, but it was through the recent publication of Peter Vallentyne and Hillel Steiner’s anthologies that it became clearly visible as a contemporary movement with distinct historical roots. “Left- libertarian theories of justice,” says Vallentyne, “hold that agents are full self-owners and that natural resources are owned in some egalitarian manner. Unlike most versions of egalitarianism, left-libertarianism endorses full self-ownership, and thus places specific limits on what others may do to one’s person without one’s permission. Unlike right- libertarianism, it holds that natural resources may be privately appropriated only with the permission of, or with a significant payment to, the members of society. Like right- libertarianism, left-libertarianism holds that the basic rights of individuals are ownership rights. Left-libertarianism is promising because it coherently underwrites both some demands of material equality and some limits on the permissible means of promoting this equality” (Vallentyne and Steiner (2000a), p 1; emphasis added).
    [Show full text]
  • The Industrial Revolution, 1700–1900
    The Industrial Revolution, 1700–1900 Previewing Main Ideas SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY From the spinning jenny to the locomotive train, there was an explosion of inventions and technological advances. These improvements paved the way for the Industrial Revolution. Geography What other European countries besides England had coal, iron, and textile industries in the 1800s? EMPIRE BUILDING The global power balance shifted after the Industrial Revolution. This shift occurred because industrialized nations dominated the rest of the world. Geography Study the map. Which country appears to be the most industrialized? ECONOMICS The Industrial Revolution transformed economic systems. In part, this was because nations dramatically changed the way they produced and distributed goods. Geography What geographic factors might have encouraged the development of industry in certain places? INTERNET RESOURCES • Interactive Maps Go to classzone.com for: • Interactive Visuals • Research Links • Maps • Interactive Primary Sources • Internet Activities • Test Practice VIDEO Patterns of Interaction: • Primary Sources • Current Events The Industrial and Electronic • Chapter Quiz Revolutions 280 281 What are fair working conditions? You are a 15-year-old living in England where the Industrial Revolution has spurred the growth of thousands of factories. Cheap labor is in great demand. Like millions of other teenagers, you do not go to school. Instead, you work in a factory 6 days a week, 14 hours a day. The small pay you receive is needed to help support your family. You trudge to work before dawn every day and work until after sundown. Inside the workplace the air is hot and foul, and after sunset it is so dark it is hard to see.
    [Show full text]
  • Smashing Cosmopolitanism: the Neo-Liberal Destruction of Cosmopolitan Education in East-Central Europe
    Smashing Cosmopolitanism: The Neo-liberal Destruction of Cosmopolitan Education in East-Central Europe Robert J. Imre University of Newcastle Zsuzsa Millei University of Newcastle Critiques that seek to examine cosmopolitanism as a concept suffer from a severe popularity problem. Rather than engage in this pro/con debate, we are interested in demonstrating that cosmopolitanism can wax and wane, ebb and flow, and has appeared as a grounding ideology for educational programs before, only to be torn asunder by those seeking to consolidate regime change. We do not suggest that cosmopolitanism is good and righteous politics, normatively opposed to or supporting patriotism, nor is it ideologically left, right or centre. We see a burgeoning cosmopolitan outlook in a particular time and place, that was smashed by political and social forces both unforeseen and powerful, changing foundational concepts of education in East-Central Europe in general and Hungary in particular. s a popular concept in the English-speaking world, cosmopolitanism conjures up notions of a well-read, well-fed, bourgeoisie with economic and social capacities to move around the worldA using their networks and sophisticated understandings of cultural diversity. A cosmopolitan understanding of the world encompasses a commitment to universal human rights, universal human potential, and a deeply embedded acceptance of difference and diversity. These ideas are core parts of a universalist frame of reference, and a philosophical underpinning of a particular view of the modern world held during the Industrial Revolution until today (Held, 2003). This paper challenges the idea that cosmopolitanism exists exclusively in the post-Cold War period in East-Central Europe, and also challenges the idea that the Hungarian education system was a monolithic neo-Stalinist version of ‘ideology expression’.
    [Show full text]
  • A Survey of Corporate Governance in Russia
    Centre for Economic and Financial Research at New Economic School June 2007 A Survey of Corporate Governance in Russia Olga Lazareva Andrei Rachinsky Sergey Stepanov Working Paper No 103 CEFIR / NES Working Paper series A Survey of Corporate Governance in Russia Olga Lazareva, Andrei Rachinsky, and Sergey Stepanov* June 2007 Abstract In this survey, we describe the current state of corporate governance in Russia and discuss its dynamics and prospects. We review the main mechanisms of corporate governance in the country and relate them to firms’ ownership structures, financial market development and government influence. Finally, we discuss the current trends in Russian corporate governance and its prospects. Keywords: corporate governance, ownership, expropriation, predatory state, property rights JEL Classifications: G32, G34, G38 * Olga Lazareva: Centre for Economic and Financial Research (CEFIR) and Stockholm School of Economics, [email protected]; Andrei Rachinsky: CEFIR, [email protected]; Sergey Stepanov: New Economic School and CEFIR, [email protected] We thank Sergei Guriev for very valuable comments 1. Introduction In this survey we describe the current state of corporate governance in Russia and discuss its dynamics and prospects. Corporate governance has become an important topic in Russia once again, and there is a clear trend among the largest Russian companies to adhere to good corporate governance standards by increasing disclosure, complying with international accounting standards, placing “independent directors” on boards, and adopting corporate governance codes, for example. There have also been initiatives to improve corporate governance from the government, regulators and various private agencies. The government is adopting new laws and amendments to the existing laws.
    [Show full text]