DOCSLIB.ORG

Lessons from Privatization Programs in Central and Eastern Europe

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lessons from Privatization Programs in Central and Eastern Europe International Insolvency Institute Colloquium on Privatization and Insolvency / Restructuring Lessons from Privatization Programs in Central and Eastern Europe Based on the paper written by Marko Mitrovic and Stephen S. Gray Athens, February 6, 2011 Lessons from Privatization Programs in Central and Eastern Europe Introduction Upon its emergence from socialism during the early 1990s, Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) underwent privatization programs on a previously unprecedented scale. The entire centrally planned economic system was replaced by a virtually opposite, market-based system. The importance of privatization and its success were viewed as crucial: . The region’s paramount geopolitical significance . Significant time pressure with the collapse of the socialist trading system . Potential global implications, the desirability of democracy / free market economy The region overall did well. Central European countries developed faster than their counterparts in Eastern or Southeast Europe. Privatization was important but other aspects played a significant role in overall economic development, primarily economic reform and foreign direct investment (FDI). CEE privatization experience offers useful insights for other regions and privatization programs. Slide 2 Lessons from Privatization Programs in Central and Eastern Europe Specifics of the CEE Situation As it emerged from socialism, Central and Eastern Europe faced very difficult initial conditions. Sharply declining regional trade and demand: . double digit declines in output and trade (in some cases as much as 80%) . virtually no access to or products competitive in Western markets . lack of liquidity . collection problems from former Soviet Union. Very little internal capital: . fledgling and illiquid equity markets . expensive and rarely granted debt . financially and institutionally ill-equipped governments. Slide 3 Lessons from Privatization Programs in Central and Eastern Europe Specifics of the CEE Situation (cont.) . Lack of institutions and capabilities: . little experience in modern commercial or bankruptcy legislation or practice . nonexistent commercial lending standards . undeveloped financial institutions / oversight bodies . very low managerial know-how . Positives included: . Inexpensive but qualified labor . proximity to Western Europe . substantial production capacity . good technical skills . No prior precedent . privatizations never implemented on such a large scale . long history of socialist control Slide 4 Lessons from Privatization Programs in Central and Eastern Europe Privatization Approaches Four distinct privatization approaches were used in CEE. Direct Sale (Hungary, Estonia) to predominantly Western strategic buyers; . gradual case-by-case-privatization . concerns were that the process may become too political, too slow, too costly. Public Ownership through Investment Funds (Czech Republic): also called “Free Market Model”; . immediate privatization of a large number of companies through their listing on national stock exchanges; . ownership “vouchers” distributed to the public; . fast creation of largely unregulated investment funds; the funds were supposed to compete both for “voucher” capital and for the assets of privatized companies; . favorite approach among economists for its speed, inclusiveness, and free market “spirit”. Slide 5 Lessons from Privatization Programs in Central and Eastern Europe Privatization Approaches (cont.) . Interim Management through Investment Funds (Poland): also called “Regulated Market Model” . 15 funds created by the State, and co-managed by Western investment banks . the equity of companies was placed in funds to manage / improve companies first, with a delayed distribution of shares to the public . criticized for potentially being too political and too slow . Management / Insider Buyouts: . create a domestic entrepreneurial class . concern that it would create corruption and cronyism Slide 6 Lessons from Privatization Programs in Central and Eastern Europe Comparison of the Results – A Few General Conclusions . Management / Insider Buyouts (MBOs) generally failed to create value: . corruption and cronyism; . numerous examples of asset stripping (“tunneling”) by former managers; . few examples of successful restructuring by new insider owners. “Free Market Model” better than MBOs but also did not create adequate value: . results generally mixed, long term results less favorable: labor productivity in the Czech Republic increased by 6% vs. 30% in Poland and Hungary (1989-1998); . Czech industrial production slightly lower over the same period vs. increasing by over 50% in Poland. “Regulated Market Model” and Direct Sale approach performed significantly better: . involvement of Western strategic investors (direct sale model) and investment banks (regulated market model) resulted in substantially higher performance . significantly fewer negative incentives than in MBOs and “Free Market Model” Slide 7 Lessons from Privatization Programs in Central and Eastern Europe Role of Entrepreneurial Responsibility In CEE mass privatizations, relative success of failure of the individual approaches was not due to their intrinsic elements. It centered on whether they fostered or decreased the level of entrepreneurial responsibility. Entrepreneurial responsibility – an important corollary of private ownership . Only two mechanisms to develop entrepreneurial responsibility . fair price paid for the asset (direct) . control of financial and other institutions (indirect) . In CEE during the 1990s, the MBO and the Free Market Model did not meet either criterion . Without entrepreneurial responsibility, negative incentives took over, either through . direct asset stripping (MBO) or . negative aspects of separation of ownership and control (Free Market Model) . Regulated Market Model and Direct Sale performed better due to . fair price paid (Direct Sale) . higher institutional control (Regulated Market Model) . better governance (both) Slide 8 Lessons from Privatization Programs in Central and Eastern Europe Role of Reforms and FDI – Slovakia In Slovakia, reforms and FDI proved more important than privatization itself. A country with few initial comparative advantages ascended to a regional economic leader: . 1998: ten years after socialism and after most companies were privatized, Slovakia was significantly behind its peers: . GDP per capita 15% was lower than in Hungary and 30% lower than in Czech R. numerous instances of asset stripping and several pyramidal banks . politically drifting away from the EU . exports mostly consisted of low value-added products . per capita FDI considerably lower than other CE countries . 2008: Slovakia caught up with other regional countries and entered EU in 2004; . reformed political and economic system (tax, pension, and healthcare reform) . FDI tripled to nearly Eur 3 billion per year on average . competitiveness and exports increased, the latter by nearly 170% compared to 1998 and comprised 80% of GDP . value added manufacturing significantly increased (automotive and electronics) Strategic investors (predominantly Western) brought what was needed the most at the outset – new markets, management expertise, and capital. Slide 9 Lessons from Privatization Programs in Central and Eastern Europe Role of Reforms and FDI – Other CE Countries Reforms and FDI have the highest correlation to GDP growth throughout the region 1995-1999 2000-2004 2005-2008 Czech Republic Average annual FDI - $ billion 3,067 5,237 8,503 Average annual GDP growth 0.8% 2.6% 4.0% Hungary Average annual FDI - $ billion 3,807 3,221 6,397 Average annual GDP growth 2.8% 3.5% 1.3% Poland Average annual FDI - $ billion 5,340 7,346 17,037 Average annual GDP growth 5.0% 2.5% 4.8% . Czech Republic: low growth between ’95 and ’99 in part due to its unsuccessful privatization approach. As reforms took place earlier last decade and the average annual FDI increased, so did the average annual GDP growth. Hungary: initial stronger growth due to direct sale model and highest per capital FDI in the region. Lack of reforms over the past decade – especially in tax and pension systems – were a major reason for slower growth over the past five years. Other regional countries became a lot more attractive, despite government concessions given to prospective green-field investments. Poland: lower but still clear correlation; ‘95-’99 highest growth in the region due to both a comparably lower starting point and successful privatization model; from second period to third period much faster growth due to higher FDI Slide 10 Lessons from Privatization Programs in Central and Eastern Europe Conclusions Properly executed, privatizations can provide significantly more benefit than the value to the state from the enterprise sales. Private ownership without entrepreneurial responsibility did not result in meaningfully better performance, as negative incentives for both insiders and unregulated intermediaries outweighed distant future benefits. Fair price paid (directly) and control of the institutions (indirectly) are the main instruments which can ensure entrepreneurial responsibility and significantly impact the prospects for success. Especially for smaller and/or less developed countries, strategic foreign investors add to future growth by providing a higher level of management expertise, governance, access to new markets, as well as capital. Rather than enticing them with tailored, special incentives, meaningful economic and governmental reform has in CEE proven to be far superior in attracting such investment. Chance for success of individual privatization models is higher if it addresses the initial needs of the country, minimizes negative incentives, and creates conditions which can unlock value inherent in private ownership. Slide 11.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Entrepreneurship in Regulated Markets: Burden Or Boon?
    Entrepreneurship in regulated markets: Burden or boon? Chair: Vickie Gibbs, Executive Director, Entrepreneurship Center, UNC Kenan-Flagler Business School Panelists: Susan Cates, Partner, Leeds Equity Partners, LLC Chris Elmore, Community Evangelist, AvidXchange Eric Ghysels, Faculty Director, Rethinc. Labs; Edward Bernstein Distinguished Professor of Economics, UNC-Chapel Hill; Professor of Finance, UNC Kenan-Flagler Business School Bill Starling, CEO, Synecor Regulatory barriers to entry can distort markets and limit innovation, but also result in breakthrough business models facing less competition. Examples include fintech, medtech and edtech. This session examined the challenges specific to entrepreneurship and innovation in regulated industries. Bill Starling started the session by describing the regulatory complexities of the medtech market. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for medical device products can sometimes take more than a decade. For example, approval for the TAVR heart valve replacement device took 17 years and $2 billion in funding. One strategy for ventures is to minimize the number of approvals required to bring a product to market. For example, iRhythm focused on the unmet customer need for an affordable way to detect heart conditions. The company created a simple, bandage-like device that collected data about the heart, which allowed them to avoid regulatory scrutiny. Even so, the product required $100 million to complete the clinical trials. Starling closed by noting that regulated markets are difficult to enter, but once a venture successfully enters the market, it can do very well and find protected positions. Susan Cates provided perspective as both a business operator and as an investor within education. Cates believes that success in regulated markets often requires “nontraditional thinking inside traditional institutions.” Cates described the “stroke of the pen” risks and tailwinds that can occur when policymakers pass new laws or provide regulatory guidance.
    [Show full text]
  • Markets Not Capitalism Explores the Gap Between Radically Freed Markets and the Capitalist-Controlled Markets That Prevail Today
    individualist anarchism against bosses, inequality, corporate power, and structural poverty Edited by Gary Chartier & Charles W. Johnson Individualist anarchists believe in mutual exchange, not economic privilege. They believe in freed markets, not capitalism. They defend a distinctive response to the challenges of ending global capitalism and achieving social justice: eliminate the political privileges that prop up capitalists. Massive concentrations of wealth, rigid economic hierarchies, and unsustainable modes of production are not the results of the market form, but of markets deformed and rigged by a network of state-secured controls and privileges to the business class. Markets Not Capitalism explores the gap between radically freed markets and the capitalist-controlled markets that prevail today. It explains how liberating market exchange from state capitalist privilege can abolish structural poverty, help working people take control over the conditions of their labor, and redistribute wealth and social power. Featuring discussions of socialism, capitalism, markets, ownership, labor struggle, grassroots privatization, intellectual property, health care, racism, sexism, and environmental issues, this unique collection brings together classic essays by Cleyre, and such contemporary innovators as Kevin Carson and Roderick Long. It introduces an eye-opening approach to radical social thought, rooted equally in libertarian socialism and market anarchism. “We on the left need a good shake to get us thinking, and these arguments for market anarchism do the job in lively and thoughtful fashion.” – Alexander Cockburn, editor and publisher, Counterpunch “Anarchy is not chaos; nor is it violence. This rich and provocative gathering of essays by anarchists past and present imagines society unburdened by state, markets un-warped by capitalism.
    [Show full text]
  • Annotated Presentation of Regulated Markets and National Provisions
    15.7.2011 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/21 Annotated presentation of regulated markets and national provisions implementing relevant requirements of MiFID (Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council) (2011/C 209/13) Article 47 of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (Directive 2004/39/EC, OJ L 145, 30.4.2004) authorises each Member State to confer the status of ‘regulated market’ on those markets constituted on its territory and which comply with its regulations. Article 4, paragraph 1, point 14 of Directive 2004/39/EC defines a ‘regulated market’ as a multilateral system operated and/or managed by a market operator, which brings together or facilitates the bringing together of multiple third-party buying and selling interests in financial instruments — in the system and in accordance with its non-discretionary rules — in a way that results in a contract, in respect of the financial instruments admitted to trading under its rules and/or systems, and which is authorised and functions regularly and in accordance with the provisions of Title III of Directive 2004/39/EC. Article 47 of Directive 2004/39/EC requires that each Member State maintains an updated list of regulated markets authorised by it. This information should be communicated to other Member States and the European Commission. Under the same article (Article 47 of Directive 2004/39/EC), the Commission is required to publish a list of regulated markets, notified to it, on a yearly basis in the Official Journal of the European Union. The present list has been compiled pursuant to this requirement.
    [Show full text]
  • Questions and Answers on the Issue of a Regulated Market for Currently Illegal Drugs
    Questions and answers on the issue of a regulated market for currently illegal drugs Mark Haden Vancouver Coastal Health Draft: June 2010 For the past decade I have been involved with public presentations which explore the failures of drug prohibition. In these presentations I recommend a public health, human rights model of drug control which brings all currently illegal drugs into a regulatory framework. The following is a list of the most common challenges I experience: Q: Are you saying that you want to legalize all drugs? A: No: Legalization is often interpreted to mean that the current capitalist free market system would be used to advertise and distribute currently illegal drugs. The goal of the free market is to increase consumption. The concept of a regulated market is different as the goal is to reduce the health and social problems associated with drugs. Q: What do you mean by a regulated market for illegal drugs? A: A regulated market would actively control drugs based on the principles of public health and human rights. Prohibition paradoxically stimulates a illegal market that makes concentrated and sometimes toxic, drugs widely available. The goal is to greatly reduce or shut down the illegal market and regulate drugs in a way that reduces harm to individuals, families and our society as a whole. Seeing drug use as primarily a health and social issue rather than a criminal issue allows us to explore a wide range of tools to manage the problems associated with drugs in a more effective way. Q: Are you saying “yes” to drugs? A: No – but we are saying “yes” to using more effective ways of controlling drugs and their problems.
    [Show full text]
  • On the American Paradox of Laissez Faire and Mass Incarceration
    ON THE AMERICAN PARADOX OF LAISSEZ FAIRE AND MASS INCARCERATION Bernard E. Harcourt∗ What we come to believe — so often, in reality, mere fiction and myth — takes on the character of truth and has real effects, tangible effects on our social and political condition. These beliefs, these hu- man fabrications, are they simply illusions? Are they fantasies? Are they reflections on a cave wall? Over the past two centuries at least, brilliant and well-regarded thinkers have proposed a range of theories and methods to emancipate us from these figments of our imagination. They have offered genealogies and archaeologies, psychoanalysis, Ideologiekritik, poststructuralism, and deconstruction — to name but a few. Their writings are often obscure and laden with a jargon that has gotten in the way of their keen insights, but their central point contin- ues to resonate loudly today: our collective imagination has real effects on our social condition and on our politics. It is important, it is vital to question what passes as truth. Any sophisticated listener, for instance, would have understood immediately what Barack Obama was doing when he declared on the campaign trail in 2008 that “[t]he market is the best mechanism ever invented for efficiently allocating resources to maximize production.”1 Or when he quickly added, “I also think that there is a connection be- tween the freedom of the marketplace and freedom more generally.”2 Obama was tapping into a public imaginary, one reflected at the time by the overwhelming belief, shared by more than two-thirds
    [Show full text]
  • Regulation History As Politics Or Markets
    Book Review Regulation History as Politics or Markets The Regulated Economy: A Historical Approach to Political Economy (Claudia Goldin & Gary D. Libecap, eds.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. 312 + viii pp., bibliographies, index, drawings, tables. ISBN: 0-226-30110-9. Cloth. $56.00. Herbert Hovenkampt Introduction: The S-P-P and Neoclassical Models of Regulation This interesting group of essays explores the history of American regulatory policy in an assortment of markets. The editors introduce their collection as "an effort to better understand the historical development of government intervention."' Although some authors represented in the collection are more explicit than others, most accept some version of the Stigler-Posner-Peltzman (S-P-P) model of regulation, which views political bargaining among rent-seeking special interest groups as the best explanation of regulatory outcomes. 2 While this interest group model is often powerful, it is hardly the only model for explaining regulation. Most of the regulation described in these essays can be fully accounted for by neoclassical economics, whose regulatory theory looks at the characteristics of the economic market to which regulation is applied, rather than the political market in which the decision to regulate is made. Under the S-P-P theory, interest groups form political coalitions in order to promote legislation that advances their own interests by limiting competition or restricting entry by new firms. Elected legislators t Ben V. & Dorothy Willie Professor of Law, University of Iowa. 1. THE REGULATED ECONOMY: A HISTORICAL APPROACH TO POLITICAL ECONOMY 2 (Claudia Goldin & Gary D. Libecap eds., 1994) [hereinafter THE REGULATED ECONOMY].
    [Show full text]
  • Gordon Tullock
    SUBSCRIBE NOW AND RECEIVE CRISIS AND LEVIATHAN* FREE! “The Independent Review does not accept “The Independent Review is pronouncements of government officials nor the excellent.” conventional wisdom at face value.” —GARY BECKER, Noble Laureate —JOHN R. MACARTHUR, Publisher, Harper’s in Economic Sciences Subscribe to The Independent Review and receive a free book of your choice* such as the 25th Anniversary Edition of Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government, by Founding Editor Robert Higgs. This quarterly journal, guided by co-editors Christopher J. Coyne, and Michael C. Munger, and Robert M. Whaples offers leading-edge insights on today’s most critical issues in economics, healthcare, education, law, history, political science, philosophy, and sociology. Thought-provoking and educational, The Independent Review is blazing the way toward informed debate! Student? Educator? Journalist? Business or civic leader? Engaged citizen? This journal is for YOU! *Order today for more FREE book options Perfect for students or anyone on the go! The Independent Review is available on mobile devices or tablets: iOS devices, Amazon Kindle Fire, or Android through Magzter. INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE, 100 SWAN WAY, OAKLAND, CA 94621 • 800-927-8733 • [email protected] PROMO CODE IRA1703 Of Stranded Costs and Stranded Hopes The Difficulties of Deregulation —————— ✦ —————— FRED S. MCCHESNEY iven the manifest inefficiency of government regulation, why is there so little deregulation? Of course, some deregulation, including the privatization G of state-owned industries, has occurred in recent decades. The United States experienced a spate of high-profile deregulations from 1978 to 1980 in the natural gas, trucking, and airline industries (Crandall and Ellig 1997).
    [Show full text]
  • On the American Paradox of Laissez Faire and Mass Incarceration Bernard E
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers Working Papers 2012 On the American Paradox of Laissez Faire and Mass Incarceration Bernard E. Harcourt Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/ public_law_and_legal_theory Part of the Law Commons Chicago Unbound includes both works in progress and final versions of articles. Please be aware that a more recent version of this article may be available on Chicago Unbound, SSRN or elsewhere. Recommended Citation Bernard E. Harcourt, "On the American Paradox of Laissez Faire and Mass Incarceration" (University of Chicago Public Law & Legal Theory Working Paper No. 376, 2012). This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Working Papers at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CHICAGO JOHN M. OLIN LAW & ECONOMICS WORKING PAPER NO. 590 (2D SERIES) PUBLIC LAW AND LEGAL THEORY WORKING PAPER NO. 376 ON THE AMERICAN PARADOX OF LAISSEZ FAIRE AND MASS INCARCERATION Bernard E. Harcourt THE LAW SCHOOL THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO March 2012 This paper can be downloaded without charge at the John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics Work‐ ing Paper Series: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/Lawecon/index.html and at the Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper Series: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/academics/publiclaw/index.html and The Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection. ON THE AMERICAN PARADOX OF LAISSEZ FAIRE AND MASS INCARCERATION Bernard E.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternatives to Capitalism Proposals for a Democratic Economy
    ALTERNATIVES TO CAPITALISM PROPOSALS FOR A DEMOCRATIC ECONOMY Robin Hahnel Erik Olin Wright CONTENTS Acknowledgements ii Introduction iii Part One 1. The Case for Participatory Economics 2 Robin Hahnel 2. Participatory Economics: A Sympathetic 11 Critique Erik Olin Wright 3. In Defence of Participatory Economics 38 Robin Hahnel Part Two 4. Socialism and Real Utopias 61 Erik Olin Wright 5. Breaking With Capitalism 85 Robin Hahnel 6. Final Thoughts 107 Erik Olin Wright About the authors 121 i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Robin would like to thank Mesa Refuge, a writers retreat in Point Reyes Station, California, where he was a resident for two weeks during this last year. ii INTRODUCTION New Left Project Poverty, exploitation, instability, hierarchy, subordination, environmental exhaustion, radical inequalities of wealth and power—it is not difficult to list capitalism’s myriad injustices. But is there a preferable and workable alternative? What would a viable free and democratic free society look like? Alternatives to Capitalism: Proposals for a Democratic Economy presents a debate between two such possibilities: Robin Hahnel’s “participatory economics” and Erik Olin Wright’s “real utopian” socialism. It is a detailed and at times technical discussion that rewards careful engagement. Those who put the effort in will, we hope, find that it illuminates a range of issues and dilemmas of crucial importance to any serious effort to build a better world. Is it worth devoting energy to thinking about alternatives to capitalism? There is a tradition within anti-capitalist politics which thinks not. It is argued that idle speculation distracts from what really matters: the struggles emerging in the here and now, which are the soil from which any emancipatory future will spring.
    [Show full text]
  • Market Anarchism As Constitutionalism Roderick T
    Chapter 9 Market Anarchism as Constitutionalism Roderick T. Long A legal system is any institution or set of institutions in a given society that provides dispute resolution in a systematic and reasonably predictable way. It does so through the exercise of three functions: the judicial, the legislative, and the executive. The judicial function, the adjudication of disputes, is the core of any legal system; the other two are ancillary to this. The legislative function is to determine the rules that will govern the process of adjudication (this function may be merged with the judicial function, as when case law arises through precedents, or it may be exercised separately), while the executive function is to secure submission (through a variety of means, which may or may not include violence) to the adjudicative process and compliance with its verdicts. A government or state (for present purposes I shall use these terms interchangeably) is any organisation that claims, and in large part achieves, a forcibly maintained monopoly, within a given geographical territory, of these legal functions, and in particular of the use of force in the executive function. Now the market anarchist objection to government is simply a logical extension of the standard libertarian objection to coercive monopolies in general.1 First, from a moral point of view, among people regarded as equals2 it cannot be legitimate for some to claim a certain line of work as their own privileged preserve from which others are to be forcibly excluded; we no longer believe in the divine right of kings, and on no other basis could such inequality of rights be justified.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fair and Laissez-Faire Markets: from a Neoliberal Laissez- Faire Baseline to a Fair Market
    Pursuit - The Journal of Undergraduate Research at The University of Tennessee Volume 5 Issue 1 Article 8 June 2014 The Fair and Laissez-Faire Markets: From a Neoliberal Laissez- Faire Baseline to a Fair Market Eric L. Dixon University of Tennessee, Knoxville, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/pursuit Part of the Economic Policy Commons, Economic Theory Commons, Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons, Inequality and Stratification Commons, Political Economy Commons, and the Public Policy Commons Recommended Citation Dixon, Eric L. (2014) "The Fair and Laissez-Faire Markets: From a Neoliberal Laissez-Faire Baseline to a Fair Market," Pursuit - The Journal of Undergraduate Research at The University of Tennessee: Vol. 5 : Iss. 1 , Article 8. Available at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/pursuit/vol5/iss1/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Volunteer, Open Access, Library Journals (VOL Journals), published in partnership with The University of Tennessee (UT) University Libraries. This article has been accepted for inclusion in Pursuit - The Journal of Undergraduate Research at The University of Tennessee by an authorized editor. For more information, please visit https://trace.tennessee.edu/pursuit. The Fair and Laissez-Faire Markets: From a Neoliberal Laissez-Faire Baseline to a Fair Market Cover Page Footnote I would like to thank David Reidy, Jon Garthoff, and especially Jon Shefner for their continued assistance of my studies in political economy and political philosophy. I would also like to thank my friends and family for their unconditional support. This article is available in Pursuit - The Journal of Undergraduate Research at The University of Tennessee: https://trace.tennessee.edu/pursuit/vol5/iss1/8 Pursuit: The Journal of Undergraduate Research at the University of Tennessee Copyright © The University of Tennessee PURSUIT trace.tennessee.edu/pursuit Fair & Laissez-Faire Markets: From a laissez-faire baseline to a fair market conception ERIC L.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulated Markets-Definition-Important Features of Regulated Markets, Function, Progress and Defects
    DR. RITA KAPIL NARVARIYA ASSISTANT PROFESSOR DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ECONOMICS AND FARM MANAGEMENT COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, POWARKHEDA, JNKVV, JABALPUR (M.P.) Chapter: Regulated markets-definition-important features of regulated markets, function, progress and defects Agricultural Marketing is a process which starts with a decision to produce a saleable farm product and involves all aspects of market structure or system, both functional and institutional, based on technical and economic consideration. Forms of government intervention in agricultural marketing system consists of framing rules and regulation, promote infrastructure development, administration of prices and influence supply and demand. The remedial measures for the problems of marketing are classified into the following types: 1. Reduction and regulation of market charges. 2. Organization of cooperative marketing, and 3. Government legislations. Though agricultural marketing is a State subject, the Government of India has an important role to play in laying down general policy framework, framing of quality standards, conducting survey and research studies and in providing guidance, technical and financial support to the State Governments. The Central Government is aided and advised by two organisations under its control, namely, the Directorate of Marketing and Inspection (DMI) and the National Institute of Agricultural Marketing (NIAM), Jaipur. Directorate of Marketing and Inspection: It is an attached office of the Ministry and is headed by the Agricultural Marketing Adviser to the Government of India. The organisation setup of the DMI is as under:- Head Office : Faridabad Branch Head Office : Nagpur Regional Office : Chennai, Delhi, Guntur, and Mumbai. Central Agmark Laboratory is located at Nagpur. Besides, there are 57 sub-offices and 22 Regional Agmark Laboratories spread all over the country.
    [Show full text]