did the privatization of economy remain successful by china ? give any two arguments
Answers
Answered by
1
Answer:
Tell me difficult question
Explanation:
Come on
Answered by
1
There is a large body of literature about the economic effects of privatization. However, since it was mainly written in the 1990s, there was typically limited emphasis on issues which have come to the fore more recently, as well as more recent developments in the evidence about privatization itself, much of it from developing economies. This motivated us to write this paper, which summarizes the evidence about the impact of recent privatizations, not only in terms of firms’ efficiency but also with regard to the effects on income distribution. In addition, we are particularly attentive to the process of privatization in developing countries, notably with respect to the regulatory apparatus enabling successful privatization experiences.
When governments divested state-owned enterprises in developed economies, especially in the 1980s and 1990s, their objectives were usually to enhance economic efficiency by improving firm performance, to decrease government intervention and increase its revenue, and to introduce competition in monopolized sectors (Vickers and Yarrow 1988). Much of the earlier evidence about the economic impact of privatization concerned these topics and was based on data from developed countries and later, transition countries. These findings have been brought together in two previous surveys, by Megginson and Netter (2001) and Estrin et al. (2009) respectively. The former assesses the findings of empirical research on the effects of privatization up to 2000, mainly from developed and middle-income countries, while the latter concentrates on transition economies including China, over the 1989 to 2006 period.1 However, the experiences from the wave of privatizations that have occurred in developing countries before and since these studies warrant a new examination of the impact of privatization in the context of the development process.
The tone of the privatization debate has evolved in recent years in international financial institutions as privatization activity has shifted towards developing economies, and as a consequence of the difficulties of implementation and some privatization failures in the 1980s and 1990s (Jomo 2008). As a result, more emphasis in policy-making is now being placed on creating the preconditions for successful privatization. Thus, in place of a simple pro-privatization bias characteristic of the Washington consensus (Boycko, Shleifer, and Vishny 1995), it is now proposed that governments should first provide a better regulatory and institutional framework, including a well-functioning capital market and the protection of consumer and employee rights. In other words, context matters: ownership reforms should be tailor-made for the national economic circumstances, with strategies for privatization being adapted to local conditions. The traditional privatization objective of improving the efficiency of public enterprises also remains a major goal in developing countries, as does reducing the subsidies to state-owned enterprises (SOEs).
This article therefore reviews the recent evidence on privatization, with an emphasis on developing countries. The first section presents some stylized facts. The next section examines the effects of privatization in terms of firms’ efficiency and performance. In the following section, we go on to examine the distributional impacts of privatization. Policy recommendations are developed in the final section.
Hopefully this helps you
When governments divested state-owned enterprises in developed economies, especially in the 1980s and 1990s, their objectives were usually to enhance economic efficiency by improving firm performance, to decrease government intervention and increase its revenue, and to introduce competition in monopolized sectors (Vickers and Yarrow 1988). Much of the earlier evidence about the economic impact of privatization concerned these topics and was based on data from developed countries and later, transition countries. These findings have been brought together in two previous surveys, by Megginson and Netter (2001) and Estrin et al. (2009) respectively. The former assesses the findings of empirical research on the effects of privatization up to 2000, mainly from developed and middle-income countries, while the latter concentrates on transition economies including China, over the 1989 to 2006 period.1 However, the experiences from the wave of privatizations that have occurred in developing countries before and since these studies warrant a new examination of the impact of privatization in the context of the development process.
The tone of the privatization debate has evolved in recent years in international financial institutions as privatization activity has shifted towards developing economies, and as a consequence of the difficulties of implementation and some privatization failures in the 1980s and 1990s (Jomo 2008). As a result, more emphasis in policy-making is now being placed on creating the preconditions for successful privatization. Thus, in place of a simple pro-privatization bias characteristic of the Washington consensus (Boycko, Shleifer, and Vishny 1995), it is now proposed that governments should first provide a better regulatory and institutional framework, including a well-functioning capital market and the protection of consumer and employee rights. In other words, context matters: ownership reforms should be tailor-made for the national economic circumstances, with strategies for privatization being adapted to local conditions. The traditional privatization objective of improving the efficiency of public enterprises also remains a major goal in developing countries, as does reducing the subsidies to state-owned enterprises (SOEs).
This article therefore reviews the recent evidence on privatization, with an emphasis on developing countries. The first section presents some stylized facts. The next section examines the effects of privatization in terms of firms’ efficiency and performance. In the following section, we go on to examine the distributional impacts of privatization. Policy recommendations are developed in the final section.
Hopefully this helps you
Similar questions