Annotation.

This paper reviews a selection of studies on privatization experiences in transition countries. Empirical studies almost invariably show privatized enterprises outperform state enterprises. Moreover, the literature identifies de novo firms as being clearly the best performers, followed by outsider-dominated firms, while insider-dominated firms are the least efficient among those newly privatized. The importance of de novo firms in enlarging the private sector in transition economies is reviewed, along with the question of whether privatization efforts support or hinder de novo private sector development. Finally, the paper discusses the importance of providing a suitable market environment for successful private-sector development.

IFC Discussion Paper No. 38.QUOTEIt is now universally acknowledged that ownership matters; that private ownership in and of itself is a major determinant of good performance in firms... Decent economic policy and well-functioning legal and administrative institutions... matter greatly as well.QUOTEThis paper looks at what happens when the shift to private ownership gets far out in front of the effort to build the institutional underpinnings of a capitalist economy. The emphasis is on what went wrong and why and what, if anything, can be done to be correct it. Proposals include renationalization and/or postponement of further privatization, both to be accompanied by measures to strengthen the managerial capacities of the state. Neither approach seems likely to produce short-term improvements. The regrettable fact is that governments that botch privatization are equally likely to botch the management of state-owned firms. In a number of Central European transition countries, privatization is living up to expectations; and there is no need for such measures. For institutionally-weak countries, the less dramatic but reasonable short-term course of action is to push ahead more slowly with case- by-case and tender privatization in cooperation with the international assistance community in hopes of producing some success stories that will lead by example.

The authors' view is that any privatisation is better than none, regardless of whether a stable, competitive environment has been established first. However, private companies started from scratch perform best, followed by newly privatised firms run by outsiders, either local or foreign. Privatised companies dominated by insiders do less well, but even they regularly outperform state enterprises. Without an appropriate market environment though, managers may spend more time lobbying the government for support than undertaking painful restructuring measures.

Privatization was the fundamental pillar of transition from plan to market in former socialist countries. But little is known about the fate of companies that were privatized in large scale privatization schemes such as mass privatization or management-employee buyouts. This is the first original study aiming to fill this gap. It assesses wholesale privatization schemes in three leading transition countries - the Czech Republic, Poland and Slovenia - in terms of the evolving concentration of ownership and relations to firm performance.

IFC Discussion Paper No. 32. Over the years, demand for education at all levels in Kenya has greatly outpaced supply, a gap that has been reduced by private schools catering to the needs of a wide range of socioeconomic groups. This gap will widen further unless the private sectors role is expanded, but private educational institutions face a number of serious constraints, primarily stemming from lack of adequate finance and, in many cases, limited management skills. This paper reviews the market and its constraints and focuses on conditions under which private financial institutions and the International Finance Corporation might play a useful role in the sector. Annexes include 1996 operating costs of Kenya's academic, technical, and vocational schools.

The assumption behind privatisation in eastern Europe and elsewhere is that private ownership improves corporate performance. We focus on comparing the performance of state firms with either private or privatised firms operating under reasonably similar conditions in three countries of eastern Europe. We supplement this comparison by an examination of the relative performance of privatised and state firms in the period before the former were privatised. Our empirical results confirm the hypothesis that the effect of ownership change is particularly pronounced on the revenue side of corporate performance. In general, we find that firms with outsider owners significantly outperform the firms with insider owners on most performance measures, and that the employees are particularly ineffective owners (indeed less effective than the state). Subscribe to publications email alerts.