Volume 33, Issue 1 (Spring 2020)
JMDP 2020, 33(1): 57-79 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Taherpoor H, Modares A, Alaie R. Effects of Privatization of Iranian Listed Corporates on their Functions and Performance. JMDP 2020; 33 (1) :57-79
URL: http://jmdp.ir/article-1-3161-en.html
URL: http://jmdp.ir/article-1-3161-en.html
1- Department of Management, Institute for Management and Planning Studies, Tehran, Iran , habtaherk@imps.ac.ir
2- Department of Management, Faculty of management and Economics, Sharif Industrial University, Tehran, Iran.
3- Public Policy Making, Institute for Management and Planning Studies, Tehran, Iran.
2- Department of Management, Faculty of management and Economics, Sharif Industrial University, Tehran, Iran.
3- Public Policy Making, Institute for Management and Planning Studies, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract: (5107 Views)
Development of the private sector, running businesses by private sector enterprises and privatization of state-owned enterprises are a dominant approach in most countries. Ample empirical evidence has strongly supported the effectiveness of this approach. In Iran, 39 state-owned companies, whose market value is about 60% of the total value of the country’s stock market, joined the stock market between 2001 and 2015. There were two major objectives behind this move: improving the performance and functions of business enterprises. This paper attempts to identify and analyze the those factors which help privatization to affect the performance and functions of listed firms in Iran’s stock market. Findings indicate that privatization is effective in promoting nominal performance and nominal functions of firms, but it cannot lead to the development of their actual performance and business functions. Besides, findings show that the formation of corporate governance, dominant shareholder's status after privatization, the way management controls the quality, and the way privatization affects performance and functional changes of firms each plays a role.
Keywords: Privatization, Performance and Functions of Corporates, Profitability, Investment, Stock Market.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Public Administration
Received: May 15 2018 | Accepted: Jan 28 2019 | ePublished: Oct 13 2020
Received: May 15 2018 | Accepted: Jan 28 2019 | ePublished: Oct 13 2020
References
1. Boardman, A. E., & Vining, A. R. (1989). Ownership and Performance in Competitive Environments: A Comparison of the Performance of Private, Mixed, and State-Owned Enterprises. The Journal of Law and Economics, 32(1), 1-33. [DOI:10.1086/467167]
2. Boubakri, N., & Cosset, J. C. (1998). The Financial and Operating Performance of Newly Privatized Firms: Evidence from Developing Countries. The Journal of Finance, 53(3), 1081-1110. [DOI:10.1111/0022-1082.00044]
3. Cavaliere, A. (2003). Competition in Natural Gas Industry: European Liberalisation Issues and Regulatory Reform in Italy. Paper Presented At the Milan European Economy Seminar, Università degli studi di Milano.
4. Dewenter, K. L., & Malatesta, P. H. (2001). State-Owned and Privately Owned Firms: An Empirical Analysis of Profitability, Leverage, and Labor Intensity. American Economic Review, 91(1), 320-334. [DOI:10.1257/aer.91.1.320]
5. D'souza, J., & Megginson, W. L. (1999). The Financial and Operating Performance of Privatized Firms during the 1990s. The Journal of Finance, 54(4), 1397-1438. [DOI:10.1111/0022-1082.00150]
6. Frydman, R., Gray, C., Hessel, M., & Rapaczynski, A. (1999). When Does Privatization Work? The Impact of Private Ownership on Corporate Performance in the Transition Economies. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(4), 1153-1191. [DOI:10.1162/003355399556241]
7. Macquieira, C., & Zurita, S. (1996). Privatizaciones en Chile: Eficiencia y politicas financieras. Estudios de Administracion, 3(2), 1-36.
8. 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. [DOI:10.1023/A:1004941023587]
9. Megginson, W. L., Nash, R. C., & Van Randenborgh, M. (1994). The Financial and Operating Performance of Newly Privatized Firms: An International Empirical Analysis. The Journal of Finance, 49(2), 403-452. [DOI:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1994.tb05147.x]
10. Parker, D. (1997). Price Cap Regulation, Profitability and Returns to Investors in the UK Regulated Industries. Utilities Policy, 6(4), 303-315. [DOI:10.1016/S0957-1787(97)00027-1]
11. Petrazzini, B. A., & Clark, T. H. (1996). Costs and Benefits of Telecommunications Liberalization in Developing Countries. Institute for International Economics, Washington, DC.
12. Pinto, B., Belka, M., Krajewski, S., & Shleifer, A. (1993). Transforming State Enterprises in Poland: Evidence on Adjustment by Manufacturing Firms. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1993(1), 213-270. [DOI:10.2307/2534605]
13. Tian, G. L. (2000). State Shareholding and Corporate Performance: A Study of a Unique Chinese Data Set. Working Paper, London Business School.
14. Verbrugge, J. A., Megginson, W. L., & Lee, W. (1998). The Financial Performance of Privatized Banks: An Empirical Analysis, Working Paper: University of Georgia.
15. Verbrugge, J., Owens, W., & Megginson, W. (1999). State Ownership and the Financial Performance of Privatized Banks: An Empirical Analysis. Paper Presented at the Conference Proceedings of a Policy Research Workshop Held At the World Bank.
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. |
