IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pid/journl/v35y1996i4p649-656.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why Regulate a Privatised Firm?

Author

Listed:
  • A.R. Kemal

    (Planning Commission, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad.)

Abstract

The paper examines changes in the levels of efficiency as a result of privatisation in Pakistan. By comparing the growth rates of the privatised industries in pre- and post- Privatisation period, changes in relative prices and the rate of return on equity, it concludes that producers may have indulged in monopolistic exploitation. The paper argues that even if the private firms have lower cost curves as compared to public sector at all the levels of output, at the equilibrium, public-sector firms may have lower cost. Accordingly, the regulation of the private monopoly, especially in the non-traded sector, is absolutely necessary. However, if regulation implies uncertainty and less flexibility to private sector firms, even compared with public sector enterprises, then regulated privatesector firms would be counter-productive. It suggests that the perfect contest-ability model which allows the firm to make sufficient profits and leave them free to take the decisions will be a better alternative. The price caps in line with changes in productivity and the general inflation rates may be a more efficient intervention.

Suggested Citation

  • A.R. Kemal, 1996. "Why Regulate a Privatised Firm?," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 35(4), pages 649-656.
    • Handle: RePEc:pid:journl:v:35:y:1996:i:4:p:649-656
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.pide.org.pk/pdf/PDR/1996/Volume4/649-656.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Foreman-Peck, J., 1989. "Ownership, Competition And Productivity Growth: The Impact Of Liberalisation And Privatisation Upon British Telecom," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 338, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    2. Caves, Douglas W & Christensen, Laurits R, 1980. "The Relative Efficiency of Public and Private Firms in a Competitive Environment: The Case of Canadian Railroads," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 88(5), pages 958-976, October.
    3. Baumol, William J., 1996. "Rules For Beneficial Privatization: Practical Implications Of Economic Analysis," Islamic Economic Studies, The Islamic Research and Training Institute (IRTI), vol. 3, pages 1-32.
    4. Syed Nawab Haider Naqvi & A. R. Kemal, 1991. "The Privatization of the Public Industrial Enterprises in Pakistan," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 30(2), pages 105-144.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Abdullah Muhammad Iqbal & Iram Khan & Zeeshan Ahmed, 2015. "Earnings Management and Privatisations: Evidence from Pakistan," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 54(2), pages 79-96.
    2. A. R. Kemal, 2002. "Regulatory Framework in Pakistan," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 41(4), pages 319-332.
    3. Iram A. Khan, 2003. "Impact of Privatisation on Employment and Output in Pakistan," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 42(4), pages 513-536.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bozec, Richard, 2004. "L’analyse comparative de la performance entre les entreprises publiques et les entreprises privées : le problème de mesure et son impact sur les résultats," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 80(4), pages 619-654, Décembre.
    2. Don U.A. Galagedera & Piyadasa Edirisuriya, 2004. "Performance of Indian commercial banks (1995-2002): an application of data envelopment analysis and Malmquist productivity index," Finance 0408006, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Andrea Boitani & Marcella Nicolini & Carlo Scarpa, 2013. "Do competition and ownership matter? Evidence from local public transport in Europe," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(11), pages 1419-1434, April.
    4. David H. Good, 1992. "Productive Efficiency and Contract Management: Some Evidence From Public Transit Agencies," Public Finance Review, , vol. 20(2), pages 195-215, April.
    5. Jan Hanousek & Ev??en Ko?enda & Jan Svejnar, 2004. "Ownership, Control and Corporate Performance After Large-Scale Privatization," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 2004-652, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    6. Hideyuki Mizobuchi, 2017. "A superlative index number formula for the Hicks-Moorsteen productivity index," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 167-178, December.
    7. Carine Catelin & Céline Chatelin, 2001. "Privatisation, gouvernement d'entreprise et processus décisionnel:une intégration de la dynamique organisationnelle à travers le cas de France Télécom," Working Papers CREGO 1010501, Université de Bourgogne - CREGO EA7317 Centre de recherches en gestion des organisations.
    8. Yarmukhamedov, Sherzod & Smith, Andrew S.J. & Thiebaud, Jean-Christophe, 2020. "Competitive tendering, ownership and cost efficiency in road maintenance services in Sweden: A panel data analysis," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 194-204.
    9. Gertjan Driessen & Mark Lijesen & Machiel Mulder, 2006. "The impact of competition on productive efficiency in European railways," CPB Discussion Paper 71.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    10. Hideyuki Mizobuchi, 2016. "A Superlative Index Number Formula for the Hicks-Moorsteen Productivity Index," CEPA Working Papers Series WP032016, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    11. Schmidt, Klaus-Dieter, 1998. "Privatization and local government reform in Germany: A slow train," Kiel Working Papers 891, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    12. Jason Coupet & Abagail McWilliams, 2017. "Integrating Organizational Economics and Resource Dependence Theory to Explain the Persistence of Quasi Markets," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-13, August.
    13. Leitón Quiroga, Jorge G. M., 2007. "Modelos de Eficiencia Económica: El Transporte Ferroviario," Documentos de trabajo 2/2007, Instituto de Investigaciones Socio-Económicas (IISEC), Universidad Católica Boliviana.
    14. John Vickers & George Yarrow, 1991. "Economic Perspectives on Privatization," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(2), pages 111-132, Spring.
    15. Abdul Ghafoor & John Weiss, 2001. "Performance of the Public Electric Power Industry: Evidence from Pakistan," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 40(2), pages 115-133.
    16. Sanghamitra Das & Kala Krishna & Sergey Lychagin & Rohini Somanathan, 2013. "Back on the Rails: Competition and Productivity in State-Owned Industry," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 136-162, January.
    17. González de la Fe, Pedro, 1998. "Las cuentas de las privatizaciones: el caso de Seat," DEE - Documentos de Trabajo. Economía de la Empresa. DB 6398, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía de la Empresa.
    18. Wolf, Christian, 2009. "Does ownership matter? The performance and efficiency of State Oil vs. Private Oil (1987-2006)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(7), pages 2642-2652, July.
    19. Bernard, Jean-Thomas & Weiner, Robert J., 1996. "Export pricing in state-owned and private MNEs: Evidence from the international petroleum market," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 14(5), pages 647-668, July.
    20. Luisa Affuso & Alvaro Angeriz & Michael Pollitt, 2009. "The Impact of Privatisation on the Efficiency of Train Operation in Britain," Working Papers 28, Queen Mary, University of London, School of Business and Management, Centre for Globalisation Research.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pid:journl:v:35:y:1996:i:4:p:649-656. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Khurram Iqbal (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/pideipk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.