IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ris/actuec/v76y2000i2p265-298.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

L’impact de l’annonce de la privatisation sur la performance

Author

Listed:
  • Bozec, Yves

    (École des sciences de la gestion, Université du Québec à Montréal)

  • Laurin, Claude

    (Département des sciences comptables, École des Hautes Études Commerciales)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether the legal status of a firm and the set of corporate goals that it pursues have an influence on the firm's efficiency. To perform this investigation, the productivity of the two main Canadian railways, namely Canadian National Railway (CNR) and the Canadian Pacific (CP), is compared over the period surrounding CNR's privatization announcement. Internal efficiency is measured using Total Factor Productivity over a fifteen year period, starting in 1981 and ending in 1995. Results tend to show that although less efficient in the period ending in 1991, CNR has become as efficient as CP during the three-year period preceding the privatization. These results lead to the conclusion that a shift in the firm's set of corporate goals has had a significant impact on CNR's efficiency. Cet article vise à analyser si le statut juridique de l’entreprise et la nature des objectifs qu’elle poursuit influent sur l’efficience de ses opérations. Pour ce faire, nous avons choisi de comparer la productivité des deux principaux transporteurs ferroviaires canadiens, soit le Canadien National (CN), transporteur du secteur public, avec son plus proche rival du secteur privé, le Canadien Pacifique (CP), durant les périodes précédant et suivant l’annonce de la privatisation du CN. L’efficience interne des deux transporteurs est comparée à l’aide de la productivité totale des facteurs (PTF) sur une période de quinze ans, soit de 1981 à 1995. Les résultats tendent à démontrer que bien qu’étant moins efficientes durant la période 1981-1991, les opérations du CN sont devenues aussi efficientes que celles du CP durant la période de préprivatisation, soit de 1992 à 1995. Ces résultats nous portent à conclure qu’un changement dans la nature des objectifs poursuivis par le CN a eu un impact significatif sur son efficience interne.

Suggested Citation

  • Bozec, Yves & Laurin, Claude, 2000. "L’impact de l’annonce de la privatisation sur la performance," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 76(2), pages 265-298, juin.
    • Handle: RePEc:ris:actuec:v:76:y:2000:i:2:p:265-298
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/602324ar
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. A. Vining, 1989. "Performance Measures For Government Business Enterprises," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 8(3), pages 13-19, September.
    2. Boardman, Anthony E & Vining, Aidan R, 1989. "Ownership and Performance in Competitive Environments: A Comparison of the Performance of Private, Mixed, and State-Owned Enterprises," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 32(1), pages 1-33, April.
    3. Attiat F. Ott & Keith Hartley (ed.), 1991. "Privatization And Economic Efficiency," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 345.
    4. Kenneth Button & Thomas Weyman‐Jones, 1994. "Impacts Of Privatisation Policy In Europe," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 12(4), pages 23-33, October.
    5. Megginson, William L & Nash, Robert C & van Randenborgh, Matthias, 1994. "The Financial and Operating Performance of Newly Privatized Firms: An International Empirical Analysis," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 49(2), pages 403-452, June.
    6. David Boles De Boer & Lewis Evans, 1996. "The Economic Efficiency of Telecommunications in a Deregulated Market: The case of New Zealand," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 72(216), pages 24-35, March.
    7. 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.
    8. Yarrow, George, 1989. "Privatization and economic performance in Britain," Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 303-344, January.
    9. repec:bla:jfinan:v:53:y:1998:i:3:p:1081-1110 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. John Vickers & George Yarrow, 1991. "Economic Perspectives on Privatization," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(2), pages 111-132, Spring.
    11. Caves, Douglas W & Christensen, Laurits R & Diewert, W Erwin, 1982. "Multilateral Comparisons of Output, Input, and Productivity Using Superlative Index Numbers," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(365), pages 73-86, March.
    12. Colin Mayer & Shirley Meadowcroft, 1985. "Selling public assets: techniques and financial implications," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 6(4), pages 42-56, November.
    13. Eckel, Catherine & Eckel, Doug & Singal, Vijay, 1997. "Privatization and efficiency: Industry effects of the sale of British Airways," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 275-298, February.
    14. Bishop, Matthew R. & Kay, John A., 1989. "Privatization in the United Kingdom: Lessons from experience," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 643-657, May.
    15. Parker, David & Martin, Stephen, 1995. "The Impact of UK Privatisation on Labour and Total Factor Productivity," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 42(2), pages 201-220, May.
    16. Bishop, Matthew & Kay, John & Mayer, Colin (ed.), 1994. "Privatization and Economic Performance," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198773443.
    17. Dewenter, Kathryn L & Malatesta, Paul H, 1997. "Public Offerings of State-Owned and Privately-Owned Enterprises: An International Comparison," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(4), pages 1659-1679, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Mohammed Omran, 2008. "The Performance of State-Owned Enterprises and Newly Privatized Firms: Does Privatization Really Matter?," Chapters, in: José María Fanelli & Lyn Squire (ed.), Economic Reform in Developing Countries, chapter 10, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Michel Albouy & Hassan Obeid, 2007. "L’impact des privatisations sur la performance des entreprises françaises," Revue Finance Contrôle Stratégie, revues.org, vol. 10(1), pages 5-37, March.
    4. Jeffry M. Netter & William L. Megginson, 2001. "From State to Market: A Survey of Empirical Studies on Privatization," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 39(2), pages 321-389, June.
    5. Boubakri, Narjess & Cosset, Jean-Claude, 1998. "La privatisation tient-elle ses promesses?," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 74(3), pages 363-380, septembre.
    6. Chen, Gongmeng & Firth, Michael & Rui, Oliver, 2006. "Have China's enterprise reforms led to improved efficiency and profitability?," Emerging Markets Review, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 82-109, March.
    7. Paul H. Malatesta & Kathryn L. DeWenter, 2001. "State-Owned and Privately Owned Firms: An Empirical Analysis of Profitability, Leverage, and Labor Intensity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(1), pages 320-334, March.
    8. Villalonga, Belen, 2000. "Privatization and efficiency: differentiating ownership effects from political, organizational, and dynamic effects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 43-74, May.
    9. Anastassios Gentzoglanis, 2002. "Privatization, Investment and Efficiency in the Telecommunications Industry: Theory and Empirical Evidence from MENA Countries," Working Papers 0230, Economic Research Forum, revised 10 Oct 2002.
    10. 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.
    11. Ghosh, Saibal, 2008. "Does divestment matter for firm performance?: Evidence from the Indian experience," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 372-388, December.
    12. Christian Wolf & Michael G. Pollitt, 2008. "Privatising national oil companies: Assessing the impact on firm performance," Working Papers EPRG 0805, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    13. Harper, Joel T., 2002. "The performance of privatized firms in the Czech Republic," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 621-649, April.
    14. Adler, Nicole & Liebert, Vanessa, 2014. "Joint impact of competition, ownership form and economic regulation on airport performance and pricing," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 92-109.
    15. Carine Catelin & Céline Chatelin, 2001. "Privatisation, gouvernement d'entreprise et processus décisionnel:une interprétation de la dynamique organisationnelle à travers le cas France Télécom," Revue Finance Contrôle Stratégie, revues.org, vol. 4(2), pages 63-90, March.
    16. Feng, Fang & Sun, Qian & Tong, Wilson H. S., 2004. "Do government-linked companies underperform?," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 28(10), pages 2461-2492, October.
    17. Richard Disney & Christopher J. Ellis & Bulent Nomer, 2005. "Privatization and Strategic Monitoring with Gaussian Priors," Public Finance Review, , vol. 33(3), pages 318-342, May.
    18. Willner, Johan & Parker, David, 2002. "The Relative Performance of Public and Private Enterprise Under Conditions of Active and Passive Ownership," Centre on Regulation and Competition (CRC) Working papers 30591, University of Manchester, Institute for Development Policy and Management (IDPM).
    19. Saibal Ghosh, 2011. "Disinvestment, Lending Relationships and Executive Compensation," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 12(2), pages 213-235, June.
    20. Phi, Nguyet Thi Minh & Taghizadeh-Hesary, Farhad & Tu, Chuc Anh & Yoshino, Naoyuki & Kim, Chul Ju, 2019. "Performance Differential Between Private and State-Owned Enterprises: An Analysis of Profitability and Leverage," ADBI Working Papers 950, Asian Development Bank Institute.

    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:ris:actuec:v:76:y:2000:i:2:p:265-298. 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: Benoit Dostie (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/scseeea.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.