IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/irapec/v28y2014i5p586-610.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ownership structure, monitoring, and market value of companies: evidence from an unusual privatization mode

Author

Listed:
  • Bartosz Gębka

Abstract

This study analyses the impact of ownership structure and market liquidity on company value. We investigate different aspects of ownership: the risk of political interference, private investors vs. the state acting as influential blockholders, and preferential political treatment of companies. Using a unique dataset of Polish partial privatizations initiated by shares transfers to entities under limited government influence, we find that government divestments can enhance company value, due to reduction in risk of political interference. A potential increase in the liquidity of trades in transferred companies' shares also boosts their market value. On the other hand, an increased likelihood of the emergence of private blockholders able to expropriate minority shareholders reduces the firm's market value. Our results support the political view of privatization: governments have objectives different to profit maximization, which leads to suboptimal investment from this point of view and lower market value of companies. We also develop a model to empirically distinguish between different aspects of ownership on company value.

Suggested Citation

  • Bartosz Gębka, 2014. "Ownership structure, monitoring, and market value of companies: evidence from an unusual privatization mode," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(5), pages 586-610, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:irapec:v:28:y:2014:i:5:p:586-610
    DOI: 10.1080/02692171.2014.918938
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/02692171.2014.918938
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/02692171.2014.918938?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Xiaonian Xu & Yan Wang, 1997. "Ownership structure, corporate governance, and corporate performance : the case of Chinese stock companies," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1794, The World Bank.
    2. J.S. Earle & S. Estrin, 1996. "Privatization Versus Competition: Changing Enterprise Behavior in Russia," Working Papers wp96049, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
    3. John Vickers & George Yarrow, 1988. "Privatization: An Economic Analysis," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262720116, December.
    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. Konstantin Gluschenko, 2004. "Analysing changes in market integration through a cross-sectional test for the law of one price," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 135-149.
    2. Kouznetsov Pavel & Muravyev Alexander, 2001. "Ownership Structure and Firm Performance in Russia: The Case of Blue Chips of the Stock Market," EERC Working Paper Series 01-10e, EERC Research Network, Russia and CIS.
    3. Timofeev Andrey, 2002. "Fiscal Decentralization and Soft Budget Constraints," EERC Working Paper Series 01-12e, EERC Research Network, Russia and CIS.
    4. Claessens, Stijn & Djankov, Simeon, 1999. "Ownership Concentration and Corporate Performance in the Czech Republic," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 498-513, September.
    5. Yurii Perevalov & Ilya Gimadii & Vladimir Dobrodei, 2000. "Does Privatisation Improve Performance of Industrial Enterprises? Empirical Evidence from Russia," Post-Communist Economies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(3), pages 337-363.
    6. Rumen Lazarov, 2001. "The Innovative Activity of the Companies (After the Model of Pleven, Lovech, Veliko Tarnovo and Gabrovo Districts)," Economic Studies journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 1, pages 132-158.
    7. Kou, Kou & Kroll, Henning, 2017. "Innovation output and state ownership: Empirical evidence from China's listed firms," Discussion Papers "Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis" 55, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    8. Irina Akimova & Gerhard Schwödiauer, 1999. "Restructuring of Ukrainian Enterprises after Privatization: Does Ownership Structure Matter?," Industrial Organization 9903003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Helena Hannula, 2001. "Restructuring of the Estonian economy and the role of FDIs in it," University of Tartu - Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, in: Foreign Direct Investments in the Estonian Economy, volume 9, chapter 3, pages 91-174, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, University of Tartu (Estonia).
    10. Baltagi, Badi H. & Yen, Yin-Fang, 2014. "Hospital treatment rates and spillover effects: Does ownership matter?," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 193-202.
    11. Germa Bel & Anton Costas, 2006. "Do Public Sector Reforms Get Rusty? Local Privatization in Spain," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 1-24.
    12. N.F. Cruz & R.C. Marques & A. Marra & C. Pozzi, 2014. "Local Mixed Companies: The Theory And Practice In An International Perspective," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 85(1), pages 1-9, March.
    13. Sjoo, Boo & Zhang, Jianhua, 2000. "Market segmentation and information diffusion in China's stock markets," Journal of Multinational Financial Management, Elsevier, vol. 10(3-4), pages 421-438, December.
    14. Orietta DESSY & Massimo FLORIO, 2004. "Workers' earnings in the UK before and after privatisation: a study of five industries," Departmental Working Papers 2004-13, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    15. Diane Sharratt & Bitten H. Brigham & Martin Brigham, 2007. "The Utility of Social Obligations in the UK Energy Industry," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(8), pages 1503-1522, December.
    16. Michael A. Crew & Paul R. Kleindorfer, 2013. "Privatization of postal operators: old arguments and new realities," Chapters, in: Michael A. Crew & Paul R. Kleindorfer (ed.), Reforming the Postal Sector in the Face of Electronic Competition, chapter 1, pages 1-19, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. James A. Schmitz, 1996. "The role played by public enterprises: how much does it differ across countries?," Quarterly Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, vol. 20(Spr), pages 2-15.
    18. Paul Walker, 2016. "From complete to incomplete (contracts): A survey of the mainstream approach to the theory of privatisation," New Zealand Economic Papers, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(2), pages 212-229, August.
    19. A. Brandão & S. Castro, 2007. "State-owned enterprises as indirect instruments of entry regulation," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 92(3), pages 263-274, December.
    20. Stephen King & Rohan Pitchford, 2008. "Private or Public? Towards a Taxonomy of Optimal Ownership and Management Regimes," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 84(266), pages 366-377, September.

    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:taf:irapec:v:28:y:2014:i:5:p:586-610. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CIRA20 .

    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.