IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wdi/papers/2004-668.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Enterprise Restructuring and Firm Performance: A Comparison of Rural and Urban Enterprises in Jiangsu Province

Author

Listed:
  • Xiao-yuan Dong
  • Louis Putterman
  • Bulent Unel

Abstract

We examine the contrast in the experience of ownership reforms between urban SOEs and rural TVEs using a panel of industrial enterprises in Nanjing municipality for the period from 1994 to 2001. Our objectives are twofold. First, we study how the reform program of ???grasp the large and let go of the small??? has been carried out in practice by comparing the patterns of enterprise restructuring in the SOEs and the TVEs. Second, we investigate how the alternative reform strategy has affected firm performance in terms of the growth of labor productivity, total factor productivity (TFP), profitability, and worker earnings. We find a sharp contrast in the reform strategies of the SOEs and TVEs in two respects. First, the changes in the SOE sector were more gradual and involved more limited transfer of property rights than did the reform of the TVEs. Secondly, the reforms in both sectors exhibited selection bias but in opposite directions, with worse performing ones being the principal targets of reforms, among SOEs, and better performing enterprises being more likely to be picked for privatization, among TVEs. Our analysis discerns strikingly strong, robust positive effects of ownership restructuring on the growth of labor productivity, TFP and profitability in the reformed SOEs, indicating that the evolutionary reform policy for the SOEs has successfully reversed the trends of declining productivity and profits in these enterprises in Nanjing. We also find that among reformed urban enterprises, those in which private ownership accounts for less than 50% of shares performed better than those in which the majority of shares are owned privately. We find mixed evidence for the TVEs: privatization had no effect on firm performance in a group fixed-effects model but significant, positive effects in a firm fixed-effects model.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiao-yuan Dong & Louis Putterman & Bulent Unel, 2004. "Enterprise Restructuring and Firm Performance: A Comparison of Rural and Urban Enterprises in Jiangsu Province," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 2004-668, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
  • Handle: RePEc:wdi:papers:2004-668
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/40054/3/wp668.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Samuel Ho & Paul Bowles & Xiaoyuan Dong, 2003. "'Letting Go of the Small': An Analysis of the Privatisation of Rural Enterprises in Jiangsu and Shandong," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(4), pages 1-26.
    2. Qian Sun & Wilson H. S. Tong & Jing Tong, 2002. "How Does Government Ownership Affect Firm Performance? Evidence from China's Privatization Experience," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1&2), pages 1-27.
    3. Brandt, Loren & Li, Hongbin, 2003. "Bank discrimination in transition economies: ideology, information, or incentives?," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 387-413, September.
    4. Gray, Cheryl W, 1996. "In Search of Owners: Privatization and Corporate Governance in Transition Economies," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 11(2), pages 179-197, August.
    5. Jefferson, Gary & Hu, Albert G. Z. & Guan, Xiaojing & Yu, Xiaoyun, 2003. "Ownership, performance, and innovation in China's large- and medium-size industrial enterprise sector," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 89-113.
    6. Gérard Roland, 2002. "The Political Economy of Transition," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(1), pages 29-50, Winter.
    7. Qian Sun & Wilson H. S. Tong & Jing Tong, 2002. "How Does Government Ownership Affect Firm Performance? Evidence from China’s Privatization Experience," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1‐2), pages 1-27.
    8. Li, Hongbin, 2003. "Government's budget constraint, competition, and privatization: evidence from China's rural industry," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 486-502, September.
    9. Park, Albert & Shen, Minggao, 2003. "Joint liability lending and the rise and fall of China's township and village enterprises," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 497-531, August.
    10. Michael Alexeev, 1999. "The effect of privatization on wealth distribution in Russia," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 7(2), pages 449-465, July.
    11. Jan Svejnar, 2002. "Transition Economies: Performance and Challenges," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(1), pages 3-28, Winter.
    12. Roman Frydman & Cheryl Gray & Marek Hessel & Andrzej Rapaczynski, 1999. "When Does Privatization Work? The Impact of Private Ownership on Corporate Performance in the Transition Economies," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(4), pages 1153-1191.
    13. Jefferson, Gary H & Rawski, Thomas G & Yuxin, Zheng, 1992. "Growth, Efficiency, and Convergence in China's State and Collective Industry," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 40(2), pages 239-266, January.
    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. Liu Wang & William Judge, 2012. "Managerial ownership and the role of privatization in transition economies: The case of China," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 479-498, June.
    2. Zhu, JianJun (John) & Tse, Caleb H. & Li, Xu, 2019. "Unfolding China’s state-owned corporate empires and mitigating agency hazards: Effects of foreign investments and innovativeness," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 191-212.
    3. Krug, B., 2006. "Enterprise Ground Zero in China," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2006-024-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    4. Krug, B. & Hendrischke, H., 2006. "Institution Building and Change in China," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2006-008-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    5. Dong, Xiao-Yuan, 2005. "Wage inequality and between-firm wage dispersion in the 1990s: A comparison of rural and urban enterprises in China," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 664-687, December.
    6. Pandey, Manish & Dong, Xiao-yuan, 2009. "Manufacturing productivity in China and India: The role of institutional changes," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 754-766, December.

    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. Dong, Xiao-yuan & Putterman, Louis & Unel, Bulent, 2006. "Privatization and firm performance: A comparison between rural and urban enterprises in China," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 608-633, September.
    2. Ito, Junichi, 2006. "Economic and institutional reform packages and their impact on productivity: A case study of Chinese township and village enterprises," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 167-190, March.
    3. De Xia & Wenhua Chen & Qinglu Gao & Rui Zhang & Yundong Zhang, 2021. "Research on Enterprises’ Intention to Adopt Green Technology Imposed by Environmental Regulations with Perspective of State Ownership," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-19, January.
    4. Hovey, Martin & Naughton, Tony, 2007. "A survey of enterprise reforms in China: The way forward," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 138-156, June.
    5. Jiatao Li & Carmen Ng, 2013. "The Normalization of Deviant Organizational Practices: The Non-performing Loans Problem in China," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 114(4), pages 643-653, June.
    6. Jiang, Bing-Bing & LAURENCESON, James & Tang, Kam Ki, 2008. "Share reform and the performance of China's listed companies," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 489-501, September.
    7. Uddin, Md Hamid, 2016. "Effect of government share ownership on corporate risk taking: Case of the United Arab Emirates," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 322-339.
    8. Liu, Li & Liu, Qigui & Tian, Gary & Wang, Peipei, 2018. "Government connections and the persistence of profitability: Evidence from Chinese listed firms," Emerging Markets Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 110-129.
    9. Agarwal, Natasha & Milner, Chris & Riaño, Alejandro, 2014. "Credit constraints and spillovers from foreign firms in China," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 261-275.
    10. Zhi Wang & Miao Yu, 2022. "Political embeddedness and firms' growth," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(1), pages 127-153, February.
    11. Da Teng & Jingtao Yi, 2017. "Impact of ownership types on R&D intensity and innovation performance—evidence from transitional China," Frontiers of Business Research in China, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 1-25, December.
    12. Hao, Xiangchao & Shi, Jing & Yang, Jian, 2014. "The differential impact of the bank–firm relationship on IPO underpricing: evidence from China," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 207-232.
    13. Nan Zhou, 2018. "Hybrid State-Owned Enterprises and Internationalization: Evidence from Emerging Market Multinationals," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 58(4), pages 605-631, August.
    14. 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.
    15. Ngo My Tran & Ann Jorissen & Walter Nonneman, 2015. "Privatization of Vietnamese Firms and Its Effects on Firm Performance," Asian Economic and Financial Review, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 5(2), pages 202-217, February.
    16. Kung, James Kai-sing & Lin, Yi-min, 2007. "The Decline of Township-and-Village Enterprises in China's Economic Transition," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 569-584, April.
    17. Mouna Mrad & Slaheddine Hallara, 2014. "The Relationship Between the Board of Directors and the Performance/Value Creation in a Context of Privatization: The Case of French Companies," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 83-108, March.
    18. Utpal Kumar De & Christopher P. P. Shafuda, 2023. "Performance and Efficiency of Public Sector in Independent Namibia," South Asian Journal of Macroeconomics and Public Finance, , vol. 12(2), pages 160-185, December.
    19. Lin, Chen & Lin, Ping & Zou, Hong, 2012. "Does property rights protection affect corporate risk management strategy? Intra- and cross-country evidence," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 311-330.
    20. Loren Brandt & Hongbin Li & Joanne Roberts, 2001. "Why do Governments Privatize," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 429, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    China; ownership reform; privatization; SOE; TVE;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • P31 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Socialist Institutions and Their Transitions - - - Socialist Enterprises and Their Transitions
    • P26 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Socialist and Transition Economies - - - Property Rights
    • P23 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Socialist and Transition Economies - - - Factor and Product Markets; Industry Studies; Population

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:wdi:papers:2004-668. 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: WDI (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/wdumius.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.