Listing 1 - 10 of 1946 | << page >> |
Sort by
|
Choose an application
In Captive Market, Anna Gunderson proposes a novel explanation for why states privitize prisons. Evidence from an original dataset and interviews with private prison companies, government officials, and advocacy groups suggest that growing prisoner lawsuits are a significant driver of prison privatization in the United States. With over 160,000 inmates currently held in private facilities across the country, it is vital to understand the causes of this rise and the nuances of private prison policy, one with significant consequences for the American criminal legal system. An eye-opening account of an industry that many are aware of but few know much about, this book will reshape our understanding of the fundamental nature of the American carceral state.
Choose an application
Choose an application
Choose an application
Choose an application
Choose an application
Choose an application
"This paper takes stock of recent privatization trends, examines the extent to which government ownership is still prevalent in developing countries, and summarizes emerging issues for state enterprise reform going forward. Between 1990 and 2003, 120 developing countries carried out nearly 8,000 privatization transactions and raised USD 410 billion in privatization revenues. Privatization activity peaked in 1997 and dropped off in the late 1990s and, while still at overall low levels, is slowly creeping back. While there are a large number of studies assessing the impact of privatization on enterprise performance and overall welfare, there are no systematic data on the extent to which privatization has changed the role of state enterprises in the economy. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the state's role has been substantially reduced in Eastern and Central Europe and in certain countries in Latin America. But available evidence also suggests that, despite a long track record of privatization, government ownership in state enterprises is still widely prevalent in some regions and countries, and in certain sectors in virtually all regions. The paper shows that the costs of not reforming state enterprises are high and that continued efforts need to be made to improve their performance by improving privatization policies and institutions; adopting more of a case-by-case approach for complex sectors and countries; and exposing state enterprises to market discipline through new private entry and exit of unviable firms and improvements in their corporate governance. "--World Bank web site.
Choose an application
•La dérive des secteurs publics nationaux dans les pays en développement légitime la privatisation ; •La privatisation n'a pas connu au cours des années 80 l'essor escompté ; •Les difficultés à privatiser dans les pays en développement révèlent l'inadaptation de leurs structures économiques et financières à ce changement ; •Toutes stratégie nationale de privatisation doit être cohérente avec l'orientation globale des réformes économiques.
Choose an application
Twenty years ago, as the United Kingdom was getting ready to launch the privatization of its public services, Professor Littlechild developed and operationalized the concept of price caps as a regulatory regime to control for residual monopoly conditions in those services. Ten years later, Latin American countries, as they embarked into their own infrastructure reforms, also adopted the price cap regulatory model. Relying on a large data base on the factors driving contract renegotiation in the region and a survey of the literature on efficiency gains, the authors assess the impact of this regulatory regime in Latin America. They show that while the expected efficiency gains were amply achieved, these gains were seldom passed on to the users. Instead they were shared by the government and the firms. Moreover, the adoption of price caps implied higher costs of capital and hence, tariffs, and brought down levels of investment.
Choose an application
"The paper evaluates the effects of privatization in the post-communist economies and China. In post-communist economies privatization to foreign owners results in a rapid improvement in performance of firms, while performance effects of privatization to domestic owners are less impressive and vary across regions, coinciding with differences in policies and institutional development. In China relatively more estimates suggest that privatization to domestic owners improves the level of performance. Concentrated private ownership has a stronger positive effect on performance than dispersed ownership in the post-communist economies, but foreign joint ventures rather than wholly owned foreign firms have a positive effect in China. Worker or collective ownership does not have a negative effect. In the post-communist economies new firms are equally or more efficient than firms privatized to domestic owners, and foreign start-ups are more efficient than domestic ones. Privatization is not associated with lower employment. When accompanied by complementary reforms, privatization has a positive effect on economic growth. Three factors appear to drive the more positive effect of privatization to foreign than domestic owners. Domestic managers have more limited skills and access to world markets, domestically privatized firms have been more subject to tunneling and in some countries new large shareholders artificially decreased performance. The important policy implication is that privatization per se does not guarantee improved performance, at least not in the short- to medium-run. Type of private ownership, corporate governance, access to know-how and markets, and the legal and institutional system matter for firm performance. "--World Bank web site.
Listing 1 - 10 of 1946 | << page >> |
Sort by
|