Wednesday 19 January 2011

Partial privatisation

Over at his blog Roger Kerr discuses privatisation and partial privatisation in particular. He notes a point made by Phil Barry
... partial privatisation has significant disadvantages compared with full privatisation. Ownership of partially privatised companies is often widely held (outside the government’s stake) and control is not readily contestable; private investors have limited incentive to monitor the company, relying instead on the ‘deep pockets’ of the government to bail out the company if it gets into difficulty; and the company remains open to political interference. Further, governments, as owners, may be unable to agree for long as to why they own the company, thus making it difficult for the company to develop and implement a strategic direction.

The empirical evidence supports the view that partial privatisation is not a desirable long-run state. Most studies indicate that there is no lasting difference between the performance of fully state-owned and partially state-owned enterprises: that is, that full private control is necessary to achieve sustained performance gains.
The kinds of problems that mixed ownership can bring can been seen from the New Zealand experience with the SOEs. While many are not in actual mixed ownership, the pressures that such ownership can bring about can, nevertheless, be seen in our recent history with the SOEs.

The SOE Act states that SOEs, basically, have to be run like normal non-government owned firms. In effect this requirement is the same as you could get if private owners have a stake in a firm. The private owners would, we assume, wish to maximise profits, but the government may not. And you see this with SOEs. The government often wishes to intervene in the running of SOEs to get them to carry out not profit maximising activities, just as it would if it had a partial stake in a mixed ownership firm. This problem of having SOEs (or mixed ownership firms) trying to serve two masters was noted more than 10 years ago by Spicer, Emanuel and Powell in their book "Transforming Government Enterprises: Managing Radical Organisational Change in Deregulated Environments" (The Centre for Independent Studies, 1996). They warned that there are two pressures on SOE's: the first being towards privatisation since the productivity and efficiency gains achieved by SOE are in danger of being eroded over time. Privatisation is a way of both cementing in the commercial orientation of enterprises and wringing out further gains resulting from the high powered incentive and control mechanisms which can be bought to bear in privately owned and publicly traded companies. The second pressure on SOEs is towards being pulled back into the public sector where social and political objectives can be more readily be meet. What we saw under the Clark government was the second of these pressures being very strong. But not for socially useful reasons. Most interventions seem to be more politically motivated.

These pressures would also be there for a mixed ownership firms and help explain why they don't do as well as fully privately owned firms. For example, Aidan Vinning and Anthony Boardman in "Ownership and Performance in Competitive Environments: A Comparison of the Performance of Private, Mixed, and State-Owned Enterprises", Journal of Law and Economics vol. XXXII (April 1989) conclude 'The results provide evidence that after controlling for a wide variety of factors, large industrial MEs [mixed enterprises] and SOEs perform substantially worse than similar PCs [private corporations].' The basic problem is that partial government ownership politicises the firm. We just have to hope we don't see a move in this direction in New Zealand. Full privatisation is the better option.

3 comments:

Bruce McKay said...

Matt,

Your points are well made, however, the key problem seems to be the political will to 'sell' the idea to the public. This paper I found last year suggests that the biggest problem with privatisation is the fear that the purchasers are nicking the assets from the Govt...

"Everyone Hates Privatization, but Why? Survey Evidence from 28 Post-Communist Countries" by
Irina Denisova, Markus Eller, Timothy Frye, Ekaterina Zhuravskaya

So you could then argue that a partial privatisation scheme enables a market price to be set for the asset concerned (albeit somewhat imperfectly) before control is lost by the state - and thus the perceived losses are minimised...

its a bit like getting into a cold swimming pool... ease into it and before you know it your doing lengths!

If partial privatisation is the end goal then your comments are completely right, however, the partial route may be an effective way of dealing with the fears many people express, if the goal is full privatisation in time.

Paul Walker said...

Bruce

I know the paper you mention, I discussed it here. The issue for partial v's full privatisation is, Does partial ever become full? If the government isn't willing to give up ownership in one step why would it be willing to do so in two steps? Also partial state ownership politicises the firm which results in poorer than otherwise performance.

Paul.

Bruce McKay said...

Paul,

Sorry, confused you with someone else initially...

Well that is the risk... does partial ever become full privatisation...

I guess I am looking at the politics of it rather than the pure economics - politics is of course the art of the possible... and in NZ a partial privatisation seems more possible than full privatisation currently.

Of course, you could wait until full privatisation was politically acceptable, but then that may never happen either! So a partial privatisation is a first step that in theory should break down barriers to full privatisation at a later date...

And you are right... full privatisation is the way to go without doubt... its just a question of how you get there and how fast...