IFC Discussion Paper No. 38.QUOTEIt is now universally acknowledged that ownership matters; that private ownership in and of itself is a major determinant of good performance in firms... Decent economic policy and well-functioning legal and administrative institutions... matter greatly as well.QUOTEThis paper looks at what happens when the shift to private ownership gets far out in front of the effort to build the institutional underpinnings of a capitalist economy. The emphasis is on what went wrong and why and what, if anything, can be done to be correct it. Proposals include renationalization and/or postponement of further privatization, both to be accompanied by measures to strengthen the managerial capacities of the state. Neither approach seems likely to produce short-term improvements. The regrettable fact is that governments that botch privatization are equally likely to botch the management of state-owned firms. In a number of Central European transition countries, privatization is living up to expectations; and there is no need for such measures. For institutionally-weak countries, the less dramatic but reasonable short-term course of action is to push ahead more slowly with case- by-case and tender privatization in cooperation with the international assistance community in hopes of producing some success stories that will lead by example.

Uses the Central European, Baltic and former USSR transition economies to gauge the impact and success of privatisation.

Annotation.

The authors' view is that any privatisation is better than none, regardless of whether a stable, competitive environment has been established first. However, private companies started from scratch perform best, followed by newly privatised firms run by outsiders, either local or foreign. Privatised companies dominated by insiders do less well, but even they regularly outperform state enterprises. Without an appropriate market environment though, managers may spend more time lobbying the government for support than undertaking painful restructuring measures.

IFC Discussion Paper No. 32. Over the years, demand for education at all levels in Kenya has greatly outpaced supply, a gap that has been reduced by private schools catering to the needs of a wide range of socioeconomic groups. This gap will widen further unless the private sectors role is expanded, but private educational institutions face a number of serious constraints, primarily stemming from lack of adequate finance and, in many cases, limited management skills. This paper reviews the market and its constraints and focuses on conditions under which private financial institutions and the International Finance Corporation might play a useful role in the sector. Annexes include 1996 operating costs of Kenya's academic, technical, and vocational schools.

This paper reviews a selection of studies on privatization experiences in transition countries. Empirical studies almost invariably show privatized enterprises outperform state enterprises. Moreover, the literature identifies de novo firms as being clearly the best performers, followed by outsider-dominated firms, while insider-dominated firms are the least efficient among those newly privatized. The importance of de novo firms in enlarging the private sector in transition economies is reviewed, along with the question of whether privatization efforts support or hinder de novo private sector development. Finally, the paper discusses the importance of providing a suitable market environment for successful private-sector development.

Privatization was the fundamental pillar of transition from plan to market in former socialist countries. But little is known about the fate of companies that were privatized in large scale privatization schemes such as mass privatization or management-employee buyouts. This is the first original study aiming to fill this gap. It assesses wholesale privatization schemes in three leading transition countries - the Czech Republic, Poland and Slovenia - in terms of the evolving concentration of ownership and relations to firm performance.

Privatization is under attack. Beginning in the 1980s, thousands of failing state-owned enterprises worldwide have been turned over to the private sector. But public opinion has turned against privatization. A large political backlash has been brewing for some time, infused by accusations of corruption, abuse of market power, and neglect of the poor. What is the real record of privatization and are the criticisms justified? 'Privatization in Latin America' evaluates the empirical evidence on privatization in a region that has witnessed an extensive decline in the state's share of production over the past 20 years. The book is a compilation of recent studies that provide a comprehensive analysis of the record of and accusations against privatization, with important recommendations for the future. Seven countries are investigated: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru. This book will be vital to anyone interested in the privatization debate but especially to those involved in civil service reform, corporate governance, economic policy, finance, and anticorruption efforts. 'Privatization is important but controversial. While economists typically favor it, others are skeptical. This book provides strong scientific evidence that privatization has been beneficial for many Latin American countries, although some privatizations failed and some groups in society lost out. As usual, the devil is in the details: how privatization is carried out and what reforms accompany it are crucial to its success. The book is definitely an invaluable contribution to the privatization debate.' --Oliver Hart, Andrew E. Furer Professor of Economics, Harvard University