240 likes | 314 Vues
Under New Ownership. Shahid Yusuf DECRG World Bank December 2005. Enterprises and Growth. Enterprise sector responsible for much of China’s remarkable growth But cost of growth is high
E N D
Under New Ownership Shahid Yusuf DECRG World Bank December 2005
Enterprises and Growth Enterprise sector responsible for much of China’s remarkable growth But cost of growth is high • Investment equals 45 percent of GDP, the highest sustained rate of investment for any country in recent history. • Most growth is from input of capital and labor. Share of total factor productivity increase is one quarter of overall growth. In industrial countries, share is one-half or more.
Enterprises and Growth (cont’d) • Cost of growth related to inefficiency and low profitability of many enterprises, especially SOEs. • Enterprise problems imperil banking sector • NPLs of banks amount to 9 percent of GDP, not including those taken over by asset management companies. • Enterprise inefficiencies also reflected in high consumption of energy and raw material, and associated environmental damage. • Enterprise efficiency and competitiveness good for growth and for overall welfare.
Attributes of Successful Firms • Quality of management and strategy focused on competitiveness to assure longer term growth. • Organizational capability, especially adaptability and resilience in the face of shocks. • Flexible internal labor market to maximize gains from training and efficient use of workforce.
Attributes of Successful Firms (cont’d) • Culture of innovativeness and openness to ideas. • Emphasis on core strengths and effective use of subcontracting and outsourcing. • Skills and readiness to operate internationally, to market abroad and manage a multicultural workforce.
Do Chinese Firms Have these Attributes? • Some do. Mainly private firms and joint ventures. Also a few SOEs (e.g., CIMC). • Majority of SOEs do not. • SOEs constrained by national/subnatoinal objectives, management skills, high degree of vertical integration, diversifed activities, labor market rigidities, lack of innovativeness, and localized or domestic market orientations.
Why Do SOEs Matter? • Share of state sector in industrial output shrinking: now close to one-fifth. • But, one-half of industrial value added is in the state sector. • State sector holds two-thirds of net fixed assets. • Absorbs nearly two-thirds of bank loans. • Growth in total factor productivity is less than one-fifth of collectively or privately-owned enterprises. SOEs still strongly influence the performance of China’s economy
Fifteen Years of Enterprise Reform1980-95 Enterprise reform dates back to early 1980s. Has been through several stages: • Negotiated profit retentions; • Simplified administrative controls; • Selling of above plan output; • Flexibility in hiring workers or contract; • Management contracting. Productivity gains from giving enterprises more autonomy disappointingly small.
Is Privatization the Key • Western countries adopted privatization in mid-1980s after other policies to reform public enterprises proved unsuccessful. Many transition economies followed from the early 1990s. • By end 2002, privatizations had generated $1.1 trillion for government, one-third in developing and transition economies.
Is Privatization the Key (cont’d) • On balance, privatization has helped raise profitability, labor productivity, growth of sales and sales per employee. • Manufacturing firms have performed better than others. Also banks. • One decade’s experience shows that fast reformers among transition economies, after initial difficulties, did better than slow reformers.
Why Privatization Works • Change in objectives: clearer focus on profitability and growth. • Market-based incentives reinforced by private ownership, displace administrative incentives. • New management, stronger governance mechanisms and stronger minority shareholder rights.
Why Privatization Works (cont’d) • Competitive pressures from product market and financial markets. • Greater flexibility in restructuring operations and hiring/firing workers.
Pitfalls of Privatization • Continuing significant government share and influence on decision-making a handicap • Many companies initially go through a period of losses after privatization. • External recruitment of management and BOD that exercises effective oversight important, or else governance remains weak. • Ability to shed excess workers and sideline businesses and rationalize production vital for success.
China’s Strategy Since 1996 • Privatization, divestiture and closure of small SOEs. • Start at corporatizing MLSOEs. Creation of Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) and Limited Liability Shareholding Companies (LLSCs). • FDI in MLSOEs.
Research Objective: Comparing Impact of Ownership on Performance • Main objective of the empirical exercise is: • Did reformed enterprises perform better? • If so, what were the main contributing factors? • Factors associated with better performance were: • Ownership, competition, hard budget constraint, role of managers (appointment, turnover, incentives, autonomy), and corporate governance (shareholder meetings and board of governors).
Data Description • The data is based on survey conducted by China National Bureau of Statistics, Enterprise Survey Organization. • Information collected from 736 firms for the period 1996-2001. Sample of enterprises drawn from five cities (Beijing, Chongqing, Guangzhou, Shanghai, Wuhan); and from 7 subsectors, electronic components, electric equipment, consumer products, vehicle and vehicle parts, garment, general machinery, and textile. • Of these firms, 140 were never reformed, 266 reformed, 330 were never SOEs.
Estimation Strategies • Used Cobb-Douglass production function (as most researchers of this topic do), along with city, industry, and year dummies. • Also used panel regression to take full advantage of the both cross-section and time-series dimension of the data.
Findings • Ownership • Firms with 100% state ownership perform the worst in all specification • Joint venture firms are the best performers, followed by LLSCs and LLCs. • Competition • Paradoxically, firms in more competitive markets seem to perform less well than those faced with less competition.
Findings (cont’d) • Corporate governance • Having a board of governors is performance-enhancing. • Having a shareholder meeting also tends to improve performance, if and only if one-share-one-vote is instituted. • Manager • Firms with managers appointed by the government perform less well. • Changing of managers did not have any effect.
Findings (cont’d) • Hard Budget • A priori, one would expect a hard budget constraint to have a positive effect on performance, but such an effect not apparent from the tests
Concluding Observations • Study shows that if the objective is to raise the performance of firms, then ownership reform is desirable. • Such reform should include at least the following: • Managers should not be appointed (or approved) by the government • The shareholder meetings needs to align the financial stake and the voting rights (one-share-one-vote) • There should not be any restrictions on the ownership (i.e. foreign ownership)
Concluding Observations (cont’d) • Full privatization better than partial privatization with continuing substantial government ownership or control rights. • Successful privatization can be assisted by several complementary factors • An effective national social safety net, and scope for flexibility managing enterprise workforce • Adequate supply of experienced managers
Concluding Observations (cont’d) • Legal and audit institutions to sustain corporate governance, rules, minority shareholder rights, and bankruptcy laws • Well functioning financial markets to discipline managers