Chiara Del Bo

Public enterprises, planning and policy adoption : three welfare propositions

Despite widespread privatizations over the last three decades, public enterprises, as production units under government control, are still present in several countries and sectors. While the academic and political debate on the costs and benefits of privatization is vast, a focus on the rationale for public enterprises, from the standpoint of Social Cost Benefit Analysis, is missing. This paper aims at filling this gap and provides a normative discussion on public enterprises in a general equilibrium setting. The conditions under which public provision may be beneficial and the metrics for evaluating polices and projects under (a)symmetric information and (non)benevolent governments are presented in three welfare propositions. The main policy message points to the overall quality of institutions as a necessary pre-condition for socially desirable public enterprises. A sound institutional environment provides policy-makers with the correct incentives to design and implement meaningful policies even if public administrators adopt sub-optimal plans. Institutions should constrain self-interested policy-makers from disrupting the key welfare signals for policy adoption as well as for project appraisal, while bias in management is a relatively less important concern.

Shadow Wages for the EU Regions

The shadow wage is the social opportunity cost of labor. After reviewing earlier theoretical and empirical literature, we define four labor market conditions: fairly socially efficient (FSE), quasi-Keynesian unemployment (QKU), urban labor dualism (ULD) and rural labor dualism (RLD). We offer, for the first time to date, an empirical estimation of the shadow wages for the EU at regional (NUTS2) level. Our estimated values are in the form of conversion factors that translate actual observed real wages into shadow wages, as required by social cost-benefit analysis of investment projects under the Structural Funds of the EU. Our results are obtained with an empirical strategy that is easy to implement with aggregate data, differently from micro-data based approaches that are costly, project specific, and often difficult to be applied because of lack of data. We find that the conversion factor for the shadow wage rate is 0.998 in 29 FSE regions (mostly capital cities); 0.943 in 135 ULD regions (mostly in rich areas); 0.8005 in 74 QKU regions, and just 0.519 in 32 RLD regions. These findings point to high variability of labor markets in the EU and have important applications for project evaluation.

Public Enterprises in the Market for Corporate Control: Recent Worldwide Evidence

This paper analyzes deals involving private and public enterprises, i.e. State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) worldwide since 2004. We consider four types of deals: privatizations of SOEs, public enterprises acquiring private ones (public-private deals), private reorganizations (i.e private firms acquiring a private target) and public reorganizations. (i.e. both acquirer and target are SOEs). We study whether the pre-deal performance and corporate characteristics of the acquirer and target companies vary across the four types of deals depending on ownership: public or private. Data are taken from Zephyr (Bureau Van Dijk), which provides information on completed deals worldwide and Orbis, a firm-level dataset (also implemented by BvD). Some results of previous literature on M&As performed by private firms (˜the inefficiency management hypothesis) are both confirmed and expanded. Acquirers involved in deals are both larger and better performing than their targets but some qualifications are in order with respect to ownership. The difference in size and performance between acquirers and targets is in fact more pronounced for public with respect to private acquirers. The evidence thus points to an active role of SOEs as acquirers, as they significantly out-perform relative to their targets, including private ones, in terms of return on sales. Given these novel findings, further research is needed to examine the motivations behind the different types of deals considered and to verify the role of government ownership in the contemporary global economy.

Additionality and Regional Development: Are EU Structural Funds Complements or Substitutes of National Public Finance?

This paper deals with the effects of the transfer of additional funds on the real economy of recipient countries, in particular the European Member States. The intended and unintended effects of additional funds on national public finances and, ultimately, economic performance are discussed. Understanding the real effects of additional public funds and the possible complementarity or substitutability with national public finance is important for shaping the policies for the allocation of Structural Funds. Verification of additionality plays a role in ensuring that additional funds are used to effectively complement national expenditure programmes. In the case of the European Union, it is widely recognised that the current verification mechanism is affected by weaknesses, that prevent it from providing reliable and useful data to effectively assess additionality. For this reason, the paper suggests the European Commission to move away from the current verification approach and to adopt a new one that could more effectively assess to what extent the Structural Funds complement national investments.

Publicization versus Privatization: Recent Worldwide Evidence

This paper analyzes deals involving private and State-owned enterprises (SOEs) worldwide since 2004. We consider four types of deals: privatizations, publicizations, private reorganizations (i.e private firms acquiring a private target) and public reorganizations. (i.e. both acquirers and targets are SOEs). We study whether the pre-deal performance and corporate characteristics of the acquirer and target companies vary across the four types of deals depending on ownership: public or private. Data are taken from Zephyr, which provides information on completed deals worldwide and Orbis, a firm-level dataset. The empirical analysis suggests the following. Some results of previous literature on M&As performed by private firms (‘the inefficiency management hypothesis’) are both confirmed and expanded. Acquirers involved in deals are both larger and better performing than their targets but some qualifications are in order with respect to ownership. The difference in size and performance between acquirers and targets is in fact more pronounced for public with respect to private acquirers. The evidence thus points to an active role of SOEs as acquires, as they significantly out-perform relative to their targets, including private ones, in terms of return on sales. Given these novel findings, further research is needed to examine the motivations behind the different types of deals considered and to verify the role of ownership.

Public Enterprises, Policy Adoption and Planning: Three Welfare Propositions

Public enterprises are production units of goods or services under government control. In spite of wide privatizations in the last two decades, public provision in this form can be observed in many countries and sectors, particularly in education, health, transport, energy and environment. This paper uses social Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) theory to explore the rationale for public enterprises. Three welfare propositions arise from CBA theory in a general equilibrium setting: (1) Under symmetric information and benevolent government, public provision is socially beneficial if: (a) there is a well defined production plan for some goods; (b) optimal policy and socially desirable projects are selected in such a way as to pass a social cost-benefit test at shadow prices; (c) production can never be shut down for some socially desirable goods and optimal procurement is equivalent to public production. (2) Under not (fully) benevolent government, and asymmetric information: (a) sub-optimal policy adoption leads to inconsistency in project selection; (b) the allocation of property rights will also be distorted, as privatization or government ownership are signals fixed by the government; (c) public provision and public procurement will be no more equivalent, because fo differences in information costs. (3) If the social planner is not fully benevolent, but cannot profit from policy design: (a) shadow prices are still sufficient statistics for the evaluating changes of the public plan; (b) public enterprises will be welfare superior to privately-owned enterprises (POEs) when the rents of the planner related to public ownership are less than the rents of the private providers under procurement, and shadow prices must be used to compare the outcomes. The message of the paper points to the overall quality of institutions as a pre-condition for socially desirable public enterprises as this environment provides policy-makers with the correct incentives to design and implement meaningful policies even when public administrators adopt sub-optimal plans. Hence, the building of a sound quality of institutions should be primarily focused on those mechanisms that select policies. Institutions should constrain self-interested policy-makers from disrupting the welfare signals for policy adoption as well as for project appraisal.

Ownership, Institutions and Productivity of European Electricity Firms

Using firm-level balance-sheet data comparable across EU countries, we consider firms active in generation, distribution and transmission of electricity and their ownership structure to empirically investigate the interaction of public versus private ownership and the quality of institutions as determinants of productivity. While earlier literature has traditionally focused on ownership as an internal governance mechanism, and has suggested that public ownership is associated with lower productivity than under private ownership, here we focus on the role of institutions as an external governance mechanism. After controlling for size, wages, countries and sectors, we confirm that government-owned tend to be less productive than their private counterparts (a result robust to different productivity measures), but we also discover two new facts. First, when the control of the firm by government is indirect, i. e. when government ownership is at the top of the control chain, the negative productive effect is weaker. Second, this effect is smaller in countries with high-quality institutions and public enterprises are more efficient than in countries with a poor institutional environment

The Theory of Public Enterprise, Social Welfare and Planning: A Note

After reviewing the theory of social cost-benefit analysis, the paper uses it to illustrate necessary and sufficient conditions for public provision. (A)Under symmetric information and benevolent government, public provision is socially beneficial when there is a well defined public production plan for some goods, when policy and projects, i. e. changes in the production plan, are selected in such a way as to pass a social cost-benefit test at shadow prices, and production cannot be shut down for some goods. (B) Under not (fully) benevolent government, and asymmetric information, while shadow pricing rules do not change if the production plan is further distorted from the optimal one, sub-optimal policy adoption leads to inconsistency in project selection. The allocation of property rights will also be distorted, as privatization or nationalization are signals fixed by the government. Public provision and public procurement will be not equivalent, in general, while public provision can be seen as a form of public procurement