[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/4868.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Foreign Investment, Corporate Ownership, and Development: Are Firms in Emerging Markets Catching Up to the World Standard?

Author

Listed:
  • Svejnar, Jan
  • Terrell, Katherine
  • Peter, Klara
Abstract
Economic development implies that the efficiency of firms in developing countries is approaching that of firms in advanced economies. We examine the extent of this convergence in the Czech Republic and Russia, economies that represent alternative models of implementing development policies, often referred to as the Washington Consensus, that have promoted privatization, competition and foreign investment. We also test hypotheses positing that only firms near the efficiency frontier benefit from these policies and catch up. Using 1992-2000 panel data on virtually all industrial firms in each country, we find that privatization to domestic owners did not markedly improve the efficiency of firms; domestic firms are not catching up to the (world) efficiency standard given by foreign-owned firms; and the distance of the Russian firms to the efficiency frontier is much larger than that of the Czech firms and continued to grow for most firms beyond 1997 while remaining constant in the Czech Republic. Domestic firms closer to the frontier are not more likely to catch up than firms further from the frontier although foreign firms do exhibit this behaviour. Foreign-owned firms are increasingly displacing domestic firms in the top deciles of the overall distribution of efficiency, due in part to slower ‘learning’ by domestic firms, higher efficiency of foreign startups, and foreigners’ acquisitions of more efficient domestic firms. The two alternative implementations of the Washington Consensus policies have thus not enabled domestic firms to start catching up to the world standard.

Suggested Citation

  • Svejnar, Jan & Terrell, Katherine & Peter, Klara, 2005. "Foreign Investment, Corporate Ownership, and Development: Are Firms in Emerging Markets Catching Up to the World Standard?," CEPR Discussion Papers 4868, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    • Handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:4868
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cepr.org/publications/DP4868
    Download Restriction: CEPR Discussion Papers are free to download for our researchers, subscribers and members. If you fall into one of these categories but have trouble downloading our papers, please contact us at subscribers@cepr.org
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jonathan E. Haskel & Sonia C. Pereira & Matthew J. Slaughter, 2007. "Does Inward Foreign Direct Investment Boost the Productivity of Domestic Firms?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 89(3), pages 482-496, August.
    2. Philippe Aghion & Nick Bloom & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt, 2005. "Competition and Innovation: an Inverted-U Relationship," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 120(2), pages 701-728.
    3. Carlin Wendy & Schaffer Mark & Seabright Paul, 2004. "A Minimum of Rivalry: Evidence from Transition Economies on the Importance of Competition for Innovation and Growth," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 3(1), pages 1-43, September.
    4. Arellano, Manuel & Bover, Olympia, 1995. "Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 29-51, July.
    5. Simeon Djankov & Peter Murrell, 2002. "Enterprise Restructuring in Transition: A Quantitative Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 40(3), pages 739-792, September.
    6. Brian J. Aitken & Ann E. Harrison, 2022. "Do Domestic Firms Benefit from Direct Foreign Investment? Evidence from Venezuela," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Globalization, Firms, and Workers, chapter 6, pages 139-152, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Peter, Klara Sabirianova & Svejnar, Jan & Terrell, Katherine, 2004. "Distance to the Efficiency Frontier and FDI Spillovers," IZA Discussion Papers 1332, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Griffith, Rachel & Redding, Stephen & Simpson, Helen, 2002. "Productivity Convergence and Foreign Ownership at the Establishment Level," CEPR Discussion Papers 3765, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    9. Williamson, John, 2000. "What Should the World Bank Think about the Washington Consensus?," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 15(2), pages 251-264, August.
    10. Fox, Merritt & Heller, Michael, 2000. "Lesson from Fiascos in Russian Corporate Governance," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series qt42z3f7z0, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics.
    11. Daron Acemoglu & Philippe Aghion & Fabrizio Zilibotti, 2006. "Distance to Frontier, Selection, and Economic Growth," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 4(1), pages 37-74, March.
    12. Richard Blundell & Stephen Bond, 2000. "GMM Estimation with persistent panel data: an application to production functions," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(3), pages 321-340.
    13. Griliches, Zvi & Hausman, Jerry A., 1986. "Errors in variables in panel data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 93-118, February.
    14. Andrew B. Bernard & J. Bradford Jensen, 2002. "The Deaths of Manufacturing Plants," NBER Working Papers 9026, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Sachs, Jeffrey D, 1996. "The Transition at Mid Decade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(2), pages 128-133, May.
    16. Jeffry M. Netter & William L. Megginson, 2001. "From State to Market: A Survey of Empirical Studies on Privatization," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 39(2), pages 321-389, June.
    17. Lubomír Lízal & Jan Svejnar, 2002. "Investment, Credit Rationing, And The Soft Budget Constraint: Evidence From Czech Panel Data," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(2), pages 353-370, May.
    18. Richard E. Ericson, 1991. "The Classical Soviet-Type Economy: Nature of the System and Implications for Reform," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(4), pages 11-27, Fall.
    19. Jan Hanousek & Evzen Kocenda & Jan Svejnar, 2004. "Ownership, Control and Corporate Performance after Large-Scale Privatization," Microeconomics 0406002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. F. Zilibotti & P. Aghion & R. Burgess, 2004. "The Unequal Effects of Trade Liberalization: Theory and Evidence from India," 2004 Meeting Papers 40, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    21. Alan Bevan & Saul Estrin & Mark E. Schaffer, 1999. "Determinants of Enterprise Performance during Transition," CERT Discussion Papers 9903, Centre for Economic Reform and Transformation, Heriot Watt University.
    22. Nandini Gupta & John Ham & Jan Svejnar, 2000. "Priorities and Sequencing in Privatization: Theory and Evidence from the Czech Republic," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 1580, Econometric Society.
    23. Brown, J David & Earle, John, 2001. "Privatization, Competition and Reform Strategies: Theory and Evidence from Russian Enterprise Panel Data," CEPR Discussion Papers 2758, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    24. Jan Svejnar, 2002. "Transition Economies: Performance and Challenges," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(1), pages 3-28, Winter.
    25. J. Stiglitz, 1999. "Whither Reform? Ten Years of the Transition," Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP Voprosy Ekonomiki, vol. 7.
    26. Roman Frydman & Cheryl Gray & Marek Hessel & Andrzej Rapaczynski, 1999. "When Does Privatization Work? The Impact of Private Ownership on Corporate Performance in the Transition Economies," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(4), pages 1153-1191.
    27. James Levinsohn & Amil Petrin, 2003. "Estimating Production Functions Using Inputs to Control for Unobservables," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 70(2), pages 317-341.
    28. Shirley, Mary & Walsh, Patrick, 2000. "Public versus private ownership : the current state of the debate," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2420, The World Bank.
    29. Andrew B. Bernard & Fredrik Sjoholm, 2003. "Foreign Owners and Plant Survival," NBER Working Papers 10039, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Polona Domadenik & Janez Pra??nikar & Jan Svejnar, 2003. "Defensive and Strategic Restructuring of Firms during the Transition to a Market Economy," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 541, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    2. Jan Hanousek & Ev??en Ko?enda & Jan Svejnar, 2004. "Ownership, Control and Corporate Performance After Large-Scale Privatization," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 2004-652, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    3. Jan Hanousek & Evžen Kočenda & Jan Svejnar, 2007. "Origin and concentration," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 15(1), pages 1-31, January.
    4. Jan Svejnar & Evzen Kocenda, 2002. "The Effects of Ownership Forms and Concentration on Firm Performance after Large-Scale Privatization," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 471, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    5. Saul Estrin & Jan Hanousek & Evzen Kocenda & Jan Svejnar, 2009. "The Effects of Privatization and Ownership in Transition Economies," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(3), pages 699-728, September.
    6. Philippe Aghion & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt & Susanne Prantl, 2009. "The Effects of Entry on Incumbent Innovation and Productivity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 91(1), pages 20-32, February.
    7. Bessonova, Evguenia & Gonchar, Ksenia, 2019. "How the innovation-competition link is shaped by technology distance in a high-barrier catch-up economy," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 86, pages 15-32.
    8. Bhaumik, Sumon Kumar & Estrin, Saul, 2007. "How transition paths differ: Enterprise performance in Russia and China," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 374-392, March.
    9. Sumon Bhaumik & Saul Estrin, 2003. "Why Transition Paths Differ: Russian and Chinese Enterprise Performance Compared," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 525, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    10. Svejnar, Jan, 2007. "China in Light of the Performance of Central and East European Economies," CEPR Discussion Papers 6320, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    11. Bogart, Dan & Chaudhary, Latika, 2015. "Off the rails: Is state ownership bad for productivity?," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 997-1013.
    12. Jan Svejnar, 2002. "Transition Economies: Performance and Challenges," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(1), pages 3-28, Winter.
    13. Saul Estrin & Alan A. Bevan & Boris Kuznetsov & Mark E. Schaffer & Manuela Angelucci & Julian Fennema & Giovanni Mangiarotti, 2001. "The Determinants of Privatised Enterprise Performance in Russia," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 452, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    14. Elisa Galeotti, 2009. "Do Domestic Firms Benefit from Geographical Proximity with Foreign Investors? Evidence from the Privatization of the Czech Glass Industry," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 3(1), pages 026-047, March.
    15. Shandre Mugan Thangavelu, . "Globalization and Performance of Small and Large Firm: Case of Vietnamese Firms," Chapters, in: Chin Hee Hahn & Dionisius A. Narjoko (ed.), Globalization and Performance of Small and Large Firms, chapter 10, pages X-1 - X-3, Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA).
    16. Jan Hagemejer & Joanna Tyrowicz, 2020. "A New Instrument for Measuring the Local Causal Effect of Privatisation on Firm Performance," Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, issue 3, pages 35-52.
    17. Szarzec, Katarzyna & Dombi, Ákos & Matuszak, Piotr, 2021. "State-owned enterprises and economic growth: Evidence from the post-Lehman period," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    18. Commander, Simon & Svejnar, Jan, 2007. "Do Institutions, Ownership, Exporting and Competition Explain Firm Performance? Evidence from 26 Transition Countries," IZA Discussion Papers 2637, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. Alena Zemplinerova, 2010. "Competition policy and economic analysis: What can we learn from firm and industry data?," CERGE-EI Books, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague, edition 1, number b07, May.
    20. Jan Svejnar, 2002. "Assistance to the Transition Economies : Were There Alternatives?," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 20232.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Efficiency; Productivity; Foreign direct investment; Convergence; Economic development; Russia; Ownership; Czech republic; Washington consensus; frontier;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C33 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Spatio-temporal Models
    • D20 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - General
    • G32 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Financing Policy; Financial Risk and Risk Management; Capital and Ownership Structure; Value of Firms; Goodwill
    • L20 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:4868. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cepr.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.