State as Investor and State as Owner: Consequences for Firm Performance in India

作者: Pradeep Chhibber , Sumit K. Majumdar

DOI: 10.1086/452358

关键词:

摘要: A common assumption is that firms owned by the state perform poorly compared with in private sector. Most studies make such claims are problematic, because they based on analysis of publicsector operating as either monopolies or duopolies. This makes it difficult to disentangle effects ownership and monopoly firm performance. In this article, we argue influences performance, measured RETURN ON ASSETS SALES, only when property rights devolve fully state. Data from 1,100 listed Bombay Stock Exchange analyzed, a spline regression model advocated for cross-sectional data where linearity exists within but not across categories. Controlling number firmand environment-specific factors, conclude which does have majority shareholding indeed outperform has shares, though former, too, do yield positive returns assets sales.

参考文章(27)
Thomas A. Wilson, William S. Comanor, Advertising and Market Power ,(1974)
George J. Stigler, The Theory of Economic Regulation ,(1971)
Anne O. Krueger, Trade and employment in developing countries University of Chicago Press. ,(1981)
Tibor. Scitovsky, Maurice. Scott, Ian. Little, Industry and Trade in Some Developing Countries ,(1970)
Vasudevan Ramanujam, P. Varadarajan, Research on corporate diversification: A synthesis Strategic Management Journal. ,vol. 10, pp. 523- 551 ,(1989) , 10.1002/SMJ.4250100603
Anthony E. Boardman, Aidan R. Vining, Ownership and Performance in Competitive Environments: A Comparison of the Performance of Private, Mixed, and State-Owned Enterprises The Journal of Law and Economics. ,vol. 32, pp. 1- 33 ,(1989) , 10.1086/467167
Colin Lawson, THE THEORY OF STATE-OWNED ENTERPRISES IN MARKET ECONOMIES Journal of Economic Surveys. ,vol. 8, pp. 283- 309 ,(1994) , 10.1111/J.1467-6419.1994.TB00104.X
Rakesh Mohan, Vandana Aggarwal, Commands and controls: Planning for indian industrial development, 1951–1990 Journal of Comparative Economics. ,vol. 14, pp. 681- 712 ,(1990) , 10.1016/0147-5967(90)90048-E