The views expressed in this paper are the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of ADBI, ADB, its Board of Directors, or the governments they represent. ADBI does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this paper and accepts no responsibility for any consequences of their use. Terminology used may not necessarily be consistent with ADB official terms. Working papers are subject to formal revision and correction before they are finalized and considered published.

No abstract

No abstract

ADBI Working Paper 950Phi et al. AbstractThe purpose of this paper is to empirically investigate the relationship between ownership identity and the performance of firms in terms of profitability and solvency. Using crosssectional data covering over 25,000 firms worldwide and by employing various empirical methods, we find robust support for the inferior performance of government enterprises over privately owned firms. Specifically, state-owned enterprises (SOEs) tend to be less profitable than private-owned enterprises. However, they appear to be more dependent on debt for their financial need and are, thus, better leveraged. Additionally, SOEs are more labor intensive and have higher labor costs. Thus, evidence from this study could be interpreted to mean that privatization could improve the performance of public firms. However, a study over a longer period is needed before these results can be considered conclusive. JEL Classification: G32, G341ADBI Working Paper 950 Phi et al.

Regional economic integration is one of the most effective ways of fostering stability, addressing regional challenges, and increasing rates of economic growth. Strengthening regional cooperation and integration in different Asian sub-regions offers great potential for eliminating poverty and achieving inclusive and sustainable development. Hurdles remain, however, for further integration. The willingness to commit to "unity in diversity" is important to overcoming this, requiring the acceptance of cultural, linguistic, social, religious, and political differences. Such complex unities have been achieved in the European Union (EU) and elsewhere (Fella, 2002). Currently, in most Asian sub-regions, such political ambitions for economic integration have been scarce. This implies that a more cautious approach is needed in Asia than in other places. However, by studying the European context, we can derive valuable lessons for better fostering economic integration. Regional economic integration should first ensure the maximization of benefits for all participants. With this, complete cooperation is required to develop an effective and uniform regional business environment. Second, a well-developed infrastructure with an absence of trade barriers is needed. Various Asian sub-regions (e.g., Central and South Asia), however, suffer from a lack of infrastructure, which hinders trade opportunities. Difficulties in accessing capital also presents a key obstacle. In this regard, the role of infrastructure financing is very important. In the EU, their European Investment Bank maintains equitable financing for intra-EU projects. Open engagements with partner countries also play a key role. Third, over the past 30 years, different institutional mechanisms have sprung into existence in Europe that have created the basis for strategic economic integration. Such institutional mechanisms and initiatives are needed in Asia.