Voucher privatisation in Russia: Structural consequences and mass response in the second period of reform

Appel, Hilary

doi:10.1080/09668139708412508

Cited by 38 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…More importantly for the argument below, managers had other methods for establishing their control over the privatized enterprise. Appel (1997) describes several such methods. For example, managers could 'pressure workers to invest their vouchers in the company's voucher fund.…”

Section: The Rent-seeking Nature Of Enterprise Privatizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The perception of increased concentration of wealth due to privatization is also confirmed by surveys. For example, Appel (1997) reports on a survey conducted in October of 1994, where 47.7 per cent of respondents thought that privatization was tantamount to the robbery of national property. Of course, reliable data on either pre-or post-privatization wealth distribution are virtually non-existent, making it all but impossible to evaluate empirically the overall validity of this perception.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effect of privatization on wealth distribution in Russia

Alexeev

1999

Economics of Transition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper considers the Russian privatization process and examines how its deviation from the competitive sale standard was likely to affect wealth inequality. (Privatization here is defined narrowly as the transfer of existing assets from government ownership to private hands.) While empirical evaluation is all but impossible due to the dearth of reliable data, it is feasible to analyze the institutional features of Russian privatization in terms of their effect on redistribution of wealth. The paper argues that the most relevant and interesting issue is to evaluate privatization's distributional consequences relative to the informal pre-reform property rights. In light of this, privatization is modelled as a rent-seeking contest with incumbency advantage of enterprise managers who initially held the greatest informal rights over assets. The rent-seeking contest is shown to strongly magnify this pre-reform wealth inequality reflected in the incumbency advantage.In addition, the paper analyzes the distributional consequences for various wealth groups of the differences in the composition of their pre-reform informal wealth, most importantly a relatively large share of housing assets in the wealth of the poor. The effect of wealth redistribution on economic growth in Russia is also discussed.JEL classification: D7, P2, P3.

show abstract

Section: The Rent-seeking Nature Of Enterprise Privatizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of privatization on wealth distribution in Russia

Alexeev

1999

Economics of Transition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Russian privatization was promoted mainly through the voucher mechanism and the nearly free transfer of shares to workers. Although other transformative mechanisms, such as cash auctions and direct sales, were also feasible, the reformers believed that transferring state properties to the public (almost) free could help them win popular support (Appel, ; Boycko et al ., ). The vouchers were equally distributed to roughly 98 percent of the population and could be transferred or shared.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of privatization on efficiency and profitability

Shi

Sun

2016

Econ Transit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past three decades, China has undergone tremendous economic and social change as a consequence of the transition from a centrally planned to a market economy. This paper examines a key feature of this transition – the privatization of the state‐owned enterprises (SOEs) – through both a theoretical model and empirical analysis. Using newly collected primary data from a variety of sources, we study how privatization of listed SOEs affects employment, wages, profits and other aspects of economic performance at the firm level. Our major finding is that privatization results in substantial downsizing of employment, increased labour productivity and rising profitability.

show abstract

“…The privatization of almost all the enterprises between 1993 and 1995 delivered a fatal blow to the existing Soviet hierarchical relations (Appel, 1997;Durand, 2003 and. Formally, the property rights fell in the hand of companies' managers.…”

Section: The Role Of Exports and The Reorganization Of The Metallurgymentioning

confidence: 99%

Too big, too quick?

Durand¹,

Lautier²

2013

rei

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents some stylized facts about the expansion of the Russian metallurgical industry from the early nineties to the aftermath of the global financial crisis of 2008-2009. It retraces the internationalization of these firms and examines the characteristics of this movement in terms of geographical and industrial orientation (horizontal, vertical upstream or downstream). The magnitude and speed of Russian metallurgical expansion abroad represent a great opportunity to discuss the literature on how firms become transnationals. After an assessment of the limits of the available theoretical tools and of the need to articulate micro-mechanisms and macro- and meso-dynamics, the paper provides an institutional and systemic explanatory framework.

show abstract

Voucher privatisation in Russia: Structural consequences and mass response in the second period of reform

Cited by 38 publications

References 11 publications

The effect of privatization on wealth distribution in Russia

The effect of privatization on wealth distribution in Russia

The impact of privatization on efficiency and profitability

Too big, too quick?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About