Russian Privatization and Corporate Governance: What Went Wrong?

Bernard Black, Reinier H. Kraakman, Anna Tarassova
{"title":"Russian Privatization and Corporate Governance: What Went Wrong?","authors":"Bernard Black, Reinier H. Kraakman, Anna Tarassova","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.181348","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Russia and elsewhere, proponents of rapid, mass privatization of state-owned enterprises (ourselves among them) hoped that the profit incentives unleashed by privatization would soon revive faltering, centrally planned economies. The revival didn't happen. We offer here some partial explanations. First, rapid mass privatization is likely to lead to massive self-dealing by managers and controlling shareholders unless (implausibly in the initial transition from central planning to markets) a country has a good infrastructure for controlling self-dealing. Russia accelerated the self-dealing process by selling control of its largest enterprises cheaply to crooks, who transferred their skimming talents to the enterprises they acquired, and used their wealth to further corrupt the government and block reforms that might constrain their actions. Second, profit incentives to restructure privatized businesses and create new ones can be swamped by the burden on business imposed by a combination of (among other things) a punitive tax system, official corruption, organized crime, and an unfriendly bureaucracy. Third, while self-dealing will still occur (though perhaps to a lesser extent) if state enterprises aren't privatized, since self-dealing accompanies privatization, it politically discredits privatization as a reform strategy and can undercut longer-term reforms. A principal lesson: developing the institutions to control self-dealing is central to successful privatization of large firms.","PeriodicalId":415084,"journal":{"name":"Corporate Law: Finance & Corporate Governance Law eJournal","volume":"123 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"626","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corporate Law: Finance & Corporate Governance Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.181348","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 626

Abstract

In Russia and elsewhere, proponents of rapid, mass privatization of state-owned enterprises (ourselves among them) hoped that the profit incentives unleashed by privatization would soon revive faltering, centrally planned economies. The revival didn't happen. We offer here some partial explanations. First, rapid mass privatization is likely to lead to massive self-dealing by managers and controlling shareholders unless (implausibly in the initial transition from central planning to markets) a country has a good infrastructure for controlling self-dealing. Russia accelerated the self-dealing process by selling control of its largest enterprises cheaply to crooks, who transferred their skimming talents to the enterprises they acquired, and used their wealth to further corrupt the government and block reforms that might constrain their actions. Second, profit incentives to restructure privatized businesses and create new ones can be swamped by the burden on business imposed by a combination of (among other things) a punitive tax system, official corruption, organized crime, and an unfriendly bureaucracy. Third, while self-dealing will still occur (though perhaps to a lesser extent) if state enterprises aren't privatized, since self-dealing accompanies privatization, it politically discredits privatization as a reform strategy and can undercut longer-term reforms. A principal lesson: developing the institutions to control self-dealing is central to successful privatization of large firms.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
俄罗斯私有化与公司治理:哪里出了问题?
在俄罗斯和其他地方,国有企业迅速大规模私有化的支持者(包括我们自己)希望私有化释放的利润激励将很快重振摇摇欲坠的中央计划经济。复兴并没有发生。我们在这里提供一些部分的解释。首先,迅速的大规模私有化很可能导致管理者和控股股东进行大规模的自我交易,除非一个国家有良好的基础设施来控制自我交易(这在从中央计划向市场的最初过渡中是不可能的)。俄罗斯以低廉的价格将最大企业的控制权卖给骗子,从而加速了自我交易的进程,这些骗子将他们的欺诈才能转移到他们收购的企业,并利用他们的财富进一步腐败政府,阻碍可能限制他们行为的改革。其次,对私有化企业进行重组和创建新企业的利润激励可能会被惩罚性税收制度、官员腐败、有组织犯罪和不友好的官僚机构(以及其他因素)给企业带来的负担所淹没。第三,如果国有企业没有私有化,尽管自我交易仍然会发生(尽管可能程度较小),因为自我交易伴随着私有化,它在政治上使私有化作为一种改革战略失去信誉,并可能削弱长期改革。一个主要的教训是:建立控制自营交易的制度是大公司成功私有化的关键。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Social Capital: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Sharing of Control as a Corporate Governance Mechanism Too Busy to Mind the Business? Monitoring by Directors with Multiple Board Appointments What Really Matters in Auction Design Law, Property Rights and Growth
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1