State Ownership in Terms of Transition: Curse or Blessing

2018

Closed access Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.31228/osf.io/58zwc
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

Cornell International Law Journal: Vol. 50 : No. 1 , Article 3This Article argues that the institutional framework within transition economies, including the lack of a liquid capital market and a competitive product market, in addition to the focus on public benefits and socioeconomic development, favors state-owned companies in terms of a nonmarket-based system notwithstanding the popular concept of transaction costs and corporate efficiency. Despite the apparent costs of state ownership, including political considerations, soft budget constraints, and weak profit motivations, there is a rational choice for state ownership in cases when private firms are not able to deliver the same quality of goods at a lower cost. Therefore, this Article offers another insight into questions of corporate efficiency and alternative governance models of state ownership in transitional economies based on the example of Kazakhstan. It attempts to determine whether the models of state ownership existing in transition economies diminish institutional shortcomings and have important implications for capital costs.