In this paper, we examine the relation between government ownership and stock price informativeness around the world. Using a sample of privatized firms from 41 countries between 1980 and 2012, we find strong and robust evidence that state ownership is associated with lower firm-level stock price variation, i.e., stock price informativeness. Furthermore, we find that the relation between state ownership and stock price informativeness depends on political institutions. In particular, the adverse effects of state ownership on stock price informativeness are more pronounced in countries with lower political rights (i.e., lower political constraints on the government).

This paper examines the change in the financial and operating performance of 79 companies from 21 developing countries that experienced full or partial privatization during the period from 1980 to 1992. We use accounting performance measures adjusted for market effects in addition to unadjusted accounting performance measures. Both unadjusted and market-adjusted results show significant increases in profitability, operating efficiency, capital investment spending, output, employment level, and dividends. We also find a decline in leverage following privatization but this change is significant only for unadjusted leverage ratios. Our results are generally robust when we partition our data into various subsamples.

This paper examines the change in the financial and operating performance of 79 companies from 21 developing countries that experienced full or partial privatization during the period from 1980 to 1992. We use accounting performance measures adjusted for market effects in addition to unadjusted accounting performance measures. Both unadjusted and market‐adjusted results show significant increases in profitability, operating efficiency, capital investment spending, output, employment level, and dividends. We also find a decline in leverage following privatization but this change is significant only for unadjusted leverage ratios. Our results are generally robust when we partition our data into various subsamples.

We investigate the role of country characteristics on the competition-governance relation. We find that competition is associated with higher ratings in corporate governance, but only in developing countries. Further, corporate governance is associated with greater firm value, but only in less competitive industries from developed countries. For developing countries, the evidence suggests that corporate governance is valuable mostly in competitive industries. Additional tests show that corporate governance increases labor productivity and cost efficiency, mostly in less competitive industries in both developed and developing countries. Furthermore, in developing countries, corporate governance increases investment in capital, but primarily in competitive industries.

In this paper we investigate how privatization affects stock return volatility. A credible privatization builds investors’ confidence through a reduction in political risk. In particular, a privatization program that is maintained over time signals credibility, which reduces political risk and in turn volatility. We further show that privatization is associated with lower idiosyncratic volatility mainly among developed markets, while it is associated with lower systematic volatility in developing markets. Additional tests suggest that the reduction in volatility is greater when privatization sales are carried out through the stock market than through asset sales.

Using a cross-country sample of 406 non-financial firms in 44 countries, we examine, based on firm and country level data, the decisions of governments to resort to gradual, staggered sales that result in full privatization. We report that 168 firms over the 1995–2009 period were fully privatized. It takes seven years on average for a government to completely privatize an SOE. Using the Cox proportional hazard model, we find that full privatization is a slower process in collectivist societies and when political constraints and employment protection laws are more stringent. Finally, we document a positive effect of full privatization on firm outcomes (namely, risk-taking, efficiency, profitability, and growth), supporting previous theoretical and empirical arguments that full relinquishment of control and ownership is required in order to change firms’ objectives.

We investigate the extent of political connections in newly privatized firms. Using a sample of 245 privatized firms headquartered in 27 developing and 14 developed countries over the period 1980 to 2002, we find that 87 firms have a politician or an ex-politician on their board of directors. Politically-connected firms are generally incorporated in major cities, are highly leveraged, and operate in regulated sectors. The likelihood of observing political connections in these firms is positively related to government residual ownership, and negatively related to foreign ownership. Political fractionalization and tenure, as well as judicial independence are also key explanatory variables. Finally, politically-connected firms exhibit a poor accounting performance compared to their non-connected counterparts.

This paper seeks to provide an answer to the following question: when and how does privatization work? Using a sample of 230 firms headquartered in 32 developing countries, we document a significant increase in profitability, efficiency, investment and output. Our analysis shows that the changes in performance vary with the extent of macro-economic reforms and environment, and the effectiveness of corporate governance. In particular, economic growth is associated with higher profitability and efficiency gains, trade liberalization is associated with higher levels of investment and output, while financial liberalization is associated with higher output changes. Further, control relinquishment by the government is a key determinant of profitability, efficiency gains and output increases. Finally, we find higher improvements in efficiency for firms in countries in which stock markets are more developed and where property rights are better protected and enforced. These results for a sample of developing countries differ from those reported in a contemporaneous study by D'Souza et al. [D'Souza, J., Megginson, W.L., Nash, R.C., 2001. Why do privatized firms improve performance? Evidence from developed countries. Unpublished working paper. University of Oklahoma] which focuses on developed countries. These diverging findings suggest that privatization in developing countries indeed obeys to particular constraints and has a dynamic of its own.

Using a unique database of 381 newly privatized firms from 57 countries, we investigate the impact of shareholders' identity on corporate risk-taking behavior. We find strong and robust evidence that state (foreign) ownership is negatively (positively) related to corporate risk-taking. Moreover, we find that high risk-taking by foreign owners depends on the strength of country-level governance institutions. Our results suggest that relinquishment of government control, openness to foreign investment, and improvement of country-level governance institutions are key determining factors of corporate risk-taking in newly privatized firms.

We investigate the role of ownership structure and investor protection in postprivatization corporate governance. Using a sample of 209 privatized firms from 39 countries over the period 1980 to 2001, we find that the government relinquishes control over time to the benefit of local institutions, individuals, and foreign investors, and that private ownership tends to concentrate over time. Firm size, growth, and industry affiliation, privatization method, as well as the level of institutional development and investor protection, explain the cross-firm differences in ownership concentration. The positive effect of ownership concentration on firm performance matters more in countries with weak investor protection.