Why do the reported effects of privatization on firm performance vary so much? This paper provides new estimates of these effects and tests potential explanations for heterogeneity using comprehensive, long-panel data for 70,000 firms in five East European economies. We estimate that privatization raises measures of profitability, productivity, and growth by about 5–12% on average, but with substantial variation across countries and time periods. Analyzing heterogeneity in privatization effectiveness, we find little systematic role for firm size, financial dependence, exchange listing, or technological complexity, but important variation by fraction privatized, ownership concentration, firm quality, and the macroeconomic and institutional environment.

Subsidies should target firms with profitable opportunities and insufficient funding, but this is difficult due to information asymmetry between firms and the government. We study how credit history of firms can help design more efficient subsidies. To this end, we combine data on non-repayable firm subsidies and the credit registry from Hungary. Using subsidy winners and losers as treated and control groups and leveraging variation in access to loans, we identify the differential impact of subsidies. While subsidies lead to an incremental impact on assets of loan-deprived as compared to loan-acquiring firms, the impact is transitory and fades after a few years. The impact on profitability follows a similar pattern despite the higher expected marginal value of capital for loan-deprived firms. Thus, loan deprivation is likely caused by borrower shortcomings instead of credit rationing by banks. In such cases, subsidies need not target loan-deprived firms.