Economic development implies that the efficiency of firms in developing countries starts approaching that of firms from advanced economies. Various development policies have been pursued to achieve this convergence. We test for this convergence in two economies that represent alternative models of implementing market-oriented development policies: the Czech Republic and Russia. Using 1992–2000 panel data on virtually all medium and large industrial firms in each country and accounting for endogeneity of ownership, we find that foreign ownership markedly improved the efficiency of firms, whereas domestic private ownership did not; domestic firms are not catching up to the (world) efficiency standard given by foreign-owned firms. This is due in part to a slower growth of efficiency in domestic firms over time. However, foreigners' acquisitions of more efficient domestic firms are also contributing to the gap. Domestic firms closer to the frontier are not more likely to catch up than firms farther from the frontier, although foreign firms do exhibit this behavior. The distance of Russian firms to the efficiency frontier is much larger than that of Czech firms. Nevertheless, after nearly a decade of reforms, neither model of development has resulted in convergence of domestic firms to the world standard.

The Central and East European (CEE) countries are completing the first decade of a dramatic transition from a centrally planned economic system to a market system. Although economic outcomes have been diverse, all CEE countries (except for the Czech Republic) have experienced rapidly rising and persistently high unemployment rates, which have been accompanied by long spells of unemployment. By contrast, in the Czech Republic the unemployment rate has remained low and unemployment spells have been short (Table 1). The unemployment crisis in the CEE countries has contributed to a political backlash as disenchanted voters often ousted the first reform governments after a few years. This experience underscores the importance of two questions. First, why has the unemployment problem in the Czech Republic been much less severe? Second, how can economies in transition strike a balance between (i) reducing government intervention and introducing market incentives, and (ii) providing an adequate social safety net that ensures public support for the transition? In addition to being of academic interest, answers to these questions are essential for policy makers in the CEE countries, in Western governments, and at international institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

We investigate the remarkably short unemployment spells in the Czech Republic compared to Slovakia and other Central and East European economies. We estimate hazard functions and find that 40 to 50 percent of the difference in unemployment durations between the two republics is accounted for by differences in demographics and demand conditions. The remainder is explained by differences in coefficients, proxying the behavior of firms, individuals, and institutions. In both republics the unemployment compensation system has a moderately negative effect on the exit rate from unemployment. Policy makers hence have latitude in providing adequate social safety nets without jeopardizing efficiency.

The paper examines the microeconomic (partial equilibrium) behavior of joint ventures established between transnational corporations and domestic partners in less developed countries. It focuses on issues relating to resource allocation and profit distribution under various institutional scenarios. The analysis places special emphasis on the role of bargaining power, transfer pricing, stock ownership, and profit shares of the parties, and the responsiveness of joint ventures to national development goals. Some of the results apply to wholly owned subsidiaries of transnational corporations, local firms, and licensing arrangements, which emerge as special cases.

We estimate returns to human capital during communism and the transition using data on 2,284 men in the Czech Republic. We show: (a) extremely low and constant rates of return to education under the communist wage grid and dramatic increases in transition, which do not differ by firm ownership, (b) radical changes in returns to several fields of study and “sheepskin effects” in both regimes, (c) identical wage experience profile in both regimes, (d) similar 1996 returns to human capital obtained in communism and in transition, and (e) changes in the interindustry wage structure. A decomposition of the variance of wages finds individuals' unobservable effects from communism to persist into transition, but most of the variance is due to unobservable effects introduced in the transition.

Janez Prasnikar, Jan Svejnar, Dubravko Mihaljek, Vesna Prasnikar, Behavior of Participatory Firms in Yugoslavia: Lessons for Transforming Economies, The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 76, No. 4 (Nov., 1994), pp. 728-741

We exploit parent- and subsidiary-level data for publicly listed firms in Thailand before, during, and after the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis to investigate the extent to which firms with different types of ownership restructure their business portfolios, in terms of divestitures and acquisitions. We compare restructuring choices made by firms mostly owned by (a) domestic individuals with block shares (family firms), (b) domestic firms and/or institutions (DI firms), and (c) foreign investors (foreign firms). We show that following the crisis (1) foreign firms' restructuring behavior is the least affected; (2) domestic firms owned by families and domestic institutions (DI) behave similarly to one another; (3) domestic firms do not increase divestiture in their peripheral segments to improve operational focus or to obtain cash in a credit crunch; they actually reduce divestiture in core segments; and (4) domestic firms also significantly reduce the acquisition of new subsidiaries. Our results challenge traditional explanations for divestiture such as corporate governance, operational refocus, and financial constraints. They indicate that in the great uncertainty of a crisis, domestic firms are able to hold onto their core assets to avoid fire-sale. In essence, they act more conservatively in churning their business portfolios.

In this paper we evaluate empirically the relative importance of two explanations of Yugoslav interindustry income differentials. One explanation, proposed initially by Vanek and Jovicic [1975], stresses capital market imperfections which permit capital rents to be appropriated as workers' incomes. The second explanation points to labor allocation problems under self-management. We first present a critique of the Vanek-Jovicic original formulation and then respecify the problem to permit simultaneous evaluation of the two schools of thought. Results based on two data sets suggest that labor allocation factors and monopoly power rather than capital rents are the main source of Yugoslav earnings dispersion.

In this paper, we evaluate what we have learned to date about the effects of privatization from the experiences during the last fifteen to twenty years in the postcommunist (transition) economies and, where relevant, China. We distinguish separately the impact of privatization on efficiency, profitability, revenues, and other indicators and distinguish between studies on the basis of their econometric methodology in order to focus attention on more credible results. The effect of privatization is mostly positive in Central Europe, but quantitatively smaller than that to foreign owners and greater in the later than earlier transition period. In the Commonwealth of Independent States, privatization to foreign owners yields a positive or insignificant effect while privatization to domestic owners generates a negative or insignificant effect. The available papers on China find diverse results, with the effect of nonstate ownership on total factor productivity being mostly positive but sometimes insignificant or negative.