Privatizatsіya that rozderzhavlennya property. World experience. p1 have davninu Ti, scho Bazhana proyasniti Jasna Grace in the Celestial Empire, first put in order their state;
those who wished to organize their country, first proved in order for his family;
those who wished to bring order to his family, first perfected his identity;
those wanting to improve their identity, first corrected his heart;
those wanting to fix his heart, first made explicit their thoughts;
those who wished to make explicit our intentions,
first argued to the end their knowledge.
Confucius.
Knowledge. Experience. That they prefer. And why is when you need to do the right solution, the last words remain profesianalamy not? Maybe Ukraine was not ready for deregulation and privatization 15 years ago? The course of history can not be in our hands and it is possible consider all the advantages and disadvantages and wisely use them today. Try to understand the lessons of privatization and denationalization based international experience.
range of issues related to the implementation process of privatization, affects all spheres of social and economic life. Clarification their substance has a fundamental importance as the country experiences in the analysis period, and perceived opportunities for its future. Therefore the problem of privatization property are among the most pressing problems of today's situation of Ukraine, are concentrated in the most sophisticated, theoretically and difficult to solve practical issues of the country.
currently in the West try to start the mathematical calculation of the optimal combination two forms of ownership, optimal structures in which any deviation - or lag ence forward - threaten to decrease economic efficiency. According to LL Weger, maximum efficiency of social production in European countries can be achieved by the proportion of state sector in GDP equal 24,5%.
Note the basic methods and principles of denationalization and privatization of property under Rykov economy, and during the transition. As efetyvnist various ways and methods of privatization affect certain industries, it is worth, but the general principles to give a real example restrutoryzatsiyi industry. For example privatization of commercial sea ports of Ukraine for the article of Academician of NAS of Ukraine B. Burkyns and Professor, Doctor of Economics M. Kotlubai Sciences.
essence of privatization is to limit the administrative intervention state authorities (perhaps to the point of full exclusion) in the business and investment ventures.
In a broad sense privatization means the destruction of administrative monopoly of the state. The main limitation of state interference rejection of the state owned enterprises from giving grants, subsidies, guaranteed loans, abolition of forced procurement, restrictions (not refusal) state intervention in pricing. This extension of autonomy of enterprises and organizations (eg, the release of excessive burns, stiffness), is leaving the state of operational business management of primary economic units. This change forms and methods of management.
Razgosudarstvlenie in the narrow sense of turning state property in its other forms, accompanied with an obligatory change of ownership: state to another - individual, group, family farms, public and so forth.
Privatisation same can be understood as a form of privatization of turning public property into private. Actually, the essence of privatization defined the very essence of private property. The first is a mechanism of private ownership of the manufacturer under the new conditions of production, turning it into a full host of him in all spheres of economic activities depend directly on the consumption level of production.
Privatization in transition economies is the preferred form of privatization, on the one hand, the empowerment of citizens and property through the redeployment of public property, on the other. Under privatization, as a rule, understand the sale or donation of state property in the hands of individual citizens, labor groups entities. On the basis of SOEs may have mixed and private firms in various forms організаційногосподарських - from individual all types of enterprises to privatization korporatsiy.Sens alienation of property is public property by legal entities and citizens, and the formation private, collective, mixed (joint) ownership.
Razgosudarstvlenie primarily concerned with the pragmatic considerations of macro-and microeconomic levels. In the first case it is called to strengthen the market fundamentals in the economy, implement decentralization and reduction of state enterprise activities to improve the efficiency of all state systems, reduce the budget deficit. At the microeconomic level task is to improve techno-economic performance of enterprises.
denationalization and privatization have one goal - creation of a socially-oriented market economy.
integrated system measures include privatization of at least four components: less bureaucratic economic control, restrictions state business, encouragement of private capital; coagulation regulation economy.
question the role of the state during privatization largely determines how the pace of privatization and its profitability, and the progress of socio-economic transformation of society взагалі, зокрема структурну перебудову господарства та вирішення соціальних проблем.
Центральним і спірним у дискусії з приводу доцільності роздержавлення the question of privatization of state enterprises drawbacks and advantages of the private sector.
main arguments supporters of privatization and privatization are as follows: - privatization promotes growth efficiency by reducing production costs, rapid adaptation to demand, introduction of rational methods of production and expanding the financing opportunities - commercialization and direct communication with the market provide more effective control - reducing subsidies and improvement of the budget make possible more efficient use of resources - unbundling facilitates create flexible mobile production structures, the introduction of new technology - the division of economic and political factors leading to economic growth responsibility for investment decisions.
Opponents of privatization put forward their arguments: - reduces the possibility of enterprise resources - growing damage that is inflicted to the environment - the implementation of short-term goals of maximizing profit causes damage long-term interests of enterprises ("Consuming" equity) - is a danger buying domestic enterprises by foreign investors - increasing the chances of growth of prices of goods and services, reduced availability of jobs.
But assessing the efficiency of public enterprises, should first of all keep in mind that one of the main tasks set before them, - the promotion of national goals that are not necessarily strictly associated with the principle of profit maximization.
Unprofitable some government related to the routine practice of using them for execution number of specific macro functions they perform in the national interest, including: - provision of malorentabelnyh industries, which traditionally represent the private equity interest, but the development of which determines the general conditions of play (this applies primarily in areas of economic infrastructure - energy, transport, communication) - sanitation of the old industries (steel, shipbuilding etc.) .- help vital industries to ensure economic viability and deployment of scientific and technological progress, strengthening on this basis, prestige and position the country in the world economy (the number of such industries include scientific and kapitaloyemki - aerospace, nuclear, auto, e, oil, etc.) - a regional policy through the construction industry and job creation, retraining кадрів для згладжування існуючих соціально-економічних розходжень;– охорона навколишнього середовища на базі впровадження безвідхідних і екологічно clean technologies in production, potentially posing danger in environmental terms, particularly in the mining industry, energy.
Privatisation can not be much of public property. It includes: property of the state authorities, government, the Armed Forces; gold and currency funds, state material reserves, the production of complex securities and bank notes, government facilities, courier and other special communications; objects of state meteorological service, national cultural and historical values; objects of education, science, culture, financed from the budget (those that owned enterprises are privatized provided that the educational purpose); property complexes of enterprises for the production of weapons, drugs and radioactive substances, nuclear power plants and more.
View economic concept of public-sector rate of privatization should lead not to abolish the special functions of the state sector, and to provide greater efficiency, and the latter dynamic, the transfer of attention to financial results his work.
Among other things, deregulation and privatization lead to changes in the mechanism of financing for enterprises. If state enterprises draw resources from the state banks, loans, tax revenues, after privatization they turn to other sources of funding - private assets banks, direct investment through stock exchanges by individuals or institutions (pension funds or insurance companies), as well as funds of foreign investors. If public company may in the case of financial difficulties ask for assistance to the Ministry of Finance, after the privatization of this possibility disappears.
Privatization is not peculiar only to countries with economies in transition. The trend towards privatization of state enterprises gained considerable spread in most parts of the world, including in Ukraine. This is due to several factors, among which are: unsatisfactory results of management of the state, increased requirements for flexibility and effectiveness in connection with globalization and informatization; emergence of new technological capabilities that enable de-monopolies, and others.
But in countries with developed market institutions privatization usually done by selling shares pre-prepared companies on stock exchanges and usually lasts long enough. It is believed that the prerequisites for successful privatization are free (or at least close to market) prices for products and inputs, and relatively stable macroeconomic environment. This reduces the risk for potential investors and thus helps to attract as many buyers. Under such circumstances have a chance not only to acquire significant additional revenues by selling shares, but also hope that the privatized company quickly gets to the owners really effective - strategic investors, which under other conditions would be longer hesitated to purchase the shares, hoping to translate excessive risk on financial speculators. The impacts of privatization usually results in rapid and sustained improvement of the enterprises.
All the above factors are certainly also in transition economies. Partly for this reason-nice (or sad-) zvistna three "liberalization - stabilization - Privatization was built exactly in that order. Another reason is the restrictions that they impose technological (mostly administrative) and economic resources. Liberalize prices possible moment, they may stabilize for a few months, within one to two years if the political will possibly reduce the fiscal deficit to acceptable size. But smaller, more privatization, if you have it on the traditional pattern, stretched over many years.
pre- preparation requires much time and often money and, with the greater number of enterprises being privatized, the longer the period and more work because its speed is limited by a fixed number of qualified auditors and specialists from the restructuring. After that shares have sold at market where one should not rush if means intended to get the full price. Finally, total supply must not be excessive, given the reluctance of investors "Make eggs to one basket", ie, in this case, too much money to invest simultaneously in the same country. Of course, the optimal amount of strong depends on political stability.
However, post-Soviet economies, even these factors were not major. Pure exchange mechanism sale shares requires, at least, the presence of the stock exchange itself and related institutions - and they are not created in one day. Purchasers (both foreign and domestic) will consider the ultra-high political risk in a country where leaders are in power, which only yesterday were orthodox communists (and have not been able to prove in practice, feedback), and opposition to them are those who have them today, because the Communist attitude to private property are well known. Hardly or under such conditions of sale will be successful. Finally, liberalization and stabilization as provide certain market behavior of economic actors. Moreover, without a "critical mass" of market institutions to implement these conditions are very difficult if not impossible. At the same time, since the time of Adam Smith's knowledge that the private property is the basis of market economy, in Soviet times was murdered not only the most private ownership of capital as an institution but even the mention of her: to the east of the border in 1939 left almost no people who remember what it meant.
So, in order to break this vicious circle, it was proposed to speed mass privatization through the distribution of ownership among citizens through the issue of privatization of property certificates (vouchers). According to experts, under the so-called Coase Theorem, despite the inefficient initial distribution, the secondary market should end end result in the concentration of effective owners. Just by reaching agreements on cost-effective part of income had solved the problem and destructive state intervention in the market. By "optimistic" scenario, these factors privatization would follow economic growth on the foundation of a healthy market.
Galchinskogo He feels that, above all that the development model and the privatization legislation carried out mainly people directly and immediately involved in the shadow of redistribution of property in the Gorbachev period. "... Even then, 1992, for many experts were clear that with a contrived prank mass certification, carried out under the slogan "make every owner to turn it all that were selected in his administrative system, becomes a deception of millions of citizens. I think not accidentally initiated this action was the Communist Party parliamentary majority. After voucher privatization was, in essence, a de facto extension of informal privatization Gorbachev.
course, will not hold the statement allegedly communist party and the majority of participants expressed the interests of Gorbachev's "peredpryvatyzatsiyi" and initiated privatization Certificate. In most Communist parliament was just part of parthospnomenklatury, which became an outsider in the Gorbachev redistribution of property and denied the same need for market transformation and privatization in any form.
Select Model Certificate in the whole technology of privatization determined sober assessment of economic and socio-political situation at that time.
key factors which determined this choice were:
- need to ensure high rates of privatization to achieve political goals - strengthening of irreversibility transforming economy is based on the dominance of the private sector;
- inability to direct use traditional developed methods of privatization - the sale of the stock and real estate markets as these markets have not been formed;
- lack of sufficient національного капіталу при неготовності суспільства до домінування іноземного капіталу в процесі приватизації;
— необхідність використання compromise model, which would ensure the process of privatization of broad public support.
Clearly, the developers of the privatization project perfectly understood: by choosing the basic criteria of the initial success rate and extent of the process, they sacrifice its quality. And another way in which, in fact, was not.
Almost all European countries of the former Soviet bloc are to some extent benefited from this advice. This decision also pushed the desire nomenclature as soon as possible to transform their political power in property rights and, on the other hand, the rapid decline of the public sector through negligence management and misappropriation of assets (more on these aspects see. etc.). Also undertook to the purely populist aspect:-national "property should be given to "people" as a reward in the case of public disturbance differently from the despised sense of "social justice" has created would be too unfavorable political climate for reformers. Comparing the results of economic reforms in different countries is difficult to reach a conclusion or they really depend on privatization and, if so, what is read.
Many researchers believe the same way privatization even more important factor than Its depth and completeness. But as the experience of Russia and Ukraine, the government was in fact not free to choose the way of privatization, and even its depth and completeness, because there was and is under constant pressure from industrial and agricultural lobbies. Thus, eventually the method of privatization especially in such detail as the competitive sale privileges for insiders, the special provisions for the administration of enterprises, and others. may be considered not only and not as an independent factor, but as an important indicator of the market and civil institutions in society, the essential part affects not only the fate of the privatized enterprises, but also determines the general availability of opportunities for sustainable economic growth in the country. [7]
One would hope that the results of privatization in Ukraine will be available in those sectors that are most exposed way market laws. Moreover, in these areas should expect the transition to sustainable growth. At the same time, government policies to support loss-making enterprises and so-called "basic" industries at the expense of the rest of the economy that leaves little chance that the result of privatization in other sectors will be more market behavior of enterprises. Maybe they behave rationally under existing conditions, but if the environment is deeply distorted, both economically rational behavior is significantly different from that under market conditions. Given that the absolute majority of economy of Ukraine the same industry, where operating mode "Soft budget constraints, state administrative or indirectly (through intergovernmental agreements) regulates prices of few commodities but are almost half of the total volume of output and determine prices for many derivative products, the effects of privatization should not be very visible at the scale of the economy.
Moreover, the process of privatization has different contents depending on the institutional environment in which it occurs. Under conditions of "economic power", that was inherent in the Soviet system (more precisely, it was inherited from precapitalist times), rational behavior is directed not so much on material enrichment through the creation of economic profit, how to get certain positions in an informal hierarchy that acts as a sort of "a status Capital. The latter can bring tangible benefits through the mechanism of administrative rent, but mostly preferred a "Income" in kind services. The development of this system in the general context of the inevitable modernization of society, and ceaselessly against scientific and technological progress leads to gradually increasing the role of material incentives, in particular local "services" gradually take the money. This is The establishment of the new demand of eternal values, of which first place is occupied property. Functionaries of the administrative-command system are requesting convert your "status capital" - the power - in purely economic form of regular physical capital.
But these "capitalists" in their fundamentally different nature of entrepreneurs from start earning his fortune in business, and consequently their businesses have managed to behave somewhat differently. Capital enables its owner not only physically invested enterprises and to take over control over them, imposing their corporate culture is less successful. Because of market laws, is the selection and dissemination of corporate culture, the most adequate current (and fleeting) conditions is by investing capital. Former functionaries (primarily "red directors") in the majority were not and could not be entrepreneurs in their essence and spirit, it is not surprising that the original distribution of property for the benefit of such owners by itself had mostly not very significant positive effects for the economy. However, those few unfortunately, the leaders - a businessman who got through this company in full ownership, convincingly demonstrated benefits privately.
Meanwhile, the vast majority of others, unable to make sense of the gift received by factories zblokuvavshys with the state bureaucracy, managed, instead, to create a frantic pressure on young and transient market and state institutions, the economic policy in Ukraine was directed rather than to distort the market for its formation. This is clearly seen in the so-called "industrial" or "structural" policy. Even if suggest that such policies can actually be useful, it would facilitate the implementation of the obvious competitive advantage in Ukraine pratsemistkyh areas as repeatedly spoke political leaders. Instead, substantial benefits and generally favorable and have had the capital - and materialomistki Basic industry ", in the long run doomed to dekapitalizatsiyu sale or resource providers. This evident inhibition reforms through interest "Intermediate winners", in accordance with the theory of Joel Hellman.
General conclusions are that even in adverse environments privatization of industrial enterprises was essential to enhance their viability, the introduction of more careful and professional management. Most vividly manifested in areas that have very long "experience" being in a privatized most state and felt the market pressure (Producing standardized, vintage, production, having to compete with imports on the domestic market, and are less able to take advantage of soft budget constraints).
Thus, one can argue that privatization, even under the prevailing "rent seeking", although it was not justified all hopes that it relied, but to some extent facilitated the establishment of more adequate management of the business, which gradually creates the preconditions to start economic growth. Crucial condition for this is to create a level playing field for all enterprises and for enhancing competition.
analysis of this process abroad will increasingly use Ukraine in terms of accumulated experience in the world of privatization and not repeat the mistakes made. Because the causes, nature, methods and results of privatization abroad is extremely important.
can be argued that the need for state presence in the industry as an entrepreneur, which is keenly felt 40-e years, until the early 80's no longer a part of government measures to support economic activity, deregulation and privatization.
Late 70's western capitalism has entered a period of broad privatization. Do not forget about the fact that privatization has been extremely beneficial politically. Moving the enterprise level and unpopular decisions, but urgent and inevitable economic issues (employment reductions in force production necessary, reduction of budget subsidies by raising prices for products of public enterprises, etc.) removed from the conservatives themselves as representatives of government responsibility for social and economic situation in the country. Thereby, they beat the socialists and political radicals.
Western Contents privatization process becomes more clear from the discussions that were conducted and carried around its individual aspects. Yes, actively discussed the nature funds mobilized for the purchase of state property, and in this regard - the national industry received government revenues. Another discussion conducted on unbundling industry corporations, the state whose status at the time poyasnyuvavsya natural monopoly.
Europe for 80 years was a characteristic precipitate development processes deregulation, denationalization and privatization of state enterprises, aimed at improving the efficiency of existing system of mixed economy that developed after the war as a result of a substantial, in the Western scale, the public sector. A wave of deregulation swept many Western European countries, because the increased competition from the United States and Japan national industry competitiveness of these countries needed in world markets.
privatization policy is based on the idea according to which the organization of economic life in accordance with market laws considered as a source of social and economic progress to the extent in which it encourages competition, promotes the production of material goods.
theoretical justification for rate deregulation served the functional and economic concept of development of the business, which replaced socio-political concept that prevailed before. The most obvious example is Britain, where privatization was conducted in strict form. This policy called "thatcherism. Only France followed, though at intervals of 7 years, the British example of "shock therapy". In others, the same Western countries stored value socio conception of public business, such as Italy or Spain, and there are more cautiously, spending limited privatization.
beginning of privatization as a system of targeted measures to reduce state business was laid in the UK, then the system quickly spread throughout the continent. The governments of France, Belgium, Italy, Germany, Netherlands and led by the Socialists Governments of Spain, Austria and Sweden have declared their intention to proceed to the privatization of at least part of the public sector.
idea of public entrepreneurship was thus compromised. Even in Germany, where the government position has always been relatively prosperous, entrepreneurial activity State does not enjoy great popularity.
Razgosudarstvlenie conducted in the West in different ways. Among the most common lies that the organized sale of its shares through a stock exchange to the public. The second way - selling an individual, private company share capital. This method is used in cases where privatization difficult difficult financial situation of enterprises and offer and part of it that might be interested in depositor capital, such as in the case of British Rail, which sold its hotel chain. The third is related the sale of shares specified number of persons - employees of this company.
wide circulation in Britain and France got the sale of subsidiaries enterprises belonging to the main state enterprises and exercise on peripheral primary production activities. In France after 1986, it was sold about 70 subsidiary companies owned by state enterprises, often foreign buyers.
subjected to privatization as public companies, where private investors ustupaly certain share capital or mixed holding company, in which the state has not always more share capital. Yes, the French government sold 11% shares of 66% participation in "Elf-Akiten.
impact of privatization on the public sector largely determined by the degree of control over the enterprises that the government intends to keep.
example, in Italy there is no problem to get rid of radical state property or succumb to the private sector control over major state holdings. Therefore, privatization exercise so as not to weaken public sector, but rather to provide the increase of economic efficiency and strengthen its market position of the remainder, as it based on sound economic pragmatism; replenish state funds through privatization is achieved by storing the state influence.
To maintain their influence in a number of state companies, such as in Britain, reserves the right to appoint responsible officials task belongs to see to it that in the Charter of the enterprise was not brought fundamental changes without the knowledge of the country.
the policy of privatization did not equal impact on the public sector contribution to the economy of some Western European countries. A special contrast is observed between its results in the UK and France, where she carried out more extensive, and other Western countries.
Despite significant size of the public sector in Austria, Germany, Italy, the governments of these countries, unlike Britain and France, not rushed to make a comprehensive privatization, Although this policy was carried out with those or other changes everywhere.
reduction of the public sector as a result of privatization have not brought significant changes in its sectoral structure. It remains a major influence in energy, transport, communications and telecommunications - about 60% of employees in these areas. In banking and insurance employment in the public sector is great, but decreased from 30% in 1985 to 25% in 1988 The most significant impact of privatization has had on industry, where employment in public sector enterprises has decreased from 7% in 1985 to 3,6% in 1988 it remains invariably low in trade and services - 1-2%.
Important changes have occurred in the geographical distribution of public business in 80 years. The largest state enterprises, especially in Italy, France, Germany, Spain strenuously develop transnational activities.
violently expand ties and create joint ventures between government and public and private enterprises Western European countries outside their national territories. As a result of privatization expanding business relations not only in Europe but also beyond.
in implementing the policy of privatization led Western Sector on its economic role in absolute terms, are France, then Germany and Italy. Britain leaves behind Spain and Portugal. List lock Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Ireland and Luxembourg.
As the latest trends in the economic development of Western Europe can be noted general slowdown in privatization.
Summarizing the results of privatization in some developed Western countries, you can mark some points.
1) most affected by deregulation, the main part of which was privatization, economic conditions in the 80's slightly improved. In Britain, for example, see the strengthening of the state budget, increase labor productivity.
2) most adapted to new forms of economic were those countries where privatization idea became popular and was provided with certain social and political consensus (England, France).
3) Terms and the mechanism of privatization, its implications in different countries to a greater extent determined by socio-cultural environment and a particular historical situation.
