Abstract
Market competition is essential for any economy to be efficient. In order to develop competition in a transition economy, it is conventionally thought that privatisation should take place first. This wisdom has been challenged by the Chinese reform experience of the last two decades, which modified the incentive structure of state enterprises and created markets and market competition in the absence of large scale privatisation. China's experience, however, raises the question of whether its chosen type of reform is sufficient to promote competition in a market dominated by public firms. To answer this, we need to know what kind of markets were created – regional markets closed to trade or unified markets with easy access – and whether or not improved incentives for state firms have led to competition. This paper investigates these questions on the basis of a survey of both theory and empirical evidence; and finds that the Chinese reform policies did succeed in stimulating competition among state firms.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Boycko, M., Shleifer A. and Vishny, R.W. (1996), ‘A theory of privatization’, The Economic Journal 106, 309–319.
Chen Kuan, Wang, H., Zheng, Y., Jefferson, G. and Rawski, T. (1988), ‘Productivity change in Chinese industry: 1953- 1985’, Journal of Comparative Economics 12(4), pp 570–591.
Dollar, D. (1990), ‘Economic reform and allocative efficiency in China's state-owned industry’, Economic Development, Cultural Change, 39(1), 89–105.
Foster, C.D. (1993), Privatization, Public Ownership and the Regulation of Natural Monopoly, Basil Blackwell.
Jefferson, G., Rawski, T. and Zhen, Y. (1992), ‘Growth, efficiency and convergence in China's state and collective industry’, Economic Development, Cultural Change 40, 239–266.
Groves, T., Hong, Y., McMillan, J. and Naughton, B. (1994), ‘Effects of reform on productivity changes in state-owned firms’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 109(1), 183–209.
Hay, D. and Liu, G.S. (1998), ‘Cost behaviour of Chinese state-owned manufacturing enterprises in the 1980s’, International Review of Applied Economics, 12(1), 25–38.
Hay, D.M., Derek, M., Liu, G.S. and Yao, S. (1994), Economic Reform and State-owned Enterprises in China 1980- 87. Oxford, Clarendon Press.
Hussain, A. and Zhuang, J. (1994), ‘Impact of reform on wage and employment dermination in Chinese state enterprises, 1986- 91’, Discussion Paper, London School of Economics.
Lin, C. (1995), ‘The assessment: Chinese economic reform in retrospect and prospect’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 11(4), 1–24.
Liu, G.S. (1994), ‘What is gradualism: a review of industrial price reform in China’, Discussion paper, Centre for Modern Chinese Studies, Oxford University.
Liu, G.S. (1998), The Pricing Behaviour of Chinese State Enterprises 1980- 91, Theory and Evidence. Doctoral Thesis, University of Oxford.
Liu, G.S.(1996), ‘Price changes in economic transition’, Discussion Paper, School of Economics, Middlesex University, London.
Liu, Z. and Liu, G.S. (1996), ‘The efficiency impact of the Chinese industrial reforms in the 1980s’, Journal of Comparative Economics, 23, 237–255
Naughton, B. (1994), ‘Chinese institutional innovation and privatization from below’, American Economic Review, 84(2), 266–270.
Morris, D. (1995), ‘The reform of state-owned enterprises in China: The art of the possible’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 11(4), 54–68.
Newbery, D. (1993), ‘Transformation in mature versus emerging economies: Why has Hungary been less successful than China?’ China Economic Review 4(2), 89–116.
Rawski, T.G. (1994), ‘Chinese industrial reform: Accomplishments, prospects and implications’, American Economic Review, 84(2), 271–275.
World Bank (1993), China: Enterprise Reform Strategy, unpublished mimeo.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shaojia Liu, G., Garino, G. Privatisation or Competition?. Economics of Planning 34, 37–51 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017544331203
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017544331203