Public Choice

, Volume 142, Issue 1–2, pp 91–110 | Cite as

Political and institutional environment and privatization prices

  • Alberto ChongEmail author
  • Jorge Guillen
  • Alejandro Riano


We study the link between the political and institutional context and privatization sales prices. The latter serves as a measure for assessing the extent to which privatization goals have been met. Whereas this link has been studied theoretically, there are very few, if any, empirical papers on this relationship. We use data from 308 privatizations around the world and apply a cross-country approach, including instrumental variables. We find that while the overall political regime does not matter much for prices, the political processes beyond the basic regime do matter. Institutional context also produces a significant impact on prices. Both results are robust to changes in specification.


Privatization Institutions Governance Prices Politics 

JEL Classification

G32 H10 J45 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arin, P. K., & Okten, C. (2003). The determinants of privatization prices: evidence from Turkey. Applied Economics, 35, 1393–1404. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beck, T., Clarke, G., Groff, A., Keefer, P., & Walsh, P. (2001). New tools in comparative political economy: the database of political institutions. World Bank Economic Review, 15, 165–176. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bel, G., & Trillas, F. (2005). Privatization, corporate control, and regulatory reform: the case of Telefonica. Telecommunications Policy, 29, 25–51. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biais, B., & Perotti, E. (2002). Machiavellian privatization. American Economic Review, 92(1), 240–258. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolton, P., & Roland, G. (1992). Economics of mass privatization. In 15th Panel meeting of economic policy, Lisbon, Portugal, 1992. Google Scholar
  6. Bortolotti, B., Fantini, M., & Siniscalco, D. (2003). Privatization around the world: evidence from panel data. Journal of Public Economics, 88, 305–332. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boubakri, N., Cosset, J., & Guedhami, O. (2005). Post-privatization corporate governance: the role of ownership structure and investor protection. Journal of Financial Economics, 76, 369–399. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chong, A., & Zanforlin, L. (2004). Inward-looking policies, institutions, autocrats, and economic growth in Latin America: an empirical exploration. Public Choice, 121, 335–361. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chong, A., & Galdo, V. (2005). Streamlining and privatization prices in the telecommunications industry. Economica, 73(291), 461–484. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chong, A., & López-de-Silanes, F. (2004). Privatization and labor force restructuring around the world. Working Paper, Yale University and Inter-American Development Bank. Google Scholar
  11. Clague, C., Keefer, P., Knack, S., & Olson, M. (1996). Property rights in autocracies and democracies. Journal of Economic Growth, 4, 185–212. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Deininger, K., & Squire, L. (1996). A new data set measuring income inequality. World Bank Economic Review, 10, 565–591. Google Scholar
  13. Dewenter, K. L., & Malatesta, P. H. (1997). Public offerings of state-owned and privately-owned enterprises: an international comparison. Journal of Finance, 62, 1659–1679. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Freedom House 2005.
  15. Henisz, W. (2000). The institutional environment of economic growth. Economics and Politics, 12(1), 1–31. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jaggers, K., & Moore, W. (1995). Tracking democracy’s third wave with the polity III data. Journal of Peace Research, 32(4), 469–482. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2003). Governance matters iii: governance indicators for 1996–2002. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3106. Washington, DC, United States: World Bank. Google Scholar
  18. Knack, S., & Keefer, P. (1995). Institutions and economic performance: cross-country tests using alternative institutional measures. Economics and Politics, 7, 207–227. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. La Porta, R., López-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1998). Law and finance. Journal of Political Economy, 106, 1113–1155. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. López-de-Silanes, F. (1997). Determinants of privatization prices. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(4), 965–1025. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. López-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1997). Privatization in the United States. RAND Journal of Economics, 28(3), 447–471. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Perotti, E. (1995). Credible privatization. American Economic Review, 85(4), 847–859. Google Scholar
  23. Perotti, E., & van Oijen, P. (2001). Privatization, political risk, and stock market development in emerging economies. Journal of International Money and Finance, 20(1), 43–69. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Roubini, N., & Sachs, J. (1989). Political and economic determinants of budget deficits in the industrial democracies. European Economic Review, 33, 903–938. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sala-I-Martin, X. (1997). I just ran two million regressions. American Economic Review, 87(2), 178–183 (Papers and Proceedings). Google Scholar
  26. World Bank 2001. World Development Indicators. CD ROM, Washington, DC. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research DepartmentInter-American Development BankWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.CENTRUMUniversidad CatolicaLimaPeru
  3. 3.Department of EconomicsPennsylvania State UniversityCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations