Export Orientation and Its Impact on Enterprise Restructuring in Ukraine

  • Iryna Akimova
Conference paper


On the micro-economic level international integration means that enterprises should move in a direction, which is characteristic for companies participating in a market economy, i.e. they should undertake the necessary restructuring measures and participate in international trade. The involvement in export and import activities provides an enterprise with better access to international markets, and facilitates the introduction of international standards regarding product quality, product innovation, cost levels and marketing strategies. In fact, in developed countries, export-oriented enterprises usually demonstrate better performance compared to firms that operate only within the domestic market. In the transitional context, export orientation should be expected to play an important role in encouraging enterprises to restructure. However, most recent empirical literature on restructuring of large industrial enterprises, following their privatisation, has focused only on the role of privatisation and on hardening of budget constraints. At times competition and human capital aspects were also included. Some studies on trade re-orientation of enterprise in transition economies have found little evidence for a relationship between the enterprises’ export orientation and conventional measures of performance (Peters and Claessens, 1996). This might be due to a time lag between a change in export orientation and the related effect on performance results.


Budget Constraint Ownership Structure Total Sale Former Soviet Union Export Share 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Akimova, Iryna and Gerhard Schwödiauer (2000): Restructuring of Ukrainian Enterprises After Privatization: Does Ownership Structure Matter? In: Atlantic Economic Journal, MarchGoogle Scholar
  2. Aghion, Philippe and Olivier Blanchard (1998): On Privatisation Methods in Eastern Europe and Their Implications. In: Economics of Transition, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 87–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boycko, M., A. Shleifer and R. Vishny (1995): Privatising Russia. MIT Press, Cambridge/Mass.Google Scholar
  4. Carlin, Wendy and Philippe Aghion (1996): Restructuring Outcomes and the Evolution of Ownership Patterns in Central and Eastern Europe. In: Economics of Transition, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 371–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Claessens, Stijn and R. K. Peters (1997): State Enterprise Performance and Soft Budget Constraints: The Case of Bulgaria. The World Bank, mimeoGoogle Scholar
  6. Djankov, Simeon (1997): On the Determinants of Enterprise Adjustment: Evidence from Moldavia. World Bank, October, mimeoGoogle Scholar
  7. Djankov, Simeon (1998): Ownership Structure and Enterprise Restructuring in the Commonwealth of Independent States. World Bank, July, mimeoGoogle Scholar
  8. Djankov, Simeon and Bernard Hoekman (1996): Trade Reorientation and Post-Reform Productivity Growth in Bulgarian Enterprises. CEPR Discussion Paper, NovemberGoogle Scholar
  9. Djankov, Simeon and Gerhard Pohl (1998): Restructuring of Large Firms in Slovak Republic. In: Economics of Transition, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 667–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Earle, John S. and Saul Estrin (1998): Privatisation, Competition, and Budget Constraints: Disciplining Enterprises in Russia. Stockholm School of Economics, SITE Working Paper No. 128Google Scholar
  11. EBRD (1999): Transitional Report, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Estrin, Saul and Adam Rosevear (1999): Enterprise Performance and Ownership: The Case of Ukraine. In: European Economic Review, Vol. 43, pp. 1125–1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Estrin, Saul and Lina Takla (1995): Enterprise Adjustment in Transition: Does History Matter? London Business School, mimeoGoogle Scholar
  14. Feenstra, Robert, James Markusen and William Zeile (1992): Accounting for Growth with New Inputs: Theory and Evidence. In: American Economic Association Papers and Proceedings, Vol. 82, pp. 415–421Google Scholar
  15. Frydman, Roman, Cheryl Gray, Marek Hessel and Andrzej Rapaczynski (1997): Private Ownership and Corporate Performance: Some Lessons from Transitional Economies: Research Report 97–28, C.V.Starr Centre for Applied Economics, New York University, JulyGoogle Scholar
  16. German Advisory Group on Economic Reforms in Ukraine (1999): The Next 1000 Days: An Economic Reform Agenda for Ukraine. Kyiv, NovemberGoogle Scholar
  17. Jones, Derek S. (1998): The Economic Effects of Privatisation: Evidence from a Russian Panel. Comparative Economic Studies, Vol. XXXX, No. 2 (Summer), pp. 75–102Google Scholar
  18. Leshchenko, Larisa and Valerij Ravenko (1999): Privatisation and Restructuring in Ukraine. In: Paul Hare, Judy Batt, Martine Cave and Saul Estrin: Reconstituting the Market: The Political Economy of Microeconomic Transformation. London: Harwood Academic pressGoogle Scholar
  19. Pohl, Gerhard, Robert E. Anderson, Stijn Claessens and Simeon Djankov (1997): Privatisation and Restructuring in Central and Eastern Europe: Evidence and Policy Options. World Bank Technical Paper No. 368, The World Bank, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  20. Shleifer, Andrei and Robert Vishny (1996): A Theory of Privatisation. In: Economic Journal, Vol. 106, pp. 309–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Iryna Akimova

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations