Suchergebnisse

AbstractEvidence on the relationship between government size and corruption is mixed, and might be misleading, as government size is usually measured by fiscal size. The core hypothesis in this research is that the type of government intervention in the economy – rather than the size of government – is a key explanatory factor for corruption. The empirical analysis disentangles the effects of the two main government tools for intervention: fiscal and regulatory. The main result is that fiscal burden does not present any significant relationship with corruption. In contrast, a consistent and significant positive association is found between regulatory burden and corruption. Furthermore, legal origins and democratic experience contribute to explaining differences in corruption. [Correction added on 22 April 2021, after first online publication: In the Abstract, the word 'quality' has been replaced with 'burden'.]

AbstractIn the 1940s, when the governor of Puerto Rico was still appointed by the U.S. president, a large state-owned enterprise (SOE) sector was established. Later, in 1948-1950, the island's first elected government privatised these SOEs. This paper documents both the creation of the SOE sector and its privatisation, and analyses the role played by ideology, political interests and economic concerns in the decision to privatise. Whereas ideological factors might have played a significant role in the building of the SOE sector, the privatisation process was driven by economic factors. In the cement sector, the competing private firm was more efficient and the SOEs in other sectors with no private competitors in the island showed permanent losses.

In the 1940s, when the governor of Puerto Rico was still appointed by the U.S. president, a large state-owned enterprise (SOE) sector was established. Later, in 1948-1950, the island's first elected government privatised these SOEs. This paper documents both the creation of the SOE sector and its privatisation, and analyses the role played by ideology, political interests and economic concerns in the decision to privatise. Whereas ideological factors might have played a significant role in the building of the SOE sector, the privatisation process was driven by economic factors. In the cement sector, the competing private firm was more efficient and the SOEs in other sectors with no private competitors in the island showed permanent losses. ; En los 1940s, cuando el Gobernador de Puerto Rico era aún designado por el Presidente de EEUU, se construyó un gran sector público empresarial. Más tarde, en 1948-1950, el primer gobierno electo de la isla privatizó esas empresas. Este trabajo documenta la creación de empresas públicas y su privatización en Puerto Rico, y analiza el papel desempeñado en la privatización por la ideología, los intereses políticos y las motivaciones económicas. Mientras que factores ideológicos pudieron ser importantes en la creación del sector público empresarial, en la privatización jugaron un papel clave factores económicos como la superior eficiencia de la empresa privada competidora en el sector de cemento, y las continuas pérdidas experimentadas en el resto de empresas manufactureras públicas. ; This research received financial support from the Spanish government (SEJ2006-04985 and ECO2009-06946), the government of Catalonia (SGR2009-1066) and ICREA-Academia

Nationalization was particularly important in the early 1930s in Germany. The state took over a large industrial concern, large commercial banks, and other minor firms. In the mid‐1930s, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in western capitalistic countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s. Privatization was used as a political tool to enhance support for the government and for the Nazi Party. In addition, growing financial restrictions because of the cost of the rearmament programme provided additional motivations for privatization.

Italy's first Fascist government applied a large-scale privatization policy between 1922 and 1925. The government privatized the state monopoly of match sale, eliminated the State monopoly on life insurances, sold most of the State-owned telephone networks and services to private firms, reprivatized the largest metal machinery producer, and awarded concessions to private firms to build and operate motorways. While ideological considerations may have had a certain influence, privatization was used mainly as a political tool to build confidence among industrialists and to increase support for the government and the Partito Nazionale Fascista. Privatization also contributed to balancing the budget, which was the core objective of Fascist economic policy in its first phase.