SSRN Home Search and Download Papers Browse Abstract and Paper Submission Subscribe to Networks View Briefcase Top Papers Top Authors Top Institutions

 

Abstract

 
 

References (95)

Beta

 
 

Citations (85)

Beta

 


 


Download | Share | Email | Add to Briefcase | Buy Hard Copy

Russian Privatization and Corporate Governance: What Went Wrong?

Bernard S. Black
University of Texas at Austin - School of Law; McCombs School of Business, University of Texas at Austin; European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI); Northwestern University - School of Law; Northwestern University - Kellogg School of Management

Reinier Kraakman
Harvard Law School; European Corporate Governance Institute

Anna Tarassova
University of Maryland - Center on Institutional Reform and the Informal Sector (IRIS)



As published in Stanford Law Review, Vol. 52, pp. 1731-1808, 2000.

Abstract:     
In Russia and elsewhere, proponents of rapid, mass privatization of state-owned enterprises (ourselves among them) hoped that the profit incentives unleashed by privatization would soon revive faltering, centrally planned economies. The revival didn't happen. We offer here some partial explanations. First, rapid mass privatization is likely to lead to massive self-dealing by managers and controlling shareholders unless (implausibly in the initial transition from central planning to markets) a country has a good infrastructure for controlling self-dealing. Russia accelerated the self-dealing process by selling control of its largest enterprises cheaply to crooks, who transferred their skimming talents to the enterprises they acquired, and used their wealth to further corrupt the government and block reforms that might constrain their actions. Second, profit incentives to restructure privatized businesses and create new ones can be swamped by the burden on business imposed by a combination of (among other things) a punitive tax system, official corruption, organized crime, and an unfriendly bureaucracy. Third, while self-dealing will still occur (though perhaps to a lesser extent) if state enterprises aren't privatized, since self-dealing accompanies privatization, it politically discredits privatization as a reform strategy and can undercut longer-term reforms. A principal lesson: developing the institutions to control self-dealing is central to successful privatization of large firms.

JEL Classifications: G34, P21

Accepted Paper Series

Date posted: September 22, 1999 ; Last revised: October 10, 2003

Suggested Citation

Black, Bernard S., Kraakman, Reinier H. and Tarassova, Anna, Russian Privatization and Corporate Governance: What Went Wrong?. As published in Stanford Law Review, Vol. 52, pp. 1731-1808, 2000.. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=181348 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.181348


Export to: Export Citation What's this?

Contact Information

Bernard S. Black (Contact Author)
University of Texas at Austin - School of Law ( email )
Austin, TX 78705
United States
512-471-4632 (Phone)
McCombs School of Business, University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712
United States
European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)
Brussels Belgium
Northwestern University - School of Law
375 E. Chicago Ave
Chicago, IL 60611
United States
Northwestern University - Kellogg School of Management
2001 Sheridan Road
Evanston, IL 60208
United States
Reinier H. Kraakman
Harvard Law School ( email )
1575 Massachusetts
Hauser 406
Cambridge, MA 02138
United States
617-496-3586 (Phone)
617-496-6118 (Fax)
European Corporate Governance Institute ( email )
c/o ECARES ULB CP 114
B-1050 Brussels Belgium
Anna Tarassova
University of Maryland - Center on Institutional Reform and the Informal Sector (IRIS) ( email )
2105 Morrill Hall
College Park, MD 20742
United States
Feedback to SSRN (Beta)


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 18,119
Downloads: 5,666
Download Rank: 188
References: 95
Citations: 85

© 2009 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use  Privacy Policy
This page was served by apollo2 in 0.141 seconds.