Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

The aim of this thesis is to analyse the impact of state ownership on stock return on a sample of European listed firms from 2002 to 2020. In general, two views are opposed regarding the influence of the state as a shareholder. On the one hand, the literature provides large evidence that, in general, state ownership is detrimental to firm performance and governance, with some nuances depending on states objectives and the types of investors. On the other hand, state as an owner can provide preferential access to resources and rescue firms, especially during economic downturn.
The empirical study uses a difference-in-differences model to estimate the impact of state ownership on stock return and cross-sectional regressions to estimate the drivers of stock return. The results suggest that the investors do not value state ownership, even in time of distress. Indeed, the markets do not view positively governments involved in the acquisition of a company’s equity stakes and it translates into negative stock return. Moreover, acquisitions made during crises do not add any value. Finally, in the short term, the acquisition of the majority of shares by governments conveys a reliable signal to the investors, which translates into a positive correlation with stock return.

state ownership --- state capitalism --- state-owned enterprise --- stock return --- difference-in-differences --- Europe --- Sciences économiques & de gestion > Finance

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

The Chinese economy has entered a new phase of development in which sources of growth are not so much dependent upon pure increases in labour, investment and credit expansion, but from productivity improvement, structural changes, technological progress and the benefits from improvement of the social security and welfare improvement. When market functions are fully established to become a main channel for allocating resources, the entrepreneurship will flourish engaging in more innovative activities, workers will move more freely and have more incentives to improve their skills, firms will become more productive through market entry and exit, the economic structure will become more balanced because of the improved resource allocation, and in the end, growth will become more spontaneous and sustainable. In this sense, reforms could deliver ‘dividend’ by raising China’s potential economic growth rates. For China to confront all the challenges it faces at present, the reforms undertaken now have to be deep, comprehensive and far-reaching in order to succeed in paving the way for China to complete the task of transformation in the long-term. There is no better alternative than deepening the market-oriented reform in advancing the course of China’s modernisation for future development and prosperity and lifting China to the status of a developed economy in the next two decades. The recent China update books have covered the topic of reform from different angles and this new book is another attempt to address this important issue.

International economic relations. --- Economic development --- Australia --- Foreign relations --- economy --- transformation --- expansion --- china --- Foreign direct investment --- Gross domestic product --- State-owned enterprise

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

On request of the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of Ukraine, an NQI Market Gap Assessment for Ukraine was conducted to inform various reform initiatives being implemented by the Government of Ukraine. This Assessment is aimed at evaluating market gaps between supply of and demand for quality assurance services in Ukraine and includes analyses of the current status and capabilities of facilities providing quality assurance services and of producers' demand for such services, particularly in relation to European Union market access.

Financial and Private Sector Development --- Infrastructure --- Infrastructure Economics --- Infrastructure Economics and Finance --- Infrastructure Finance --- Infrastructure Regulation --- State-Owned Enterprise Restructuring and Privatization

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Two successive waves of reform have fundamentally altered the structure and organization of Kenya's vibrant power sector, which boasts a tradition of strong technical and commercial performance. In the first wave-beginning in 1996 and largely donor-driven-policy and regulatory functions were separated from commercial activities; generation was unbundled from transmission and distribution; cost-reflective tariffs were introduced; and generation was liberalized. In the second wave-beginning in 2002 and led by domestic reform champions-the thrust of first-wave reforms was continued, with the strengthening of independent regulation, partial privatization of the generation company (KenGen), and establishment of complementary entities. Although the government retains majority ownership of the largest power utilities in the country (Kenya Power, ~51 percent; KenGen, ~70 percent), Kenya has been able to position itself as one of the foremost destinations in the region for private energy investment. The reforms have improved the operational efficiency of the sector, increased cost recovery, and captured a significant amount of private sector investment. At the same time, the state has remained an important investor, playing a pivotal role in expanding generation capacity, scaling up electrification at an exceptionally rapid pace, and leading diversification toward geothermal energy. Political influence in sector decisions remains significant, in planning and tariff reviews.

Electric Utility --- Electricity Pricing --- Energy --- Energy Access --- Energy and Environment --- Energy Demand --- Energy Policies and Economics --- Energy Sector Regulation --- Environment --- Natural Disasters --- Power and Energy Conversion --- Power Generation --- Power Sector Reform --- Regulation --- State-Owned Enterprise

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Pakistan's power sector underwent a substantial, if protracted, reform process. Beginning with an independent power producer program in 1994, the full unbundling of the national vertically integrated power and water utility, the Water and Power Development Authority, and the establishment of a regulatory entity, the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority, followed in 1997, paving the way for the eventual privatization of one major distribution utility, Karachi Electric, in 2005. Plans to privatize the remaining distribution utilities were shelved following the controversy surrounding the Karachi Electric transaction. A single buyer model has been in operation since the sector restructuring, with the Central Power Purchasing Agency fully separated from transmission and dispatch (the National Transmission and Dispatch Company) in June 2015. Despite these major steps, Pakistan has continued to suffer from inadequate capacity and other constraints, leading to large and frequent blackouts. At the heart of the impasse is the so-called "circular debt" crisis, whereby distribution utilities struggling to collect revenues and meet regulatory targets for transmission and distribution losses default on their payments to generators, and the sector is periodically bailed out by the government once losses accumulate to intolerable levels, at high cost to the exchequer. This dynamic has undermined incentives for utilities to improve their efficiency, while discouraging generators from investing in new capacity to address supply shortages. In the meantime, little has been done to accelerate access to electricity to the significant share of unserved population in rural areas.

De Facto Governments --- Democratic Government --- Electric Utility --- Electricity Pricing --- Energy --- Energy Access --- Energy and Environment --- Energy Demand --- Energy Policies and Economics --- Energy Privatization --- Energy Sector Regulation --- Power and Energy Conversion --- Power Generation --- Power Sector Reform --- Private Sector Development --- Privatization --- Public Sector Development --- Regulation --- State-Owned Enterprise