This paper was developed with financial support from the SBF Bourse de Paris and the New York Stock Exchange, and the assistance of George Sofianos, Bill Tschirhart, and Didier Davidoff is gratefully acknowledged. We appreciate comments received on this paper from Anthony Boardman, Bernardo Bortolotti, Narjess Boubakri, JeanClaude Cosset, Kathy Dewenter, Alexander Dyck, Ivan Ivanov, Ranko Jelic, Claude Laurin, Marc Lipson, Luis Lopez-Calva, John McMillan (the editor), Harold Mulherin, Rob Nash, John Nellis, David Newberry, David Parker, Enrico Perotti, Annette Poulsen, Ravi Ramamurti, Susan Rose-Ackerman, Nemat Shafik, Mary Shirley, Aidan Vining and three anonymous referees. Additionally, we appreciate comments received from participants at the NYSE/Paris Bourse Global Equity Markets conference (Paris, December 1998), the Harvard Institute for International Development Privatization Workshop (June 2000), the International Federation of Stock Exchanges' Third Global Emerging Markets Conference (Istanbul, April 2000), four World Bank and/or International Finance Corporation meetings, two OECD conferences (Paris and Beijing), the 1999 Conference on Privatization and the Kuwaiti Economy in the Next Century, the 1998 Financial Management Association meeting, the 1999 European Financial Management Association meeting, the Fondazione ENI Enrico Mattei (FFEM), the Swiss Banking Institute and Credit Suisse, and seminars at the City University Business School (London), London Guildhall University and the University of Oklahoma. All remaining errors are the authors' alone. Please address correspondence to: William L. Megginson Price College of Business 307 West Brooks, 205A Adams Hall The University of Oklahoma Norman, OK 73019-4005 Tel: (405) 325-2058; Fax: (405) 325-1957 e-mail:...

NOTE: We will make final revisions to this paper in July 2000, at which time we will make reference to all pertinent papers that have come to our attention by June 30, 2000. If anyone reading this survey knows of a pertinent paper not presently included in the list of references, please send a copy or a reference to one of us. *Djankov is Financial Economist at the World Bank. Murrell is Professor of Economics and Chair of the Academic Council of the IRIS Center, University of Maryland. We would like to thank Judy Hellerstein, John McMillan, John Nellis, and Jan Svejnar for helpful advice and Wooyoung Kim and Tatiana Nenova for research assistance. This research was made possible through support provided by the World Bank and by the U.S. Agency for International Development under Cooperative Agreement No. DHR-0015-A-00-0031-00 to the Center for Institutional Reform and the Informal Sector (IRIS). The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the IRIS Center, US AID, the World Bank, its Executive Directors, or the countries they represent. Enterprise Restructuring in Transition: A Quantitative Survey Abstract. There are now over 125 empirical papers that analyze the process of enterprise restructuring in transition

This paper analyzes which of various plausible determinants are significantly related to an index of "perceived corruption" compiled from business risk surveys for the mid-1990s. Using 2SLS to reduce problems of endogeneity and a variation of Leamer's "extreme bounds analysis" to test for robustness, it finds three factors robustly significant. Countries that were more economically developed and those which are former British colonies were rated "less corrupt". Those which have a federal structure were "more corrupt". Daniel Treisman Assistant Professor Department of Political Science University of California, Los Angeles 4289 Bunche Hall LA CA 90095-1472 Treisman@polisci.ucla.edu First Draft September 1997 Revised April 1998 ####

This article takes an integrated approach to evaluating the interaction of initial conditions, political change, reforms and economic performance in a unified framework covering 28 transition economies in East Asia, Central and Eastern Europe, and the fsu. Initial conditions and economic policy jointly determine the large differences in economic performance among transition economies. Initial conditions dominate in explaining inflation, but economic liberalization is the most important factor determining differences in growth. Political reform emerges as the most important determinant of the speed and comprehensiveness of economic liberalization, raising the important question of what determines political liberalization. Results suggest the importance of the level of development in determining the decision to expand political freedoms

In recent years, comparative economics experienced a revival, with a new focus on comparing capitalist economies. The theme of the new research is that institutions exert a profound influence on economic development. We argue that, to understand capitalist institutions, one needs to understand the basic tradeoff between the costs of disorder and those of dictatorship. We then apply this logic to study the structure of efficient institutions, the consequences of colonial transplantation, and the politics of institutional choice.

In unequal societies, the rich might bene t from shaping economic institutions into their favor. This paper analyzes dynamics of institutional subversion focusing on one particular institution, public protection of property rights. If this institution is imperfect, agents have incentives to invest in private protection of property rights. With economies of scale in private protection, rich agents have a signi cant advantage in such an environment: they could expropriate other agents using their private protection capacities. Ability to maintain private protection system makes the rich natural political opponents of full protection of property rights provided by the state. Such an environment does not allow grass-roots demand to drive development of new market-friendly institutions (such as public protection of property rights). The economy as a whole is stuck in a 'bad ' long-run equilibrium with low growth rate, high inequality, and wide-spread rent-seeking. Russian `oligarchs ' of 90s, few politically powerful agents that controlled large stakes of the newly privatized property, were a major motivating example for this paper.

Abstract not found

Based on unique data set on Russian city budgets, this paper shows that revenue sharing between regional and local governments provides local governments with no incentive to increase tax base or provide public goods. Any change in local government’s own revenues is almost entirely offset by changes in shared revenues. This leads to governmental over-regulation of private businesses. It is shown that fiscal incentives are a determinant of the formation of private business and the efficiency of public goods provision. The Russian federalism is compared to Chinese federalism, where fiscal incentives reputedly are stronger in many provinces.

This paper develops a theory of the interaction between appropriative conflict and economic growth. Appropriative conflict, as measured by the diversion of resources, is viewed as the cost of securing effective property rights. We identify conditions under which conflict rises or falls as the rate of economic growth improves. The main implication of the analysis is that if the quality of property rights is sufficiently poor then faster economic growth stimulates the allocation of resources to appropriative activities and might result in decreased social welfare.

This study is the first to provide a systematic measure of bribery using micro-level data on reported earnings, household spending and asset holdings. We use the compensating differential framework and the estimated sectoral gap in reported earnings and expenditures to identify the size of unobserved (unofficial) compensation (i.e., bribes) of public sector employees. In the case of Ukraine, we find that public sector employees receive 24-32 % less wages than their private sector counterparts. The gap is particularly large at the top of the wage distribution. At the same time, workers in both sectors have essentially identical level of consumer expenditures and asset holdings that unambiguously indicate the presence of non-reported compensation in the public sector. Using the conditions of labor market equilibrium, we develop an aggregate measure of bribery and find that the lower bound estimate of the extent of bribery in Ukraine is between 460 mln and 580 mln U.S. dollars (0.9-1.2 % of Ukraine’s GDP in 2003).