Search results

The purpose of this chapter is to describe a method for priority setting that can be used to identify options for disinvestment, and is also meant to serve as a tool for re-allocation of resources to achieve better outcomes with a given pot of resources.

This chapter draws on findings from the application of a priority setting and resource allocation framework known as Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA). Case studies are used to illustrate key points around implementation including factors for success and guidelines for improving priority setting in practice.

PBMA has been applied in over 150 settings over the last 30 years. Purposes varied from focusing strictly on disinvestment to examining opportunities for re-allocation. Many organizations report continued use of the framework and decision makers typically express a desire to not revert to historical allocation or political negotiation in deciding on the funding for programs.

Practical implications of this body of work on priority setting abound in that there are significant opportunities to improve resource allocation practice including better engagement of staff, clinicians and public members, greater use of evidence in decision making and improving process transparency.

As healthcare resources are limited, particularly in predominantly publicly funded health systems, prudent use of resources is critical. Actually applying the appropriate tools to ensure that funding aligns with organizational and system objectives is paramount.

Although there is a large body of literature on priority setting particularly in countries like the United Kingdom and Canada, this chapter serves to highlight key messages specifically in the context of fiscal constraint and in relation to the concept of disinvestment or service reduction.

The purpose of this study is to represent an attempt to empirically capture the impact of disinvestment on the financial and operating performance of 26 Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) listed central public sector enterprises (CPSEs) in India which got divested through stock market mechanism during the time period of 2000–2014.

Through ratio analysis different ratios such as return on assets, return on equity, net income efficiency, debt equity, dividend payout and employment levels have been computed. Pre- and post disinvestment performance of these firms is examined through Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The present research endeavors to examine the impact of disinvestment through random effect panel data models in order to control the effect of other firm specific variables.

The overall results of the study indicate statistically significant fall in profitability ratios. The empirical results have not witnessed positive effect of disinvestment on the profitability of the CPSEs; rather, this effect has found to be negative. The possible reasons behind these negative results could be poor pre disinvestment financial health of CPSEs, negative rate of return on capital employed by PSEs and inefficiency which need to be tested empirically by future researchers.

The fact that government-owned firms are typically less proficient or at least less gainful than private-owned firms is widely hypothesized. Therefore, the disinvestment policy aims at dropping the participation of the public sector in the economic actions of the country in order to support the private sector. The present study is a first of its kind to study the impact of disinvestment on the profitability of the firms, which got divested through stock market mechanism since the year 2000 by applying both univariate and multivariate analysis.

The aims of this paper are to explore the experiences of budget holders within the English National Health Service (NHS), in their attempts to implement programmes of disinvestment, and to consider factors which influence the success (or otherwise) of this activity.

Between 24 January and 15 March 2011 semi-structured, telephone interviews were conducted with representatives of 12 Primary Care Trusts in England. Interviews focussed on: understanding of the term “disinvestment”; current activities, and perceived determinants of successful disinvestment decision making and implementation. Data were organised into themes according to standard qualitative data coding practices.

Findings indicate that experiences of disinvestment are varied and that organisations are currently adopting a range of approaches. There are a number of apparently influential determinants of disinvestment which relate to both health system features and organisational characteristics. According to the experiences of the interviewees, many of the easier disinvestment options have now been taken and more ambitious plans, which require wider engagement and more thorough project management, will be required in the future.

Findings from the research suggest that issues around understanding and usage of disinvestment terminology should be addressed and that a more in-depth and ethnographic research agenda will be of most value in moving forward both the theory and practice of disinvestment.

This research suggests that, in the English NHS at least, there is a disjuncture between common usage of the term “disinvestment” and the way that it has previously been understood by the wider research community. In addition to this, the research also highlights a broader range of potential determinants of disinvestment than are considered in the extant literature.

While national public policies such as performance contracts and disinvestment affect the dynamics of large- and medium-scale state-owned enterprises in emerging market economies, the purpose of this paper is to analyze the performance of India’s public sector undertakings (PSUs) and suggest options to improve their outcomes.

Using firm-level data on India’s 235 PSUs with total assets of around $500 billion over the past two and half decades (1990-2015), the study empirically tests the effect of performance contracts, measured by memorandum of understanding (MOU) and disinvestment, measured by private equity share, on PSUs performance indicator such as return on capital (ROC). Data were collected from the Public Enterprises Survey Reports released by the Department of Public Enterprises under India’s Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, Department of Disinvestment, Bombay Stock Exchange and Capitaline database. By controlling firm-, industry- and macro-level factors in regression models, the results were presented in several aspects like service sector, non-service sector and individual and joint effects.

Empirical estimations indicate that performance contracts such as MOUs have had a positive impact on PSU performance by increasing their ROC by 8-9 percent. This result holds more strongly for the non-service sector (manufacturing, mining) but less so for service sector firms. In the case of service sector firms, partial privatization (share sales) has a significant impact on performance, making them ideal candidates for more aggressive disinvestment. Larger PSUs (Maharatnas) appear to perform better than smaller PSUs and even better than private firms of similar size. Smaller PSUs (Navratnas and Miniratnas) perform worse than private companies and should be good candidates for strategic disinvestment (privatization). PSUs that do not have Ratna status – and are loss makers – should be disposed of their asset value.

The study recommends that India should change the public sector balance sheet by raising capital through strategic disinvestment (privatization), disinvestment and liquidation of PSUs and re-investing it, in public infrastructure through the National Infrastructure Investment Fund and not into the budget as a revenue-raising measure. It should also transform Maharatnas into world class companies with greater commercialization.

The paper makes significant contributions to the academic literature on the changing dynamics of state-owned enterprises in emerging economies by examining the effect of performance contracts and disinvestment on India’s PSUs performance. It is one of unique longitudinal-empirical studies on India’s PSU performance in several dimensions.

The present study aims to examine the short-term effect of disinvestment oriented IPOs and FPOs on the stock market performance of Indian central public sector enterprises (CPSEs), which divested their equity between 2000 and 2017.

The analysis of stock price reaction is conducted for listing dates only in the case of IPOs and three different dates in the case of FPOs through the event study methodology. The three-event dates related to FPOs are public notification date (PND), issue announcement date (IAD) and price band date (PBD).

Overall empirical analysis indicates that investor sentiments are generally insignificant prior to and posts the PND (first date). The second major date of announcement that is (IAD) is new information in the market and returns are found to be significantly negative across both the periods that is before and after IAD. Thus, the analysis depicts strongly negative investor sentiments in the case of IAD. These results are further substantiated by negatively significant CAR (cumulative abnormal returns) values for both the pre and post-event windows of PBD as well.

Empirical analysis concludes that investors do not stand a chance to gain abnormal returns through initiating positions in the stocks of CPSEs during the alternative event dates analyzed.

Since the year 2000, disinvestment through public offering has gathered momentum, and this mode accounts for approximately 62% of the collective disinvestment funds generated by the government of India till now. But there have been very limited research studies on the market performance of disinvested CPSEs. This analysis provides new empirical evidence for the market reactions of retail investors in response to the sale of equity by the Indian government in CPSEs.

Worldwide, there is significant growth in the cost of (and demand for) healthcare, which often clashes with a requirement to contain expenditure. This duality leads to an increasing need for a systematic approach to disinvestment in health technologies. The purpose of this paper is to consider the challenges and opportunities for disinvestment policy decisions in Australia. It discusses the implementation of the Choosing Wisely campaign and the need for rigorous evaluation of such campaigns in the Australian healthcare system.

The authors highlight characteristics of disinvestment: what it is and what it is not and discuss international examples of identifying low value care, including the recent Choosing Wisely initiative. The authors discuss the barriers to implementing initiatives such as Choosing Wisely and the complexities in evaluating their effectiveness.

While the primary purpose of the Choosing Wisely campaign is improved decision making through clinical engagement, it is expected that implementation could lead to resource savings alongside improvements in patient safety and service quality. While there is research looking to understand the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of initiatives such as Choosing Wisely, little is known about broader patient impacts, and more attention on the quantification of their effect on both patient outcomes and resource use is needed.

This work highlights the limited knowledge around implementation of disinvestment strategies and the paucity of research around the impact of strategies such as Choosing Wisely in the Australian public hospital system. This is important as future research in this area will give greater certainty about the benefits and consequences of Choosing Wisely leading to improved opportunities for resource savings and patient safety and quality.

This paper aims to attempt to empirically investigate the impact of privatization on the performance of central public sector enterprises in India. Further attempt is made to explore whether privatization is a necessary or sufficient condition for improvement of performance of central public sector enterprises.

The scope of the study is limited to financial and operating performance analysis of 206 central public sector enterprises in India. Multiple regression analysis has been used to determine the magnitude and direction of relationship between dependent and independent variables and identify variables other than privatization which affects performance.

The study found that financial and operational performance of firms has improved significantly due to privatization. Further, firm-specific factors and other parallel reforms adopted by enterprises have significantly influenced their performance. The established regression model is highly significant with F-ratio of 31.825 at 99% significance level. The degree of explanation of the model is robust with adjusted R² at 0.956 implying that only 4.40% of explanation in the dependent variable cannot be explained by designated independent/explanatory variables.

The study would be useful to public policymakers to reach to a policy view on whether further disinvestment/privatization of central public sector enterprises need to be continued, and if so, then to what extent and direction.

Building on the enactment perspective and past work on the self‐fulfilling prophecy, this paper explores how organizational decline can be enacted through self‐fulfilling prophecies of decline. We present two self‐fulfilling prophecy‐based models of organizational decline, one in which decline is enacted unintentionally through the predictions of an organization's managers, and a second in which decline is enacted unintentionally through the predictions of external constituencies. We articulate propositions that capture the dynamics of each model and that are intended as a platform for future empirical research. We also discuss the implications of our theoretical framework for future theory development on the causes of organizational decline, and offer suggestions for managers who wish to avoid organizational decline.