Search results

1 – 10 of over 44000
To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 1 August 1991

Gao Haiyan

For any developing countries in the 20th century, there exists aproblem of how to choose the economic development route –socialist or capitalist; which means how to…

Abstract

For any developing countries in the 20th century, there exists a problem of how to choose the economic development route – socialist or capitalist; which means how to compare different social and economic benefits and make different value judgements in economic development. Socialism is not a pure political and ideological question, certainly not just a political question. It is a way for developing countries, particularly large agricultural countries, to realise their industrialisation and modern commercial economy. Essentially, it is a focus of development economics. For economically backward countries the aim of socialism is not to fight against the capitalist world, but first to develop their own economy. Socialist public ownership connected with the stage of economic development involves inner contradictions in its own development from the very beginning. We cannot make socialist public ownership perfect without overcoming those contradictions. Public ownership cannot improve social productivity without coming across its own historical limitation. Economic reforms now being practised in China are an effort to improve socialist public ownership: to reform traditional forms of public ownership which have not satisfied the development of productivity. Socialism and public ownership are not features for economically backward countries to flaunt. Neither are they historical trends. They are a way to get rid of poverty, and to realise a modern commercial economy, a way different from the development route of capitalism. There are historical necessity and economic rationality for that kind of socialist public ownership connected with economic development of backward countries. And, of course, socialist public ownership has its own inner contradictions and historical limitations, just like any other kind of ownership in history. It changes and develops continually. Socialist public ownership needs to improve itself, to realise its own development and evolution, and finally to make assets of public ownership the social capital satisfying the demand of highly socialised productivity.

Details

International Journal of Social Economics, vol. 18 no. 8/9/10
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0306-8293

Keywords

Content available
Article
Publication date: 7 November 2018

Yu Zhang

Since the implementation of reform and opening up, China has made remarkable achievement in terms of economic reform and development. China’s path, as well as its…

Abstract

Purpose

Since the implementation of reform and opening up, China has made remarkable achievement in terms of economic reform and development. China’s path, as well as its experience, has simultaneously gained worldwide concerns. Developing the market economy against the backdrop of socialism brings conclusions from China’s achievement, deepens knowledge of China’s pathway and builds a socialist political economy with Chinese characteristics. That is the way to realise a basic socialist system, especially with regards to the organic integration of public ownership and market economy. This combination determines the future of socialism with Chinese characteristics and the success or failure of economic restructuring. Therefore, it requires consideration and in-depth study. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Design/methodology/approach

The goal of economic restructuring is to establish and develop the socialist market economy. Its main content can be summarised in two parts. The first is the relationship between plan and market or government and market. The second is compatibility or combination of public ownership and market economy. The former is one of the superficial problems, relevant to resource allocation method or economic operation mechanism. The latter stems from deep-rooted problems, represented by ownership or the underlying economic system. These two work together to form the organic integrity of socialist market economy where both similarities and contrasts coexist.

Findings

The shared ideal of socialism with Chinese characteristics and the lofty goals of communism will then become empty words. In this sense we can say that, whether we can realise the unity and opposition between public ownership and market economy and better integrate advantages of socialist system with strengths of market economy, will to a large extent determine the future and destiny of the socialist market economy.

Originality/value

As previously mentioned, the relationship between plan and market or government and market are part of resource allocation methods or economic operation mechanism. Compatibility and combination, however, with public ownership and market economy are part of an ownership or basic economic system. Science reveals the nature and developmental law of the socialist market economy. An in-depth study must be conducted on the relationship between public ownership and market economy.

Details

China Political Economy, vol. 1 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 2516-1652

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Book part
Publication date: 10 August 2018

Rachelle C. Sampson and Y. Maggie Zhou

We examine the effect of firm ownership status on three environmentally relevant variables: energy efficiency, toxic emissions, and spending on pollution abatement. Prior…

Abstract

We examine the effect of firm ownership status on three environmentally relevant variables: energy efficiency, toxic emissions, and spending on pollution abatement. Prior research has demonstrated that public firms invest less than private firms and suggests this difference is due pressure from investors to strongly favor short over long-term earnings. We extend this logic to other firm behavior, examining whether publicly owned facilities invest in energy efficiency and pollution reduction differently than privately owned facilities. Using data from the US Census of Manufactures from 1980 to 2009, information on pollution from the Environmental Protection Agency Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) and pollution abatement spending from the Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures survey, we find that facilities switching to public ownership are less energy efficient and spend less on pollution abatement than their privately owned counterparts. However, we also find that facilities switching to public ownership have lower toxic emissions than other facilities. We also examine how different sources of external pressures alter these results and find that increased regulatory scrutiny is correlated with increased energy efficiency, toxic emissions, and abatement spending. More concentrated institutional ownership in public firms is associated with lower energy efficiency as is a greater brand focus. These latter results are broadly consistent with the idea that publicly owned firms respond to pressures from investors with a reduced focus on environmentally relevant variables. However, since facilities switching to public ownership have lower toxic emissions, this suggests that there are two competing pressures in publicly owned facilities: cost pressures, consistent with lowered energy efficiency, and public perceptions, consistent with lower toxic emissions, particularly since TRI data became available. In this sense, the combination of ownership and transparency of information appears to influence how firms prioritize different stakeholders.

Details

Sustainability, Stakeholder Governance, and Corporate Social Responsibility
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-78756-316-2

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 16 August 2021

Aidan Vining, Mark Moore and Claude Laurin

This paper addresses the social value of commercial enterprises that are jointly owned by a government and private sector investors and where the shares are listed on a…

Abstract

Purpose

This paper addresses the social value of commercial enterprises that are jointly owned by a government and private sector investors and where the shares are listed on a stock exchange: thus, “listed public–private enterprises” (LPPEs). The theoretical part of the paper addresses how differences in ownership patterns influence the behavior and performance of LPPEs.

Design/methodology/approach

We develop a conceptual taxonomy, drawing on the empirical evidence on the behavior and performance of public–private hybrid enterprises and on the application of agency theory to that evidence. The taxonomy discussion predicts how different ownership patterns affect enterprise productive efficiency and the ability of governments to achieve social goals through LPPEs. We review the empirical literature on government enterprise ownership and on the concentration of private share ownership to deduce how these matter for owner and managerial behavior and productive efficiency. We review the literature that considers the informational content that listing of an enterprise's shares on a stock exchange can provide to enterprise owners, managers and other domestic audiences with a policy interest. We employ a social welfare perspective to derive policy implications as to when the LPPE governance structure is most appropriate.

Findings

We show how the monitoring and performance weaknesses of state ownership are offset by some private ownership, particularly when combined with listing on a stock exchange. We demonstrate the effects of different governance structures on enterprise productive efficiency. We find that the LPPE structure is particularly appropriate as an alternative to nationalization or to full privatization and regulation of natural monopoly public utilities, and as an alternative to full private ownership and taxation of non-renewable natural resource extractive enterprises.

Originality/value

This paper explicitly addresses the question of why and how the combination of government ownership, private investor ownership and listing on an exchange is socially valuable in providing information on productive efficiency to governments.

Details

International Journal of Public Sector Management, vol. ahead-of-print no. ahead-of-print
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0951-3558

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 10 August 2012

Andrew Cumbers and Robert McMaster

This paper seeks to challenge the simplistic formulation of public ownership in terms of centralized planning and state bureaucracy. Instead, drawing on the works of Dewey

Abstract

Purpose

This paper seeks to challenge the simplistic formulation of public ownership in terms of centralized planning and state bureaucracy. Instead, drawing on the works of Dewey and Veblen the paper aims to argue that public ownership is a critical aspect of forging progressive change through enhancing democratic participation in economic decision making.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper presents a conceptual analysis of public ownership types and employs case examples to further illuminate the argument.

Findings

The conceptual analysis challenges the supposition of market superiority in standard economic approaches and in neoliberalism. Drawing from the instrumental valuation principle a wide corpus of public ownership modes can offer the prospect of enhanced democratic participation that challenges existing power structures.

Originality/value

By emphasising the association between ownership and democracy the paper challenges the assumption that markets necessarily offer the only route to democratic participation. It also identifies and challenges the market fundamentalism of standard economic approaches.

Details

On the Horizon, vol. 20 no. 3
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1074-8121

Keywords

Abstract

Details

Urban Transport and the Environment
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-0-08-047029-0

Content available
Article
Publication date: 28 July 2020

Zhaozi Rong

This paper is a response to the doctrine that capital is incompatible with public ownership. The fundamental characteristics of modern productivity determine the…

Abstract

Purpose

This paper is a response to the doctrine that capital is incompatible with public ownership. The fundamental characteristics of modern productivity determine the co-existence of the market economy and capital relations.

Design/methodology/approach

Socialism can neither bypass the market economy nor “go beyond capital”; capital appears in two historical forms, including the private capital and the public capital. Public capital is the inevitable outcome of the inherent contradictions of public ownership in a socialist market economy.

Findings

It represents an economic relationship that compels individual labourers to provide surplus labour for the society. The combination of the strong accumulation function of public capital and the improvement of people's welfare is the main cause of China's development miracle.

Originality/value

The innovation impetus of the public capital and its “immunity” to the capitalist crisis highlight the tremendous power of socialism with Chinese characteristics in breaking free of the shackles of capitalism and continuously developing productive forces. Public capital demonstrates and will continue to demonstrate the historical legitimacy of socialism.

Details

China Political Economy, vol. 3 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 2516-1652

Keywords

Content available
Article
Publication date: 11 June 2019

Yinxing Hong

In the process of reform, although every landmark theoretical breakthrough is marked by the speech of the highest leadership of the Communist Party of China (CPC) or the…

Abstract

Purpose

In the process of reform, although every landmark theoretical breakthrough is marked by the speech of the highest leadership of the Communist Party of China (CPC) or the decision of the CPC National Congress, each breakthrough is attributable to the theoretical contribution made by the academia of political economy. Notably, these theoretical breakthroughs invariably embrace innovations in the discourse system of political economy. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

Design/methodology/approach

The innovations and breakthroughs thereof have led to the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics.

Findings

The success of China’s economy highlights the superiority of the socialist economic system and development path with Chinese characteristics.

Originality/value

These major breakthroughs are accompanied by breakthroughs in relevant theories, which constitute a synthesis of a series of major theoretical innovations in political economics.

Details

China Political Economy, vol. 2 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 2516-1652

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 12 November 2018

Steve O’Callaghan, John Ashton and Lynn Hodgkinson

The purpose of this paper is to investigate two related questions. First, is earnings management behaviour in private firms related to managerial ownership and if so, what…

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to investigate two related questions. First, is earnings management behaviour in private firms related to managerial ownership and if so, what form does the relationship take. Second, is there evidence of opportunistic earnings management behaviour in private firms.

Design/methodology/approach

This study uses univariate and multivariate (regression) methodologies to examine the association between managerial ownership and earnings management in private firms. The study employs a data set of 1,223 large private UK firms.

Findings

Evidence is presented indicating opportunistic earnings management behaviour in private firms. Specifically, firms with low managerial ownership appear to engage in more earnings management when faced with poor performance. Further, when firms report income-increasing discretionary accruals, the magnitude of abnormal accruals varies non-linearly with managerial ownership.

Research limitations/implications

This study is limited by availability of data on sample firm ownership. This study uses cross-sectional data due to these limitations. Further research could investigate the relationships between earnings management and classes of shareholders other than managers in private firms.

Practical implications

Policy implications of this work suggest that non-managing shareholders in private firms face considerable agency costs, in particular where managerial ownership is very low or very high.

Originality/value

Pervasiveness of earnings management in private firms compared to public firms is well documented in the literature. There is limited extant research on the relationship between ownership structure and earnings management in private firms. The novel aspect of this study is to present findings on the association between this behaviour, managerial ownership and firm performance in private firms.

Details

Journal of Applied Accounting Research, vol. 19 no. 4
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0967-5426

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 6 July 2012

Maila Elina Herrala and Harri Jouni Olavi Haapasalo

The ownership of waterworks is topical in many countries and especially developed countries seem to speak for public ownership instead of private ownership. This paper…

Abstract

Purpose

The ownership of waterworks is topical in many countries and especially developed countries seem to speak for public ownership instead of private ownership. This paper attempts to provide a new view of the debate between public and private ownership by presenting three public governance models and comparing them in the light of waterworks performance.

Design/methodology/approach

The research is qualitative in nature and presents SWOT analyses of three different public governance models used in the Finnish water sector. Empirical evidence was collected mainly through interviewing Finnish waterworks managers.

Findings

The results indicate that there are clear differences between the autonomy and transparency of the most common public governance models. Reforming waterworks organised as municipal units into municipal‐owned enterprises and municipal‐owned companies is considered a good option compared to, for example, privatisation or outsourcing.

Practical implications

According to this study, restructuring appears to increase business orientation, improve accuracy in bookkeeping and, in some cases, increase transparency. The selection of the right governance model also provides opportunities for institutional investors.

Originality/value

While previous research has concentrated on comparing public and private ownership, this paper presents and discusses three public governance models and what kind of opportunities they present to public service provision.

Details

International Journal of Public Sector Management, vol. 25 no. 5
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0951-3558

Keywords

1 – 10 of over 44000