Search results

Deregulation shifts the responsibility for mitigation of agency problems from the regulatory parties to the firms' shareholders. We investigate whether and how governance structure changes in response to the dynamics of the new business environment after the Regulatory Reform Act of 1994 for the US trucking industry. We show that deregulation increases market competition in the trucking industry. The deregulated trucking firms not only adjust internal governance structure but also alter antitakeover provisions to adapt themselves to the competitive status of business environment after deregulation.

The aim of this paper is to analyze how deregulation affects different stakeholder groups, such as customers, employees, suppliers, creditors, the community and the environment. A distinction has been made between industries with and without network structures.

The approach is based on literature review in order to formulate propositions.

Deregulation has not always benefited the stakeholder groups analyzed. Consumers and employees have been able to profited from new entries, but the effect on prices and wages, respectively, is not always conclusive. Suppliers can increase their negotiating power, but on the other hand, creditors might find it difficult to get loans repaid. Deregulation in itself does not affect the environment, nor the ethical behavior of the firm.

This study provides an insight on how deregulation affects different stakeholder groups. The regulator can benefit from the findings in order to improve the methods of deregulation. Particularly, deregulation of industries with network structures, such as electricity, natural gas, telecommunications give rise to some specific problems pointed out in the study, which the regulator ought to take into account. Consequences in other industries are also mentioned, which can help the regulator avoid errors made in the past.

This paper aims to examine the impact of deregulation on the European transport industry in the form of privatization, on the managerial efficiency of a panel of deregulated transport companies.

This research examines a data set of 25 deregulated transport companies from a sample of 12 EU nations from 1988 to 2015. Some studies have analyzed deregulation by using non-parametric models. However, only a limited number of studies focus on the impact of deregulation on the managerial efficiency. This study answers two questions: whether deregulation, in the form of privatization, in the transport sector has any effect on the managerial efficiency, on the profitability and on the investment decisions of the firm, and whether this premise is robust enough across the European transport industry. This study formulates a multivariate regression framework utilizing data from major privatized European transport companies. The final panel includes 25 companies, from 12 EU - Member States for the period 1988-2015, equaling 375 firm-year observations based on a rigorous selection methodology.

The study confirms that transport companies, post-privatization, are more efficient regarding operating efficiency and profitability. The authors find no evidence that deregulation improves investment efficiency.

The study addresses the regulators’ dilemma, whether to deregulate, by focusing on analyzing the improvement of the managerial efficiency.

This study contributes to the transport industry management literature in three ways. First, the authors update the literature of the economic theory of regulation with an empirical examination which covers the latest years across the EU Member States. Second, the authors introduce a comparison of the effects of deregulation on different components of the managerial efficiency, namely, investment, profitability and operating efficiency of the incumbents in the EU transport industry. Third, they examine deregulation by using two approaches: a traditional one where deregulation is a dummy variable assessing the overall effect on incumbents’ efficiency performance; and a novel approach where the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s deregulation index is used to measure the regulation intensity, accounting also for industry-wide impact assessment. This two-sided approach increases the robustness of the results.

The purpose of this paper is to examine insurers’ and intermediaries’ perceptions of the response to Thailand's non‐life insurance industry to deregulation.

This research paper is based on existing literature and consultation with industry experts, resulting in the development of a 13‐variable questionnaire on perceptions of the local non‐life insurance industry's response to deregulation. A convenience sampling technique was used for the survey respondents, who comprised two groups (insurers and intermediaries), involved in the non‐life insurance industry in Thailand. Factor analysis was applied to the 246 responses to provide some exploratory analysis of underlying factors that account for the patterns among the variables.

The results of the factor analysis derived four factors that explain the perceptions of insurers and intermediaries to the response of local non‐life insurance industry to deregulation. The four factors include survival, alliance, local knowledge, and mergers and acquisitions (M&A). Furthermore, the findings indicate that whereas insurers perceived that survival would be the highest priority for local insurers, it was considered to be a secondary priority by the intermediaries. The latter group perceived that alliances and local knowledge were the most significant priorities for local insurance companies after deregulation.

The data gathered for the study are limited to the perceptions of two respondent groups from one industry. Moreover, this paper did not consider the views of policy makers or the variables that relate to or are caused by deregulation factors. Therefore, future research may extend these findings to other industries, countries, and respondents to provide a more general application.

The research findings offer managerial implications for both insurers and intermediaries and also implications for researchers on refocusing their efforts in managing non‐life insurance companies. Local insurers should improve and generate factors such as financial strength, accurate pricing, innovative sale methods, an understanding of the local culture, and alliances with other industries.

The paper presents an original insight into an important element of insurers’ and intermediaries’ perspectives on response of local insurance companies after deregulation to the Thai non‐life insurance industry.

This research studies the effect of deregulation of price cap in pharmaceutical market. Price regulation (either through price cap or reference price) is common practice in the pharmaceutical market but recently there are increasing voices calling for deregulation claiming that deregulation could help in lowering drug price and increase revenue of pharmaceutical firms. Upon those callings, Chinese government removed the price cap regulation in June 2015. The author uses this natural policy experiment to study this effect.

In this study, the author applied the interrupted time series analysis (ITSA) on the revenue data of nine categories of both generic and branded drugs in China from March 2011 to August 2016 (the time frame includes both before and after of the initialization of the deregulation) and analyzed the effect of deregulation.

The results showed that, whether the revenue of drugs will increase or decrease after the deregulation of price cap depends on the level of competition and the change of patterns of the branded and generic drugs are different. When HHI (Herfindahl–Hirschman index) is sufficiently low (competition is high), revenue does not change as a result of deregulation, when HHI is moderately low (moderate competition), revenue from generic drugs will decrease significantly and revenue from branded drugs will increase significantly, and when HHI is high (low competition), revenue from generic drugs will increase significantly and revenue from branded drugs will decrease significantly.

This is a unique study with a unique data set. Most previous studies focus on regulation of drug price and analyze how this may affect drug revenue; however, this is a natural policy experiment of de-regulation. Moreover, previously most studies focus on reference pricing regulation and this is price-cap, a different mechanism that is rarely studied. The originality/value is high of this article.

This article provides a framework for strategic adaptation to deregulation drawing on the lessons learned in the United States. A firm can adapt to deregulation by the mix of productmarket and domain management strategies that it chooses. The strategies open to a firm in turn depend upon its resource endowment and strategic predisposition. Since it is difficult to alter either of these at short notice, it is imperative that a firm that is faced with deregulation in its environment initiates these transformations in anticipation of change.

During the 1980’s and 1990’s deregulation had become the “recipe” for many countries’ economies to obtain increased efficiency and lower prices. Yet many empirical and theoretical studies of deregulation show that expectations rarely became fulfilled. The purpose of this paper is to develop the model of competition by introducing static and dynamic competition, which has different consequences for market performance. We claim that the development of static and/or dynamic competition post deregulation can be explained by structural conditions, both regarding entry barriers and customer influence. Four different competitive conducts are identified based on an explorative study of four deregulated industries: static, dynamic, hyper, and unheated competition.

Deregulation in Australia has had adverse effects on the income of those at the bottom end of the income distribution. Over the 1980s the share in private income of the top quintile rose and that of every other quintile fell. Except in the case of couples without children, the average real private income of the bottom quintile fell for every category of income unit. This increasing inequality seems to have been due to deregulation, not to the effects of technological change, and the increasing integration of the Australian economy into the world economy. One of the effects of deregulation has been an increase in unemployment. Policies to reverse this and to offset other adverse effects of deregulation are necessary. Increased levels of taxation will be required to finance them.

Regulation in its broader sense, means the imposition of restrictions on the various sectors of an economy. For example, prior to 1986, regulatory controls were the main approach to macroeconomic management in Nigeria. On the contrary, deregulation aims at the removal of controls, thereby enhancing competition and efficiency in the allocation of resources in the economy. Since 1987, deregulation has been the central framework for macroeconomic management in Nigeria. It is often argued that deregulation is associated with high levels of unemployment. Thus, analyses developments in the Nigerian labour market during the period, 1980‐93. Available data show that Nigeria’s unemployment rate declined marginally under deregulation as opposed to regulation. Despite this development, unemployment still remains a critical issue in Nigeria today. Also shows that even industrial relations deteriorated under regulatory controls. Consequently, concludes that the labour market in Nigeria did stabilize in the period 1987‐93, as opposed to the period 1980‐86.