That is the question raised in an interesting new NBER paper on the aftereffects of China’s privatization of SOEs in the late 1990s: “Can a Tiger Change Its Stripes? Reform of Chinese State-Owned Enterprises in the Penumbra of the State,” by Ann Harrison and four coauthors.
They report that in 2013, 45% of industrial SOEs received government subsidies, but only 15% of private industrial firms received them. Privatized SOEs, however, are different: 25-35% receive subsidies, much more than firms that were always private. Similar results show up in access to finance: privatized SOEs pay higher interest rates than current SOEs firms but lower interest rates than firms that had always been private.
Their hypothesis is that “allocation of government support in the form of subsidies, tax breaks or low interest loans favors both SOEs and former SOEs.” They conclude that while SOEs do change their behavior after being privatized, the government does not change its behavior toward those companies: “former SOEs retain ready access to large loans, concessionary interest rates, and outright subsidies.”
But why should this be the case? The paper is curiously silent on this.
The whole point of the SOE privatization over 1998-2003 (after that, privatization basically stopped) was so that the government would not have to keep giving free money to money-losing SOEs. Privatizing the SOEs, and then continuing to give them lots of free money, rather seems like the worst of both worlds. So it seems rather unlikely that this pattern is the result of a deliberate, centralized policy choice.
My hypothesis would be: it’s about people. Let me propose that the managers of SOEs understand the government pretty well and are pretty good at extracting benefits from the system. Since, after all, that is a good part of their job.
Furthermore, the managers of privatized SOEs are often going to be the same people who managed the firm when it was state-owned. One survey of SOE privatizations found that sales to insiders (aka management buyouts) were by far the most common type of deal, accounting for 47% of their sample.
Therefore, privatized SOEs are often going to be run by people who have established relationships with government officials and managers of state banks. It stands to reason that they are going to be better at working those relationships than the executive of a run-of-the-mill private company. And that companies that have been able to obtain subsidies in the past would know best how to continue obtaining those subsidies in the future.
On the financial front, this behavior by state banks is not irrational. If a state bank has an established relationship with an SOE, that relationship doesn’t just evaporate once the SOE is privatized. The bank will still have a lot of knowledge about its customer, and have a history that makes it more comfortable continuing to lend on favorable terms.
So the persistence of favorable treatments for SOEs after privatization is probably mostly about the persistence of relationships–and firms’ understandable unwillingness to relinquish established sources of commercial advantage.
It would be interesting to see a graph of average interest rates by industry, and by geographic region…
Perhaps the SOE-Converted POE’s receive lower interest rates because they do work that the state wants done, work that the state is willing to subsidize. So it’s not that the business is a former SOE that gives it an advantage, but the fact that it does a specific type of work. A graph of industry vs. average interest rate would bring this to light.
It also seems possible that the SOE-Converted POE’s are concentrated in a geographic area that the state wishes to stimulate. A graph of interest rate by geographic region, and a graph by urban vs. rural business interest rates, might help us to see whether there are any relationships of interest rate to geography.
Overall, I guess that what I’m suggesting is that the fact that interest rates are lower for SOE-Converted POE’s does not mean that they’re lower BECAUSE the businesses are former SOE’s. Correlation is not causation. 🙂
I believe the analyses controlled for firm fixed effect, so industry and geography are (mostly) fixed.