Performance effects of privatisation: an empirical analysis of telecommunication companies in Germany and Romania

Open access


The privatisation of state-owned companies is still on the agenda of many governments worldwide. One often stated goal in the privatisation process is the increase of efficiency of the company.

The question is which factors do lead to an increase in efficiency and performance of a privatised company. Where are the fundamental differences between public and private companies in this respect? One goal of this paper is also to determine if other or additional variables influence the efficiency of privatised companies in transitional countries - in contrast to developed economies. Based on the research literature, a model was developed that displays all major forces and effects in the privatisation process. Two case studies of telecommunications companies in Germany and Romania are utilised to verify the model. It is expected that privatisation will lead to an increase of efficiency, but that the main thrust derives from competition. Regulation and organisational change will typically also increase the efficiency of the company. The variables “laws and policies” and “economic condition” are of special importance for privatisations in transition economies.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • [1] Ancom. (2018). Piaţa serviciilor de comunicaţii electronice din România-Raport de date statistice -. Retrieved from

  • [2] Brown J. D. Earle J. S. & Telegdy Á. (2010). Employment and wage effects of privatisation: evidence from Hungary Romania Russia and Ukraine. The Economic Journal 120(545) pp. 683-708.

  • [3] Cavaliere A. & Scabrosetti S. (2008). Privatization and efficiency: from principals and agents to political economy. Journal of Economic Surveys 22(4) pp. 685-710.

  • [4] Clifton J. Comín F. & Díaz Fuentes D. (2003). Privatisation in the European Union – Public Enterprises and Integration Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • [5] Cuervo A. & Villalonga B. (2000). Explaining the variance in the performance effects of privatization. Academy of Management Review 25(3) pp. 581-590.

  • [6] Deutsche Telekom. (2018). Geschäftsbericht. Retrieved from

  • [7] Dharwadkar R. George G. & Brandes P. (2000). Privatization in emerging economies: An agency theory perspective. Academy of Management Review 25(3) pp. 650-669.

  • [8] Dicken P. (2011). Global shift: Mapping the changing contours of the world economy. New York: The Guilford Press.

  • [9] Distaso W. Lupi P. & Manenti F. M. (2010). Static and Dynamic Efficiency in the European Telecommunications Market: The Role of Regulation on the Incentives to Invest and the Ladder of Investment. In Information Resources Management Association (Ed.) Networking and Telecommunications: Concepts Methodologies Tools and Applications (pp. 258-272). Hershey: IGI Global.

  • [10] European Commission. (2018). Eurostat Database. Retrieved from

  • [11] Federal Statistical Office of Germany. (2018). Verbraucherpreisindizes. Retrieved from

  • [12] Florio M. (2003). Does Privatisation Matter? The long-term performance of British Telecom over 40 years. Fiscal Studies 24 (2) pp. 197-234.

  • [13] Jackson P. M. & Price C. (1994). Privatisation and regulation: a review of the issues. In Jackson P. M. and Price C. M. (Eds.) Privatisation and regulation: A review of the issues pp. 1-34 Harlow: Longman Group.

  • [14] Johnson G. Scholes K. & Whittington R. (2008). Exploring corporate strategy: text & cases. Harlow: Pearson Education.

  • [15] Megginson W. L. & Netter J. M. (2001). From state to market: A survey of empirical studies on privatization. Journal of economic literature 39 (2) pp. 321-389.

  • [16] Nae M. M. & Turnock D. (2009). Romania’s revolution in telecommunications and information technology: a geographical approach. Human Geographies - Journal of Studies and Research in Human Geography 3 (2) pp. 49-78.

  • [17] Nestor S. (2005). Falling Between the Cracks: privatisation and corporate governance in the European telecom industry. Corporate Governance 13 (2) pp. 137-155.

  • [18] Newman K. L. (2000). Organizational transformation during institutional upheaval. Academy of Management Review 25 (3) pp. 602-619.

  • [19] Parker D. (1994). Nationalisation privatisation and agency status within government: testing for the importance of ownership. In Jackson P. M. and Price C. M. (Eds.) Privatisation and regulation: A review of the issues pp. 149-169 Harlow: Longman Group.

  • [20] Privatization Barometer. (2017). The PB Report 2015/2016. Retrieved from

  • [21] Romtelecom. (1999-2009). Annual Report. Bucharest.

  • [22] Telekom Deutschland. (2018). Call Start. Retrieved from

  • [23] Telekom Romania. (2017). Consolidated financial statements. Retrieved from

  • [24] van Dijk M. & Mulder M. (2005). Regulation of telecommunication and deployment of broadband (No. 131). CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.

  • [25] Vickers J. & Yarrow G. (1988). Privatization: An Economic Analysis. Cambridge Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

  • [26] Zahra S. A. Ireland R. D. Gutierrez I. & Hitt M. A. (2000). Privatization and Entrepreneurial Transformation: Emerging issues and a future research agenda. Academy of Management Review 25(3) pp. 509-524.

Journal information
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 159 159 24
PDF Downloads 92 92 26