Journal of Management & Governance

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 863–886 | Cite as

Efficiency of telecommunications companies in European countries

  • Lourdes Torres
  • Patricia Bachiller


The telecommunications sector has undergone the most drastic changes in terms of market liberalization and has dominated the privatisation process in most countries in terms of the size of its assets and because this industry is the flagship of public services. The purpose of this study is to conduct a comparative analysis of the efficiency of eleven European privatised Public Telecommunications Operators PTOs from 1997 to 2005 and to determine whether privatisation, liberalisation and investment in infrastructure have increased their efficiency or not. We make use of the DEA methodology to analyse the efficiency of PTOs, as this model is especially appropriate to analyse organisations whose production process does not result in the obtaining of a product but in the delivery of a public service. In spite of the technological progress, our results do not show that the comparative performance of PTOs has grown significantly during the period analysed. Therefore, we must take into account other factors such as privatisation, state regulation and organisational changes to determine their performance. From our study, we can conclude that not all companies have been able to adapt equally to the competitive market. The non-efficient companies have traditionally operated in a protectionist market and they continue in a monopolistic situation in spite of market liberalization.


Efficiency Telecommunications Liberalisation DEA model Europe 



This study has been carried out with the financial support of the Spanish National R&D Plan through research project ECO2010-17463.


  1. Aivazian, V., Ge, Y., & Qui, J. (2005). Can corporatization improve the performance of SOEs even without privatization? Journal of Corporate Finance, 11, 791–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson, P., & Mölleryd, B. (1997). Telecommunication services in context: Distribution consequences of technological change and convergence. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 8(5), 453–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale efficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 30(9), 1078–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banker, R., Charnes, A., Cooper, W., Swarts, J., & Thomas, D. (1989). An introduction to data envelopment analysis with some of its models and their uses. Research in Governmental and Non-profit Accounting, 5, 125–163.Google Scholar
  5. Berggren, C., & Laestadius, S. (2003). Co-development and composite clusters—the secular strength of Nordic Telecommunications. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(1), 91–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berne, M., & Pogorel, G. (2004, May). Privatisation experiences in France. Cesifo Working Paper No. 1195, Category 9: Industrial Organisation.Google Scholar
  7. Bortolotti, B., D’Souza, J., Fantini, M., & Megginson, L. W. (2002). Privatization and the sources of performance improvement in the global telecommunications industry. Telecommunications Policy, 26, 243–268. Google Scholar
  8. Brennan, T. J. (2005). Regulation and competition as complements. In M. A. Crew & M. Spiegel (Eds.), Obtaining the best from regulation and competition. US: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Buchanan, J. M. (1972). Theory of public choice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  10. Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1962). Programming with linear fractional functional. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 9, 181–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., Lewin, A. Y., Morey, R. C., & Rousseau, J. (1985). Sensitivity and stability analysis in DEA. Annals of Operations Research, 2, 139–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Charnes, A. W., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chong, A., & Galdo, V. (2006). Streamlining and privatization prices in the telecommunications industry. Economica, 73, 461–484.Google Scholar
  14. Coelli, T., Estache, A., Perelman, S., & Trujillo, L. (2003). A primer on efficiency measurement for utilities and transport regulators. World Bank Institute Development Studies. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  15. Cohen, S., & Thatcher, M. (2005). The new governance of markets and non-majoritarian regulators. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 18(3), 329–346.Google Scholar
  16. Cooper, W. W., Seiford, L. M., & Tone, K. (2000). Data envelopment analysis: A comprehensive text with models, applications, references and DEA-Solver software. London: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  17. De Bijl, P., & Peitz, M. (2002). Regulation and entry into telecommunications markets. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Domberger, S., Meadowcroft, S. A., & Thompson, D. J. (1986). Competitive tendering and efficiency: The case of refuse collection. Fiscal Studies, 7, 69–87.Google Scholar
  19. Dornisch, D. (2001). Competitive dynamics in Polish telecommunications, 1990–2000: Growth, regulation, and privatization of an infrastructural multi-network. Telecommunications Policy, 25(6), 381–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haar, L. N., & Jones, T. (2008). Misreading liberalisation and privatisation: The case of the US energy utilities in Europe. Energy Policy, 36(7), 2610–2619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hartley, K., & Huby, M. (1985). Contracting-out in health and local authorities: Prospects, progress and pitfalls. Public Money, 5, 23–26.Google Scholar
  22. Helm, D. (2006). Regulatory reform, capture, and the regulatory burden. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 22(2), 169–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hodge, G. A. (2000). Privatisation: An international review of performance. Westview Press.Google Scholar
  24. International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI). (1995). Working Group on the Audit of Privatisation, Ankara.Google Scholar
  25. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 303–360.Google Scholar
  26. Johnsen, A., Nørreklit, H., & Vakkuri, J. (2006). Introducing a nordic perspective on public sector performance measurement. Financial Accountability & Management, 22(2), 207–212. Google Scholar
  27. Jordana, J., & Sancho, D. (2005). Policy networks and market opening: Telecommunications liberalization in Spain. European Journal of Political Research, 44(3), 519–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kay, J. A., & Thomson, D. J. (1986). Privatisation: A policy in search of a rationale. Economic Journal, 96, 18–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kitching, J. (1967). Why do mergers miscarry? Harward Business Review, November–December, 84–101.Google Scholar
  30. Kuusik, A., & Varblane, U. (2008). How to avoid customers leaving: the case of the Estonian telecommunication industry. Baltic Journal of Management, 4(1), 66–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. La Porta, R., & López De Silanes, F. (1999). The benefits of privatization: Evidence from Mexico. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(4), 1193–1242.Google Scholar
  32. Lane, J. E. (2000). New public management: An introduction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Lien, D., & Peng, Y. (2001). Competition and production efficiency: Telecommunications in OECD countries. Information Economics and Policy, 13(1), 51–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Majumdar, S. K. (1998). On the utilization of resources: perspectives from the US telecommunications industry. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 809–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mansell, R., Davies, A., & Hulsink, W. (1996). The new telecommunications in the Netherlands: Strategy, policy and regulation. Telecommunications Policy, 20(2), 273–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Martin, S., & Parker, D. (1995). Privatization and economic performance throughout the UK business cycle. Managerial and Decision Economics, 16(3), 225–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Megginson, W. L. (2005). The financial economics of privatization. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Megginson, W. L., Nash, R. C., & Van Randenbourgh, M. (1994). The financial and operating performance of newly privatised firms: An international empirical analysis. The Journal of Finance, 49(2), 403–452.Google Scholar
  39. Newbery, D. M. (1997). Privatisation and liberalisation of networks utilities. European Economic Review, 41, 357–383.Google Scholar
  40. Newbery, D., & Pollitt, M. (1997). The restructuring and privatization of Britain’s CEGB—was it worth it? Journal of Industrial Economics, 45, 269–303.Google Scholar
  41. OECD. (2003). Communications outlook 2003. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. OECD. (2005). Communications outlook 2005. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  43. OECD. (2007). Communications outlook 2007. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  44. Parker, D. (2003). Performance, risk and strategy in privatised, regulated industries. The UK’s experience. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 16(1), 75–100. Google Scholar
  45. Pentzaropoulos, G. C., & Giokas, D. I. (2002). Comparing the operational efficiency of the main European telecommunications organizations: A quantitative analysis. Telecommunications Policy, 26(11), 595–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Puxty, A. G. (1997). Accounting choice and a theory of crisis: The cases of post-privatization British Telecom and British Gas. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22(7), 713–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ros, A. (1999). Does ownership or competition matter? The effects of telecommunications reform on network expansion and efficiency. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 15, 65–92.Google Scholar
  48. Ramanathan, R. (2003). An introduction to data envelopment analysis. New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. Seiford, L. (1996). Data envelopment analysis: The evolution of the state of the art (1978–1995). The Journal of the Productivity Analysis, 7, 99–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sueyoshi, T. (1994). Stochastic frontier production analysis: measuring performance of public telecommunications in 24 OECD countries. European Journal of Operational Research, 74, 466–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sueyoshi, T. (1997). Measuring efficiencies and returns to scale of Nippon telegraph & telephone in production and cost analysis. Management Sciences, 43(6), 779–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sueyoshi, T. (1998). Privatization of Nippon telegraph and telephone: Was it a good policy decision? European Journal of Operational Research, 107(1), 45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Thatcher, M. (2004). Winners and losers in Europeanisation: Reforming the national regulation of telecommunications. West European Politics, 27(2), 284–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tsai, H. C., Chen, C. M., & Tzeng, G. H. (2006). The comparative productivity efficiency for global telecoms. International Journal of Production Economics, 103, 509–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vakkuri, J. (2003). Research techniques and their use in managing non-profit organisations—an illustration of DEA analysis in NPO environments. Financial Accountability and Management, 19(3), 243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vergés, J. (2000). Privatisations in Spain: Process, policies and goals. European Journal of Law and Economics, 9(3), 255–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vickers, J., & Yarrow, G. (1988). Privatization and economics analysis. Cambridge, Massachusset: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  58. Vickers, J., & Yarrow, G. (1991). Economic perspectives on privatization. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(2), 111–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Villalonga, B. (2000). Privatization and efficiency: Differentiating ownership effects from political, organizational, and dynamic effects. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 42, 43–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Yarrow, G. (1986). Privatization in theory and practice. Economic Policy, 2, 324–364.Google Scholar
  61. Zhu, J. (2003). Efficiency evaluation with strong ordinal input and output measures. European Journal of Operational Research, 146(3), 477–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zhu, J. (2000). Multi-factor performance measure model with an application to Fortune 500 companies. European Journal of Operational Research, 123(1), 105–124.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Accounting and Finance, Faculty of Economics and Business AdministrationUniversity of ZaragozaZaragozaSpain

Personalised recommendations