Advertisement

Some Criteria for Privatization in Italy

Chapter
  • 18 Downloads
Part of the Central Issues in Contemporary Economic Theory and Policy book series (CICETP)

Abstract

Since 1980 the privatization issue has been the focus of a big debate on the changing role of the state and its eventual substitution by the private sector as producer of goods and services. Since then more than eighty countries, with the two important exceptions of Italy and China, have started a privatization process, albeit adopting different criteria and typologies, according to a plurality of policy objectives pursued1. These privatization experiences favoured by the liberist ideological and political revival induced by British public failures have aroused world-wide interest and argument for emulation but have not produced general ideal solutions to complex problems dependent on different economic, social and political situations.

Keywords

Public Choice Efficiency Gain Social Welfare Function Public Utility Public Firm 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. [1]
    Beesley M.E. — Ltttlechild S.C., «Privatization: Principles, Problems and Priorities», in Beesle, M.E. (ed.), Privatization, Regulation and Deregulation, London, Routledge, 1992, pp. 23–39.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Bös D., Privatization. A Theoretical Treatment, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Corsetti G. — Rey G.M., «Le privatizzazioni italiane: aspetti teorici e modalità applicative», paper presented at the cycle of seminars on L’evoluzione dell’economia italiana dall’ adesione allo SME ad oggi organised by Dipartimento di Economia Pubblica, Università «La Sapienza», Roma, 1994.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Gordon R.H., «Privatization: Notes on Macroeconomic Consequences», Università di Monaco, CES Working Paper Series, n. 21, 1992.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Helm D., «I confini economici dello Stato», in Pennella G. (ed.), Regolazione e/o privatizzazione, Bologna, il Mulino, 1992, pp. 29–83.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Jones L.P. — Tandon P. — Volgesang I., Selling Public Enterprises: a Cost-Benefit Methodology, Cambridge, MIT Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Nuti D.M., «Privatizzazione di massa: costi e benefici di un capitalismo is-tantaneo», Economia Pubblica, n. 9–10, 1994, pp. 417–30.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Paldam M., «Public Choice/More of a Branch or More of a Sect?», Public Choice, n. 77/1, 1993, pp. 177–84.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Samuelson P.A., «Tragedy of the Open Road: Avoiding the Paradox by Use of Regulated Public Utilities that Charge Corrected Knightian Tolls», Journal of International and Comparative Economics, n. 1, 1992, pp. 3–12.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Sappington D.E.M. — Stigutz J.E., «Privatization, Information and Incentives», Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, n. 6/4, 1987, pp. 567–82.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Udagawa A., «The Next Twenty-Fire Years of Public Choice», Public Choice, n. 77/1, 1993, pp. 197–202.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Vickers J. — Yarrow G., Privatization: An Economic Analysis, Cambridge, MIT Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Wiseman J., «Privatization in the Command Economy», in Hartley K. — Ott A.F. (eds), Privatization and Economic Efficiency, Aldershot, E. Elgar Pub. Ltd., 1991, pp. 257–70.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Wittman D., «Why Democracies Produce Efficient Results?», in Rowley C.K. (ed.), Public Choice Theory, II: The Separation of Powers and Constitutional Political Economy, Aldershot, E. Elgar Pub. Ltd., 1993, pp. 543–72.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Servizio Italiano Pubblicazioni Internazionali Srl 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Università di FirenzeItaly

Personalised recommendations