Advertisement

Twenty Years After: Management and Performance Measurement in Romanian State-Owned Enterprises

Chapter
  • 595 Downloads

Abstract

In 2011, the economic crisis generated public discussions related to the performance measurement and poor management of state-owned enterprises (SOE) in Romania. The debate revealed the fact that the existence of present SOE, including their creation and strategies, is undermined by an unclear conceptual frame. The study analyzes the theoretical roots of some critical demarcations in the public sector in order to explain the dilemmas or some controversial approaches in the policies regarding the SOEs management. The map of discussions for building the theoretical background of the study takes as main milestones some references related to the issue of public sector demarcations, to the privatization of SOEs and to the organization and management performance appraisals of the SOEs in the specific Romanian context. The methodology of study is tailored to the Romanian context. A collection of case studies and disparate but relevant facts are preferred to statistical tools. They are used to explain a very strange behavior of organizations in this dynamic and theoretically unclear environment. The state of the Romanian public sector is explained first as a result of the national legal context. But the new public sector is also the result of the economic reform, including the privatization after 1990. All these elements triggered some local characteristics of the SOEs management. A representative case for the process of restructuration can be found in the energy sector, with a special significance for the national economy as a “model”. The problems of organizational performance and management appraisal in Romanian SOE are present in discussions using the so-called antimanagement concept. Some facts are brought forth to illustrate the concept.

Keywords

Public Sector Energy Sector State Ownership Public Organization Public Enterprise 
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.

References

  1. Ahn BM, Kim IC (2000) Reforming public enterprises in South Korea. Int Rev Public Administration 5(2):67–80Google Scholar
  2. Aivazian VA, Ge Y, Qiu J (2005) Can corporatization improve the performance of state-owned enterprises even without privatization? J Corporate Finance 11(5):791–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beesley ME (1992) Privatization, regulation and deregulation. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Boardman AE, Vining AR (1989) Ownership and performance in competitive environments: a comparison of the performance of private, mixed, and state-owned enterprises. J Law Econ 32(1):1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bös D (1986) Public enterprise economics: theory and applications. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  6. Bös D (1993) Privatization in Europe: a comparison of approaches. Oxford Rev Econ Policy 9(1):95–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boyne GA (2002) Public and private management: what’s the difference? J Manage Stud 39(1):97–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bozeman B (1987) All organizations are public: bridging public and private organizational theories. Jossey-Bass, San-FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  9. Bratianu C (2003) Antimanagement. Rev Manage Eng Econ 2(4):7–15Google Scholar
  10. Brignall S, Modell S (2000) An institutional perspective on performance measurement and management in the ≪new public sector≫. Manage Accounting Res 11(3):281–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dahl RA, Lindblom CE (1953) Politics, economics, and welfare. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  12. Demsetz H (1982) Economic, legal, and political dimensions of competition. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  13. Diaconu O, Oprescu G, Pittman R (2008) Electricity reform in Romania. Utilities Policy 17(1):114–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fama EF (1980) Agency problems and the theory of the firm. J Political Econ 88(2):288–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fitzgerald L, Johnston R, Brignall TJ, Silvestro R, Voss C (1991) Performance measurement in service businesses. CIMA, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Haar LN, Marinescu N (2011) Energy policy and European utilities’ strategy: lessons from the liberalization and privatisation of the energy sector in Romania. Energy Policy 39(5):2245–2255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hawkins RA (1991) Privatisation in West Germany, 1957–1990. National Westminster Bank Quarterly Review, 14–22 NovGoogle Scholar
  18. Heath J, Norman W (2004) Stakeholder theory, corporate governance and public management: what can the history of state-run enterprises teach us in the post-enron era? J Bus Ethics 53(3):247–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hood C (1991) A public management for all seasons? Public Administration 69(1):3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson HT, Kaplan RS (1987) Relevance lost—the rise and fall of management accounting. Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  21. Kaplan RS, Norton DP (1992) The balanced scorecard—measures that drive performance. Harvard Bus Rev 70(1):71–79Google Scholar
  22. Koontz H (1961) The management theory jungle. J Acad Manage 4(3):174–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kornai J (1992) The socialist system: the political economy of communism. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  24. Lane J-E (1993) Public sector: concepts, models and approaches. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Lindblom CE (1959) The science of ‘muddling through’. Public Administration Rev 19(2):79–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lioukas S, Kouremenos A (1989) In search of typical state-enterprise models. In: Hafsi T, Thomas H, Schendel DE (eds) Strategic issues of state-controlled organisations. Strategic management series, JAI Press, CTGoogle Scholar
  27. Lioukas S, Bourantas D, Papadakis V (1993) Managerial autonomy of state-owned enterprises: determining factors. Organ Sci 4(4):645–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Longenecker CO (1997) Why managerial performance appraisals are ineffective: causes and lessons. Career Dev Int 2(5):212–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lynch RL, Cross KF (1991) Measure up! Yardsticks for continuous improvement. Basil Blackwell, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Menozzi A (2009) Board of directors in the Italian public utilities. Giuffré, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  31. Micheli P, Neely A, Kennerley M (2005) The roles of performance measurement in the English public sector. Paper presented at EGPA conference, BernGoogle Scholar
  32. Mises L (1962) The ultimate foundations of economic science: an essay on method. Van Nostrand, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  33. Morin F (1998) The privatization process and corporate governance: the French case. In: OECD Proceedings (eds) corporate governance, state-owned enterprises and privatisation. OECD Publications, Paris, pp 63–84Google Scholar
  34. Porter ME (1985) Competitive advantage. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Rayney H, Backoff R, Levine C (1976) Comparing public and private organizations. Public Administration Rev 36(2):233–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schumpeter JA (1965) Economic theory and entrepreneurial history. In: Aitken HG (ed) Explorations in enterprise. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. Stevens B (1992) Prospects for privatisation in OECD countries. National Westminster Bank Quarterly Review, 2–22 AugGoogle Scholar
  38. Vickers J, Yarrow G (1991) Economic perspectives on privatization. J Econ Perspect 5(2):111–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vining AR, Boardman AE (1992) Ownership versus competition: efficiency in public enterprise. Public Choice 73(2):205–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Weare C (2003) The Californian electricity crisis: causes and policy options. Public Policy Institute of California, San-FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  41. Wei Z, Varela O, D’Souza J, Hassen MK (2003) The financial and operating performance of China’s newly privatized firms. Financ Manage 32(2):107–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Xu X, Wang Y (1997) Ownership structure, corporate governance, and corporate performance. Policy research working paper no. 1794, The World Bank, WashingtonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Economic Science and Business AdministrationTransilvania University of BraşovBraşovRomania

Personalised recommendations