Despite nearly twenty years of privatization, mixed-ownership reform has been the mainstay of SOE reform in China in recent years. This raises the question of whether the financial performance of mixed-ownership firms (Mixed firms) is better than private-owned enterprises (POEs). Although Mixed firms suffer more from government intervention, unclear property rights, and interest conflicts between state shareholders and private shareholders, they can also benefit from the external resources controlled by the state. Therefore, the performance of Mixed firms is still unclear. Collecting data from the Chinese A-share listed market, we divide the firms into POEs, Mixed firms controlled by the state (MixedSOEs), and Mixed firms controlled by the private sectors (MixedPOEs). Measuring profitability using ROA and ROE, we find that on average, POEs perform better than Mixed firms, and MixedPOEs have a higher profitability than MixedSOEs. Within Mixed firms, more state shares are related to lower profitability, and more private shares are related to higher profitability. Using the NBS survey data, we further find that on average, SOEs exhibit the lowest profitability, with MixedSOEs and MixedPOEs in the middle, and POEs have the highest profitability. We try to address the endogeneity challenge in several ways and get similar results. Overall, our analysis provides new evidence on the financial performance of mixed-ownership firms.

Does large-scale privatization increase income inequality? To answer this question, we analyze the impact of China’s reform of state-owned enterprises on labor market outcomes in urban areas from 1992 to 2004, exploiting cross-prefecture variation in reform exposure stemming from initial differences in the employment shares of urban collective enterprises and state-owned enterprises. Our analysis reveals that workers in prefectures with higher exposure to the reform experienced a more rapid decline in employment and a slower increase in income, compared to those in less exposed areas. Further analysis shows that individuals with lower income and those with lower educational attainment experienced greater losses. A backof-the-envelope analysis indicates that the reform contributed to more than 40% of the study period’s increase in income inequality.

Research has argued that state-owned enterprises (SOEs) should bear more social responsibility than other listed firms, because their own goals include maintaining social stability and promoting social welfare. In contrast with the privatization of SOEs observed in other countries, in China, some listed firms’ major shareholders have become SOEs in recent years. This transition offers a good opportunity to investigate the impact of ownership change on firms’ corporate social responsibility (CSR). Using the propensity score matching difference-in-differences method, we document that the CSR performance of these firms does not improve when their ownership structure changes, and it can even worsen. Our results remain robust to a series of tests. Further investigating the underlying economic mechanism, we uncover those political connections, bank financing, and government subsidies play critical roles in determining the negative effect of ownership structure change on public firms, which is consistent with the soft budget constraint framework. In an additional analysis, we find that CSR performance is poor for manufacturing industry firms after ownership structure change. After calculating the frequency of keywords appearing in the annual reports of such firms, we find them to be satisfied with their new SOE background after ownership structure change. Our paper provides a possible explanation for the phenomenon of SOEs becoming major shareholder of listed firms.

We investigate the power structure of the Chinese political system and explore its implications on corporate finance. With a large sample of firms from 1999-2007, we document large-scale ‘re-nationalization’—local governments re-establish controlling ownership stakes in previously privatized firms. We find that firms located in provinces with newly appointed, top-ranked Party leaders who do not belong to any of the three dominant political factions are more likely to be renationalized. With a number of instrument variables, including the political status of the top-ranked provincial party leaders, we find that re-nationalization leads to lower sales and labor productivity for the firms. We also find some evidence that re-nationalization temporarily lowers the unemployment rate in the region without any significant, long-term economic benefits.

The relationship between capital structure and product market competition is recently a new research field and hot topic in the study of capital structure. Focuses on Chinese state-controlled and private listed companies, this paper concludes that private listed companies have greater competition advantages than the state-controlled listed companies through empirical study of the relationship between capital structure and product market competition. The policy implication of this conclusion is that favorable capital structure helps to improve the corporate governance structure and strengthen the product market competition advantage of the listed companies. To improve the quality of Chinese listed companies, Chinese government is strongly recommended to take powerful measures to promote the process of privatization and economic performance of the economic entities.

We investigate the choice problem in the massive Chinese restructuring campaign that has been described as “grasping the large and letting go of the small,” in which a third of the million or so Chinese state-owned enterprises were either corporatized or privatized. Corporatization differs from privatization in the Chinese context, as in the former case the state remains a large shareholder, whereas in the latter case it has little or no ownership. Using a panel of provincial level statistics, we show that greater local employment pressure, less local fiscal pressure, and a more corrupt local business environment all lead to a lesser likelihood that privatization will be chosen over corporatization. Privatization is found to yield consistent efficiency gains over corporatization in terms of employment and firm profitability. Our evidence is supportive of the theoretical framework of Boycko, Shleifer, and Vishny (1996), who model privatization as an endogenous decision in which politicians trade off employment pressure against public fiscal interest.

A fundamental question in finance is whether and how removing market frictions is associated with efficiency gains. We study this question using share issue privatization in China that took place through the split share structure reform. Prior to the reform, domestic A-shares were divided into tradable and non-tradable shares with identical cash flow and voting rights. Under the reform, holders of the non-tradable shares negotiated a compensation plan with holders of the tradable shares in order to make their shares tradable. We hypothesize that efficiency gains in terms of better risk sharing play an important role in the determination of compensation. We show that the size of compensation is positively associated with both the gain in risk sharing and the price impact of more shares coming to the market after the reform, and is negatively associated with the bargaining power of holders of non-tradable shares and firm performance. Our study highlights the role of risk sharing in China’s share issue privatization.

We document the market response to an unexpected announcement of proposed sales of government-owned shares in China. In contrast to the “privatization premium” found in earlier work, we find a negative effect of government ownership on returns at the announcement date and a symmetric positive effect in response to the announced cancellation of the government sell-off. We argue that this results from the absence of a Chinese political transition to accompany economic reforms, so that the positive effects on profits of political ties through government ownership outweigh the potential efficiency costs of government shareholdings. Companies with former government officials in management have positive abnormal returns, suggesting that personal ties can substitute for the benefits of government ownership. In both cases, we may rule out explanations based on a supply effect of the share sales. We further find that the “privatization discount” is higher for firms located in Special Economic Zones, where local government discretionary authority is highest, And that companies with relatively high welfare payments to employees, which presumably would fall with privatization, benefit disproportionately from the privatization announcement.

Using data from a large sample of the listed firms in China from 1999 to 2002, we find that firm profitability and state ownership are negatively related to top management turnover only when firm profitability is below target (measured by industry median). We also find that top management turnover has a positive impact on subsequent firm profitability when it occurs under performance below target, but has a negative impact when it occurs under performance above target. Lastly, we find that top management turnover under low performance has a positive impact on subsequent firm profitability when the state is not the largest shareholder, but has no impact when the state is the largest shareholder.

We investigate the endogenous choice problem of Chinese state-owned enterprises in their decision on whether to corporatize or privatize. Corporatization differs from privatization in the Chinese context, as in the former case, the state remains as a large shareholder, and in the latter case, the state has little or no ownership. Using a panel of provincial statistics, we show that the larger the local employment pressure, the less likely we see privatization; the smaller the local fiscal pressure, the less likely we see privatization; the more corrupted the local business environment, the less likely we see privatization. Privatization is found to yield consistent efficiency gains over corporatization measured in terms of both employment and firm profitability. Our evidences are supportive of the theoretical framework of Boycko and Shleifer and Vishny (1996) where they model privatization as politicians’ endogenous decision trading off employment pressure against public fiscal interest.