Introduction

Public enterprise can be defined as government-owned or state-owned enterprises (SOEs) that

generate all or most of their revenues from the sale of goods and services. In other words, a
public enterprise refers to an institution, either entirely owned by the public sector or in which
the public sector owns a majority share, that generates outputs – sells goods and services on the
market and has its own management entrusted with the task of managing the organization.
However, although many enterprises remain in public ownership, their rationale, purposes, and
effectiveness continue to be questioned. In addition, there are questions concerning their ability
to fulfill development objectives since they face increasing risks of political interference,
cronyism and corruption in their governance and operation, as well as their inability to generate
adequate financial returns to either cover their costs or return a surplus to the government.

Since the 1930s, numerous public enterprises were created in both developed and
developing countries to promote economic and social development, address market deficits and
capital short-falls, reduce mass unemployment and/or ensure national control of the direction of
the economy, especially in developing countries. They were designed to correct the economic
and social imbalance through investment, production, trade, distribution, and consumption.
Most governments resorted to public enterprises to increase capital formation, produce essential
goods at lower costs, create employment and generally contribute to economic development.
Their activities were both distributional and redistribution, and they performed major social
welfare functions for governments across the globe. This trend continued for the most part until
the late 1980s when public enterprises accounted for 15-20 percent of value-added in developing
countries, 10-15 percent in developed countries, and approximately 85 percent in socialist
countries. They employed 85 percent of the workforce in the former Soviet Union, 27 percent
in the United Kingdom, and 3 percent in the United States in the early 1990s.

The role of government or the public sector in national development continues to play a critical
role in the lives of people in both developed and developing countries as the debate rages on
about the efficacy of such intervention. The public sector assumed a dominant role in the
economic life of many countries following the Industrial Revolution in the 18th and 19th
centuries, the post World War period of the 20th century (1914-1918) and (1939-1954), as well
as the post-colonial period in several developing countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and
the Caribbean during the 1950s and 1960s because of a concentration of economic power and
widespread poverty. As a consequence, Europe, particularly the United Kingdom, turned to
socialist ideas which advocated the philosophy of the welfare state in health, education and
infrastructure sectors as government ownership became the dominant means of production in
public utilities during the first half of the 20th century.
 A similar pattern emerged in the United States of America with the Tennessee Valley
Authority in the 20th century, and the role of NASA and ARPA with the creation of the
information highway, as well as the recent initiative to include thousands of employees in
airports under the state umbrella are examples of the role of government intervention in the 21st
century. Despite some relative success, however, increasing evidence indicates that most public
enterprises either do not contribute significantly to development or perform their public service
functions ineffectively or inefficiently. Moreover, it is unclear how public enterprises actually
contribute to economic and social development, why their performance differs across countries,
why so many have failed to deliver effectively the services for which they were created, and how
their management can be improved. This paper will seek to answer some of these questions by
assessing the comparative experiences of the role of the public sector as an entrepreneur and/or
manager in selected developing countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean,
particularly in areas where private sector initiatives were lacking.
Literature Review
A brief review of the comparative literature on public enterprises illustrates that although
public enterprise management has been in existence for a very long time, it has received little
attention from either scholars or practitioners. The literature indicates that that public
enterprises have contributed significantly to the economic development of both developed and
developing countries based on the rapid growth of public enterprises during the middle decades
of the twentieth century, particularly after World War II (Farazmand, 1989); assumptions of the
welfare state, planned development, and public-sector-led economic growth (Esman, 1991: 457);
and a state-centred economic approach in developing countries that became a pivotal policy
option to ensure national development, wealth redistribution, employment generation, and
economic self-reliance (Martin, 1993: 16-18; Clarke, 1994b: 417).
Evidence also indicates that many developing countries which practiced state planning
during the period 1950-1980 experienced much higher rates of economic growth than those in
developed countries following market principles (Bello, Cunningham, and Rau, 1994: 7).
Moreover, the state played a critical role in promoting economic growth and industrialization,
especially in some of the highest achievers in Asia such as Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan
(Chee, 1992: 62). The most comprehensive work on public enterprises in the Caribbean was the
Research Studies in Caribbean Public Enterprise which was funded by the International
Development Research Centre of Canada and undertaken during the period 1976-1979. In
Volume 1, An Overview of Public Enterprise in the Commonwealth Caribbean, the study
provides a description of the extent of public sector activity in each of the territories of the
Commonwealth Caribbean. In Volume II, The Legal Framework of Commonwealth Caribbean
Public Enterprise, there is an analysis of the legal framework governing public enterprise activity
in the region.
The role of the public sector increased significantly in developed countries as indicated by
the percentage of public expenditure in the GDP of those countries as well as increasing levels of
tax collection by their governments as percentage of their GDP. Thus public expenditure
exceeded 40% of GDP in Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands,
Norway, Spain, Sweden and Britain in 1996. In 2000, the ratio of the tax revenue to GDP
exceeded 40% in several OECD countries including Austria, Belgium, Britain, Canada,
Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy and Norway.
Conceptual Issues
The conscious expansion of public enterprises has been one of the most marked trends in
the six decades since the Second World War. Thus, public enterprises operate at the interface of
the public and private sectors in mixed economies as a result of the interventionist role of the
public sector as entrepreneur occasioned by the inability of the private sector to respond to
development needs. In this context, it is important to distinguish between the term public sector
and public enterprises.
The public sector is a compendious term which in its widest interpretation refers to all
activities of government. Public enterprises, also called government controlled enterprises
(GCEs) or state-owned enterprises (SOEs), can be defined as any commercial, financial,
industrial, agricultural or promotional undertaking owned by public authority, either wholly or
through majority shareholding which is engaged in the sale of goods and services and whose
affairs are capable of being recorded in balance sheets and profit and loss accounts. Public
enterprises may have diverse legal and corporate forms, such as departmental undertakings,
public corporations, statutory agencies, established by Acts of Parliament or joint stock
companies registered under company law. The concept of an expected economic or social return
on investment is fundamental to this definition of public enterprise.
Public enterprises in the public sector have generally followed three distinct forms, each
with its own status and varying degrees of autonomy – departmental undertaking, statutory
corporation, and Joint Stock Company with shares owned by government. The departmental
form is the oldest and mostly used for certain activities such as post offices, factories, and
railways. In this context, government control is total and they form an integral part of the
budgetary process of the department concerned. The managers of these departmental
undertakings are civil servants with high professional reputation.
The statutory corporation has more of the operational flexibility that is required for a
commercial venture. However, since it was established by an act of Parliament, any amendment
or modification to the provisions contained in the Act requires approval of Parliament which can
be time consuming. The joint stock company provides greater flexibility than the other two
types of public enterprises. It is created by an executive decision of government which owns the
shares issued without any specific approval of Parliament.
Public Enterprise Theory
In any economy, there are generally four types of economic activity, first, those which
are privately remunerative – provided by market through directly productive investments;
secondly, those which are socially profitable but not privately remunerative – provided by
government, like road building and related infrastructure; thirdly, those which are privately
remunerative but not capable of private execution, like heavy industry, high technology
involving capital intensive investments like power, transportation, etc – also provided by
government with/without the help of the market; and fourth, those which are natural monopolies.
Public enterprises were primarily established to undertake the second, third, and fourth
category of activity. The third category of activity can be transferred to the private sector when
capitalist development in developing countries attain sufficient maturity to enable them to handle
capital intensive investment where private sector development occurs along with financial sector
restructuring. Public sector entrepreneurship in the form of economic planning and public
enterprises can help countries overcome decades of poor economic growth and slow
development as illustrated by the experiences of countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and
the Caribbean.
In India, public enterprises included statutory corporations; holding companies such as
Coal India, Bharat Bhari Udoyog Nigam; departmental enterprises such as India Railways, the
Atomic Energy Department, as well as the Indian Post and Telegraph Departments; and public
limited companies. In Japan, public enterprises were created in several different categories
including Kosha, Gengo, Kokyo Hojin, Kodan, Jigyodan, Tokushu, and Kaisha & Koshi Kongo
Kigyo. The genesis of growth and development of the public sector in several of these countries
was provided by ideological and strategic economic and social considerations.
Characteristics of Public enterprises
Public enterprises have several characteristics that differentiate them from the rest of the
public and private sectors, namely, (1) there are many variations regarding the enterprises’
ownership, control, form, type and nature; (2) they are legally and legislatively created; (3) they
are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny, which applied to ministries, departments and field
offices; (4) they have corporate status, they can be litigated and they can litigate an individual or
group; (5) they look to public sector finances to provide financing to guarantee loans, buy inputs,
protect their markets and facilitate output delivery; (6) technically, they are independently
financed through their revenue, enabling them to do their own capital borrowing; (7) they can
undertake and invest in development projects and take part in project identification, development
and management; (8) in theory, public enterprises are autonomous and independent of the
executive institutions, eg. political party control of the operating agencies; (9) personnel are not
technically civil servants, who are employed directly by the board of management and are
subject to enterprises’ employment conditions; (10) the enterprise boards are appointed by a
minister through the cabinet; a board’s composition and direction is usually specified and its
power is derived from enabling laws an in house regulations and standard operating procedures;
an auditor is usually appointed by the board, but the minister has a participation in the process;
the board minutes are submitted to the ministry, and annual enterprise reports are laid in
parliament by the minister; and (11) the public enterprise sector is distinguished by its objectives,
management traits and functions.
The management and operational systems of the civil service are not adequate for public
enterprises because the civil service tends to lack flexibility, it serves political responsiveness
and organizational conformity, budgeting procedures are uncertain, accounting and pre-audit
systems thwart prompt decision making, and tenure and promotion often depend on seniority.
All these and other dilatory practices are fatal to the conduct of successful public enterprise
management.
Roles of Public enterprises
The roles of public enterprises are multiple, multifaceted and dynamic in their operations not
only theoretically but, more importantly, in practical terms.
1. The role of public enterprise in the economy of a country depends basically on its economic
system. In a system of private enterprise, there is little room for public enterprise. In many
countries, a system of mixed economy is adopted, giving both public and private enterprises a
role to play in the overall economy.
2. There are many practical reasons why countries decide to have public enterprises. A public
authority establishes a public enterprise when private enterprise is not in a position to initiate an
industry or to undertake a production or service type activity which the public sector authority
considers essential or desirable. The following pragmatic considerations lead a public sector
authority to establish and expand public enterprises: (a) national security matters, defence,
intelligence, diplomacy and international relations activities which the public enterprises; (b) a
lack of appropriate private enterprises for certain purposes; e.g. agricultural credit; (c) the
inability or unwillingness of private enterprises to develop certain services or products; (d) the
need for certain public sector assistance and backstopping to private enterprises, e.g. marketing
promotion, production assistance; (e) a desire to impose a more rational organization on some
specific sectors. e.g. public utilities, (f) a desire to establish model production type enterprises,
e.g. agricultural processing; (g) the fact that certain sectoral activities have traditionally been
public enterprises, e.g. ports; (h) closely related to all these is the strong desire of the public
sectors of many developing countries to accelerate growth, to speed up the process of
diversification through new enterprises, to achieve greater self-reliance, to reverse or reduce
excessive dependency, and to widen and broaden resource ownership.
3. The public enterprise sector has demonstrated entrepreneurship in the public sector, carried
out business facilitation in the private sector, promoted regional development, developed
infrastructure, localized foreign owned enterprises, advanced industrial skills, promoted exports,
substituted imports, distributed income, generated opportunities and created employment.
4. An important element to appreciate is the strategic role that public enterprise is playing in the
overall growth/development process. On the whole, the public sector must take steps from time
to time to control or influence the economy in key areas where it cannot rely entirely on the
working of the market mechanism. When the public authority in a mixed economy establishes
public enterprises, it normally adopts three strategic policies: it demarcates and limits the role of
public enterprise, it stimulates and assists private enterprises, and it privatizes some of the public
enterprises and sells them to private investors.
Current State of Public Enterprises
Although the total number of public enterprises in developing countries declined significantly,
they continue to play a major role in the economy. In high-income countries, their share of GDP
and investment constitute 8%, and 13% respectively, while for middle-income countries, the
corresponding shares are 9% and 17%, and in the least developed countries, they are 14% and
28%. Public enterprises also constitute an important source of government revenue in many
developing countries – China 7%, Algeria 60%, Jordan 14%, and Slovakia 5%. In terms of
employment, public enterprises employ 34.3% of the total workforce in Ghana, 25.1% in Gabon,
12.2% in Sri Lanka, 8.1% in India, 7.7% in Kenya, and 7.4% in China.
Public enterprises have an important role to play in achieving socioeconomic development in
most countries. However, while governments have adopted numerous strategies to promote the
transfer of activities from the public to the private sector, there is a belief that essential basic
services like health, education, water, electricity and transportation should remain as public
enterprises. It has been argued that the social benefit of having the government provide a
particular service is that it theoretically reinvests profits for the benefits of its shareholders. In
addition, there is a prevailing argument that retaining vital services as public enterprises
guarantees the masses equitable and efficient provision of social services.
One of the key concerns of development management in many developing countries is the
efficient and effective management of public enterprises. Public enterprises that function either
in monopolistic or near monopolistic conditions are often not subjected to the market signals to
enable assessment of the quality and relevance of the goods and services produced, thus
requiring a different set of management tools and feedback mechanism for performance
monitoring. As a consequence, a fundamental challenge is to find non-market tools that can
provide for a semblance of cost efficiency and guarantee transparency and accountability in the
management of public enterprises.
A major development that emerged during the last two decades was the phenomenon of
public-private partnerships (PPPs) in the economic development process. This is one potential
means of improving the management of public enterprises. Public enterprises and the private
sector cooperate in providing services and infrastructure through a variety of mechanisms
including concessions, build-operate-and-transfer (BOTs) arrangements, joint ventures, informal,
and voluntary cooperation. PPPs allow or encourage domestic-and-foreign-owned businesses,
community groups, cooperatives, private voluntary associations, small enterprises, and other
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to offer social services. In some countries, PPPs
represent an intermediate phase in privatizing public enterprises or an alternative to privatization.
However, in situations where the public sector acts less as the provider and more as a partner in
the provision of services, there are some challenges unique to public-private partnerships at three
levels: (i) the choice regarding types of partnerships; (ii) the regulatory arrangements for private
sector development; and (iii) impact based partnerships. Nevertheless, whether these
partnerships are viewed as public enterprises or as quasi-public sector initiatives, the essential
elements that must guide all partnerships are cost efficiency, sustainability, and equity in service
delivery. An important caveat, however, is that a public enterprise is intrinsically a part of the
governmental agenda and therefore cannot be viewed as a partner.
A major issue that must be taken into consideration is that public enterprises are generally
established with two distinct strategies - firstly, take over or nationalization of the existing
activity in the private sector, and secondly, as the creation of new activity in the public sector
through investments which are entrepreneurial in nature. Unfortunately, the establishment of
these public enterprises in order to ameliorate the problem of market failure resulted, in turn, in
government failure. These problems highlighted the critical nature of managerial failure and
other systemic deficiencies that characterized public enterprise management in many developing
countries. In addition, many of them remained a significant burden on public sector budgets,
demonstrated low levels of productivity, poor return on investment, lack of strategy, poor
management practices, lack of direction, ineffective organizational structure, overstaffing,
inadequate financial control systems, weak oversight, political interference, and opportunistic
misuse by political elites.
Performance Indicators
There is a continuing concern about the effectiveness, efficiency and usefulness of public
enterprises as instruments of development and change. To appraise the performance of public
enterprises, a number of performance indicators have been advanced: (1) objective clarity: the
objectives of the enterprises need to be clear and specifically stated; the roles must be clearly
defined and described; the objectives must not be in conflict with each other and with national
goals and priorities so that planning, controlling and accountability can be carried out to ensure
their effective and efficient operations; (2) financial indicators: these may relate to profitability,
return on investment, debt profile, ratio analyses and liquidity arrears; (3) macroeconomic
impact: the extent to which one can gauge its impact on the gross domestic product, value added,
employment, compensations, etc.; (4) fiscal impact: its contributions to tax revenues, non-tax
revenues, dividend payments, subsidies, transfer payments, internal and external debts, etc. need
to be looked at; and (5) social impact: it includes paying attention to social preferences, social
worth and soundness, social mobility, social development
Public Enterprise Success Models
Despite the many challenges, however, there are successful models of public enterprises that
emerged in different countries over the years. Some examples include – Temasek, Singapore,
one of the largest state investment agencies, owned by the State of Singapore; Baosteel, China,
one of the largest steel producing companies in the world, owned by the State of China; EdF,
France, one of the largest power generating companies in the world, owned by the State of
France; NTT Data, Japan, one of the largest groups in the communication industry, owned by the
State of Japan; ENI, Italy, one of the largest energy groups in the world, owned by the State of
Italy; and Oil & Natural Gas Corporation, India, the largest Indian company in FT 500, owned
by the State of India.
In other countries, public enterprises continue to operate efficiently in Australia, China,
France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Philippines, South Korea and Sri
Lanka. Moreover, evidence indicates that a new paradigm of synergy between state and market
was achieved by China which opened up its economy for private enterprises without privatizing
their public enterprises. In addition, Cuba recently opened up select parts of its economy to
private enterprise without privatizing its socialist path to development. The experience of
countries like Japan and France indicates that governments and public enterprises can and do
operate as partners in development rather than as adversaries.
The experiences of several developing countries indicate that there are required steps in
order to ensure effective public enterprise management. Public enterprises must minimize
market failure by avoiding government failures as well as consequent managerial failure in their
operations. Managerial failure is viewed as the result of the inability of governments to adopt
effective policies on investment, prices, financing, as well as on new projects which are usually
delayed, among other factors adversely the management of public enterprises.
There is also the inability of governments to build managerial cadres for the public
enterprises, such as the Central Administrative Pool and the Industrial Management Pool of
India, the Tata Administrative Service in the Tata Group of Companies, the Career Executive
Service in Philippines and Iran, and related institutions like the ENA of France, and providing
them with the requisite autonomy to manage their public enterprises with greater efficiency. The
continued practice of policy-makers having strategic powers of appointing the public enterprise
board, fixing their terms and remuneration, deciding on all new investments and expansion,
approving contracts and purchases, etc. without co-sharing either the corporate risk of managing
the public enterprises or being accountable for their performance is counterproductive. The
government-public enterprise relationship should be based on partnership, involvement, and
accountability for results rather than mere ownership or control. In addition, public enterprises
must implement and deliver results based on growth, efficiency and welfare

Conclusion
In any discourse on public sector entrepreneurship and public enterprises, it is necessary to
address the quality of organization and management as well as ownership. Both have been
problematic in practice and suboptimal in track record in many parts of the developing world
which ultimately led to public authorities reducing their reliance on public enterprises as
instruments of policy and national development.
There are two options for the future. The first is to improve the public enterprise sector,
aiming for greater internal efficiency, cost recovery, dysfunction control, managerial
effectiveness and better public control, hopefully permitting public enterprises some operational
latitude, while retaining the benefits of public ownership. Improvements can be made and
sustained, particularly in accountability, transparency, answerability, results and performance.
The second is that public enterprises need to organize, manage and evaluate public and enterprise
and manage conflict between the public domain and market forces.
In view of the challenges confronting public sector entrepreneurship, it is important to adopt a
holistic view. Many of the public enterprises in certain developing countries developed in a
haphazard way and have failed to benefit from an overall and systematic review of their
enterprises. As a result, the objectives of individual public enterprises may be inconsistent or in
conflict with each other. Few serious efforts have been made to ensure that the activities of all
public enterprises are complementary to each other and that they combine to make the maximum
contribution to national development. Thus, one of the urgent tasks is to adopt a holistic and
systems approach and to achieve reform from this standpoint.
An important issue is to monitor and evaluate the strategic role that public enterprises play in
the process of socioeconomic development. This may be of utmost significance in many
developing countries, even though the actual size of public enterprises, measured by direct
contribution to GDP, employment generation, import substitution, export promotion or some
other index, may be modest. The distinctive characteristics of public enterprises which set them
apart from other public sector organizations would not have any great significance if the number
of such enterprises was small. This is the case in some countries, where virtually the whole of
the economy is under the control of the private sector under more or less close public authority
guidance and regulation. In many countries, however, the number and scope of public
enterprises is high and the extent of their involvement and influence in the economy is great.
Questions of privatization and accountability are linked. One of the arguments for
privatization is that public ownership means a kind of weakness of real accountability and
ownership. Part of the public sector reform involves reasserting control over public enterprises,
making them pay larger dividends, and devising better means of ensuring accountability. The
success of such reforms, however, has been mixed and leads in many instances to unplanned
privatization. If accountability and transparency are poor, results are questionable, losses and
subsidies are glaring, politicization, cronyism, and interest-group influence are rampant, the
status quo prevails and public sector gloom continues. In that event, the case for privatization
and alternatives become much more persistent and stronger.
Ministers, policy-makers, and other political executives claim that there are insufficient
controls while public enterprise managers claim that there is too much interference in
management functions. Public enterprises view managerial controls as rigid, time-consuming,
frequent, and inhibiting and the problems of tardiness and delay are acute for those operating in a
commercial environment. Excessive overlapping and frequent controls, devised many decades
ago with other objectives in mind, can only mean that commercial opportunities are missed or
delayed and the public enterprise remains discredited.
References
1. Adhikari, Ramesh and Kirkpatrick, Colin (2000) “Public enterprise in less developed
countries: an empirical review
2. Barzelay, M. (1992) Breaking Through Bureaucracy. Berkley: University of
CaliforniaPress.
3. Basu, Prahlad K. (2005) “Reinventing Public Enterprises and Their Management as the
Engine of Development and Growth” in Public Enterprises: Unresolved Challenges and
New Opportunities, New York: United Nations.
4. Bello, Walden; Cunningham, Shea and Rau, Bill (1994) Dark Victory: The United States,
Structural Adjustment, and Global Poverty, London: Pluto Press.
5. Chee, Stephen (1992) “Administrative Reform and Economic Growth in Malaysia:
Restructuring the Role of the Public Sector” in Zhang Zhijian, Raul P. de Guzman, and
Mila A. Reforma (eds.) Administrative Reform Towards Promoting Productivity in
Bureaucratic Performance, Vol. I, Manila: Eastern Regional Organization for Public
Administration: 50-74.
6. Clarke, Thomas (1994a) “Introduction: Privatising the World?” in Thomas Clarke (ed.)
International Privatisation: Strategies and Practices, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.: 1-
21.
7. Dalrymple, Kevin (1991) Some issues Relating to Public Enterprises in Barbados, Paper
presented at the XXII Annual Conference of the Regional Programme of Monetary
Studies, Belize.
8. Esman, M. J. (1991) The State, Government Bureaucracies and Their Alternatives in A.
Farazmand (ed.) Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration,
New York: Marcel Dekker: 457-465.
9. Farazmand, A. (ed.) (1991) “Introduction: The Comparative State of Public Enterprise
Management” in Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration,
New York: Marcel Dekker.
10. Farazmand, A. (2000) Privatization or Public Enterprise Reform? Westport, Connecticut:
Greenwood Press: 217-238.
11. Financial Times Special Report (2000), FT Global 500, London, May 27.
12. Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago (2011) State Enterprises
Performance Monitoring Manual, Ministry of Finance (Investments Division), Port of
Spain: Paria Publishing Co. Ltd.
13. __ (2014) State Enterprises’Investment Programme 2014, Ministry of Finance, Port of
Spain.
14. Haque, Shamsul M. (2000) “Privatization in Developing Countries: Formal Causes,
Critical Reasons and Adverse Impacts” in A. Farazmand (ed.) Privatization or Public
Enterprise Reform? Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press
15. Holder, Carlos (1990) Public Enterprises: To Be or Not To Be? Bridgetown: Central
Bank of Barbados.
16. Johnston, Van R. and Claire-Lauren Schultz (2008) Entrepreneurial Management and
17. Public Policy. New York: Nova Science Publishers.
18. Khan, Adil M. (2005) “Reinventing Public Enterprises” in Public Enterprises:
Unresolved Challenges and New Opportunities, New York: United Nations.
19. Mazzoline, Renalto, “Government Controlled Enterprises” in International Strategic and
Policy Decision, John Wiley & Sons.
20. Osborne, D. and T. Gaebler (1992) Reinventing Government. Reading, MA: Addison-
21. Wesley.
22. Rondinelli, Dennis A. (2005) “Can Public Enterprises Contribute to Development? A
Critical Assessment and Alternatives for Management Improvement” in Public
Enterprises: Unresolved Challenges and New Opportunities, New York: United Nations.
23. Roth, Gabriel (1987) The Private Provision of Public Services in Developing Countries,
New York: Oxford University Press.
24. Savas, E. S. (1987) Privatization: The Key to Better Government, Chatham, NJ: Chatham
House.
25. Selznick, Phillip (1966) TVA and the Grass Roots: A Study in the Sociology of Formal
Organizations, New York: Harper and Row Publishers.
26. Sheram, K. and Soubotina, T. (2000) “Private and Public Enterprise: Finding the Right
Mix” in Beyond Economic Growth, Washington, D.C., World Bank.
27. Shirley, Mary M. (1983) “Managing State-Owned Enterprises,” World Bank Staff Paper,
No. 577, Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
28. __ (1990) The Reforms of State-Owned Enterprises, Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
29. Steyaert, Chris and Daniel Hjorth (2008) Entrepreneurship as Social Change: A Third
30. Movement in Entrepreneurship Book. London: Edward Elgar.
31. The Economist (1997), London, September 17.
32. World Bank (1988) World Development Report 1988, Washington, D.C.
33. World Bank (1995) Bureaucrats in Business: The Economics and Politics of Government
Ownership, New York: Oxford University Press.