In the pursuit of policies and approaches that would sustain and accelerate economic development after the declared departure of colonial powers, African governments set up parastatals to serve as conduit for economic development through which governments could deliver services to the general populace. However, there is evidence that most parastatals do not utilize resources efficiently; instead, they impose heavy burdens on public resources and distort their use in the economy. Given the shortcomings of parastatals, in the 1980s, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), USAID, and other international donor agencies came to Africa with a philosophy of privatization. These multi-national corporations and donor agencies discretely advocated the overhauling of parastatals but the suggested processes and methods to this end were vague. Nonetheless, the arm-twisting strategies of multi-national corporations and international donors forced African governments to succumb to the philosophy of privatization. Unfortunately, in general, the philosophy, policies and practices of privatization operated to the economic detriment of African countries. Thus, as pursued in this text, it is actively compelling that the process of privatization be examined critically, considering advantages and disadvantages as well as the economic profitability for countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

Chiefly papers originally presented at a conference held in Washington, D.C., February 1986, sponsored by the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Sequoia Institute.

In developing countries across Asia, food marketing parastatals have played an important role in agricultural policy, especially with regard to government efforts to stabilize food prices. Three broad market failures constitute the primary arguments for this form of government intervention: a lack of market integration stemming from inadequate infrastructure, the absence or inadequacy of risk-mitigating institutions and markets, and the need to protect the world's poorest communities from a volatile global market. Opponents of such public intervention schemes claim that the old rationales are no longer convincing, that the programs are not cost-effective and do not allocate resources optimally, and that private institutions are strong enough to take over many of the functions traditionally performed by parastatals. In From Parastatals to Private Trade, the editors—clearly from the latter camp—pose three general questions: Why must parastatal-centered policies in Asia change, when should policy changes occur, and how should such change happen: gradually or abruptly? Experts in agricultural policy use case studies from South Asia (Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan) and East Asia (Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam) to answer these questions; and a concluding chapter synthesizes these countries' experiences with price stabilization programs. In light of the evidence—which indicates that parastatals played important roles in the past but have become overly expensive, and that reduced intervention can promote competition, help develop alternative institutions, and release funds for development and antipoverty programs without jeopardizing price stability—the editors highlight the challenges ahead and propose suggestions for reforming the existing paradigm for price-related policies. This volume provides valuable analyses for anyone concerned with balancing government intervention with market-friendly policies.

This book examines recent progress made in the region’s privatisation effort in Sub-Saharan Africa. With cumulative proceeds of privatisation accounting for just $8 billion compared to $46 billion in transition economies over the same period, it is ...

Privatization has dominated industrial restructuring programs since the 1980s and continues to do so. This authoritative and accessible Handbook considers all aspects of this key issue, including: the theory of privatization; privatization in transition, developed and developing economies; as well the economic regulation of privatized industries.

"Result of a joint research project ... under the auspices of the Center for Human Rights (University of Maastricht, the Netherlands) and the Institute of Human Rights Pedro Arrupe (University of Deusto, Basque Country, Spain).--P. v