Effects Of Privatization On Performance Economics Essay

This research survey investigates the impact of denationalization on the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited ( PTCL ) fiscal public presentation which is privatize in 2005.The variables “ Net Net income Margin ” , “ Operating Net income Margin ” , “ Return on Assetss ” and “ Net incomes per Share ” and “ Number of trades of portions ” are used as representation for fiscal public presentation. The paired-samples T trial for mean difference has been used for comparing the pre and station denationalization public presentation. Analysis of the fiscal information shows decline in the net net income border, operating net income borders, return on assets and net incomes per portion after the denationalization ; but the impact is undistinguished for all the variables except the operating net income border. The effects of denationalization on employees ‘ public presentation and direction remain a possible job and issue for farther research due to shortage of resources and cognition.

Consequence of Privatization on Performance

Poor public presentation of many companies and public establishments in general has shown that in rule the authorities is non a good man of affairs. In this respect Privatization, a planetary phenomenon considered as a tool that leads to economic growing, addition in productiveness, efficiency in use of resources and enlargement in end product and employment. The rational consumer takes benefits from competition among private houses in the signifier of better quality services and low monetary values particularly in banking, air travel and telecommunication sectors. Due to rigidness in our civilization, Public Sector companies do non go flexible and more dynamic as compared to Private companies. In general, it can be claimed that denationalization is a portion of a broader economic policy which is referred to as the economic release or linking to the universe economic system by some authoritiess. Denationalization is the procedure of altering the conditions of governmental activities so that the major context is fixed but the ambiance of the sectors alterations and the consequence of ambiance and conditions of markets on companies ‘ public presentation is likely to see private sectors ‘ mechanisms

Telecommunication plays a critical function in the economic development of any state. PTCL was privatized in 2005. Due to the denationalization of PTCL, overall fiscal public presentation and the portion monetary values of the PTCL became volatile. This intent of this survey is to analyze dynamic facets of denationalization and compare the pre and station denationalization fiscal public presentation of the company.

An overview of PTCL

In 1947, after independency, Pakistan had an deficient telecom base. Merely 14,000 land lines were at that place in whole state and merely one section of Telephone and Post Telegraph. In 1962 these two sections were alienated as Postal section and Telephone and

Telegraph Department ( T & A ; T ) . Pakistan started bit by bit enhancement in telecommunication sector in 1990. The brief history of PTCL is as follows:

Telegraph and Postal Department was established in 1947.

Telephone and Telegraph Department was established in 1962.

Pakistan Telecom Corporation was established in 1990-1991.

PTCL was listed in the Karachi Stock Exchange in 1996.

Internet and nomadic subordinates was established in 1998.

Policies of Telecom sectors were finalized in 2000.

Deregulation policy of Telecom sector was announced in 2003.

Aims of Research

This research survey aims to analyze the consequence of house ‘s denationalization on the public presentation of the Pakistan Telecommunication Limited ( PTCL ) . The aims of the survey are as follows:

To measure impact of denationalization on the fiscal public presentation of PTCL.

To understand whether denationalization how much denationalization is effectual

To assist policy shapers and other important organic structures sing determination doing about denationalization.

Literature Review

Memon ( 2007 ) argue that denationalization and the readyings for denationalization are really of import to minimise the societal costs and disruptions caused by such inaugural. Most South Asiatic states have come to recognize that denationalization for the intent of cut downing financial shortages has caused them to off-load those endeavors which are loss doing first. Such action has non inspired private sector assurance, and has resulted in large-scale worker retrenchment. Denationalization is the cardinal factor that enables markets to work decently and suitably. Harmonizing to Megginson & A ; Netter ( 2006 ) from last two decennaries most states of the universe shifted their houses from province ownership to denationalization. In 1999 the gross of denationalization houses was $ 1 trillion around the Earth.

Given the importance of the topic, a batch of surveies have been performed to analyse the impact of denationalization in a figure of states. Taghizadeh ( 2009 ) compared 12 privatized telecom corporations with 12 non-privatized ( governmental ) 1s sing their per capita cost of operating, per capita cost to repair amendss and per capita pay and costs of labour care and conclude that the costs were lower in privatized centres sing all three above mentioned spheres. A recent survey ( Farinos et al. , 2007 ) while look intoing the companies privatized in Spain through the old ages 1990-2001 argue that denationalization has had a great impact on efficiency, sale income and employment. Warzynski ( 2003 ) in his survey of 300 Ukrainian houses finds that competition does non hold a important consequence on house public presentation measured by productiveness and profitableness while denationalization has a fringy positive important consequence on profitableness and an undistinguished consequence on productiveness. He points out ; nevertheless, that competition and denationalization might be complementary steps, as he finds that competition increases the public presentation of privatized houses. Boubakri et Al. ( 2005 ) study the station denationalization corporate administration of houses and show that public presentation additions are associated with the type of dominant proprietors. Choi and Hassan ( 2011 ) argue that Privatized Bankss, on norm, perform better than established Bankss, whereas this is non true where we do non see state differences across denationalizations. They conclude that although administration and foreign ownership are significantly correlated with reduced public presentation divergence of privatized Bankss relative to the established bank group, banking freedom ( ordinances ) and extended sedimentation insurance strategies in several economic systems are associated with increased public presentation divergence. A recent survey ( Okten & A ; Arin, 2006 ) on the consequence of denationalization argues privatized houses better productive efficiency by increasing their capital and diminishing their labour gift. But this consequence disappears when we control for alterations in market construction utilizing a step for market concentration. Hence, while private ownership has a robust positive consequence on productive efficiency, whether additions in productiveness will be passed on to consumers in the signifier of lower monetary values will depend on the market construction resulting from denationalization. Kerr et al. , ( 2008 ) studied the denationalization procedure in New Zealand and Australia through which they confirmed that the public presentation of companies after being privatized has improved greatly and denationalization has increased the one-year growing of New Zealand companies up to 12 % and Australian companies up to 9 % . Another survey ( Sarboland, 2012 ) conducted in Iran conclude that denationalization has increased the overall fiscal public presentation of the corporation, nevertheless fiscal ( debt ) purchase ratios besides increase, which reflects the company ‘s hapless public presentation in the old ages after denationalization because in such a state of affairs creditors will hold less confidence and, furthermore, in the position of loaners the less fiscal ( debt ) purchase ratio, the better.

Some research surveies found mean public presentation after reforms, whereas, some surveies found positive consequence of reforms. However, most of the literature suggests that there is a important relation between denationalization and efficiency and due to the importance and the function that denationalization has in increasing efficiency and optimal usage of resources, more research is needed to corroborate or reject the findings of old surveies. To make so, this current survey has been tried to look into the relation between denationalization and efficiency in PTCL.


The survey fundamentally focuses on the impact of Denationalization on the fiscal public presentation of PTCL. Since the sphere is PTCL, fiscal ratios of old ages 2000-2004 ( before being privatized ) and fiscal ratios of old ages 2005-2009 ( after being privatized ) have been analyzed, research population and sample are the same. Information and information needed for this research has been collected from the one-year studies of PTCL. Since used information was obtained from company paperss and fiscal records and accounting, the information is considered dependable. For mensurating fiscal public presentation the following four variables have been used:

Operating Net income Margin

Net Net income Margin

Tax return On Equity

Net incomes per portion

Number of Share trade

In this survey, to analyse informations obtained from paperss available in finance section, foremost, after dividing and placing the informations of two periods ( i.e. , after and before denationalization ) , the paired-samples t trial for mean difference has been applied to analyse the information. This trial explains volatility and significance of the variables, with the premises that the distribution of the variable is normal and that the discrepancy of the variable is same in both set of populations. The trial Idaho done with aid of Microsoft excel and SPSS.

Analysis and Findingss

Refer to Table.1 in appendix, the shows sum-up of consequence of Paired-samples t trial for the variable operating net income border. Mean value of the operating net income border is lower in the station denationalization period. On the other manus, standard divergence is higher in the station denationalization period as compared to pre denationalization period. It indicates that denationalization has negative impact on the net net income border ; furthermore, it has besides become more volatile after denationalization. Whereas, the important value is less than 0.05 which indicates that important alteration has been observed in the operating net income border after denationalization.

Refer to Table. 2, 3, 4 in appendix, the consequence shows sum-up of consequence of Paired-samples t trial for the variable Net Net income Margin, Return on Equity, and Earning per Share severally. Result show that all of these three variables have declined after denationalization, and have become more volatile. The significance value is greater than 0.05 which indicates that alterations in these variables are non statistically important.

Refer to Table. 5 in appendix, the consequence summarizes consequence of mated t trial for the variable Number of trades. The average value of the Number of trades is about dual in the station denationalization whereas, the standard divergence for the figure of trades is high in the station denationalization period. P or important value for the variable Number of Trades is extremely important as it is less than.005 bespeaking that the figure of trades per twenty-four hours is significantly affected due to denationalization.


Based on the consequences obtained, it was shown that there is a important consequence of denationalization on the mean figure of trades of portions. This consequence is being found positive every bit good. However, Analysis of the fiscal information shows decline in the fiscal public presentation of the company after denationalization measured by operating net income border, net net income border, return on equity and net incomes per portion ratio. These full four variables show diminution in the station denationalization period but the alteration is important merely in the variable operating net income border. Hence we can reason that denationalization of PTCL has non been found analytically favourable. It is recommended, based on the consequence of the research, the legislative bureaus should do appropriate policies to accomplish a suited market for Pakistan. Information elucidation, pick of investor and a crystalline denationalization procedure should be the top precedences of important organic structures in order to do denationalization more effectual and efficient. As suggested by Zeitun and Tian ( 2007 ) a denationalization reform should travel bit by bit and authorities should supply all necessary societal securities to cut down the negative societal impact of a houses ‘ settlement.

Issues for Future Research

Many issues are non covered during the survey due to shortage of resources and clip. Based on the findings of the current research the undermentioned suggestions are recommended for farther research:

To analyze the relation between denationalization and direction public presentation.

To analyze the impact of denationalization on employees ‘ sense of occupation security.

To analyze the failures of fiscal ratios in determination devisings.

To analyze the analysis of fiscal ratios in determination devisings.

To analyze the impact of denationalization on staff ‘s efficiency.