The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: Employee and Management Owned Firms

Margaret Thatcher started a world trend duringbusiness.Employees want to maximize
her tenure as Prime Minister is Downing Street. Itemployment and the economic benefits attached
is called: Privatization. It consisted of the transferto it - managers and shareholders wish to
of control of a state-owned enterprise to theminimize this parameter and its effects on the
Private Sector. This was done by selling thecorporation. Managers wish to maximize their
shares of the company. At times, the controlcompensation - employees and owners wish to
itself was maintained by the state - but theminimize or moderate it, each group for its own,
economic benefits emanating from the ownershipdisparate reasons.This break in the "chain of
of shares was partly sold to privates. Suchcommand", this diffusive, fog like property of the
economic benefits are comprised of the dividendnewly transformed entity lead to dysfunction,
yield of the shares plus the appreciation in theirfinancial mismanagement, lack of clarity of vision
value (due to the involvement of the privateand of day to day operations, labour unrest
sector) known as capital gains.But the privatization(when the unrealistic expectations of the
process was not entirely homogeneous, uniform,workforce are not met).So, at the beginning,
transparent, or, for that matter, fair.The stock ofduring the 1980s, the West preferred to privatize
some of the enterprises was sold to an individual,state owned firms - rather than to transform
or group of individuals, by a direct, negotiated sale.them. A fast accumulating body of economic
A "controlling stake" (nucleus) was thus sold,research demonstrated unambiguously that
ostensibly yielding to the state a premium paid byprivatization did miracles to the privatized firms. In
the private investors for the control of the soldcertain cases, productivity shot up 6 times.
firm.This method of privatization was criticized asBetween 60 to 80 percent of GNPs in the West
"crony capitalism". For some reason, a selectare private now and a vigorous trend to privatize
group of businessmen, all cronies of the rulingwhat remains of the public sector still persists.But
political elite, seemed to benefit the most. Theythe same studies revealed a less pleasant
bought the controlling stakes at unrealistically lowphenomenon: only a select group of businessmen
prices, said the critics. To support their thesis,benefited from privatization. The paranoid allusions
they pointed to the huge disparity between theof the critics of this process were completely
price at which the "cronies" bought the shares -substantiated. Something was very corrupted in
and the price at which they, later, sold it to theimplementation of the seemingly wholesome idea
public through the stock exchange. The "cronies"of privatization. The public - as a whole -
cried foul: the difference in the prices waseconomically suffered.This led to the emergence
precisely because of privatization, betterof a new social consciousness. It was provoked
management and financial control. Maybe. But theby the unacceptable social costs of capitalism:
recurrence of the same names in every majormore people under the poverty line,
privatization deal still looked suspiciously odd.Thenhomelessness, a radicalization in the inequity of the
there was the second version: selling the sharesdistribution of income among different strata of
of the privatized firms directly to the public. Thissociety. But this trend was enhanced by the
was done using either of two methods:Anapparent corruption of the privatization
offering of the shares in the stock exchange (aprocess.This new social consciousness converged
cash method), orThe distribution of voucherswith yet another all important and all pervasive
universally, to all the adult citizens of the country,trend: the formation of small businesses by small
so that they could all share the wealthtime entrepreneurs. The latter functioned both as
accumulated by the state in an equitable manner.owners and as employees in their firms. There
The vouchers are convertible to baskets ofwere 16 million such owners-workers in the USA
shares in a prescribed list of state enterprises (aalone (1995 figures). About 99% of the 22 million
nonchash method).But a smaller group of (smaller)registered businesses in the USA were small
countries selected a whole different way ofbusinesses. No economic planner or politician could
privatizing. They chose to TRANSFORM theignore these figures. Employee owned firms
state-owned firm instead of subjecting them tobecame the majority in the service and advanced
outright privatization.Transformation - the venuetechnology sectors of the economy - the fastest
adopted by Macedonia - is the transfer of thegrowing, most lucrative sectors.In its own way, as
control of a firm and / or the economic benefitsa result of these two trends, the West was
accruing to its shareholders to groups which weremoving back to transformation and away from
previously - or still are - connected to the firm.Inprivatization, away from separation of ownership
this single respect, transformation constitutes aand labour, away from differentiation between
major departure - not to say deviation - fromcapital and workforce. This is a major
classical privatization.Ownership of therevolution.The OECD (the organization of the
transformed firm can revert to either of thericher countries in the world) established an
following groups, or to a combination thereof:Theinstitute which follows trends in the poorer parts
employees of the firm, through a process calledof the world, politely called "Economies in
Employee BuyOut (EBO)The management of theTransition". This is the CCET.According to the
firm, in the form of a Management BuyOut orCCET's latest report, privatization continues in an
Buy In (MBO / MBI)A select group from withinuneven pace throughout the former Eastern Bloc.
the firm. Such a group uses the assets - currentSome countries nearly completed it. Others have
and future - of the firm as collaterals, thusclaimed to have completed it - but haven't even
enabling them to get the credits necessary tostarted it in reality. Some countries - Macedonia
purchase the shares of the firm. This is called aamongst them - have sold the shares of state
Leveraged BuyOut, because the assets of theowned firms (=businesses with social capital) to
firm itself are leveraged in order to purchase itmanagers and workers - but the managers and
(LBO).Finally, the creditors of the firm can teamworkers have largely not paid for these shares
up and agree to convert the firm's debts to themyet. It is by no means certain that they will. If the
into equity in the firm, in a Debt to Equity Swapmanagers and workers default on their obligations
(DES).Sometimes, the state continues to maintainto pay the state - the ownership of the company
an interest in privatized - as well as inwill revert back to the state. This is paper
transformed - firms. This is especially true forprivatization, a transformation of expectations. No
natural monopolies, utilities, infrastructure andone can seriously claim that the transformation is
defence industries. All the above are considered tocompleted before the new owners of the firms
be strategic matters of national interest. Somerespect their financial obligations to the state.In all,
countries - Russia and Israel, for ones - continueprivatization the world over, proceeded more
to own a "Golden Share". This highly specific typerapidly with small firms. Selling the bigger firms
of security allows the state to exercise decisionwas much more difficult. Most of this behemoths
making powers, veto powers, or, at least, controlwere composed of numerous profit centres and
over business matters that it considers vital to itsloss making business activities. A solidarity of
security, financial viability, or even to its traditions.accounts and guarantees existed between the
Israel's golden share in the national air carrier, EIvarious operations. The more profitable parts of a
AI, allows it to prevent flights in and out duringcompany supported and subsidized the less
the religiously holy day of Sabbath!Until verycompetent, the losing parts. This was not very
recently the common (economic) wisdom in theattractive to investors.The official figures are
West had it that Transformation was - in theheart warming. In parentheses - the percentage
best case - a sterile, make - believe exercise. Theof firms privatized:Albania , Czech Republic ,
worst case included cronyism and corruption. OneEstonia , Hungary , Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia
thing was to privatize and another was toall privatized 90% of their small firms. In Russia
privateer. But there were some grounds forand Latvia, the figure is 70%.The picture is more
some solid criticisms as well:(1) The mainclouded with the larger firms:Czech Republic
ideological thrust behind privatization was the(81%), Hungary, Estonia (75%), Lithuania (57%),
revitalization of stale and degenerated state firm.Russia (55%), Latvia and Slovakia (46%), Mongolia
Badly managed, wrongly financially controlled,(41%), Poland (32%), Moldavia (27%), Romania
applying an incoherent admixture of business and(13%), Belarus and Bulgaria (11%), Georgia
non business (political, social, geopolitical)(2%).But what hides behind the figures?The Czech
considerations to their decision making process -Republic is infamous for its cronyism and for the
state firm were considered as anachronistic asmassive transfer of wealth to the hands of a few
dinosaurs. Many preferred to see them as extinctpeople close to government circles.On the face of
as those ancient reptiles. An injection of privateit, the situation in Poland looks a bit better: a
initiative acquired the status of ideological panaceauniversal voucher system was instituted. People
to the corporate malaise of the public sector.Butwere allowed to deposit their shares with 14
this is precisely what was missing in themanagement funds. These funds also bought
Transformation version. It offered nothing new:some of the shares, making them part owners.
no new management, no new ideas (were likelyThey control now 500 enterprises, which make
to come from the same old team) and, above allup 5% of the country's GNP.Some of these funds
and as a direct result of this preference of oldare 50% foreign owned, so their management
over new - no new capital.To this, the supportersand moral standards are Western. But, even
of Transformation answer that the one thingthere, rumours abound and not only rumours.So,
which is new - personal capitalistic incentives - farwhat is better - privatization or
outweighs all the old elements. Incentive driventransformation?Maybe the lesson is that we are all
initiative is likely to bring in its wake and to heraldhuman. There is no method immune to human
the transformation - in the most complete andfallacies and desires, to corruption or to allegations
realistic sense - of the state firm.Change,of it. Transformation tends to benefit more
renovation and innovation - say the latter - arepeople - so, maybe it looks more just. But long
immediate by products of personal profitterm it is inefficient and leads to the ruining of the
motivation, the most powerful known tofirms involved and to permanent damage both to
Mankind.(2) The process of Transformationthe economy and to the workers-owners. Is it
blurred the distinction between labour,better to be the owner of a bankrupt firm - or to
management and ownership. Employees acted aswork in a functioning firm, where you have no
potential managers and as co-owners in the newlyownership stake? This is not an ideological or a
transformed companies. The very concept ofphilosophical question. Ask the employees of the
hierarchy, clear chains of authority (going down)Pelagonija Construction Group.Privatization, on the
and of responsibility (going up) - was violated. Aother hand, is much more open to manipulation -
ship must have one captain lest it sinks. It is not inbut at least it secures the continued existence of
vain that the management function wasthe firms and the continuous employment of the
separated from the ownership function.workers.Sometimes, in economic reality, we have
Employees, managers and owners, all haveto give up justice (or the appearance of it) - in
differing views and differences of opinionorder to secure the very survival of the workers
concerning every possible aspect of corporateinvolved.I, personally, prefer privatization over
governance and the proper conduct oftransformation.