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

Margaret Thatcher started a world trend during herbusiness.Employees want to maximize employment
tenure as Prime Minister is Downing Street. It is called:and the economic benefits attached to it - managers
Privatization. It consisted of the transfer of control ofand shareholders wish to minimize this parameter and
a state-owned enterprise to the Private Sector. Thisits effects on the corporation. Managers wish to
was done by selling the shares of the company. Atmaximize their compensation - employees and
times, the control itself was maintained by the stateowners wish to minimize or moderate it, each group
- but the economic benefits emanating from thefor its own, disparate reasons.This break in the "chain
ownership of shares was partly sold to privates. Suchof command", this diffusive, fog like property of the
economic benefits are comprised of the dividend yieldnewly transformed entity lead to dysfunction,
of the shares plus the appreciation in their value (duefinancial mismanagement, lack of clarity of vision and
to the involvement of the private sector) known asof day to day operations, labour unrest (when the
capital gains.But the privatization process was notunrealistic expectations of the workforce are not
entirely homogeneous, uniform, transparent, or, formet).So, at the beginning, during the 1980s, the West
that matter, fair.The stock of some of thepreferred to privatize state owned firms - rather
enterprises was sold to an individual, or group ofthan to transform them. A fast accumulating body of
individuals, by a direct, negotiated sale. A "controllingeconomic research demonstrated unambiguously that
stake" (nucleus) was thus sold, ostensibly yielding toprivatization did miracles to the privatized firms. In
the state a premium paid by the private investors forcertain cases, productivity shot up 6 times. Between
the control of the sold firm.This method of60 to 80 percent of GNPs in the West are private
privatization was criticized as "crony capitalism". Fornow and a vigorous trend to privatize what remains
some reason, a select group of businessmen, allof the public sector still persists.But the same studies
cronies of the ruling political elite, seemed to benefitrevealed a less pleasant phenomenon: only a select
the most. They bought the controlling stakes atgroup of businessmen benefited from privatization.
unrealistically low prices, said the critics. To supportThe paranoid allusions of the critics of this process
their thesis, they pointed to the huge disparitywere completely substantiated. Something was very
between the price at which the "cronies" bought thecorrupted in implementation of the seemingly
shares - and the price at which they, later, sold it towholesome idea of privatization. The public - as a
the public through the stock exchange. The "cronies"whole - economically suffered.This led to the
cried foul: the difference in the prices was preciselyemergence of a new social consciousness. It was
because of privatization, better management andprovoked by the unacceptable social costs of
financial control. Maybe. But the recurrence of thecapitalism: more people under the poverty line,
same names in every major privatization deal stillhomelessness, a radicalization in the inequity of the
looked suspiciously odd.Then there was the seconddistribution of income among different strata of
version: selling the shares of the privatized firmssociety. But this trend was enhanced by the
directly to the public. This was done using either ofapparent corruption of the privatization process.This
two methods:An offering of the shares in the stocknew social consciousness converged with yet another
exchange (a cash method), orThe distribution ofall important and all pervasive trend: the formation of
vouchers universally, to all the adult citizens of thesmall businesses by small time entrepreneurs. The
country, so that they could all share the wealthlatter functioned both as owners and as employees
accumulated by the state in an equitable manner. Thein their firms. There were 16 million such
vouchers are convertible to baskets of shares in aowners-workers in the USA alone (1995 figures).
prescribed list of state enterprises (a nonchashAbout 99% of the 22 million registered businesses in
method).But a smaller group of (smaller) countriesthe USA were small businesses. No economic planner
selected a whole different way of privatizing. Theyor politician could ignore these figures. Employee
chose to TRANSFORM the state-owned firm insteadowned firms became the majority in the service and
of subjecting them to outrightadvanced technology sectors of the economy - the
privatization.Transformation - the venue adopted byfastest growing, most lucrative sectors.In its own
Macedonia - is the transfer of the control of a firmway, as a result of these two trends, the West was
and / or the economic benefits accruing to itsmoving back to transformation and away from
shareholders to groups which were previously - or stillprivatization, away from separation of ownership and
are - connected to the firm.In this single respect,labour, away from differentiation between capital and
transformation constitutes a major departure - notworkforce. This is a major revolution.The OECD (the
to say deviation - from classicalorganization of the richer countries in the world)
privatization.Ownership of the transformed firm canestablished an institute which follows trends in the
revert to either of the following groups, or to apoorer parts of the world, politely called "Economies
combination thereof:The employees of the firm,in Transition". This is the CCET.According to the
through a process called Employee BuyOut (EBO)TheCCET's latest report, privatization continues in an
management of the firm, in the form of auneven pace throughout the former Eastern Bloc.
Management BuyOut or Buy In (MBO / MBI)A selectSome countries nearly completed it. Others have
group from within the firm. Such a group uses theclaimed to have completed it - but haven't even
assets - current and future - of the firm asstarted it in reality. Some countries - Macedonia
collaterals, thus enabling them to get the creditsamongst them - have sold the shares of state
necessary to purchase the shares of the firm. This isowned firms (=businesses with social capital) to
called a Leveraged BuyOut, because the assets ofmanagers and workers - but the managers and
the firm itself are leveraged in order to purchase itworkers have largely not paid for these shares yet.
(LBO).Finally, the creditors of the firm can team upIt is by no means certain that they will. If the
and agree to convert the firm's debts to them intomanagers and workers default on their obligations to
equity in the firm, in a Debt to Equity Swappay the state - the ownership of the company will
(DES).Sometimes, the state continues to maintain anrevert back to the state. This is paper privatization, a
interest in privatized - as well as in transformed -transformation of expectations. No one can seriously
firms. This is especially true for natural monopolies,claim that the transformation is completed before the
utilities, infrastructure and defence industries. All thenew owners of the firms respect their financial
above are considered to be strategic matters ofobligations to the state.In all, privatization the world
national interest. Some countries - Russia and Israel,over, proceeded more rapidly with small firms. Selling
for ones - continue to own a "Golden Share". Thisthe bigger firms was much more difficult. Most of this
highly specific type of security allows the state tobehemoths were composed of numerous profit
exercise decision making powers, veto powers, or, atcentres and loss making business activities. A
least, control over business matters that it considerssolidarity of accounts and guarantees existed
vital to its security, financial viability, or even to itsbetween the various operations. The more profitable
traditions. Israel's golden share in the national airparts of a company supported and subsidized the
carrier, EI AI, allows it to prevent flights in and outless competent, the losing parts. This was not very
during the religiously holy day of Sabbath!Until veryattractive to investors.The official figures are heart
recently the common (economic) wisdom in thewarming. In parentheses - the percentage of firms
West had it that Transformation was - in the bestprivatized:Albania , Czech Republic , Estonia , Hungary
case - a sterile, make - believe exercise. The worst, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia all privatized 90% of
case included cronyism and corruption. One thing wastheir small firms. In Russia and Latvia, the figure is
to privatize and another was to privateer. But there70%.The picture is more clouded with the larger
were some grounds for some solid criticisms asfirms:Czech Republic (81%), Hungary, Estonia (75%),
well:(1) The main ideological thrust behind privatizationLithuania (57%), Russia (55%), Latvia and Slovakia
was the revitalization of stale and degenerated state(46%), Mongolia (41%), Poland (32%), Moldavia
firm. Badly managed, wrongly financially controlled,(27%), Romania (13%), Belarus and Bulgaria (11%),
applying an incoherent admixture of business and nonGeorgia (2%).But what hides behind the figures?The
business (political, social, geopolitical) considerations toCzech Republic is infamous for its cronyism and for
their decision making process - state firm werethe massive transfer of wealth to the hands of a
considered as anachronistic as dinosaurs. Manyfew people close to government circles.On the face
preferred to see them as extinct as those ancientof it, the situation in Poland looks a bit better: a
reptiles. An injection of private initiative acquired theuniversal voucher system was instituted. People were
status of ideological panacea to the corporate malaiseallowed to deposit their shares with 14 management
of the public sector.But this is precisely what wasfunds. These funds also bought some of the shares,
missing in the Transformation version. It offeredmaking them part owners. They control now 500
nothing new: no new management, no new ideasenterprises, which make up 5% of the country's
(were likely to come from the same old team) and,GNP.Some of these funds are 50% foreign owned,
above all and as a direct result of this preference ofso their management and moral standards are
old over new - no new capital.To this, the supportersWestern. But, even there, rumours abound and not
of Transformation answer that the one thing which isonly rumours.So, what is better - privatization or
new - personal capitalistic incentives - far outweighstransformation?Maybe the lesson is that we are all
all the old elements. Incentive driven initiative is likelyhuman. There is no method immune to human
to bring in its wake and to herald the transformationfallacies and desires, to corruption or to allegations of
- in the most complete and realistic sense - of theit. Transformation tends to benefit more people - so,
state firm.Change, renovation and innovation - saymaybe it looks more just. But long term it is
the latter - are immediate by products of personalinefficient and leads to the ruining of the firms
profit motivation, the most powerful known toinvolved and to permanent damage both to the
Mankind.(2) The process of Transformation blurredeconomy and to the workers-owners. Is it better to
the distinction between labour, management andbe the owner of a bankrupt firm - or to work in a
ownership. Employees acted as potential managersfunctioning firm, where you have no ownership
and as co-owners in the newly transformedstake? This is not an ideological or a philosophical
companies. The very concept of hierarchy, clearquestion. Ask the employees of the Pelagonija
chains of authority (going down) and of responsibilityConstruction Group.Privatization, on the other hand, is
(going up) - was violated. A ship must have onemuch more open to manipulation - but at least it
captain lest it sinks. It is not in vain that thesecures the continued existence of the firms and the
management function was separated from thecontinuous employment of the workers.Sometimes, in
ownership function. Employees, managers andeconomic reality, we have to give up justice (or the
owners, all have differing views and differences ofappearance of it) - in order to secure the very
opinion concerning every possible aspect of corporatesurvival of the workers involved.I, personally, prefer
governance and the proper conduct ofprivatization over transformation.