PRODUCTIVE EFFICIENCY OF PRIVATIZED CEMENT PLANTS IN TURKEY

Öz

Bu çalışmanın temel hedefi, Veri Zarflama Analizi (VZA) yöntemini kullanarak 1989 ve 2006 yılları arasında Türkiye’de çimento tesislerinin verimlilik ve etkinliklerini analiz etmektir. 1989 ve 2003 yılları arasında toplam 25 çimento tesisi özelleştirilmiş ve bu özelleştirmelerden bir milyar doların üzerinde gelir elde edilmiştir. Analize tabi tutulan çimento tesisleri arasında, , Iskenderun, Ankara, Söke, Trakya ve Denizli çimento fabrikaları diğerlerine göre daha verimli hale gelmişlerdir. Fakat özelleştirilen çimento fabrikalarının özelleştirilmeden önceki dönemle karşılaştırıldıklarında verimliliklerinin arttığı yönünde bir sonuca ulaşmak mümkün görünmemektedir..

 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• DEA-CCR,DEA-BCC Modelleri,çimento tesisleri,verimlilik,etkinlik,özelleştirme,Türkiye,veri zarflama analizi

PRODUCTIVE EFFICIENCY OF PRIVATIZED CEMENT PLANTS IN TURKEY

Öz

The purpose of this study is to use Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA-CCR and DEA-BCC Models) to evaluate the productive efficiency of cement plants in Turkey between 1989 and 2006. Total of 25 cement plants were privatized between 1989 and 2003 and over one billion US dollar income generated. Among the cement plants that were analyzed, Iskenderun, Ankara, Söke, Trakya and Denizli cement factories have worked efficiently with comparison to the others between 1987 and 2006. However, it is not possible to conclude that the productive efficiency of privatized cement plants performed better than the pre-privatized period.

  

 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• DEA-CCR,DEA-BCC Models,cement plants,productive efficiency,privatization,Turkey,data envelopment analysis

Kaynakça

1. Barberis, N., M. Boycko, A. Shleifer and N. Tsukanova (1996) “How Does Privatisation work? Evidence from the Russian shops”, Journal of Political Economy, 104, 764-790.
2. Banker, R.D., A. Charnes and W.W. Cooper (1984) “Some Models for Estimating Technical and Scale Inefficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis”, Management Science, 30, 1078-1092.
3. Başaran, E. ve N. Turunç (1995) “Türkiye’de Çimento Sektörü’nün Durumu”, Çimento Sempozyumu, 16-17 Kasım 1995, Ankara: TMMOB, 4-15.
4. Bishop, M and M. Green (1995) “Privatisation and Recession-The Miracle Tested”, CRI Discussion Paper, 10.
5. Bishop, M. and D. Thompson (1992) “Regulatory Reform and Productivity Growth in the UK’s Public Utilities”, Applied Economics, 24, 1181-90.
6. Bourbakri, N. and J. Cosset (1998) “The Financial and Operating Performance of Newly Privatized Firms: Evidence from Developing Countries”, Journal of Finance, 53, 1081-1110.
7. Charnes, A., W.W. Cooper and E. Rhodes (1978) “Measuring the Efficiency of Decision Making Units”, European Journal of Operational Research, 52, 1-15.
8. Charnes, A., W.W. Cooper, A.Y. Lewin and L. M. Seiford (1994) Data Envelopment Analysis: Theory, Methodoloji and Application, Boston, MA.: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

9. Hemming, R. and A. Mansoor (1988) "Privatizationa nd Public Enterprises", International Monetary Fund Occasional Paper, 5.
10. Kikeri, S., J. Nellis and M. Shirley (1994) “Privatization: The Lessons From Market Economies”, World Bank Research Observer, 9, 241-272.
11. La Porta, R. and F. López-de-Silanes (1999) "Benefits of Privatization: Evidence from Mexico". Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(4), 1193-1242.
12. Macedo, R. (2000) “Privatisation and the Distribution of Assets in Brazil”, Working Paper, No.14. [Online]. www.ceip.org/files/publications/pdf/14macedo.pdf.
13. Martin, S., and D. Parker (1995) “Privatisation and Economic Performance throughout the UK business cycle”, Managerial and Decision Economics, 16, 225-237.
14. Megginson, W. and J. Netter (2001) "From State to Market: A Survey of Empirical Studies on Privatization", Journal of Economic Literature, 39, 321-389.
15. Megginson, W., R. Nash and van M. Randerborgh (1994) “The Financial and Operating Performance of Newly Privatized Firms: An International Empirical Analysis”, Journal of Finance, 49(2), 403-452.
16. Naceur, S.B., S. Ghazouani and M. Orman (2006) “The Performance of Newly Privatized Firms in Selected MENA Countries: The Role of Ownership Structure, Governance and Liberalization Policies”, International Review of Financial Analysis, 16(4), 332-353.
17. Nellis, J. (2002) “Time to rethink privatization in transition economies?”, Discussion Paper, 38, IFC and World Bank. http://ifcln1.ifc.org/ifcext/economics.nsf/ AttachmentsByTitle/dp38/FILE/dp38.pdf.
18. Netter, J. M. and W. L. Megginson (2001) "From State to Market: A Survey of Empirical Studies on Privatization", Journal of Economic Literature, 39(2), 321-389.
19. Okten, C., and K.P. Arın (2006) “The Effects of Privatization on Efficiency: How Does Privatization Work?”, World Development, 34(9), 1537–1556.
20. Ozmucur, S. (1998) “Privatization and the Labor Market in Turkey”, in T. Bulutay (ed.), Main Characteristics and Trend of the Turkish Labour Market, Ankara: State Institute of Statistics, 171–209.
21. Pinheiro, A.C. and B.R. Schneider (1995) “The Fiscal Impact of America”, The Journal of Development Studies, 31(5), 751-776.
22. Saygılı, S. and E. Taymaz (2001) “Privatization, Ownership and Technical Efficiency: A Study of the Turkish Cement Industry”, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 74(4), 581–605.
23. Sherman, H.D. and G. Ladino (1995) “Managing Bank Productivity Using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)”, Interfaces, 25, 60-73.
24. Sun, Q. and W.H.S. Tong (2002) “Malaysia Privatization: A Comprehensive Study”, Financial Management, Winter(31), 79-101.
25. Tallant, D. (1993) “Relative Efficiency of Public and Private Sector Ownership and Privatization of the Turkish Cement Industry”, Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies, 7(1-2), 73-103.
26. Torero, M. (2003) “Peruvian Privatization: Impacts on Firm Performance”, Inter-American Development Bank Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo Latin American Research Network Red de Centros de Investigación Research Network, Working Paper, No: R-481.
27. Vining, A. and A. Boardman (1992) “Ownership versus Competition: Efficiency in Public Enterprises”, Public Choice, 73, 205-39.