International Journal of Social Science & Economic Research
Submit Paper


Ombir Singh

|| ||

Ombir Singh
Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, Kurukshetra University, Haryana, India

Singh, Ombir. "PUBLIC VERSUS PRIVATE OWNERSHIP AND PERFORMANCE OF INDIAN FIRMS." Int. j. of Social Science and Economic Research, vol. 4, no. 2, Feb. 2019, pp. 875-886, Accessed Feb. 2019.
Singh, O. (2019, February). PUBLIC VERSUS PRIVATE OWNERSHIP AND PERFORMANCE OF INDIAN FIRMS. Int. j. of Social Science and Economic Research, 4(2), 875-886. Retrieved from
Singh, Ombir. "PUBLIC VERSUS PRIVATE OWNERSHIP AND PERFORMANCE OF INDIAN FIRMS." Int. j. of Social Science and Economic Research 4, no. 2 (February 2019), 875-886. Accessed February, 2019.

[1]. Ahuja, G., & Majumdar, S. K. (1998). An assessment of the performance of Indian state-owned enterprises. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 9(2), pp.113-132.
[2]. Alchian, A. A. (1965). Some economics of property rights. II politico, pp. 816-829.
[3]. de Alessi, L. (1980). The economics of property rights: A review of the evidence. Research in Law and Economics: A Research Annual, volume 2, pp.1-47.
[4]. Dholakia, B.H. (1978). Relative performance of public and private manufacturing enterprises in india: total factor productivity approach. Economic and Political weekly, 13 (8), pp.M4-M11
[5]. Fama, E. F. (1980). Agency Problems and the Theory of the Firm. Journal of political economy, 88(2), pp. 288-307.
[6]. Grossman, S. J., & Hart, O. D. (1980). Takeover bids, the free-rider problem, and the theory of the corporation. The Bell Journal of Economics, 42-64.
[7]. Gupta, M. (1982). Productivity performance of the public and the private sectors in India: A case study of the fertilizer industry. Indian Economic Review, 17(2/4), pp. 165-186.
[8]. Majumdar, S. K. (1998). Assessing comparative efficiency of the state-owned mixed and private sectors in Indian industry. Public Choice, 96(1), pp. 1-24.
[9]. Manne, H. G. (1965). Mergers and the market for corporate control. Journal of Political economy, 73(2), pp. 110-120.
[10]. Mohan, T. T., & Ray, S. C. (2003). Technical efficiency in public and private sectors in India: Evidence from the post-reform years. Available:
[11]. Williamson, O. E. (1964). The Economics of Discretionary Behavior: Managerial Objectives in a Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
[12]. Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. New York: The Free Press.
[13]. Yarrow, G. (1986). Privatization in theory and practice. Economic policy, 1(2), pp. 323-364.
[14]. Yarrow, G. K. (1985). Shareholder protection, compulsory acquisition and the efficiency of the takeover process. The Journal of Industrial Economics, pp.3-16.

Since 1991, the Government of India started the process of privatization which is based on the argument that private ownership establishes the market for corporate control by allowing the tradability of property rights and therefore improves the quality of management. In 2002 by introducing the Competition Act, the Government has provided full freedom to the private sector to expand and grow. At this background, the paper analyses the impact of public and private ownership on the performance of a firm by using the data of five different industrial categories for the period of ten year, 2006 to 2015. For this purpose, panel data regression (fixed and random effects) models have been applied. From this study, a mixture of evidences has been emerged regarding the impact of ownership structure on profitability. Out of five, in two industries, public sector firms are reported with significantly high profitability against their private counterparts. Private sector firms have significantly high profitability only in one industry. In the remaining two industries, ownership does not have any significant impact on the performance of a firm. Further, the impacts of other environmental factors viz. liquidity, debt financing, and management of the available resources have been analyzed on the profitability of firms.