ВУЗ:
Составители:
Рубрика:
Before the British water industry was privatized in 1989, for example, analysts estimated it to be under-
capitalized by over $11 billion. The result was a water supply that failed to meet European standards for quality
and safety. Similarly, the post office had steadily cut back its services. First telegrams disappeared, then Sunday
collection, then Saturday second delivery. These changes made life easier for producers at the expense of ser-
vice to consumers. Most serious of all, the losses of state industries consume funds that are needed for private
investment.
Privatization began against this background of steadily poorer performances from state industries. The
Thatcher government started with the 1979 sale of a batch of shares in British Petroleum (BP), the state oil gi-
ant. The sale reduced the government's holding to below 50 per cent. By British Treasury rules, this made BP a
private company, and free to behave accordingly, seeking capital for investment on the market and making its
own decisions on a commercial basis. The government sold more blocks of its BP shares later.
The military and civilian airplane manufacturer, British Aerospace, was sold in February 1981, followed by
the radiochemicals group, Amersham International, and the state trucking group, National Freight Company, a
year later. After this the pace began to accelerate. Britoil was sold in 1983, the British Ports in 1983, and Jaguar
Cars in 1984, which also saw the sale of British Telecom, the state monopoly telephone service. It was sold as
the largest company ever floated on a stock market, and attracted 2,3 million shareholders, many of them buy-
ing shares for the first time.
The Telecom sale demonstrated the government's desire to satisfy the various interest groups involved in
public-sector operations. The previous management became the new board of the private corporation. The
workers were given an allocation of free shares and were allowed to buy more from a reserved block on a basis
that offered free matching shares. The telephone-using public was offered a choice if they bought shares: a
share bonus if they held their shares for three years or reductions on their telephone bill. Rural dwellers were
satisfied by a requirement that the new company continue its remote country services. Urban dwellers received
assurances about the number of pay phones. Special services to the disabled were to be continued.
In short, the government "bid" for the support of virtually every group that might have objected. This pat-
tern was to be repeated and refined in subsequent privatizations. The Thatcher government could take this tack
because the private sector performed so much better than the state sector that the gains could be shared among
many groups while still leaving a huge bonus for the government. Not only were subsidized losses converted
into taxable profits, but the revenue from the sales accrued to the public treasury.
The policy of identifying and satisfying various groups made privatization a popular strategy, and a diffi-
cult one for subsequent governments to reverse. The opposition Labour party in Britain opposed every privati-
zation, pledging itself to reverse each one, but later abandoned its pledge. The fact that share offers to employ-
ees were taken up by over 90 per cent of the work force undoubtedly contributed to this about-face.
The British government usually aimed to set the opening share price at 10 to 20 per cent below its expected
market price. This was done for two reasons: to deal with the difficulty of pricing companies that had never
properly kept accounts, and to encourage ordinary people to invest. Over the decade the number of private
stockholders in Britain more than tripled. In 1979 there were four times as many people in labor unions as there
were stockholders. By 1989 the stockholders outnumbered the union members (though in many cases they were
now the same people).
The British privatization of nearly four dozen major businesses and several hundred small ones set an ex-
ample not only of the techniques that could be used, but also of the success that could be anticipated. The for-
merly underachieving state-owned British industries outperformed the market average once they entered the
private sector. With the exception of the oil businesses, which were marketed to professional investors because
of their high-risk nature, the privatized stocks rose in value faster than the stock market average, as shown by
periodic surveys in London's "Financial Times" and "Privatization International".
The sale of public housing in Britain to its tenants attracted little international attention because there was
no public flotation. But the purchase of their homes by people who had been living at subsidized rents made
major economic impact. In 1979, 35 per cent of Britons lived in state-owned homes at rents that failed to cover
the government's costs. The annual expenditure from 1979 to 1988 of $8,6 billion was not met by the income of
$4,5 billion.
The homes were offered at discounts based on the number of years of residence, starting with 20 per cent
below market price for a two-year tenant and rising to 50 per cent for those who had lived there for twenty
years. The largest discount was later raised to 80 per cent. Turning tenants into homeowners brought major so-
cial changes in Britain, including the upgrading of the quality of houses as people began to invest in and protect
their new assets. By 1988 the total revenues that accrued to government from housing sales alone surpassed
those of all other sales combined.
Страницы
- « первая
- ‹ предыдущая
- …
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- …
- следующая ›
- последняя »
