Identifying the drivers affecting the future of privatization in the Islamic Republic of Iran with a future research approach

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Social Sciences, Faculty of Humanities, Kashan University, Kashan, Iran

2 Doctoral student of social issues of Iran, Kashan University, Kashan, Iran.

3 Department of social science, Kashan university, Kashan Iran

Abstract

Despite the consensus of mainstream economics on the positive effects of privatization, such as increasing efficiency and productivity, reducing production costs, increasing income and growth; There are many empirical evidences in different countries that challenge the theoretical and empirical adequacy of this opinion. This research has identified the factors affecting the future of privatization in the Islamic Republic of Iran with a future research approach. In terms of practical purpose and in terms of a combination of documentary and survey methods and in terms of nature; It is analytical and exploratory. By reviewing the theoretical and experimental research literature and in-depth interviews with the elites of the labor and production society (labor activists, small business owners, government bureaucrats, labor experts, executive and academic experts, and journalists) who have sufficient expertise and experience around had privatization issues, in the framework of the cross-effects matrix, they scored the drivers based on the degree of influence and effectiveness, in order to finally reach the answer to the question that the most important components and drivers affecting the success of privatization in the Islamic Republic What are Iran? And to what extent and how do they affect each other? The data was entered into MikMak software, and then eighteen primary drivers were identified and defined in the framework of the cross-effect matrix. Finally, according to the high score of direct and indirect impact, six key drivers and levers with the greatest impact on the future state of privatization were identified, including the paradox of interests, government obesity, public trust, controllability, the attitude of officials and taking over the unproductive sector.

Keywords

Smiley face

References

احمدی امویی، بهمن. (1402). چگونه می­توان یک کشور را دزدید؟ تبارشناسی خصوصی­سازی در جمهوری اسلامی، کالیفرنیا، بنیاد تسلیمی.
امینی سابق، زین‌العابدین؛ گچ­پزیان، زهرا. (1397).  نقش خط­مشی­های خصوصی­سازی بر رشد مالی شرکت­های بیمه در ایران با رویکرد توسعه، فصلنامه خط­مشی­گذاری عمومی در مدیریت، سال نهم، شماره سی و یکم، صص 81-67.
بحری ثالث، جمال؛ فتحی عبداللهی، احمد؛ کرمی، غلامرضا. (1394). بررسی تاثیر خصوصی­سازی بر عملکرد مالی و عملیاتی شرکت­های دولتی خصوصی­سازی شده پذیرفته شده در بورس اوراق بهادار تهران، نشریه حسابداری دولتی، ش3، صص40-31.
بهداد، سهراب؛ فرهاد  نعمانی (1393). طبقه و کار در ایران، تهران، نشر آگه.
پرکوپنکو، ژوزف. (1380). مدیریت خصوصی­سازی، ترجمه: دردانه داوری و حسین اکبری، تهران، انتشارات مرکز پژوهش صنعتی آریانا، چاپ اول.
تاری، فتح اله؛ حنیفه­زاده، لطیف. (1392). نقش خصوصی­سازی و تغییر ساختار مالکیت بر کارایی شرکت­های بیمه. مجلس و راهبرد، 20(75)، 5-24. SID. https://sid.ir/paper/224780/fa
قریشی­خوراسگانی، مریم سادات؛ یمنی دوزی سرخابی، محمد؛  ذاکر صالحی، غلامرضا؛ گلنار، مهران. (1396). تحلیل محتوای مقالات حوزه خصوصی­سازی آموزش عالی در مجلات علمی کشور، نشریه سیاست علم و فناوری، سال نهم، شماره 3، صص 95-61.
محرم پور، غلامحسین؛ فهیمی، حمید. (1396). بررسی تاثیر اجرای سیاست­های اصل 44 قانون اساسی بر قابلیت مالی شرکت­های دولتی، سیاست‌های راهبردی و کلان، شماره 20، صص100-80..
مساعد، محمد. (1397). زمستان خصوصی­سازی، روزنامه شرق شماره 3335، یکشنبه 16 دی 1397.
مؤمنی، فرشاد؛ شیما حاجی میرزایی. (1395) اقتصاد سیاسی خصوصی­سازی همراه با فساد، فصلنامه پژوهش­نامه اقتصادی، سال هفدهم، شماره67، صص.252-221
نجات، سید امیررضا؛ میرزاده، اکبر؛ شهبازی، محمد؛ جواهری کامل، مهدی. (1389). بررسی تاثیر خصوصی­سازی بر عملکرد شرکت­های دولتی پذیرفته­شده در بورس اوراق بهادار تهران، فصلنامه پژوهش­نامه بازرگانی، شماره55، ص 96-75.
Al-Roubaiee ,Falah Ali. (2003). Economic Development Between the State and the Private Sector [Online] -http://adelamer. catsh.info/vb/show.thread.php?.t=4818.
Battaglio R. Paul . (2009), Privatization and Citizen Preferences A Cross-National Analysis of Demand for Private Versus Public Provision of Services in Three Industries, Administration & Society, Volume 41 Number 1, pp. 38-66, Sage Publications.
 Baum DR, Cooper R, Lusk-Stover O. (2018). Regulating market entry of low-cost private schools in education providers in Nigeria: A case of private primary education, Journal of Global Educational Development, 60: 100-112.
Beesley,Micheal.E (2005). Privatization Regulation and Deregulation.2nd, Eddition ,Published in Association with the Institution of Economic Affairs.
Bray, M. (2002).The costs and financing of education: Trends and policy implications. Asian Development Bank and Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, pp: 201-211.
Brooks, Mary.R and Culinane, kavin . (2007). Devolution Port Governance and Port Performance, Research in Transportation Economics. Volume 17-51, sever JA.
Estrin، Pelletier;2018(, Privatization in developing countries: what are the lessons of recent experience?. The World Bank Research Observer, 33(1), 65-102.
Faisal, M., Banwet, D.K. and Shankar, R. (2006). Supply chain risk mitigation: modelling the enablers, Business Process Management, 12(4): 535-552.
Goodman .John and Loveman Gary. (1991) Does Privatization Serve the Public Interest? On https://hbr.org/1991/11/does-privatization-serve-the-public-interest.
Gupta, Asha . (2000). Beyond Privatization, MacMilan Press LTD.
Hermann, Christoph. and Jorg Flecker. (2012). Privatization of Public Services, Impacts for Employment, Working Conditions and Service Quality in Europe , First
Huang, Z. & K.Wang. (2011). Uitimate Privatization and Change in Firm Permance Evidence from China. Bican.
Kočenda, E., & Valachy, J. (2002). Firm ownership structures: Dynamic development. Prague Economic Papers, 11(3), 255-268.‏
Megginson, W., & Netter, J. M. (2021). From state to market: A survey of empirical studies on privatization. Journal of Economic Literature, 34, 321–389.Published, New York: Routledge.
Reinsberg, B; Kentikelenis, A; Stubbs King, L.2019(.The world system and the hollowing out of state capacity: how structural adjustment programs affect bureaucratic quality in developing countries. American Journal of Sociology, 124(4), 1222-1257.
Tsai. T.H., Wan. C.C., & Chiou, J.R. (2016). Can Privatization be a Catalyst for Environmental R&D and Result in a Cleaner Environment? . Resource and Energy Economics, 43: 1-13.
Warfield, J.W. (1974). Developing interconnected matrices in structural modelling, IEEE transcript on systems, Men and Cybernetics, 4(1): 51-81.
Welch, D., & Fremond, O. (1998). The case-by-case approach to privatization: techniques and examples. The World Bank.
Xing, M. & Tan, T. (2021).Environmental Attitudes and Impacts of Privatization on R&D, Environment and Welfare in a Mixed Duopoly. Economic Research, 34(1): 807-827.
Futures Studies Of The Islamic Revolution
Volume 5, Issue 2 - Serial Number 17
Summer Quarterly
July 2024
Pages 129-103

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 23 May 2024
  • Revise Date: 12 June 2024
  • Accept Date: 17 June 2024
  • Publish Date: 21 June 2024

Share

How to cite

Statistics