Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-01T21:23:14.735Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rural Development, Privatization and Public Choice: Substance Depends upon Process

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

James Hite
James Hite*
Affiliation:
Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Whether or not privatization facilitates rural development depends upon what rural development means. In practice, rural development often is the result of a struggle between rent defenders and rent seekers. A positivist concept of rural development is proposed, and the institutions of public choice are examined to determine how they might influence privatization decisions. The conclusion is that whether or not privatization improves efficiency of adjustment in rural economies depends upon the specifics of political deals required to achieve a particular act of privatization.

Keywords

privatizationrural developmentpublic choicerent-seeking
Type
Invited Papers and Discussions
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , July 1993 , pp. 89 - 98
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amacher, R. C., and Ulbrich, H. H.. Principles of Economics. 5th ed. Cincinnati, South-Western, 1992.Google Scholar
Boardman, A., and Vining, A.. “Ownership and Performance in Competitive Environments: A Comparison of the Performance of Private, Mixed, and State-Owned Enterprises.” J. Law and Econ. 32(April 1989), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, J. M.Belter than Plowing and Other Personal Essays. Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1992.Google Scholar
Buchanan, J. M. “The Constitution of Economic Policy.” Amer. Econ. Rev. 77(June 1987), 243–250.Google Scholar
Buchanan, J. M. “An Economic Theory of Clubs.” Economica. 32(February 1965), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collander, D. C., ed. Neoclassical Political Economy. Cambridge, Ballinger, 1984.Google Scholar
Deavers, K. “What is Rural?” Policy Studies J. 20(1992), 184–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisk, D., Kiesling, H. K., and Muller, T.. Private Provision of Public Services: An Overview. Washington, Urban Institute, 1978.Google Scholar
Flammang, R. A. “Economic Development and Cultural Change: Counterparts or Competitors.” Econ. Growth and Cultural Change (October 1979), 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujita, M., and Krugman, P.. “A Monopolistic Competition Model of Urban Systems and Trade.” Unpublished memo, Department of Economics, MIT, Cambridge, July 1992.Google Scholar
Garreau, J.Edge City: Life on the New Frontier. New York, Doubleday, 1991.Google Scholar
Hite, J. C., and Ward, W. A.. “Asset Fixity and Rural Development: Some Hypotheses and Their Implications.” Working paper, Dept. of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Clemson Univ., 1992.Google Scholar
Johnson, G. L. “Supply Function - Some Facts and Notions,” in Heady, E. O., Diesslin, H. G., Jensen, H. R., and Johnson, G. L., eds., Agricultural Adjustment Problems in a Growing Economy. Ames, Iowa State Univ. Press, 1958.Google Scholar
Johnson, G. L., and Quance, C. L., eds. The Overproduction Trap in U. S. Agriculture. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1972.Google Scholar
Krugman, P.Geography and Trade. Cambridge, MIT Press, 1991.Google Scholar
Lewis, P. “The Urban Invasion of the Rural Northeast” in Proceedings of the National Rural Studies Committee, 1991. Corvallis, Ore., Western Rural Development Center, 1991.Google Scholar
Lipton, D., and Sachs, J.. “Creating a Market Economy in Eastern Europe: The Case of Poland.” Brookings Papers on Econ. Activity 1(1990a), 75–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, D. C.Public Choice. Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1979.Google Scholar
Olson, M.The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, Harvard Univ. Press, 1965.Google Scholar
Osborne, D., and Gaebler, T.. Reinventing Government. Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley, 1992.Google Scholar
Sappington, D., and Stiglitz, J.. “Privatization, Information, and Incentives.” J. of Policy Analysis and Mgt 6(1987), 567–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumpeter, J. A.The Theory of Economic Development. Trans, by Opie, R.. Cambridge, Harvard Univ. Press, 1934.Google Scholar
Shapiro, C., and Willig, R.. “Economic Rationales for the Scope of Privatization.” Olin Discussion Paper 41, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton Univ., 1990.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A.Administrative Behavior. 2nd. ed. New York, Macmillan, 1961.Google Scholar
State Reorganization Commission. Privatization: An Alternative Approach to Public Policy Implementation. Columbia, S.C., South Carolina State Reorganization Commission, 1991.Google Scholar
Vickers, J., and Yarrow, G.. Privatization: An Economic Analysis. Cambridge, MIT Press, 1988.Google Scholar
Vickers, J., and Yarrow, G.. “Economic Perspectives on Privatization.” Economic Persp. 5-2(Spring 1991), 111–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenders, J. T. “On Perfect Rent Dissipation.” Amer. Econ. Rev. (June 1987), 456–459.Google Scholar
World Bank. Techniques of Privatization of State-Owned Enterprises. (3 vs.) Technical Papers 88,89,and 90, The Bank, Washington, D.C., 1988.Google Scholar