Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T15:38:39.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Deregulation and Privatization in Germany

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Ingo Vogelsang
Ingo Vogelsang
Affiliation:
Economics, Boston University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Public enterprises in the Federal Republic of Germany are about average for all nonsocialist countries and markets are more heavily regulated than in the United States. Compared to American deregulation and British privatization, there have been few developments in the Federal Republic. Why? In the last ten years new schools of thought have provided a stronger normative foundation for and a stronger positive explanation against deregulation and privatization in Germany in the near future. The German political debate on deregulation and privatization is characterized by three institutional peculiarities. Major steps to deregulate or privatize economic sectors require legislation, which is influenced by political parties. Trade unions exert a strong influence on the major parties and are opposed to privatization and deregulation. The European Community forces some deregulation upon the Federal Republic in order to liberalize service sectors.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , April 1988 , pp. 195 - 212
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

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

REFERENCES

Aharoni, Y., The Evolution and Management of State-Owned Enterprises, Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 1986.Google Scholar
Blankart, C. B., ‘Towards an Economic Theory of Advice and its Application to the Deregulation Issue’, KYKLOS 34, 1981, pp. 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blankart, C. B., ‘Limits to Privatization’, European Economic Review 31, 1987[a], pp. 346–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blankart, C. B., ‘Stabilität und Wechselhaftigkeit politischer Entscheidungen – Eine Fallstudie zur preuβisch-deutschen Eisenbahnpolitik von ihren Anfängen bis zum Zweiten Weltkrieg’, in Jahrbuch für Neue Politische Ökonomie Vol. 6, 1987[b], pp. 74–92.Google Scholar
Blankart, C. B., and Finsinger, J., ‘Warum werden wettbewerbsfördernde Maβnahmen verwässert; der Fall der Fahrzeugvollversicherung’, Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb 33, 1983, pp. 688–692.Google Scholar
Bös, D., Public Enterprise Economics, Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1986.Google Scholar
Brede, H., and Hoppe, U., ‘Outline of the Present Status of the Privatization Debate in the Federal German Republic’, Annals of Public and Co-operative Economy 57, 1986, pp. 205–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘Bundeminister für das Post – und Fernmeldewesen’, Konzeption der Bundesregierung zur Neuordnung des Telekommunikationsmarktes, Bonn, 05 1988 [a].Google Scholar
‘Bundesminister für das Post – und Fernmeldewesen’, Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Neustrukturierung des Post – und Femmeldewesens, Bonn, 05 1988 [b].Google Scholar
‘Bundesregierung’, Stellungnahme der Bundesregierung zum Sechsten Hauptgutachten der Monopolkommission 1984/85, Bundestags-Drucksache 11/555, Bonn, 08 1987.Google Scholar
CEEP, ‘Bundesrepublik Deutschland’, in Die öffentliche Wirtschaft in der europäischen Gemeinschaft, Brussels, CEEP Yearbook 1984, pp. 26–65.Google Scholar
Finsinger, J., ‘Eine positive Theorie der Regulierung entwickelt am Beispiel von Versicherungsmärkten’, manuscript, Berlin, May 1982 [a].Google Scholar
Finsinger, J., Versicherungsmärkte, Frankfurt a.M./New York: Campus Verlag, 1983[b].Google Scholar
Heuermann, A., and Neumann, K.-H., Die Liberalisierung des britischen Telekommunikationsmarktes, Berlin etc.; Springer Verlag, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knieps, G., Entstaatlkhung im Telekommunikationsbereich, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1985.Google Scholar
Knieps, G., and Schneider, F., ‘Politico-Economic Aspects of Deregulation in the Telecommunication Sector’, Arbeitspapier Nr. 8702, Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre, Johannes Kepler Universitat Linz, January 1987.Google Scholar
‘Kronberger Kreis’, Mehr Markt in der Telekommunikation, Bad Homburg: Frankfurter Institut für wirtschaftspolitische Forschung e.V., 10 1987.Google Scholar
Müller, J., Horn, M. and Knieps, G., Gesamlwirtschaftliche Bedeutung von Deregulierungsmaβnahmen in den USA: Schluβfolgerungen für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Berlin, DIW Gutachten im Auftrage des BMWi, July 1986.Google Scholar
Müller, J., and Vogelsang, I., Staatliche Regulierung, Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1979.Google Scholar
Neumann, K.-H., and Wieland, B., ‘Competition and Social Objectives: The Case of West German Telecommunications’, Telecommunications Policy 10, 1986, pp. 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peltzman, S., ‘Toward a More General Theory of Regulation’, Journal of Law and Economics 19, 1976, pp. 211–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘Regierungskommission Fernmeldewesen’, Neuordnung der Telekommunikation, Bericht der Regierungs – kommission Fernmeldewesen, Witte, Chairman E., Heidelberg: R. V. Decker's Verlag G. Schenk, 1987.Google Scholar
Scherer, F. M., Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance, Chicago: Rand McNally, 1st ed., 1971.Google Scholar
Scherer, F. M., ‘Regulatory Dynamics and Economic Growth’, in , M. and Wachter, S. (eds.), Towarda New U.S. Industrial Policy?, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981.Google Scholar
Schmidt, M. G., ‘West Germany: The Policy of the Middle Way’, Journal ofPublic Policy 7, 1987, pp. 135–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snow, M. S., ‘Telecommunications Deregulation in the Federal Republic of Germany’, The Columbia Journal of World Business 18, 1983, pp. 53–61.Google Scholar
Soltwedel, R. et al. , Deregulierungspotentiale in der Bundesrepublik, Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1986.Google Scholar
Spiegel, Der, ‘Schluβ mit dem Ladenschluβ’, 41st year, No. 51, 14 December 1987, pp. 72–88.Google Scholar
Stigler, G., ‘The Theory of Economic Regulation’, Bell Journal of Economics 2, 1971, pp. 3–21.Google Scholar
Thiemeyer, T., ‘Deregulation in the Perspective of the German “Gemeinwirtschaftslehre”’, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 139, 1983, pp. 405–418.Google Scholar
Vogelsang, I., Anreizmechanismen zur Regulierung der Elektrizitätswirtschaft, Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1982.Google Scholar
Vogelsang, I., ‘Public Interest Firms as Leaders in Oligopolistic Industries’, in Finsinger, J. (ed.), Public Sector Economics, London and Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1983, pp. 86–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Weizsäcker, C. C., ‘Staatliche Regulierung – positive und normative Theorie’, Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Volkswirtschaft und Statistik 118, 1982, pp. 325–343.Google Scholar
von Weizsäcker, C. C, ‘Was leistet die Property Rights Theorie für aktuelle wirtschaftspolitische Fragen?’ in Neumann, M. (ed.), Ansprüche, Eigentums – und Verfügungsrechte, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1984, pp. 123–150.Google Scholar
von Weizsäcker, C. C, in collaboration with Knieps, G., Ungern-Sternberg, T. von, and Wieland, B., ‘The Economics of Value Added Network Services’, Manuscript, Cologne, June 1987.Google Scholar
Wieland, B., Die Entflechtung des amerikanischen Fernmeldemonopols, Berlin etc.: Springer Verlag, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, O. E., Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications, New York: The Free Press, 1975.Google Scholar
Williamson, O. E., The Economic Institutions of Capitalism, New York: The Free Press, 1985.Google Scholar
Windisch, R. (ed.), Privatisierung natürlicher Monopole im Bereich von Bahn, Post und Telekommunikation, Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1987.Google Scholar