Mali, str. 14

Hailemariam, str. 11

U literaturi na temu privatizacije, ovaj pojam se definiše na različite načine. Neki autori definišu privatizaciju samo kao prodaju državne imovine. Na primer, Kikeri, Nellis i Shirley definišu privatizaciju kao transfer većinskog vlasništva u državnim kompanijama privatnom sektoru putem prodaje kapitala kompanija ili prodaje imovine nakon likvidacije¹. Ramamurti proces privatizacije definiše kao prodaju delimičnog ili kompletnog vlasničkog udela koji država ima u državnim kompanijama privatnom sektoru². Konačno, Svetska banka definiše privatizaciju kao odricanje vlasništva nad kompanijama, zemljištem i drugom imovinom od strane države³.

In the literature, several authors define privatisation differently. Some authors define privatisation narrowly to mean the sale of stateowned assets. Kikeri, Nellis and Shirley [1994] defined privatisation as the transfer of a majority ownership of state-owned enterprises to the private sector by the sale of ongoing concerns or assets following liquidation. Ramamurti [1992, p. 225] argues that privatisation “refers to the sale of all or parts of a government’s equity in state-owned enterprises to the private sector.” According to World Bank [1996, p. viii], privatisation is defined as “the divestiture by the state of enterprises, land or other assets.”

Mali, str. 14-15 

Hailemariam, str. 11-12

Neki drugi autori, pak, privatizaciju  sagledavaju šire – kao fenomen koji povezuje aktivnosti koje umanjuju nivo vlasništva države i njen uticaj na kontrolu poslovanja i aktivnosti koje su usmerene na promociju učešća privatnog sektora na upravljanje kompanijama pod državnom kontrolom. Vickers i Wright pod privatizacijom podrazumevaju zajednički imenitelj većeg broja različitih aktivnosti koje su usmerene na jačanje tržišta i smanjenje uticaja države⁴. Hartley i Parker definišu privatizaciju kao „kreiranje tržišne ekonomije sa ciljem da kompanije posluju na komercijalnoj osnovi“⁵. Cook i Kirkpartick, definišu proces privatizacije kao spektar različitih politika usmerenih ka promeni ravnoteže između državnog i privatnog sektora i usluga koje oni nude⁶. Konačno, Blommestein, Geiger i Hare privatizaciju vide kao „bilo koji transfer vlasništva nad državnom kompanijom drugim agentima koji za rezultat ima efektivnu kontrolu poslovanja u privatnom vlasništvu“⁷. Ovi autori smatraju da nije neohodno da država proda većinski udeo u svojim kompanijama i da neki državni organ, recimo ministarstvo finansija, može i dalje da zadrži vlasnički udeo u privatizovanim kompanijama.

Several other authors see privatisation as a wider phenomenon encompassing interconnected activities that reduce the government ownership and control of enterprises and that promote private sector participation in the management of state-owned enterprises. Vickers and Wright [1988] view privatisation as an umbrella term for a variety of different policies that are loosely linked which mean the strengthening of the market at the expense of the state. Hartley and Parker [1991, p. 11] define privatisation as “the introduction of market forces into an economy in order to make enterprises work on a more commercial basis.” They argue that privatisation embraces denationalisation or selling-off state-owned assets, deregulation (liberalisation), competitive tendering, as well as the introduction of private ownership and market arrangements in the ex-socialist states. Cook and Kirkpatrick [1988, p.3] define privatisation as “a range of different policy initiatives intended to change the balance between the public and private sector and the services they provide.” They distinguish three main approaches to privatisation: a change in the ownership of the enterprise, liberalisation or deregulation, and a transfer of goods or services from the public to the private sector even if the government retains ultimate responsibility for supplying the service. From a transition point of view, Blommestein, Geiger and Hare [1993, p.11] see privatisation as “any transfer of ownership of a state enterprise to other agents which results in their effective private control of the business.” They argue that privatisation does not require a majority stake to be held by any private owner or group of owners; it is also compatible with some shares being retained by the ministry of finance (or another body charged with holding state assets).

Mali, str. 15-16 

Hailemariam, str. 13

Literatura iz oblasti privatizacije se uglavnom bavi ciljevima privatizacije, njenom opravdanju, kao i modelima privatizacije. Što se tiče ciljeva, opšti stav je da preduzeća u državnom vlasništvu posluju negativno i da je cilj privatizacije da ovakva preduzeća učini profitabilnim i efikasnim. Pretpostavka je da preduzeća u privatnom vlasništvu posluju profitabilnije nego preduzeća u državnom, odnosno društvenom vlasništvu. U privatnom sektoru, preduzeća imaju potrebu za ekonomskom disciplinom koja ne postoji u državnom sektoru. Osim toga, privatna preduzeća su fleksibilnija prema potrebama potrošača na tržištu, posluju radi profita i posluju u konkurentskom okruženju, što ih usmerava da budu efikasnija od državnih.

The literature on privatisation in developed economies reveals the objective of privatisation, the justification for privatisation and the forms of privatisation methods used as well as the privatisation experiences of these countries. Many state-owned enterprises are loosing   money and policy makers are trying to privatise these enterprises. One of the objectives of privatisation is, therefore, to transfer ownership to private investors so that the enterprise will become efficient and profitable. The objective of privatisation is based on the view that private sector operations outperform their public counterparts. The World Bank [1996, p. 49] reports that “In established market economies and middle to high income developing economies there is little doubt that private ownership is a significant determinant of economic performance.” The private sector enterprises are subject to economic disciplines not present in the state sector, and they respond to choices made by consumers. The disciplines of competition and the need to earn a profit keep private business leaner and more efficient than their public counterparts.

Mali, str. 16 

Hailemariam, str. 13

U literaturi se mogu naći argumenti u korist i protiv privatizacije. Neki od argumenata u korist privatizacije su da (a) privatizacija povećava privatni sektor i samim tim stopu rasta, (b) privatizacija jača tehnološki razvoj i preduzetništvo, (c) privatna preduzeća su efikasnija od državnih, i (d) proces privatizacije je koristan za državni budžet⁸. S druge strane, isti autor ističe argumente protiv privatizacije: (a) privatizacije vodi povećanju troškova, (b) privatizacija smanjuje stepen zaposlenosti, i (c) privatizacija vodi gubitku kvaliteta. I pored svih navedenih argumenata, autor zaključuje da je u praksi dokazano da su privatna preduzeća efikasnija od državnih, dok su svi ostali navedeni argumenti više teorijski i malo istraženi.

There are arguments in favour and against privatisation. Some of the arguments in favour of privatisation summarised by Boorsma [1994, p. 25] are: “1. Privatisation increases the (private sector and hence) economic growth. 2. Privatisation reinforces technological development and innovative capacity. 3. Private enterprises are more efficient than public enterprises. 4. Privatisation gives a budgetary advantage.” On the other hand also, Boorsma [1994, p. 29] presents the following arguments against privatisation: “1. Privatisation leads to higher costs. 2. Privatisation leads to reduction of employment. 3. Privatisation leads to quality loss.” However, according to Boorsma [1994, p. 28] “The arguments in favour of contracting out and the efficiency gain that can be achieved in that case have a theoretical underpinnings and have been tested empirically. Other arguments are hardly substantiated theoretically or little research is available to support them.”

Mali, str. 18 

Hailemariam, str. 4

Privatizacija je element tranzicione politike jedne zemlje koji uključuje reforme i na makroekonomskom i na mikroekonomskom nivou. Makroekonomske reforme uključuju liberalizaciju cena i trgovine, odgovarajuće promene u fiskalnoj i monetarnoj politici, kao i mere stabilizacije. Jasno je, međutim, da je za uspeh privatizacije potrebno mnogo više od samo makroekonomskih reformi. Iskustva pokazuju da promene na makro nivou ne izazivaju automatske promene u restrukturiranju i načinu poslovanja na nivou kompanija.

Privatisation is generally one aspect of a transformation process that includes macroeconomic and micro-economic reforms. Macro-economic reforms include, price and trade liberalisation, monetary, fiscal currency exchange policies and stabilisation measures. These reforms have been introduced in many transition countries. However, the hoped-for overall regeneration of industry and the achievement of industrial competitiveness in the former socialist countries have not yet taken place. It is now clear that the success of transformation in the former socialist countries will depend on more than macro-economic reforms.

Mali, str. 18 

Hailemariam, str. 4

Kako bi se kreirala kompanija koja bi bila atraktivna za investitore, i država i rukovodstvo preduzeća moraju da započnu proces restrukturiranja – koje uključuje organizaciono, tehnološko, tržišno, finansijsko, proizvodno i upravljačko restukturiranje¹². Jedna od najvećih dilema ekonomija u tranziciji je da li restrukturiranje treba da prethodi privatizaciji ili ne, i veliki broj autora je diskutovao na tu temu. U svakom slučaju, najčešće je restrukturiranje, bar delimično, neophodno kako bi se kompanija učinila atraktivnijom za potencijalne investitore. Menadžeri državnih kompanija veruju da je prethodno restrukturiranje neophodno za uspešnu privatizaciju¹³.

In order to create enterprises which are saleable to investors, the firm's management, as well as, the government may need to engage in enterprise restructuring, like organisational, technological, labour, market, financial, product and management restructuring [Carlin et al., 1995]. A major dilemma in the transition countries is whether restructuring should precede or follow privatisation. There has been a great deal of argument over the appropriate sequence of restructuring and privatisation [Kikeri, Nellis, and Shirley, 1992; Pinto et al., 1993; Boycko, Shleifer, and Vishny, 1996a]. There is, however, often a need to restructure companies, at least partly, to make them viable to attract buyers, while later further restructuring by the new buyers may be required to make companies internationally competitive. According to Pinto et al. [1993, p.222], “state-owned enterprises' managers believe that prior restructuring is necessary for privatisation.”

Mali, str. 18-19 

Hailemariam, str. 4-5

Najčešće mere koje se preduzimaju u procesu pripreme kompanija za privatizaciju su smanjenje broja zaposlenih, kao i organizaciono i finansijsko restrukturiranje, u cilju smanjenja troškova, odnosno povećanja profitabilnosti. Kako bi se svaka od ovih mera ocenila sa stanovišta svoje opravdanosti, neophodno je razumeti kako svaka od njih utiče na vrednost kompanije i ponašanje njenog rukovodstva. Stoga je neohodno identifikovati faktore koji utiču na vrednost kompanija (Value Drivers), kako bi se utvrdio njihov potencijal za kreiranje, odnosno povećanje vrednosti kapitala. Upravo u sledećem delu rada ćemo detaljnije analizirati ove faktore vrednosti i objasniti na koji način oni utiču na finansijske pokazatelje uspešnosti poslovanja jedne kompanije i vrednost kapitala koja se kreira za njene vlasnike.

In line with this argument, the Government of Eritrea has taken some restructuring measures in 1995 to prepare enterprises for sale such as labour shedding, organisational restructuring and financial restructuring through the introduction of hard budget constraints to make enterprises self financing. A third characteristics of this study will thus be assessing the adequacy of restructuring measures before privatisation. In order to assess the adequacy of these measures, it is necessary to evaluate the impact of these changes on company value and management behaviour. How far profitability and competitiveness have been restored in the manufacturing sector during the transition period will be assessed. This means that the determinants of company value have to be identified. Enterprises need to be managed to enhance value to compete in the new market environment. A fourth characteristic of this study then is that it tries to evaluate how the manufacturing enterprises in Eritrea create value. However, how value has been created is only one part of creating viable enterprises. The other part is the question whether more value could be created. Sources of value creation potential in enterprises needs to be assessed. Viable enterprises contribute to the economic growth of a country by providing employment and generating wealth. In order to study this, we interviewed managers. The final characteristic of this study is, therefore, that we use management opinions in evaluating whether value is adequately created and whether it can also be created further.

Mali, str. 19 

Hailemariam, str. 6

Elementi koji utiču na vrednost kompanija su ključni za utvrđivanje prave vrednosti, odnosno cene kapitala kompanija koje se prodaju kroz proces privatizacije. Za uspešnu privatizaciju, sa stanovišta države, bitno je da se utvrdi tržišna vrednost kapitala koja, s jedne strane, omogućava pronalaženje adekvatnog investitora dok, s druge strane, državi kreira odgovarajuće prihode. Upravo stoga je ključno utvrditi kako se procenjuje vrednost kapitala ovih kompanija i koji metod procene koristiti kako bi se uspešno i transparentno završio proces njihove privatizacije, o čemu ćemo više govoriti u nastavku rada. Atraktivnost kompanija koje se privatizuju zavisi od njihove profitabilnosti ili potencijala za isti, produktivnosti, postojanja strateškog partnera i specifičnih karakteristika svake pojedinačne kompanije¹⁴.

The determinants of the value of the firm during privatisation are essential for fixing the price and for avoiding overvaluation or undervaluation. Hemming [1995] states that if an enterprise is sold at its fair market value, everybody can benefit from efficiency improvements not achievable under state ownership. If there is free disposal or heavy discounted selling of companies, it is inconsistent with equitable sharing of national wealth. However, determining the value of an enterprise for sale is not easy in a transition economy because there are no mature market mechanisms that one can rely on. The issue of how to evaluate companies and which method to use is essential for successful and transparent privatisation of enterprises. “The saleability of companies to be privatised depends upon the profitability or potential for profit, productivity, strategic buyer and specific characteristics of the individual company [Shafik, 1995, p. 1146].”

Mali, str. 19 

Hailemariam, str. 7

Ključni zadatak koji se postavlja pred privrede u tranziciji je kako transformisati državna preduzeća u privatne kompanije čiji je cilj maksimizacija stvorene vrednosti. Stoga transformacija ne podrazumeva samo promenu vlasničke strukture, već i povećanje poslovne efikasnosti, fleksibilnosti i konkurentnosti kompanija. Profitabilne kompanije privlače veći interes potencijalnih investitora i stoga je ključno naći način da se njihove poslovne performanse povećaju, a time i verovatnoća njihove uspešne prodaje, odnosno privatizacije.

The key task of the economies in transition is to transform state-owned enterprises (SOE's) into value maximising private firms. Therefore, transformation is not simply changing ownership, but also increasing efficiency, flexibility, and competitiveness of enterprises. Profitable enterprises attract plenty of interest from investors; therefore, the critical issue of transformation is how to improve the performance of the enterprises to make them profitable. “Selling an enterprise as a competitive going concern is, moreover, easier and quicker to accomplish [UNIDO, 1994, p. 58].”

Mali, str. 20 

Hailemariam, str. 13-14

U svojoj analizi procesa privatizacije u Velikoj Britaniji, grupa autora navodi da postoje tri osnovna faktora koja opravdavaju proces privatizacije: finansijski, informativni i kontrolni¹⁵. Finansijski aspekt privatizacije utiče kako na državu, tako i na privatizovano preduzeće. Država prestaje da plaća subvencije državnim preduzećima i ostvaruje prihode od privatizacije. S druge strane, privatizovano preduzeće slobodnije može da nađe potrebna sredstva za poslovanje na tržištu kapitala...

Bishop, Kay and Mayer [1995] in describing the experience of privatisation in the UK explained that there are three factors that justify privatisation: finance, information and control. The issue of finance affects both the government and the firm in a privatisation situation. The government avoids paying subsidies to ailing state-owned enterprises and raises revenue in the process of disposing of assets. The firms are also free to raise funds from the capital markets....

Mali, str. 20 

Hailemariam, str. 14

Druga grupa autora je analizirala performanse 11 britanskih kompanija koje su privatizovane u periodu od 1981. do 1988. godine, sa ciljem da utvrdi da li se njihova profitabilnost povećala nakon privatizacije¹⁶. Rezultati istraživanja, međutim, nisu bili precizni – autori su našli vezu između aktivnosti restrukturiranja koje su prethodile privatizaciji i ostvarenih poslovnih performansi, ali nisu mogli da utvrde da li bi poslovne performanse tih kompanija mogle da se poboljšaju i bez procesa privatizacije.

Martin and Parker [1997] examined whether 11 British firms, privatised during 1981-88, improved profitability after being privatised and they found out mixed results. The authors found evidence of performance improvement relating to restructuring prior to being privatised (but not afterward). However, they could not determine whether performance could have been improved without the spur of incipient divestiture or subsequent privatisation.

Mali, str. 20 

Hailemariam, str. 14-15

Takođe, još jedna grupa autora je analizirala performanse kompanija pre i nakon privatizacije u razvijenim i zemljama u razvoju¹⁷. Autori su uporedili finansijske i operativne performance 61-og preduzeća iz 18 zemalja (12 razvijenih i 6 zemalja u razvoju) i 32 privredne grane, koja su se privatizovala u periodu od 1961. do 1990. godine. Zaključak istraživanja je da preduzeća nakon privatizacije obično povećaju obim prodaje, postanu profitabilnija, postanu poslovno efikasnija (merenjem nivoa prodaje po zaposlenom i neto dobiti po zaposlenom) i povećaju nivo investicija. Osim toga, suprotno očekivanjima, prosečan broj zaposlenih se nije smanjio nakon privatizacije već, štaviše, povećao.

More recent analysis of performance before and after privatisation in industrial and developing countries reaches stronger conclusions in favour of private ownership, that privatisation improves performance [Megginson and Netter, 1999]. Megginson et al. [1994] compared the financial and operating performance of sixty-one companies from eighteen countries (twelve developed economies and six developing economies) and thirty-two industries that experienced full or partial privatisation between 1961 and 1990. Financial indicators were used including profitability, sales levels, operating efficiency, capital investment, leverage ratios and dividend payout figures. They found that following privatisation firms typically increased sales, became more profitable, increased investment and improved their operating efficiency (measured by sales per employee and net income per employee). They also found that on average employment did not decrease after privatisation, as might have been expected, but it actually increased...

Mali, str. 20 

Hailemariam, str. 15

Jedno istraživanje je ukazalo da je osnovna razlika između privatnih i državnih preduzeća trošak zaposlenih¹⁸. Državna preduzeća obično imaju veći broj zaposlenih od optimalnog. Osim toga, dok se u privatnim firmama odluke donose na osnovu ekonomskih faktora, u državnim kompanijama se odluke često donese kao posledica političkih uticaja.

The privatisation of state-owned enterprises is also justified on the basis that there are also factors that differentiate public and private firms. Pirie [1988] summarised the following main characteristic differences: labour cost, consumer input, decision-making, conditions of equipment and responsiveness to cost control. According to Pirie [1988] labour costs are often the key to differences in efficiency between the private and public sector. Public enterprises are usually overstaffed. Moreover, he argues that the consumer is able to exercise a degree of control on private firms by deciding whether to shop with them or to seek satisfaction elsewhere. The goods and services have to be oriented towards consumer satisfaction in order to attract customers and to make profits. They have to be the goods and services which consumers will choose to buy, and they have to offer the variety and the quality sought. In addition, Pirie stated that decision making in the private side of the economy is heavily based on economic factors.

Mali, str. 21 

Hailemariam, str. 52

Restrukturiranje podrazumeva raznovrsne aktivnosti kao što su prodaja delova preduzeća (Divestitures), odvajanje delova preduzeća (Spin offs), akvizicije, otkup akcija, koje su sve u isto vreme i transakcije, ali i strukturne promene koje su uvedene u svakodnevno upravljanje poslovanjem. Rappaport klasifikuje iste kao prvu fazu restrukturiranja, a one promene koje donose kontinuirano povećanje vrednosti kroz svakodnevno upravljanje poslovanjem, kao drugu fazu restrukturiranja¹⁹. Isti autor tvrdi da kompanije moraju da se kreću od prve ka drugoj fazi, jer je u drugoj fazi pristup stvaranja vrednosti za akcionare primenjen ne samo prilikom kupovine i prodaje preduzeća ili promene strukture kapitala firme, već i u planiranju i praćenju performansi svih poslovnih strategija na kontinuiranoj osnovi. Uspešna implementacija druge faze restrukturiranja ne samo da obezbeđuje da menadžeri ispunjavaju svoje obaveze u smislu razvoja poslovnih performansi u skladu sa zahtevima vlasnika, već i smanjuje brigu menadžera od neprijateljskog preuzimanja.

Restructuring involves diverse activities such as divestiture of underperforming business, spin-offs, acquisitions, stock repurchases and debt swaps, which are all a one time transaction, but also structural changes introduced in day-to-day management of the business. Rappaport [1986] classified the above listed one time transactions as Phase I restructuring and those changes that bring continuous value improvement through day-to-day management of the business as Phase II restructuring. Rappaport [1986] argues that companies need to move from Phase I restructuring to Phase II because in Phase II, the shareholder value approach is employed not only when buying and selling a business or changing the company’s capital structure, but also in the planning and performance monitoring of all business strategies on an on-going basis. A successful implementation of Phase II restructuring not only ensures that management has met its responsibilities to develop corporate performance evaluation systems consistent with the parameters investors use to value the company, but also minimises the Phase I concern of managers that a hostile takeover is imminent.

Mali, str. 21 

Hailemariam, str. 52

Menadžeri treba da restrukturiraju kompanije kako bi povećali vrednost kapitala jer, u suprotnom, kompanija može da postane predmet neprijateljskog preuzimanja²⁰. Autori tvrde da je u najboljem interesu i menadžera i akcionara da jaz između potencijalne i stvarne (sadašnje) vrednosti kompanije bude što manji. Menadžment može unaprediti poslovanje povećanjem prihoda ili smanjenjem troškova, kupovinom ili prodajom imovine i poboljšanjem finansijske strukture kompanije.

Copeland, Koller and Murrin [1990] also argue that managers should restructure companies to improve value, otherwise, external raiders will get an opportunity to take-over the company. Therefore, they claim that it is in the best interest of both managers and shareholders to keep the gap between potential and actual value as close as possible. Management can improve operations by increasing revenue or reducing cost, acquiring or disposing of assets and improving the financial structure of the company.

Mali, str. 21 

Hailemariam, str. 52

Menadžeri često restrukturiraju svoja preduzeća kako bi povećali produktivnost, smanjili troškove ili povećali bogatstvo akcionara. Bowman je ispitivao uticaj aktivnosti restrukturiranja na performanse preduzeća. On klasifikuje aktivnosti restrukturiranja u tri kategorije: portfolio restrukturiranje, finansijsko restrukturiranje i organizaciono restrukturiranje²¹.

Company executives often restructure their companies for enhancing productivity, reducing costs or increasing shareholder wealth. Bowman, et al. [1999] summarised the findings of the corporate restructuring literature of 1990s that examined the impact of restructuring on performance. They classified restructuring activities into three categories, portfolio restructuring, financial restructuring and organisational restructuring.

Mali, str. 21-22 

Hailemariam, str. 52-53

Portfolio restrukturiranje podrazumeva značajne promene u strukturi sredstava ili linijama poslovanja, uključujući i likvidacije, pripajanja, prodaju imovine i odvajanje delova preduzeća. Menadžment kompanije može da restrukturira svoje poslovanje prodajom poslovnih jedinica koje ne predstavljaju njihovu osnovnu delatnost (Non-core Assets), u cilju dobijanja dodatnog kapitala ili izlaska iz delatnosti koje ne kreiraju rast. Štaviše, kompanija može da ide na agresivnu kombinaciju akvizicija i prodaju delova preduzeća kako bi restrukturirala svoj proizvodni portfolio. Prema istraživanjima koje je sproveo autor, aktivnosti prodaje imovine i izdvajanja delova preduzeća generišu dobit, dok akvizicije u proseku ne dovode do poboljšanja.

Portfolio restructuring includes significant changes in the mix of assets owned by a firm or the lines of business in which a firm operates, including liquidation, divestitures, asset sales and spin-offs. Company management may restructure its business in order to sharpen focus by disposing of a unit that is peripheral to the core business and in order to raise capital or rid itself of a languishing operation by sellingoff a division. Moreover, a company can entail on an aggressive combination of acquisitions and divestitures to restructure its portfolio. According to the findings of Bowman et al. [1999] spin-offs and sell-offs generate gains while acquisitions and divestments generate no improvements on average. Of course these results have differed over time [Baker, 1992] and also possibly over countries.

Mali, str. 22 

Hailemariam, str. 53

Finansijsko restrukturiranje podrazumeva značajne promene u strukturi kapitala firme, uključujući LBO (Leveraged buyouts), intenzivno zaduživanje preduzeća u cilju privlačenja gotovine koja se distribuira akcionarima (Leveraged recapitalizations), kao i zamenu sopstvenog kapitala pozajmljenim izvorima (Debt for equity swaps). Finansijska struktura se odnosi na alokaciju priliva gotovine iz poslovanja i njihovu distribuciju između različitih poslovnih jedinica kompanije. Rezultati istraživanja autora pokazuju da finansijsko restrukturiranje generiše ekonomsku vrednost za kompanije.

Financial restructuring includes significant changes in the capital structure of a firm, including leveraged buyouts, leveraged recapitalisations and debt for equity swaps. Financial structure refers to the allocation of the corporate flow of funds-cash or credit-and to the strategic or contractual decision rules that direct the flow and determine the value-added and its distribution among the various corporate constituencies. According to Donaldson [1994, p. 7], “the elements of the corporate financial structure include the scale of the investment base, the mix between active investment and defensive reserves, the focus of investment (choice of revenue source), the rate at which earnings are reinvested, the mix of debt and equity contracts, the nature, degree and cost of corporate oversight (overhead), the distribution of expenditures between current and future revenue potential, and the nature and duration of wage and benefit contracts.” The findings of Bowman et al. [1999] revealed that financial restructuring generates economic value.

Mali, str. 22 

Hailemariam, str. 53

Organizaciono restrukturiranje podrazumeva značajne promene u organizacionoj strukturi firme, uključujući i promenu u aktivnostima poslovnih jedinica, promenu hijerarhijskih nivoa odlučivanja, širenje raspona kontrole, smanjenje diversifikacije proizvoda, reviziju sistema kompenzacija i bonusa, reformu menadžmenta, kao i smanjenje broja zaposlenih. Autor ukazuje da otpuštanja koja nisu praćena drugim organizacionim promenama imaju tendenciju da imaju negativan uticaj na performanse. Shodno ovom istraživanju, najava smanjenja broja zaposlenih u kombinaciji sa organizacionim restrukturiranjem verovatno će imati pozitivan, iako mali uticaj na performanse.

Organisational restructuring includes significant changes in the organisational structure of the firm, including redrawing of divisional boundaries, flattening of hierarchic levels, spreading of the span of control, reducing product diversification, revising compensation, streamlining processes, reforming governance and downsizing employment. The findings of Bowman et al. [1999] indicated that lay-offs unaccompanied by other organisational changes tend to have a negative impact on performance. Downsizing announcements combined with organisational restructuring are likely to have a positive, though small effect on performance.

Mali, str. 22 

Hailemariam, str. 51

Pojam strukture korišćen u ekonomskom kontekstu predstavlja specifičan, stabilan odnos između ključnih elemenata određene funkcije ili procesa²². Restrukturiranje predstavlja proces promene strukture jedne institucije (kompanije, grane, tržišta, zemlje, svetske ekonomije), od koga se mnogo očekuje i koji se preduzima sa određenom namerom.

“The word structure used in an economic context implies a specific, stable relationship among the key elements of a particular function or process. To restructure means the (hopefully) purposeful process of changing the structure of an institution (a company, an industry, a market, a country, the world economy, etc.) [Sander et al., 1996, p.1].”

Mali, str. 22-23 

Hailemariam, str. 51

Ova struktura definiše ograničenja pod kojima institucije funkcionišu u njihovim svakodnevnim operacijama i njihovom traganju za boljim ekonomskim performansama. Restrukturiranje se može tumačiti kao pokušaj da se promeni struktura institucija u cilju da se one relaksiraju nekih ili svih kratkoročnih ograničenja. Restrukturiranje je u vezi sa promenom strukture u potrazi za dugoročnom strategijom. Autori Crum i Goldberg pojam restrukturiranja definišu kao skup diskontinuelnih i odlučnih mera koje se preduzimaju u cilju povećanja konkurentnosti preduzeća i povećanja njegove vrednosti²³.

This structure defines the constraints under which institutions function in their day-to-day operations and their pursuit of better economic performance. Restructuring can therefore be interpreted as the attempt to change the structure of an institution in order to relax some or all of the short-run constraints. Restructuring is concerned with changing structures in pursuit of a longrun strategy. Crum & Goldberg [1998, p.340] define restructuring of a company as “a set of discrete decisive measures taken in order to increase the competitiveness of the enterprise and thereby to enhance its value”.

Mali, str. 23 

Hailemariam, str. 64

Iskustva u restrukturiranju preduzeća u tranziciji, prvenstveno u Centralnoj i Istočnoj Evropi, otkrila su da postoji potreba za restrukturiranjem preduzeća pre i posle privatizacije. Autori Johnson, Kitchen i Loveman tvrde da postoji potreba za planom integrisanog restrukturiranja koji usklađuje promene u poslovnoj strategiji, finansijama i investicijama, sistemu kontrole, marketingu i upravljanju ljudskim resursima u kompanijama koje prolaze kroz proces privatizacije²⁵.

In order to study the experiences of restructuring enterprises in transition, we reviewed the literature of the Central and Eastern European countries. In the literature, researchers have found that there is a need of restructuring enterprises pre and post privatisation. Johnson, Kotchen and Loveman [1996] claim that there is a need for an integrated restructuring plan that aligns changes in business strategy, enterprises finances and investment, control systems, marketing, operations and human resources.

Mali, str. 23-24 

Hailemariam, str. 64

Drugi autor tvrdi da država kao vlasnik često naglašava svoju nameru da prvo nadograđuje i restrukturira preduzeća u državnom vlasništvu, pa da ih tek kasnije proda²⁶. Glavni argument ovakve strategije je da se veliki potencijal nekih preduzeća ne reflektuje u početnoj ponuđenoj ceni i, kako bi se postigla mnogo viša cena za kapital ovih preduzeća, ona moraju prvo biti modernizovana. Na primer, ako preduzeće nije dovoljno atraktivno privatnim investitorima, jer ima stare dugove ili neke delove koji nisu profitabilni i koji se lako mogu odvojiti, onda početno restrukturiranje može značajno poboljšati položaj prodavca, u ovom slučaju države, u pregovorima sa zainteresovanim kupcima.

Major [1993] argues that governments frequently emphasise their intention to upgrade and restructure the state-owned companies first and to sell them later. The governments’ chief argument is that in several cases, enterprises to be sold have vast potential, that is, not reflected in the initial offer prices, and in order to obtain a much higher price for these companies, they must be modernised. There may be cases, according to Major, where such an argument is relevant. For instance, if an enterprise is not attractive enough to private investors because it carried old debts or it has some units, which are liabilities rather than assets and which can be detached easily, then an initial restructuring can improve the seller’s bargaining position considerably.

Mali, str. 24 

Hailemariam, str. 64

Zbog gore navedenog, tokom privatizacije je važno da se osmisli politika za poboljšanje performansi održivih preduzeća, ali koja posluju sa gubitkom, kao i nekonkurentnih preduzeća za koje je država odlučila da ih odmah ne prodaje. Pri tome, ako potencijalna vrednost tih preduzeća može da se poboljša, aktivnosti restrukturiranja podrazumevaju refinansiranje obaveza iz poslovanja, reorganizaciju delatnosti kako bi se smanjile ili eliminisale neprofitabilne aktivnosti, kao i dovođenje novih menadžera.

During privatisation, it might thus be important to devise policies to improve the performance of viable but at present loss-making and non-competitive enterprises that remain (for the time being) under effective control of the government. This raises important issues, of how to increase their autonomy and their profit orientation. If the enterprise potential value could be enhanced, restructuring could involve refinancing of debt, reorganising operations to reduce or eliminate unprofitable activities, slimming down the payroll or bringing in new management [UNCTAD, 1993].

Mali, str. 24 

Hailemariam, str. 64

Autor Filatotchev tvrdi da su promene u poslovanju, investiranju/finansiranju i upravljanju bitni elementi restrukturiranja tokom tranzicije²⁷. Poslovne promene odnose se na rast i diversifikaciju, obuku i zapošljavanje i odnos sa interesnim grupama u preduzeću. Investicione i finansijske promene obuhvataju promene u trajnim obrtnim sredstvima, investicijama, platama i izvorima finansiranja investicija. Promene u upravljanju se odnose na promene u vlasništvu i kontroli koju vrše vlasnici, menadžeri, zaposleni i drugi.

Filatotchev [1996] argues that changes in operations, financing and governance are essential elements of restructuring during the transition. Operating changes relate to growth and diversification, training and recruitment and relationship with stakeholders, such as trading partners. Financial issues include changes in working capital, investment, wages and source of finance for investments. Governance relates to ownership and control exerted by owners, managers and employees and others.

Mali, str. 24 

Hailemariam, str. 64

Poslovno restrukturiranje označava promene u postojećem proizvodnom miksu, uvođenje novih proizvoda, poboljšanje distributivnih kanala, smanjenje radne snage i materijalnih troškova i preusmeravanje proizvodnje prema klijentima koji imaju tražnju za robom koja povećava profitabilnost kompanije.

Operational restructuring denotes changes in the existing production mix, introduction of new products, improving distribution channels, reducing labour and material costs and reorienting production towards customer demanded goods to increase the profitability of the company.

Mali, str. 24-25 

Hailemariam, str. 64-64

Iskustvo Centralne i Istočne Evrope pokazuje da većina preduzeća još pre privatizacije smanjuje radnu angažovanost kako bi povećala konkurentnost i smanjuje obim proizvodnje kako bi se prilagodila novom tržišnom okruženju. Ovo je posledica liberalizacije cena i povećanja cene sirovine i energije, kao i smanjenja potražnje za domaćom robom zbog uvozne konkurencije. Smanjenje potražnje potrošača za domaćom robom rezultira niskom iskorišćenošću kapaciteta preduzeća. Menadžeri koji se susreću sa padom prodaje usled gore navedenih faktora, rešenje pokušavaju da pronađu kroz sprovođenje aktivne politike prodaje, promenu proizvodnog miksa i profila proizvodnje ka traženijim proizvodima, diversifikacijom proizvodnje, kao i smanjenjem troškova proizvodnje. Prema autoru Belka, jedan od ključnih faktora prilagođavanja preduzeća tokom tranzicije je brzina i efikasnost kojom kompanije uspevaju da povrate svoju domaću mrežu distribucije²⁸. Oni koji uspeju, u stanju su da odbiju stranu konkurenciju, pa čak i šire. Onima koji ovaj aspekt poslovanja zanemaruju, u prvoj fazi tranzicije predstoji težak zadatak oporavljanja, zbog teškog i skupog tržišta novih i poboljšanih proizvoda, kao i nedostatka adekvatnog marketinga i stručnjaka prodaje. Međutim, iskustvo privreda u tranziciji pokazuje da se samo mali broj menadžera u preduzećima koja treba da se privatizuju bavi uvođenjem novih proizvoda, razvojem novih procesa i razvojem novih tržišta.

The experience of the Central and Eastern European countries reveals that most of the enterprises engaged in labour reduction to compete in the market environment and reduced outputs to adjust to the new market environment prior to privatisation. The liberalisation of prices and trade increased the prices of materials and energy and decreased the demand for domestic goods due to import competition. The decrease in customers’ demand for domestic goods resulted in low capacity utilisation by the firms. Managers encountering a severe sales problem tried to find a way out by conducting an active sales policy, changing the mix and profile of output towards more sellable products, diversifying production and reducing of production costs [Estrin & Gelb, 1995; Dolgopyatova & Evseyeva, 1995]. According to Belka et al. [1993], one of the key factors of enterprise adjustment during transition is the speed and efficiency of the company’s efforts to restore its domestic distribution network. Those who succeed are able to fend off foreign competition and even expand. Those who neglected it in the first stage of transition faced the formidable task of recovering due to a difficult and expensive market with new or improved products and a lack of adequate marketing and sales specialists. However, the experience of transition economies shows that only a few managers engaged in the introduction of new products, the development of new processes and the development of new markets prior to privatisation.

Mali, str. 25 

Hailemariam, str. 65

Investiciono restrukturiranje označava promene u fiksnoj i obrtnoj imovini preduzeća. Preduzeća u tranziciji obično koriste stariju opremu, što im ugrožava konkurentnost u odnosu na uvozne proizvode iz razvijenih ekonomija. Oprema je često kupljena još u vreme osnivanja kompanije, a mogućnost njihove zamene se zanemaruje kako se, kroz modernizaciju, broj zaposlenih ne bi smanjivao. Ova praksa je bila prepreka modernizaciji i unapređivanju tehnologija u državnim kompanijama u Centralnoj i Istočnoj Evropi i stoga su se ova preduzeća suočavala sa teškoćama u konkurentskoj borbi na tržištu nakon pada komunizma. Prema već navedenom istraživanju Belka-e, osnovna sredstva su bila dotrajala, uz stope amortizacije od 60-70%. Pri tome, najviše projekata modernizacije je preduzeto sa ciljem smanjenja troškova (za uštedu energije, manju potrošnju materijala i sl.), dok je mali broj investicionih projekata za cilj imao povećanje proizvodnih kapaciteta preduzeća. Osim nedostatka finansijskih sredstava za investicije, u osnovna sredstva je manje ulagano i zbog nedostatka jasnih vlasničkih perspektiva preduzeća i jasnog stava rukovodstva. Ovo pokazuje da neizvesnost može imati snažan negativan uticaj na podsticaj da preduzeća odmah krenu da iskoriste mogućnosti za investiranje, što je razlog koji govori u prilog privatizaciji preduzeća u državnom vlasništvu.

Investment restructuring denotes the changes in fixed capital and in working capital investment of a business. Enterprises in the transition economies are using old machinery, which hampers competition with the imported products from the developed economies. The machinery is often purchased at the time of establishment of the company and replacement may be neglected due to the fact that managers were more concerned with employees’ welfare. Since modernisation of the machinery might reduce the labour force, they have been using outdated machinery. This practice hampered modernisation and technology advancement of factories and when the market was liberalised after the fall of communism in Central and Eastern Europe, the enterprises faced difficulties in competing in the market. According to Belka et al. [1993] the fixed assets are worn out, with depreciation rates of 60-70%, and the process of decapitalisation is steadily accelerating. Most modernisation projects undertaken aim at the reduction of cost (energy saving, smaller consumption of materials, lower input of labour). Very few fixed asset investment projects undertaken actually enlarge the production capacities of the firms. The main cause of low investment was the lack of financial resources. The decline in profitability of the state-owned enterprises each year decreased the financial reserves of the companies. Besides, according to Belka et al. [1993, p. 39], “the low investment in fixed assets was due to the high risk of investment decision because of lack of clear ownership prospects of an enterprise and clear management stance, due to the drop in consumer demand resulting from much lower purchasing power and due to the absence of an essential financial infrastructure (an efficient banking system and a capital market).” As demonstrated by Dixit [1989] uncertainty can have a powerful negative effect on the incentive to move promptly to take advantage of investment opportunities. Indeed, when the environment is uncertain, potential entrepreneurs have a strong incentive to delay even attractive projects, if part of the investment is irreversible.

Mali, str. 25 

Hailemariam, str. 65

Finansijsko restrukturiranje u toku privatizacije uključuje otpis ili smanjenje starih dugova od strane države, kako bi kompanije bile atraktivnije za kupce, ubrizgavanje kapitala za nova ulaganja, konverziju duga u akcijski kapital kada su poverioci preduzeća saglasni da prihvate vlasništvo u preduzeću, refinansiranje spoljnog duga (kao na primer restrukturiranje duga po sniženim kamatnim stopama i sa dužim rokovima dospeća, kao i delimičan otpis duga), prodaju imovine, i sl.

Financial restructuring during privatisation includes [Rideley, 1996; Saez, 1996], elimination or reduction of old debts to the government to make companies attractive to buyers, injecting capital for new investments, debt to equity swaps in which the creditors of an enterprise agree to accept ownership shares once the enterprise becomes a corporation, refinancing external debt, debt relief such as debt restructuring at reduced interest rates and with longer maturities and partial debt write-downs, sale of assets, equity issues simultaneous with the privatisation of existing stock and transfer of part of the sales proceeds to the company itself.

Mali, str. 25-26 

Hailemariam, str. 66

Iskustvo zemalja Centralne i Istočne Evrope pokazuje da država uglavnom prestaje da direktno subvencioniše preduzeća, kako bi izvršila pritisak na njih da počnu sama da se finansiraju i kako bi menadžerima prenela autonomija u upravljanju. Međutim, prema autoru Kornai, menadžeri gubitaških preduzeća su često u stanju da ublaže ova budžetska ograničenja i da ne poštuju finansijsku disciplinu, jer političari obično nisu spremni da likvidiraju preduzeća gubitaše, zbog socijalnih posledica²⁹. Slično je i sa državnim bankama koje su takođe odobravale kredite gubitašima bez rigoroznih analiza, iz straha da će, u slučaju da ova preduzeća bankrotiraju, one izgubiti novac koji su već pozajmile ovim preduzećima.

The experience of Central and Eastern European countries reveals that the governments generally stopped direct subsidies to pressure companies to become selffinancing and gave managers autonomy to govern enterprises. However, as Kornai [1990] predicted the managers of loss making enterprises were often able to soften the budget constraints because the politicians were not ready to liquidate loss-making enterprises due to the social consequences and they have been guaranteeing bank loans to these companies. Kornai [1980] explained that an enterprise has soft budget constraints when it expects to be bailed out in case of financial trouble. This creates an incentive problem because the manager of the organisation will fail to observe financial discipline. The state-owned banks also have been approving loans to loss making companies without rigorous analysis because if the companies become bankrupt they will lose the money that they had already loaned to these companies.

Mali, str. 26 

Hailemariam, str. 66

...Pri tome, najveći broj država naglašava potrebu finansijskog restrukturiranja, upravo zbog toga što su jedan od faktora koji je uticao na mali interes investitora za državna preduzeća bili akumulirani dugovi iz prošlosti. Da bi se privukli investitori, skoro sve vlade zemalja Centralne i Istočne Evrope su, nakon pada komunizma, pokušale da očiste bilanse preduzeća, kako bi se povećala njihova atraktivnost. Pri tome, njihov se pristup ovom problemu razlikovao - neke zemlje su direktno otpisivale dugove preduzeća, dok su druge odvajale preduzeća u finansijskoj nevolji ili prenosile odgovornost restrukturiranja duga sa preduzeća na banke.

The accumulation of debts deterred the buyers of enterprises at the time of privatisation and in order to attract investors, the governments of the Central and Eastern European countries tried to clean the balance sheets of the enterprises to make the companies sellable. Though all governments tried to tackle this problem by absorbing the enterprises’ debts, their approach differed. Some countries directly wrote-off enterprises’ debts while others segregated financially troubled enterprises or transferred the responsibility of enterprise debt restructuring to banks.

Mali, str. 26

Hailemariam, str. 66

Iskustva Mađarske i Bugarske, na primer, pokazuju da su vlade ovih država otpisale stare dugove preduzeća kako bi im olakšale poslovanje. Problem je, međutim, što umesto da stare dugove otpišu jednom, vlade su dugove otpisivale nekoliko puta u periodu 1992. – 1994. godine, čime su izgubile kredibilitet i poslale pogrešnu poruku menadžmentu tih preduzeća. U Poljskoj i Rumuniji, s druge strane, problematična državna preduzeća su bila izolovana („hospitalizovana”) i bila predmet restrukturiranja. Države su obezbedile dodatne izvore finansiranja, osnovale agencije za restrukturiranje i dale vremenski period rukovodstvima ovih preduzeća da postanu samoodrživa u roku od dve do četiri godine. Ukoliko se u ovom periodu preduzeća ne bi uspešno restrukturirala, bila su predmet likvidacije. Rezultati ovih aktivnosti, međutim, nisu bili sjajni prvenstveno zbog toga što rukovodstvo kompanija nije bilo spremno na velike rezove u poslovanju i otpuštanje radnika.

The experience of Hungary and Bulgaria, for instance, revealed that the government wrote-off enterprises’ debts to alleviate the financial problem that the companies had been facing. This relieved enterprises from interest payments. However, the debt write-off should be done only once. Otherwise, it gives an indication to the management that the government will bail–out the companies in case of financial problem and thus may tempt them to undertake projects that destroy company value. According to Dobrinsky [1996, p.393], “the governments of Hungary and Bulgaria wrote-off companies’ debts several rounds during 1992-1994.” This may have been reducing the credibility of hardening of budget constraints. Some governments (such as Poland and Romania) also isolated financially troubled enterprises (‘hospitalisation’) and tried to restructure them to make them viable. The governments provided finances, set up a restructuring agency and asked managers to turn around their companies in two to four years. Enterprises, which did not improve after the isolation program, were liquidated. These programs were not very successful because the managers were appointed by workers and thus, were not able to lay-off redundant workers.

Mali, str. 26-27

Hailemariam, str. 68

Studije slučajeva preduzeća u tranziciji koje su sačinjene od strane konsultanata, međunarodnih agencija kao što su Svetska banka i Organizacija za razvoj Ujedinjenih nacija (UNIDO) i drugih istraživača, otkrivaju kako se preduzeća mogu restrukturirati i pripremiti za uspešnu privatizaciju³⁰. Ove studije pokazuju da su preduzeća koja sužavaju svoj proizvodni fokus i smanjuju svoj ciklus proizvoda, bila u stanju da se restrukturiraju i privuku investitore. Pored toga, tržišno orijentisani menadžeri odigrali su ključnu ulogu u restrukturiranju svojih kompanija. Konačno, niske cene rada u Centralnoj i Istočnoj Evropi u poređenju sa Zapadnom Evropom dale su prednost preduzećima u ovim zemljama kako bi privukli zainteresovane kupce.

The case studies of enterprises in transition studied by consultants, international agencies such as World Bank and United Nations Development Organisation (UNIDO) and other researchers reveal how enterprises can be restructured for successful privatisation. The success and failures of enterprises to restructure may provide a lesson for Eritrea. Appendix A4-2 summarises case studies of some companies in the Central and Eastern European countries [Estrin et al., 1995; Johnson, Kotchen and Loveman, 1995 and Martin, 1996]. The case studies indicate that companies which narrowed their product focus and reduced their product cycle were able to restructure and attract investors. Moreover, market oriented managers played a key role in restructuring their companies. In addition, low labour cost in the Central and Eastern Europe in comparison with the Western Europe gave a competitive advantage to the enterprises in these countries.

Mali, str. 27

Hailemariam, str. 69

Geografska blizina Centralne i Istočne Evrope tržištu Zapadne Evrope takođe je pomogla preduzećima da poboljšaju svoje finansijsko stanje. Uspešne kompanije su obnovile tehnologiju i modernizovale svoje mašine, kako bi proizvodile kvalitetnije i konkurentnije proizvode. Poznanstvo sa stranim kooperantima je pomoglo u eventualnim privatizacijama preduzeća. Takođe, kanali distribucije preduzeća promenjeni su od veleprodajnih i maloprodajnih lanaca ka direktnoj prodaji krajnjim kupcima.

The geographical proximity of the Central and Eastern Europe countries to the market in the Western Europe helped the companies to improve their financial condition. The successful companies also upgraded their technology and modernised their machinery to produce quality and competitive products. The successful companies subcontracted work to West European companies, in particular in textiles clothing, to take advantage of the low labour cost. The acquaintance with foreign subcontractors has helped in eventual privatisation of the companies. The companies’ distribution channels also changed from wholesale and retail chains to direct sales to final customers.

Mali, str. 27

Hailemariam, str. 69

Osim do sada navedenih istraživanja, studije slučaja analiziraju i preduzeća koja nisu uspela da se prilagode novom tržišnom okruženju. U ovim preduzećima, menadžment je pokazao malo volje da sprovede reforme, a kompanije su uglavnom bile proizvodno a ne tržišno orijentisane. Ovi menadžeri su pokušali da lobiraju za subvencije, a ne da se angažuju u restrukturiranju svojih preduzeća. Međutim, kako su države smanjivale subvencije, dug ovih preduzeća je rastao, čime se dalje pogoršalo njihovo finansijsko stanje i time stvorila i dodatna prepreka za privlačenje investitora.

The case studies also show companies which failed to adapt to the new market environment and which have problems in getting investors. In these companies, the management showed little will to implement reform and they were mainly production oriented. These managers tried to lobby for subsidy rather than to engage in restructuring their companies. However, the government cut subsidies and the companies’ debt increased. The creditors also demanded payment. The worsening financial condition of the companies was becoming a constraint not only for attracting investors but also for getting qualified managing directors as well.

Mali, str. 27

Hailemariam, str. 69-70

U studiji ruskih preduzeća, autori Earle, Estrin i Leshchenko identifikovali su aktivnosti restrukturiranja (u oblasti proizvodnje, zaposlenosti, investicija i marketinga) koje poboljšavaju vrednost preduzeća³¹. Autori su koristili ove aktivnosti da testiraju svoje hipoteze da li razlika u vlasništvu rezultira različitim aktivnostima restrukturiranja od strane menadžera. Zaključak studije je pokazao da vlasnička struktura ne utiče mnogo na različitost aktivnosti restrukturiranja. Osim toga, shodno ovom istraživanju, za menadžere su bile bitnije aktivnosti restrukturiranja u oblasti investiranja i marketinga nego u oblasti proizvodnje.

In their study of Russian enterprises, Earle, Estrin and Leshchenko [1996] identified restructuring activities (production, employment, investment and marketing) that enhance enterprise value and used managers’ own views in evaluating the restructuring activities needed...The authors used these activities to test their hypothesis that difference in ownership will result in different restructuring actions by managers. However, the responses of the managers showed that there was little variation in the restructuring measures in the different ownership types tested (state-owned, employee-owned, management-owned, outsider-owned and newly established firms). The managers’ responses, however, showed that the managers regard marketing and investment/finance activities as slightly more important than production or employment related restructuring activities, regardless of ownership category...

str. 28-30, poglavlje 2.2.4. osim poslednjeg paragrafa na str 29-30

prevod sa str. 71-72

str. 30-31, osim dva poslednja paragrafa

prevod sa str. 73-74