The impact of the corporatization process on the financial performance of Canadian state‐owned enterprises
Bibliographic record
Abstract
State‐owned enterprises (SOEs) have been described as being inefficient and losing money. The theories pretend that private property rights will solve the problem. In practice, SOEs are reorganized to follow the model of the private firm, a period known as the public sector corporatization. One critical element of this reform is an important modification of the mission of the firm away from social and toward profitability goals. Most SOEs become profit‐seeking organizations. The objective of this study is to examine the impact of the corporatization process on the financial performance of SOEs. From theFinancial Post500, we selected the largest SOEs in Canada. For each firm, the critical year of the mandate revision has been set as the beginning of the corporatization period. We covered the years between 1976 and 1996. The performance is measured from a multi‐criteria approach including measures of profitability and productivity. The results suggest that the financial performance of SOEs improves significantly when firms are corporatized. Therefore, the main difference in the financial performance is caused by the difference in the objectives of the firm, not the property or some dubious political activities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".