Privatisation_Policy_and_Nigerian_Hospitality_Industry

APPRAISING THE IMPACTS OF PRIVATISATION POLICY ON THE NIGERIAN HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY. (A STUDY OF OWENA MOTELS AKURE AND GRAND HOTEL, ASABA) BY BELLO Y .O AND BELLO M.B (Mrs). DEPARTMENT OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT AUCHI POLYTECHNIC AUCHI E mail -bello.yekini@yahoo.com Abstract Experts in the field of hospitality sector canvassed for the need to privatize all the government owned hotel establishments in the country. Their argument is base on the fact that government does not have business to run business. Hence, government should focus on the business of providing conducive environment for businesses to thrive as majority of hotels being managed by the government in Nigeria are characterized by inefficiency- poor service delivery ,low returns on sales ,high operation cost ,and so on. The researchers decided to assess the effects of recent privatization effort of government on the privatized hotels with emphasis on Owena Motels Akure and Grand Hotel Asaba. The researchers relied on the accounting data obtained from the two studied hotels. However a variant of MNR (1994) methodology was adopted in the first part of the study. We then test whether a statistical significant change occurred after privatization using the Wilcoxon signed rank test and the standard test for difference in the population means. The result shows that the two hotels under study experience significant improvement in profitability after privatization compared with the pre-privatization era with enhance change due to privatization returns on sales and asset staged at 6,460 and 12, 0880 respectively in Owena Motel and 6,599 and 54,8840 respectively in Grand Hotel. The research further shows an enhanced operating efficiency on the two hotels, a boost in capital investment and real sales of the two hotels under study. Base on this positive trend the researchers does recommended that private people should be left to handle hospitality businesses, while government concentrating on providing conducive business environment and control Keywords: Hospitality industry, Hotels, Privatization, Public sector, Government. Introduction Privatization has being a subject of intense global debate in recent years. According to Akanwa and Agu (2005), the concept has received so much criticism from labour unions, academia and individuals. However in recent times, we are witnessing sweeping changes in the economics of both developed and developing countries. These changes according to Aboyade (1994) relate to efforts to move away from government ownership, control or participation in the economy towards free enterprise and increased operation of market forces. On the whole, the changes are making for a reduction in the role of government in the economy, with a corresponding expansion in private sector ownership, control and participation. The index in this information shows that we are thus observing of the evolution of a new world economic order which is characterized by liberalization or achieving efficiency and effectiveness in resources allocation and utilization. It is pertinent to affirm the fact that privatization of the government owned hospitality enterprises has become a key component of the structure process and globalization strategy in many economics. Nigeria and several developing economics had embarked on extensive privatization programs of their state owned hospitality enterprises as a means of fostering economic growth, attaining macroeconomic stability, and reducing public sector spending arising from subsidies, and subventions to unprofitable state owned hospitality enterprises. According to the African Economic Research Consortium, 2008, there are compelling evidence from developed and developing countries that privatization is able and capable of injecting dynamism into previously dirigisme economics. The problem essentially is that privatization policy in Nigeria with reference to the hospitality sector might not have being achieving its core objectives as there is widespread complaint that many privatized hotels in Nigeria had not being well managed hence, cases of corruption, customers complain, poor profit maximization, poor maintenance of her infrastructure and so on are still being noticed. Thus, the impacts of privatization policy on the Nigerian hospitality industry are being questioned by the stakeholders in the sector. Hence, the focus of this paper, to examine the financial and operating performance of the privatized hotels in Nigeria, to evaluate technical efficiency of these enterprises, before and after privatization, and to know if privatization effort of the Nigerian government on the hospitality industry achieve its core objectives. Meaning and Concept of Privatization. Privatization has become a generic term often employed to describe a range of policy initiative designed to alter the mix in ownership and management of enterprises away from government in favour of the private sector. Adam and Mistry, (1992) defined privatization as a measures adopted by the government to expose a public enterprise to competition or to bring in private ownership or control into public enterprises and hence, to reduce the usual weight of public enterprises to private investors. Nightingale, (1997) pointed that privatization can also be defined as a shift from the public to the private sector. Nwoye, (1995) supported that privatization is a strategic approach used to convert a state owned institution into an autonomous public authority or state owned enterprise. The Privatization and Commercialization Act of 1992 and the Bureau of Public Enterprises Act of 1993 defined privatization as the relinquishments of part or all of the equity and other interests held by the government or any of its agencies in enterprises whether wholly or partly owned by the government to the private authorities. The index in these definitions shows three elements: first, for privatization to take place there must be in existence, a public enterprises which need to be converted into private enterprise. Secondly, there is the reasoning that the private ownership or control or management would be put and finally, privatization is premised on the fact that there are problems with public ownership of enterprises and privatization is part and parcel of a reform agenda to turn around public enterprises so that they can deliver goods and services more efficiently and effectively. Privatization Policy in Nigeria and the Hospitality Industry Privatization in Nigeria was formally introduced by the privatization and commercialization decree of 1988 as part of the structural adjustment program (SAP) of the Ibrahim Gbadamosi Babangida administration in 1985-93. Obadan, (1993) pointed that one of the main objectives of SAP was therefore to pursue deregulation and privatization leading to removal of subsidies, reduction in wage bills and the retrenchment of the public sector ostensible to trim the state down to size (world bank 1994). Bello, (2008) affirmed that the history of hospitality industry in Nigeria may not be complete if the various roles played by the government in the sector are not outlined. According to the author, not much is known about the hospitality industry in Nigeria until 1923. In the year in question, the secretary to the southern province took the initiative to establish European Rest House in Port Harcourt. This was one of the earliest accommodation service facilities in the country and was followed with the establishment of the Lagos Rest-House in 1931, Mountain Hotel in Buea in 1956 and the Catering Rest-House in Victoria Island. Other Rest-Houses subsequently sprang up at Ikoyi, Obogbo, Asaba, Benin, Ibadan, Iseyin and so on. It is pertinent to affirm that these hospitality establishments were built and managed by the government hence, the index shows that from the beginning, hospitality ventures in Nigeria has being government owned. It is pertinent to affirm that poor management of these early government owned establishments might have being attributed to reason why it may be difficult today to trace some of these early hospitality organizations. Objectives of the Privatization Program in the Nigerian Hospitality Sector. i. To restructure and rationalize the public hospitality sector in order to lessen dominance of unproductive investments in that sector. ii. To encourage share ownership by Nigerian in the process to broaden the Nigeria capital market. iii. To re-orientate the enterprises for privatization and commercialization towards a new horizon of performance improvement, viability and overall efficiency. iv. To create a favorable investment climate for both local and foreign investors. v. To ensure positive returns on public hospitality investments in commercialized enterprises. Research Methodology In this research work, a variant of MNR (1994) methodology is adopted in the first part of the study. This implies that we first calculate performance measure of the studies hotels for the year before and after privatization (year-5 to -1) and post-privatization (year +1 to 5) periods. We then test whether a statistically significant change occurred after privatization. To do so we apply two tests, the standard test for difference in the means of the population as well as the wilcoxon signed rank test. The data utilized for the analysis are primarily accounting data sourced from annual reports and direct information from the studied hotels. Data Presentation and Analysis Empirical Results In this section, we present and discuss the empirical results using unadjusted performance measures for the two studied privatized hotels. The measures include profitability, operating efficiency, capital investment, output and employment. The basic result are presented in table 1-10 Profitability Indicators The major problems of state owned enterprise is the lack of proper economic incentives for the management and the fact that they are often charged with objective like providing goods or services at heavily subsidized price so that the goal of profit maximization cannot be unprofitable. As consequences, state-owned enterprises are often unprofitable. A change to a mare private ownership structure leads to profit maximizations, which becomes the dominant firms’ objective; hence, we expected the profitability of the two studied hotels to increase after privatization. To measure profitability, two indicators are computed. These are Returns on Sales (net returns to sales), Returns on Asset (the ration of net income divided by total assets). Table l: PERFORMANCE INDICATORS: PROFITABLITY FOR OWENA MOTEL. Variables ||Mean venue Before Privatization ||Mean after privatization |Mean change due to privatization ||T-test statistic Significance of change |Wilcoxon z statistic for change in median | Returns on Sales befor|of |22,4260 |28,9120 |6,4860 ||1.585x |1.214 || ||(22.33%) |(30.58%) |||||1.214| |||||||||| Returns On Sales|on |16,050 ||16,1240 |0,079 ||0.020 |0.674 || after taxation.|(after |(16.14%) |(20.07%) |||||0.674| |||||||||| Returns on Asset bbefor|on |17,4640 |29,5520 |12,0880 ||3.739xXX |2.023xX || ||(19.02%) |(28.01%) |||||2.023| |||||||||| Returns on|on |12,1560 |15,4160 |3,2600 ||0.0809 |0.944 || Assets after taxation tataxation.ttaxation.|(after |(14.17%) |(17.87%) |||||0.944| |||||||||| Source: Author’s computation. Table2: PERFORMANCE INDICATORS: PROFITABLITY FOR GRAND HOTEL. VVariables ||Mean |value |Mean |value |Mean ||T-test |Wilcoxon z | |||before ||after ||change |due |statistic for |Statistic for | |||privatization |privatization |to ||significance |change in|| |||||||privatization ||median || Returns on Sales| |2,5870 ||9,1700 ||6,5990 ||5.932xXX |2.023xXX || ||(2.40%) |(9.34%) |||||| ||||||||||| Returns on Sales after |on |2,0260 ||6,9220 ||4,8960 ||5.035xXX |2.023xXX || After |(after |(1.71%) |(7.16%) ||||||| Taxation. ||||||||||| Returns on Assets |of |9,8500 |64,7340 |54,8840 ||4.610xXX |2.023xXX || |(5.99%) |(58.10%) |||||| ||||||||||| Returns on| Assets|7,6400 |48,2000 |40,5600 |4.779xXX |2.023xXX | After Taxation||(4.17%) |(46.31%) |||| Taxation ||||||| Source: Author’s Computation. From the Table 1 and 2 above it was evident that there is significant improvement in the profitability after divestiture in the two hotels under study. The research shows that the (mean value) before privatization on returns on sales goes from 22, 4260 (22.33%) to 28, 9120 (30.60%) in Owena Hotel with mean change due to privatization put at 6, 4860. Also, the Motels recorded significant increase in returns on asset from 17, 4640 (19.02%) before privatization to 29, 5520 (28.01%) after privatization with mean change due to privatization put at 12, 0880. Grand Hotel on the other hand experienced improvement in returns on sales from 2, 5870 (2.4%) to 9, 1700 (9.34%) with mean change due to privatization put at 6, 5990. Also, the hotel experienced enhanced returns on asset from 9, 8500 (5.99%) before privatization to 64, 7340 (58.10%) after privatization with mean change due to privatization put at 54, 8840. The index in the above information shows that the two hotels under study experienced significant improvement in their profitability after privatization with enhanced changes due to privatization on Returns on Sales and Returns on Asset. OPERATING EFFICIENCY Flowing from the property rights and public choice literature, privatization is expected to result in increased efficiency in privatized enterprises as result of new investment, new technology and improved corporate governance. To capture the ability of the firms to extract maximum output from level of inputs, we compute two indicator of operating efficiency (Sales Efficiency) (Net Income Efficiency) both before and after the two hotels witnessed an upsurge. Table 3: PERFORMANCE INDICATORS: OPERATING EFFICIENCY IN OWENA MOTELS. Variables|Mean value before privatization|Mean value after privatization|Mean change due to privatization |T-test statistic significance of change |Wilcoxon z statistic for change in median| Sales Efficiency|0.3540 (0000)|0.996 (1.0000)|0.620|2.58XXX|2023| Net Income Efficiency before tax|0.1760 (0.0000)|0.62000|0.6340 0.4500|2.648XXX|1.753| Net Income Efficiency (after tax)|0.2820 (0.0000)|1.000|0.7800 04980|1.487|1.461| Source: Author’s Computation Table 4: PERFORMANCE INDICATORS: OPERATING EFFICIENCY IN GRAND HOTEL. Variable ||Mean value |Mean value |Mean ||T-test |Wilcoxonz || ||before |after |change |due |statistic for |statistic for | ||privatization |privatization |to ||significance |change |in | ||||privatization |of change |median || Sales Efficiency |0.3560 |1.5820 |1.2260 ||l2.293xxX |2.023xXX || ||(0.0100) |1.1500 |||||| Net |Income |0.02200 |0.6660 |0.6440 ||6.224xxX |2.023xXX || Efficiency (before |(0.0001) |(0.6000) |||||| tax) .||||||||| Net |Income |0.0860 |1.2140 |1.1280 ||6.266xxX |2.023xXX || Efficiency |(after |(0.0001) |1.0000 |||||| tax) .||||||||| Source: Author’s Computation From the Table 3 and 4 above, it was evident that there was a significant improvement in the Sales Efficiency of Owena Motel from mean value of 0.3540 before privatization to 0.996 after privatization with mean change due to privatization put at about 0.62. Also, the Net Income at Owena Motel was also enhanced from 0.176 before privatization to 0.62000 after privatization with 0.6340 mean changes due to privatization. At Grand Hotel, the research shows significant improvement in the Sales Efficiency from 0.3560 before privatization to 1.5820 after privatization with mean change due to privatization put at 1.2260. The Net Income Efficiency of the hotel was also enhanced from 0.02200 before privatization to 0.6660 after privatization with mean change due to privatization put at 0.6440. The index in this information shows that privatization exercise enhances operating efficiency of the two studied hotels. CAPITAL INVESTMENT Great emphasis on efficiency is anticipated to lead private hotels to increase their capital investment spending. Once privatized, firms should increase their capital expenditure since they have access to private debt and equity markets (Boubakri and Cosset, 1998). To assess the impact of privatization on capital formation, we compute two indicators: Capital Expenditure to Sales and Capital Expenditure to Total Assets. The result to this are mixed. Owena Motel experienced an upsurge in post- divestiture investment spending, while Grand Hotel witnessed a decline as shown in table 5 and 6 below. Table 5: PERFORMANCE INDICATOR: CAPITAL INVESTMENT OF OWENA MOTEL. Variable ||Mean value |mean |value |Mean change |T-test ||Wilcoxon z | ||before |after ||due |to |statistic |for |statistic for | ||privatization |privatization |privatization |significance |change |in | |||||||Of change ||median || Capital ||2,5580 |6,1948 |3,6360 ||2.741xxX ||1.7533xXX | Expenditure |to |(1.98%) |(5.60%) ||||||| Sales ||||||||||| Capital ||1,7800 |6,6850 |4,8000 ||3.221 xxx ||2.023xxX || Expenditure |to |(1.74%) |(5.73%) ||||||| Total Assets ||||||||||| Source: Author’s computation. TABLE 6: PERFORMANCE INDICATOR: CAPTIAL INVESTMENT OF GRAND HOTEL. Variable ||Mean value |Mean value |Mean ||T-test |Wilcoxon z | ||before |after |change |due |statistic for |statistic for | ||privatization |privatization |to ||significance |change |in | ||||privatization |Of change |median || Capital ||7,1600 |2,8980 |-4,2620 ||3.972xxx |2.023 || Expenditure |(5.98%) |(1.98%) |||||| To Sales ||||||||| Capital ||28,2640 |24,3000 |-3,9640 ||1.140 |2.023 || Expenditure |(19.85%) |(7.72%) |||||| To |Total |||||||| Assets ||||||||| Source: Author’s Computation. From the Table 5 and 6 above, the research shows an improvement in Capital Expenditure to Sales from 2,5580 (1.98%) before privatization to 6,19548 (5.6%) after privatization in Owena Motel. Capital Expenditure to Total Sales in the Motel was also enhanced from 1, 7800 (1.74%) before privatization to 6, 6850 (5.73%) after privatization. However, in Grand Hotel, Capital Expenditure to Sales was not enhanced as it decreases from 7, 1600 (5.98%) before privatization to 2, 8980 (1.98%) with mean change due to privatization put at -4, 2620, while Capital Expenditure to total Asset was put at about 28, 2640 (19.85%) before privatization and, 24, 3000 (7.72%) after the privatization with mean change due to privatization put at -3, 9640. The index in this information affirmed an enhanced capital investment of privatized hotel businesses. Output Privatization when correctly conceived should foster efficiency, stimulate investment and yield a corresponding increase in output. Our Proxy for output is real sales. The result confirms such theoretical predictions. The two hotels experienced marginal boosts in real sales following privatization. The mean changes due to privatisation in real sales attributable to privatization are 0.7600 for Owena Motels and 1.14 for Grand Hotel. All the result are also significant at 1% observed increase in output might be reflection of increased productivity of the affected firms as shown in table 7 and 8 below. Table 7: PERFORMANCE INDICATOR; OUTPUT FOR OWENA HOTEL Variable |Mean |value |Mean |value |Mean ||T-test |Wilcoxon |z | |before ||after ||change |due |statistic for |statistic |for| |privatization |privatization |to ||significance |change |in | |||||privatization |of change |median || Real Sales|0.3180 |1.780 ||0.7600 ||3.681xXX |2.023xXX || Sales |(0.01%) |(1.09) |||||| Source: Author’s computation. Table 8: PERFORMANCE INDICATOR: OUTPUT FOR GRAND HOTEL Variable |Mean value before privatization |Mean value after privatization |Mean change due to privatization |T-test statistic for significance of change |Wilcoxon z statistics for change in median | Real |0.3920 |1.5380 |1.1460 ||6.514xXX |2.023xXX | Sales |(0.01%) |(1.12%) |||||| Source: Author’s computation. Employment: According to the literature, the effect of privatization on employment is ambiguous. Some researchers ( Boubakri and Cosset, 1998) reported an increase in employment after privatization while other authors (La porta and Lopez De-Silanes 1999) found a significant decline in the number of employees after privatization. The evidence shows that overall; employment losses have been significant in Grand Hotel while Owena Motels recorded large increase in employment after privatization as shown in table 9 and 10. This may be attributed to most SOEs tending to be overstaffed prior to privatization. Consequently, in order to increase efficiency, extensive layoffs usually accompany government divestiture. Table 9: PERFORMANCE INDICATORS: EMPLOYMENT AT OWENA MOTELS. Variable |Mean value before privatization |Mean value after privatization |Mean change due to privatization |T-test statistic for significance of change |Wilcoxon z statistics for change in median | Total Employment |1424|1730 |306.||5.429 xXX|2.023xXX | |(14.24 %)|(18.07%) |||||| Source: Author’s Computation. TABLE 10: PERFORMANCE INDICATORS: EMPLOYMENT AT GRAND HOTEL. Variable |Mean value before privatization |Mean value after privatization |Mean change due to privatization |T-test statistic for significance of change |Wilcoxon z statistics for change in median | Total Employment |663.2000|584.4000 |-77.8000||6.707 xXX|2.023xXX | |(66.32%) |59.60%|||||| Source: Author’s Computation. Summary of Findings, Conclusion and Recommendations Summary of Findings At the end of the analysis, it is evident that there are significant improvements in the profitability after divestiture in the two hotels under study. The research showing that the (mean value) returns on sales goes from 2.5870 (2.4%) before privatization to 9.1700(9.34%) at Grand Hotels. Also, at Owena Motes, the (mean value) returns on sales before privatization goes from 22, 4260 (22.33%) to 28, 9120 (30.58%). Owena Motels also recorded significant increase in return on asset put at 17, 4640 (19.02%) before privatization to 29, 5520 (28.01%) after privatization. Also, at Grand Hotel, the hotel experienced improvement on returns on asset from 9, 8500 (5.99%) before privatization to 64, 7340 (58.10%) after privatization. The index in the above information shows that the two hotels under study experienced significant improvement in their profitability after privatization compared with pre-privatization era with enhanced changes due to privatization on returns on sales and returns on asset staged at 6,5860 and 12,0880 respectively at Owena Motels, while 6.5990 and 54,8840 respectively at Grand Hotel . The study also shows that there was a significant improvement on the sales efficiency of Owena Motels from mean value of 0.3540 before privatization to 0.996 after privatization. However, about 0.62 mean changes due to privatization was recorded. Also, the net income efficiency at Owena Motels was also enhanced from 0.1760 before privatization to 0.62000 after privatization with 0.6340 mean changes. Grand Hotels shows improvement in its sales efficiency from 0.356 before privatization to 1.5820 after privatization. The net income efficiency of Grand Hotel was also enhanced from 0.022 before privatization to 0.666 after privatization. The index in this information shows that privatization exercise enhances operating efficiency of any hospitality industry. The study further revealed an improvement in capital expenditure to sales put at 2, 5580 (1.98%) before privatization to 6, 1948 (5.6%) after privatization at Owena Motels. Also capital expenditure to total sales at Owena Motels was enhanced from 1, 7800 (1.74%) before privatization to 6, 6850 (5.73%) after privatization. However, at Grand Hotel, capital expenditure was not enhanced as it decreases form 7, 1600 (5.98%) before privatization to 2, 89800 (1.98%) while its capital expenditure to total asset declined from 28, 2640 (19.85%) before privatization to about 24, 3000 (7.72%) after the privatization. The index in this information affirmed an enhanced capital investment on privatized businesses. The study also revealed that the two hotels experienced marginal boosts in real sales following privatization. The mean changes in real sales attributable to privatization are 0.76% at Owena Motels and 1.14% at Grand Hotel. All the results are also significant at 1%. The observed increase in output might be a reflection of increase productivity of the studied firms as shown in table 7 and 8 below. Overall employment losses have been significant at Grand Hotel, while Owena Motels recorded large increase in employment after privatization as shown in table 9 and 10. This may be attributable to most SOEs tending to overstaffed prior to privatization. Consequently in order to increase efficiency at lower possible cost, extensive layoffs usually accompany government divestitures. Conclusion Form the Findings Based on the summary of the findings, the researchers thus conclude as follows: i. The two hotels under study experienced significant improvement in their profitability after privatization compared with pre-privatization era with enhanced changes due to privatization on returns on sales and returns on asset. Stayed at 6, 4860 and 12, 0880 respectively at Owena Motels while 6, 5990 and 54, 8840 respectively at Grand Hotel. ii. Privatization exercise enhances operating efficiency of the two studied hotels as the Mean changes due to privatization at Owena Motels on sales efficiency and net income efficiency is staged at 0.620 and 0.634 respectively. At Grand Hotel it was staged at 1, 2260 and 0.6440 respectively. iii. Privatization enhances capital investment of the privatized hotels. The mean changes due to privatization on capital expenditure to sales and capital expenditure to total assets at Owena Motels was staged at 3,6360 and 4,8000 respectively. iv. The two hotels under study experienced marginal boosts in their outputs after privatization. The mean change due to privatization at Owena Motels was put at 0.7600, while it was staged at 1.14 at Grand Hotels. v. The effects of privatization on employment opportunities in the two studied hotels are ambiguous. While Owena Motels reported an increase in employment after privatization, Grand Hotel reported significant decline. Recommendations Based on the findings deduced from this research work, the researcher there by suggests the following recommendations: i. Government should concentrate on the business of governance while allowing the privates to run business. ii. Government should ensure that conclusive business environment is provided for the private investors to invest in hospitality businesses. iii. Private people should be left to handle business operations while the government controls. iv. Business policy-thrust and framework that will guide Nigerian business investors should be formulated by the government and ensure it encourage employment generation. v. Every government owned hospitality businesses should be privatized through due process to ensure that competent investors get the bid. REFERENCES Aboyade, F.R (1994) A Survey of Frontier Production Functions and of their Relationship to Efficiency Measurement. Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 26 PP 393-398 Adam, C.W and Mistry P, (1992) Adjusting Privatization case Study from Developing Countries. London: James Curry. African Economic Research Consortion 2008. Akanwa, P.U. and Agu, C.N, (2005) Theory and Practices in Nigeria. Owerri, Resources Development Centre. Bello, Y.O., (2008) Hospitality Economics: A Simplified Approach. Ondo. Grace Excellent Publishers. Pg 30. Boubakri, N. and Cosset, D (1998) the Financial Operating Performance of Newly Privatized Firms: Evidence from Developing Countries. The Journal of Finance Vol. 3 PP 1081-1110. Bureau of Public Enterprises Act of 1993. La Porta and,Lapes de De-Silanes, (2004), Privatization and Regulation in South African: An Evaluation. Northampton, Massachusetles, and Cheltenham, U.K: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. MRN, (1994), Measuring the Efficiency of Decision-Making Units. European Journal of Operations Research, 2(6):429-44. Nightingale, S., (1997), Privatization in Sub-Saharan African: on Factors Affecting Implementation, WIDER Discussion Paper No. 2002/12. World Institute for Development Economics Research, Helsinki. Nwoye, C,. (1995), Measuring the Efficiency of Decision-Making Units. European Journal of Operations Research, Vol. 2, no 6 PP 429 444 Obadan S., (1993), the Measurement of Productive Efficiency. Journal of Royal Statistical Society. Vol, 120 No 3. Pp 253-281. Privatization and ,Commercialization Act of 1992. World Bank, (1994), Adjustment in African: Reforms Results and the Road Ahead: Washington DC. The World Bank