There are some countries that have taken a step ahead of others in privatization: these are Turkey, Tunisia, Egypt and Morocco. Others are still in their infancy.

On the other hand, the experience of the countries in transition in Eastern Europe remains interesting to analyze thanks to its richness and its relatively high pace compared to the countries of the SEMCs in general.

Questions could arise on this point :

Does the experience of countries in transition constitute a good example for the countries of the SEMCs in terms of pace, sequencing, evolution of the overall approach, and techniques in terms of privatization?

A number of these countries in transition will join the European Union very soon. And some SEMC countries have signed association agreements with the European Union and Turkey has even signed a Customs Union agreement with the latter.

If the answer to the previous question is yes, why the privatization policy remains cautious to say the least on the southern shore of the Mediterranean?

If not, what is the optimal privatization policy for the SEMCs?

This main question could be broken down into several relevant questions:

• How to privatize? : which sectors to start with, which companies?
• Should we partially or totally privatize enterprises with public participation?
• What are the most appropriate techniques for developing countries on the southern shore of the Mediterranean?
• What is the optimal rate of privatization for SEMCs: 10 years, 20 years or more?
• Should a discretionary policy or specific rules be adopted in the development of the privatization strategy?
• Is privatization an end in itself, an objective, or a first-rate policy instrument?
• What are the short-term or long-term relationships between the privatization policy and the macroeconomic performance of the economies of the SEMCs?

Expected results

The privatization of the countries in Transition of Europe is relatively accelerated as part of a policy of liberalization of these economies and significant flows of FDI to these countries with a view to the gradual integration of these economies into the economy. 'European Union.

Although the model of countries in transition cannot be transposed to the SEMCs, certain conclusions seem to be relevant to note in order to outline the main features of an optimal privatization policy. The SEMCs approach seem to be discretionary and qualified as prudent.
The Tunisian privatization policy would be based on the following axes:

• They affect competitive sectors.
• It is based on the sale of all public holdings rather than a part. Although in the case of companies or sectors considered a priori strategic, the progressivity of privatization seems to be privileged.
• The pace of privatization is not uniform, it accelerated from 1998.
• The approach methodology is not fixed but evolving and progressive and is not independent of the overall policy of liberalization of the economy and of its integration into the globalized economy.

The Tunisian model of privatization policy seems to be more exportable to other SEMC countries than that of the transition countries of the transition countries of Eastern Europe.

Preliminary bibliography

Books

• Paul R. Krugman and Maurice Obstfeld, “International Economy”, Editions De Boeck University, 3rd edition, 2001.
• Pierre Guislain, “Privatizations: a strategic, legal and institutional challenge”, New Horizons Editions, 1995.

Publications

• “Tenth development plan: 2002-2006”, 2002, Ministry of Development and International Cooperation.
• “Economic Budget 2001”, 2001, Ministry of Development and International Cooperation.

Specialized journals

• Economic problems, weekly n ° 2.362, February 9, 1994, "Privatizations".
• Paul Starr, “The meaning of privatization”, Yale Law and policy review 6 (1988): 6-41

FORUM

• “Constraints of privatization. the Turkish case ”, Prof. Dr. Ozer Ertuna, Bogazici University, Istambul, Turkey, Public-private partnerships in the MENA region workshop, Mediterranean Development Forum, September 3-6, 1998

The papers of the International Monetary Fund

Economic files

• Oleh Havrylyshyn and Donald Mc Gettigan, 1999, “Privatization in countries in transition: lessons from a first decade”, Economic Files, No. 18, August 1999.

Finance & Development

• John Nellis, 1999, “Time to rethink privatization in transition economies”, Economic files, Finances & development, volume 36, number 2, June 1999.

Staff papers

• Clifford Zinnes, Yair Eilat and Jeffrey Sachs, 2001, “The gains from privatization in transition economies: is“ change of ownership enough? ” », Staff paper, volume 48, special issue.
• G. A. Makenzie, 1998, “The macroeconomic impact of privatization”, Staff paper, volume 45, number 2, June 1998.

Working Papers

• Alexander Pivovarsky, 2001, “How does privatization work?, Ownership concentration and enterprise performance in Ukraine”, IMF Working Paper, WP / 01/42.
• Steven Barnett, 2000, “Evidence on the fiscal and macroeconomic impact of privatization”, IMF Working Paper, WP / 00/130.
• Hans-Johakim Beyer, Claudia Dziobeck and John R. Garrett, 1999, “Economic and legal considerations of optimal privatization: case studies of mortgage firms (Depfa Group and Fannie Mae)”, IMF Working Paper, WP / 99/69.
• San Gupta, Christian Schiller and Henry Ma, 1999, “Privatization, social impact and social safety nets”, IMF Working Paper, WP / 99/68.
• Oleh Havrylyshyn and Donald Mc Gettigan, 1999, “Privatization in transition countries: a sampling of literature”, IMF Working Paper, WP / 99/6.
• Diter Bos, 1992, “Privatization and restructuring: an incomplete contract approach”, IMF Working Paper, WP / 92/101 - EA.
• Aasim M. Husain and Ratna Sahay, 1992, “Does sequencing of privatization matter in reforming planning economies”, IMF Working Paper, WP / 92/13 - EA.
• Diter Bos, 1992, “Privatization in East Germany: a surfey of current issues”, IMF Working Paper, WP / 92/8 - EA.

Policy discussion papers

• Katrin Elborgh-Woytek and Mark Lewis, 2002, “Privatization in Ukraine: challenges of assessment and coverage in fund conditionality”, Policy discussion paper, PDP / 02/7.

Paper on policy analysis and assessment

• G. A. Makenzie, 1997, “The macroeconomic impact of privatization”, Paper on policy analysis and assessment, November 1997, PPAA / 97/9.

Occasional papers

• Jeffrey Davis, Rolando Ossowski, Thomas Richardson, and Steven Barnett, “Fiscal and economic impact of privatization”, Occasional Paper, n ° 194.

IMFC Statements

• 2001 IMFC Statements, 2001 Spring Meetings Home “Statement by H.E. Fathallah Ouallalou, Minister of economy, finance, privatization and Tourism of Morocco speaking on behalf of Algeria, Ghana, Islamic Republic of Iran, Morocco, Pakistan ans Tunisia”

UNCTAD

• United Nations Conferences on Trade and Development, 2001, “Development in Africa: assessment, perspectives and choices of economic policies”, UNCTAD / GDS / AFRICA / 1 - TD / B / 48/12.
• United Nations Conferences on Trade and Development, 2001, “FDI in least developed countries at a glance”.
• United Nations Trade and Development Conferences, 2001, “World investment report 2001: promoting linkages”.
• United Nations Trade and Development Conferences, 2001, "World Investment Report 2001, Towards New Business-to-Business Relationships: An Overview".

CEPII

• Gérard Wild, 2001, “Economy of the transition: the file”, CEPII,, n ° 08 October 2001.
• Daniel Labaronne, 2001, "Privatization and growth in the countries of the East", International Economy, n ° 86, 2nd quarter 2001.
• Wladimir Andreff, 1999, "Privatization and corporate governance in economies in transition", International Economy, n ° 77, 1st quarter 1999.
• Jean François Nivet, 1997, “The specificities of the great privatization in Poland”, International Economy, n ° 70, 2nd quarter 1997.