Hubbry Logo
NationalizationNationalizationMain
Open search
Nationalization
Community hub
Nationalization
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Nationalization
Nationalization
Nationalization
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Part of a series on
Economic systems
Major types
By ideology
By coordination
By regional model
Sectors
Property types
Transition
Coordination
Other types

Nationalization (nationalisation in British English) is the process of transforming privately owned assets into public assets by bringing them under the public ownership of a national government or state.[1] Nationalization contrasts with privatization and with demutualization. When previously nationalized assets are privatized and subsequently returned to public ownership at a later stage, they are said to have undergone renationalization (or deprivatization). Industries often subject to nationalization include telephones, electric power, fossil fuels, iron ore, railways, airlines, media, postal services, banks, and water (sometimes called the commanding heights of the economy), and in many jurisdictions such entities have no history of private ownership.

Nationalization may occur with or without financial compensation to the former owners. Nationalization is distinguished from property redistribution in that the government retains control of nationalized property. Some nationalizations take place when a government seizes property acquired illegally. For example, in 1945 the French government seized the car-maker Renault because its owners had collaborated with the 1940–1944 Nazi occupiers of France.[2]

Economists distinguish between nationalization and socialization, which refers to the process of restructuring the economic framework, organizational structure, and institutions of an economy on a socialist basis. By contrast, nationalization does not necessarily imply social ownership and the restructuring of the economic system. Historically, states have carried out nationalizations for various different purposes under a wide variety of different political systems and economic systems.[3]

Political support

[edit]
Part of a series on
Social democracy
History
Concepts
Ideologies
People
Parties
Organizations
Related

Nationalization was one of the major mechanisms advocated by democratic socialists and social democrats for gradually transitioning to socialism. In this context, the goals of nationalization were to dispossess large capitalists, redirect the profits of industry to the public purse, and establish some form of workers' self-management as a precursor to the establishment of a socialist economic system.[4]

Although sometimes undertaken as part of a strategy to build socialism, more commonly nationalization was also undertaken and used to protect and develop industries perceived as being vital to a nation's competitiveness (such as aerospace and shipbuilding), or to protect jobs in certain industries.

Nationalization has had varying levels of support throughout history. After the Second World War, nationalization was supported by social democratic and democratic socialist parties in Western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. In the United States, potentially nationalizing healthcare is often a topic of political disagreement and makes frequent appearances in debates between political candidates. A 2020 poll shows that a majority (63%) of Americans support a nationalized healthcare system.[5]

A re-nationalization occurs when state-owned assets are privatized and later nationalized again, often when a different political party or faction is in power. A re-nationalization process may also be called "reverse privatization". Nationalization has been used to refer to either direct state-ownership and management of an enterprise or to a government acquiring a large controlling share of a publicly listed corporation.[citation needed]

According to research by Paasha Mahdavi, leaders who consider nationalization face a dilemma: "nationalize and reap immediate gains while risking future prosperity, or maintain private operations, thereby passing on revenue windfalls but securing long-term fiscal streams."[6] He argues that leaders "nationalize extractive resources to extend the duration of their power" by using "this increased capital to secure political support."[6]

Economic analysis

[edit]

Nationalization can have positive and negative effects.[7] In 2019, research based on studies from Greenwich University found that the nationalization of key services such as water, bus, railways and broadband in the United Kingdom could save £13bn every year.[8]

Nationalization may produce other effects, such as reducing competition in the marketplace, which in turn reduces incentives to innovation and maintains high prices. In the short run, nationalization can provide a larger revenue stream for government but may cause that industry to falter depending on the motivations of the nationalizing party.[9]

Nationalization was employed by the Panamanian Government towards the Panama Canal, which came under the Panama Canal Authority in 1999 to internationally positive effect.[10] Likewise, the Suez Canal was nationalized multiple times throughout history.[11] In Germany, the Federal Press [Bundesdruckerei] was nationalized in 2008 with positive revenue and net income since.[12]

[edit]

Studies have found that nationalization follows a cyclical trend. Nationalization rose in the 1960s and 1970s, followed by an increase in privatization in the 80s and 90s, followed again by an increase in nationalization in the 2000s and 2010s.[13]

Expropriation

[edit]
"Expropriation" redirects here. For the 1974 Chilean film, see The Expropriation.
See also: Alienation (property law)

Expropriation is the seizure of private property by a public agency for a purpose deemed to be in the public interest. It may also be used as a penalty for criminal proceedings.[14] Expropriation differs from eminent domain in that the property owner is not compensated for the seized property. Unlike eminent domain, expropriation may also refer to the taking of private property by a private entity authorized by a government to take property in certain situations.

Due to political risks that are involved when countries engage in international business, it is important for investors to understand the expropriation risks and laws within each of the countries in which business is conducted.[15]

Marxist theory

[edit]

The term appears as "expropriation of expropriators (ruling classes)" in Marxist theory, and also as the slogan "Loot the looters!" ("грабь награбленное"), which was very popular during the Russian Revolution.[16] The term is also used to describe nationalization campaigns by communist states, such as dekulakization and collectivization in the USSR.[17]

However, nationalization is not a specifically socialist strategy, and Marxism's founders were skeptical of its value. As Engels put it:

Therein precisely lies the rub; for, so long as the propertied classes remain at the helm, nationalisation never abolishes exploitation but merely changes its form — in the French, American or Swiss republics no less than in monarchist Central, and despotic Eastern, Europe.

— Friedrich Engels, Letter from Engels to Max Oppenheim, 24 March 1891

Nikolai Bukharin also criticised the term nationalisation, preferring the term statisation instead.[18]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Nationalization

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Nationalization is the process whereby a government or state entity assumes ownership and operational control of privately held assets, companies, or entire industries, converting them from private to public hands. This typically targets strategic sectors such as energy, mining, transportation, and banking, where private entities are seen as failing to align with broader economic or social objectives. Governments pursue nationalization through direct acquisition, often with compensation to owners, though disputes over fair value frequently arise, as in historical cases of resource expropriations without full reimbursement. Historically, nationalization has surged during wartime emergencies or economic crises, as evidenced by U.S. government takeovers of railroads and telegraph lines in and further seizures of transportation assets in to ensure operational continuity. In peacetime, it has been driven by ideological motives, such as post- efforts in Britain to nationalize coal, steel, and railways under Labour governments aiming for centralized planning, or resource-rich developing nations seizing foreign-owned fields, like Mexico's 1938 expropriation of assets to assert . These actions are rationalized by claims of preventing exploitation, securing supply chains, or redistributing , yet they often reflect statist ideologies prioritizing collective control over individual property rights. Empirical evidence reveals nationalization's mixed record, with studies showing it frequently correlates with declines due to weakened incentives for and under state management. For instance, analyses of sectors indicate that nationalized firms underperform private counterparts in output and technical , prompting recurring cycles of re-privatization to restore competitiveness. While occasional short-term allocative gains may occur in scenarios, long-term data from global cases underscore inefficiencies from bureaucratic decision-making and political interference, contrasting with privatization's boosts to firm performance. Controversies persist over its infringement on property rights and potential for , as state entities lack market discipline, though advocates highlight rare instances of stabilized access in monopolistic utilities.

Definition and Scope

Core Definition

Nationalization is the process by which a acquires and control of privately held companies, industries, or assets, transferring them from private to . This typically involves the state purchasing a or full equity stake, often through legislative measures or direct intervention, and can apply to sectors deemed vital for welfare, such as utilities, natural resources, or . The mechanism may include negotiated purchases, compulsory acquisition under principles, or outright expropriation, with compensation varying from market-value payments to nominal or zero amounts depending on the political context. In economic terms, nationalization shifts decision-making authority from private owners to state entities, aiming to align with national priorities rather than . It differs from temporary government interventions, like wartime controls, by establishing permanent public ownership, though partial nationalization—retaining some private involvement—occurs when full takeover is impractical. Empirical instances, such as the 1970s oil industry seizures in and , illustrate how nationalization targets foreign-owned assets to assert over strategic commodities. Nationalization involves the transfer of privately owned assets, often entire industries, to , typically justified by and accompanied by compensation where legally required. This process contrasts sharply with , whereby governments divest state-owned enterprises or assets into private hands to promote market efficiency and reduce public expenditure. A key distinction exists between nationalization and expropriation, with the former representing a broader subtype of the latter; nationalization comprehensive control over an entire industry or geographic , frequently amid significant political or economic shifts, whereas expropriation may to discrete assets or through direct title transfer or measures equivalent to . Both generally necessitate compensation under for lawfulness—prompt, adequate, and effective payment reflecting —but nationalization's scale often amplifies disputes over adequacy, as evidenced in cases like Guaracachi v. , where tribunals awarded approximately US$35 million for partial industry takings. Nationalization differs from in its legal framework and intent: entails uncompensated seizure, often punitive or arbitrary, lacking the public-purpose rationale and remuneration typical of nationalization, which aligns with sovereign takings precedents requiring "just compensation" to avoid illegality. In contrast to , which in socialist economic theory emphasizes decentralized by workers or to restructure production relations, nationalization centralizes assets under state authority, potentially functioning as rather than true communal control. While nationalization may invoke as a procedural tool—the inherent sovereign power to compel acquisition for public use with fair compensation—it exceeds this mechanism's usual application to specific parcels, such as projects, by encompassing systemic industry-wide transfers, as seen in U.S. historical instances like railroad controls during .

Historical Development

Origins and Early Instances

The concept of nationalization emerged in the context of revolutionary state-building, where governments asserted sovereignty over assets previously held by non-state entities to address fiscal exigencies and redistribute resources. A pivotal early instance unfolded during the , when the National Constituent Assembly, facing acute public debt exceeding 4 billion livres, enacted the decree of November 2, 1789, declaring all church properties as —national goods—effectively transferring ownership of roughly 10% of France's arable land from the to the state. This measure, which generated revenue through the issuance of assignats (paper currency backed by the seized lands) and their subsequent sale to bidders including peasants and bourgeoisie, was rationalized as emancipating the nation from clerical but disrupted traditional property relations and fueled inflationary pressures as assignat circulation ballooned to over 45 billion livres by 1796. While not involving industrial assets, it established a precedent for state expropriation justified by and , influencing later ideological defenses of such actions. As industrialization advanced in the , nationalization extended to strategic , particularly railways, which private operators had developed into monopolistic networks prone to rate and underinvestment. In , the government initiated a comprehensive takeover in the late , acquiring control of key private lines amid concerns over discriminatory pricing—such as lower freight rates for exports from rival regions—and logistical inefficiencies that hampered post-unification. By 1880, the state had purchased approximately 57% of Prussia's rail mileage, including lines from major companies like the Cologne-Minden, at a cost exceeding 1.7 billion marks, marking the era's largest single financial operation and enabling uniform tariffs that boosted internal trade volumes by facilitating cheaper domestic transport. This intervention stemmed from pragmatic calculations rather than doctrinal , prioritizing military mobilization—evident in the railways' role during the 1870-1871 —and economic cohesion over private profit motives, though it later faced criticism for bureaucratic rigidities. Comparable early efforts appeared elsewhere in , such as in , where the state assumed operational control of private railways in the to enforce national standards, and in following unification in , where piecemeal acquisitions addressed regional fragmentation. These instances reflected causal pressures from rapid technological expansion outpacing regulatory capacity, where private ownership engendered externalities like uneven development, prompting states to internalize control for efficiency gains verifiable in subsequent traffic data showing stabilized growth rates. Empirical assessments, however, indicate mixed outcomes: Prussian nationalization correlated with a 20-30% reduction in freight rate disparities but also higher operational costs per kilometer compared to remaining private lines, underscoring the trade-offs in state versus market coordination.

Major Waves in the 20th Century

The initial major wave of nationalization in the occurred in the following the Bolshevik Revolution of October 1917. On December 27, 1917, the decreed the nationalization of all private banks, merging them into a state-controlled to finance the revolutionary regime. This was followed by the expropriation of land from nobility and churches via the in late 1917, and by mid-1918, over 300 large industrial enterprises had been nationalized or sequestered, encompassing key sectors like and textiles. These measures established a model of comprehensive that influenced subsequent communist regimes, though they were implemented amid and economic disruption, with limited compensation for prior owners. A second wave emerged in resource-rich developing nations during the interwar and immediate postwar periods, driven by nationalist assertions of sovereignty over foreign concessions. In , President ordered the expropriation of foreign oil assets on March 18, 1938, creating and seizing operations from U.S. and British firms amid labor disputes and demands for higher royalties, with compensation settled years later through negotiations. Similarly, in , Mohammad Mossadegh nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company on March 15, 1951, transferring control to the to retain more revenue from reserves, prompting a British embargo and eventual international intervention. These actions, often framed as anti-imperialist, spread to other Latin American and Middle Eastern states, such as Bolivia's tin mines in 1952, prioritizing resource control over foreign investment stability. The most extensive wave followed , particularly in Europe, where war devastation and ideological shifts prompted widespread state takeovers. In the , the Labour government under nationalized the in 1946, the coal industry via the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act (effective 1947), electricity supply in 1947, railways and transport in 1947, and iron and steel in 1951, affecting over 20% of the economy to rationalize production and welfare provision. In , Soviet-influenced communist governments implemented rapid nationalization by the late 1940s, seizing industries employing over 50 workers, banks, and land in countries like , , and , often without compensation, to align with centralized planning and suppress private enterprise. pursued similar policies, nationalizing key utilities and banks, reflecting a blend of reconstruction needs and socialist policies across the continent. A final surge in the 1970s targeted oil sectors in producer nations, accelerated by rising commodity prices and organizations like . Countries including (1972), (1973), and (via participation agreements escalating to majority control) nationalized foreign oil operations, capturing upstream production and boosting state revenues, though often at the cost of technical expertise initially. This wave, spanning , the , and , marked a peak in before reversals in the 1980s-1990s amid economic pressures.

Post-Cold War and Contemporary Instances

In the period following the Soviet Union's dissolution in , nationalizations largely receded in favor of widespread privatizations in formerly communist states and developing economies seeking foreign investment, but persisted or resurged in resource-dependent countries amid "" to capture greater state revenues from commodities like oil, gas, and minerals. Instances often involved renegotiating contracts with foreign firms or seizing assets previously privatized, frequently under populist or leftist governments in , while in post-Soviet , they targeted oligarch-controlled entities perceived as threats to state control. In developed economies, nationalizations remained exceptional, typically crisis-driven rather than ideological, as seen in Europe's response to supply disruptions. Russia's effective nationalization of , once the country's largest oil producer with output exceeding 1.7 million barrels per day, unfolded through 2004 tax arrears claims totaling billions, leading to auctions where state-linked acquired core assets like Yuganskneftegaz for $9.4 billion in December 2004. President described the process as legitimate reassertion of state oversight over post-1990s privatizations, rejecting full nationalization but resulting in Yukos's by 2007 and asset transfers to state entities. An international tribunal later ruled the actions breached the , awarding former shareholders $50 billion in 2014. In , Bolivia's President decreed the nationalization of hydrocarbons on May 1, 2006, deploying military forces to occupy 56 gas and oil fields operated by foreign firms like and Total, while requiring contract renegotiations to grant state-owned YPFB majority stakes and higher royalties up to 82%. The move aimed to fund social programs from Bolivia's natural gas reserves, then among South America's largest, boosting government hydrocarbon revenues from $173 million in 2002 to over $780 million annually by 2008. Venezuela under President Hugo Chávez extended nationalizations to the Orinoco Belt's extra-heavy oil projects in 2007, assuming operational control from foreign operators including ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips, converting joint ventures to require PDVSA majority ownership of at least 60%. This followed earlier seizures in cement, steel, and telecom sectors, with Chávez framing it as reclaiming sovereignty over the world's largest proven oil reserves, though disputes led to arbitration awards like $1.6 billion against Venezuela in favor of ExxonMobil in 2014. Argentina's approved the nationalization of 51% of shares from Spain's on April 26, 2012, under President , citing insufficient domestic investment despite [Vaca Muerta](/page/Vaca Muerta) shale discoveries, with the state previously holding 0% after 1990s . received $5 billion compensation in a 2014 settlement, but ongoing litigation as of 2025 includes U.S. court orders for Argentina to relinquish its stake amid default risks. More recently, Mexico's President enacted nationalization via constitutional reforms effective May 1, 2022, designating all deposits as strategic state reserves and creating Litio para México as the sole exploiter, barring private concessions to prioritize national control over estimated reserves exceeding 1.7 million tons. A on August 23, 2022, formalized the state company, targeting self-sufficiency in battery minerals amid global demand. In , Germany's government nationalized in September 2022, acquiring a 99% stake for €8 billion after Russia's halted supplies, exacerbating losses from €40 billion in 2022 due to replacement LNG costs and derivatives. This largest bailout in German history stabilized energy supplies covering over one-third of national gas needs, with partial repayments to the state totaling €2.6 billion by March 2025.

Motivations and Ideological Foundations

Economic and Social Justifications

Proponents of nationalization argue that it addresses market failures in industries exhibiting natural monopoly characteristics, such as utilities, railways, and telecommunications infrastructure, where high fixed costs and economies of scale preclude efficient competition. In these sectors, private ownership risks exploitative pricing, underinvestment in maintenance or expansion, and allocative inefficiency, as firms prioritize profits over universal service provision. State control, by contrast, enables pricing aligned with marginal social costs, subsidized access for underserved areas, and long-term investments funded by public resources rather than shareholder returns. For instance, theoretical models posit that nationalization corrects externalities by internalizing network benefits, ensuring infrastructure development serves broader economic needs. Nationalization is also justified economically for providing public goods or where private markets underproduce due to non-excludability and free-rider problems, such as strategic resources or basic . Advocates claim government ownership facilitates coordinated , risk-sharing across taxpayers, and prevention of strategic withholding by private entities, potentially stabilizing supply chains and reducing volatility in critical inputs like . Empirical rationales draw from historical cases, such as reconstructions, where state takeover of failing industries averted immediate and supported industrial , though long-term gains remain debated due to principal-agent problems in public . Social justifications emphasize equity and access, positing nationalization as a mechanism to redistribute resource rents from concentrated private ownership to public welfare, thereby mitigating income disparities and regional inequalities. In resource-dependent economies, capturing profits from oil, minerals, or land allows funding for social programs, , and alleviation, countering under private control. For example, in contexts of high and low , is argued to prioritize universal access over profitability, fostering social cohesion and reducing discontent from uneven development. Additionally, nationalization is defended socially for safeguarding and community stability in declining sectors, where private retrenchment would exacerbate and social dislocation. By maintaining operations under public auspices, governments can pursue labor protections, retraining, and maintenance beyond market viability, aligning production with societal values like over short-term efficiency. This rationale has been invoked in cases of industry bailouts or transitions, aiming to preserve and prevent migration-induced strains on social fabrics.

Political and Strategic Rationales

Governments have invoked political rationales for nationalization to bolster domestic support through appeals to and , particularly when asserting control over assets dominated by foreign interests. In , President expropriated foreign-owned oil properties on March 18, 1938, following labor disputes where companies refused to comply with rulings favoring Mexican workers' demands for better wages and conditions; this action was framed as reclaiming national resources to prevent profits from flowing abroad and to affirm economic independence from U.S. and British firms. Similarly, in , Mohammad Mossadegh led the nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company on , 1951, after parliamentary approval, to terminate British dominance over Iran's oil production and revenues, positioning it as a core step toward national and reducing foreign exploitation of subterranean wealth. Strategic rationales often center on securing during conflicts or to maintain geopolitical leverage over essential trade and resource flows. During , U.S. President nationalized the nation's railroads on December 26, 1917, under the Federal Possession and Control Act, to resolve inefficiencies, strikes, and coordination failures that threatened troop and supply movements, thereby ensuring reliable logistics for the war effort amid private operators' competing interests. In , President nationalized the [Suez Canal](/page/Suez Canal) Company on July 26, 1956, ostensibly to finance the High Dam after Western funding was withdrawn, while asserting sovereign control over a vital waterway handling two-thirds of Europe's oil imports and challenging lingering colonial influences from Britain and . These moves highlighted nationalization as a tool for wartime or to weaponize strategic chokepoints, though they frequently escalated international tensions. Such rationales can intersect, as seen in resource-rich states where political consolidation via anti-foreign rhetoric aligns with strategic aims like supply security; however, empirical outcomes often reveal trade-offs, with initial gains sometimes yielding dependency on state-managed inefficiencies absent competitive pressures.

Marxist and Socialist Perspectives

In Marxist theory, nationalization constitutes a revolutionary measure to expropriate the of the , transforming them from private capitalist property into social property under proletarian control. and outlined this in the Communist Manifesto (1848), advocating measures such as the centralization of credit via a state national bank, state of communication and infrastructure, and the combination of with industries under state oversight to consolidate production and eliminate bourgeois exploitation. This expropriation, described by Marx in Capital (1867) as the "expropriators" (capitalists) being expropriated in turn, arises from capitalism's internal contradictions—centralization of capital and socialization of labor—which render private ownership incompatible with advanced , necessitating proletarian seizure to enable production for social needs rather than profit. Vladimir Lenin extended this framework during the Bolshevik Revolution, viewing nationalization as essential for the to suppress counter-revolution and transition to . In decrees following the of 1917, such as the issued on October 26, 1917, land was nationalized and transferred to peasant committees, while industries were seized to prevent sabotage and facilitate centralized planning. Lenin argued in works like The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It (1917) that without nationalizing banks, syndicates, and key factories, the could not reorganize production amid war and , emphasizing state control as a temporary instrument to defend the revolution until the state "withers away" under . Socialist perspectives broadly endorse nationalization of strategic industries to achieve public or worker ownership of the , aiming to democratize economic decision-making and prioritize use-value over exchange-value. Thinkers like asserted that requires wresting production tools from capitalists to place them under worker administration, preventing bureaucratic and fostering self-managed cooperatives integrated into a . Democratic socialists, distinguishing from revolutionary , advocate gradual nationalization through parliamentary means, as in the UK Labour Party's 1945 programme, but Marxist analysis critiques such reforms as insufficient without proletarian political power, often resulting in state-managed rather than genuine . Empirical implementations, however, frequently devolve into centralized bureaucracies, contradicting theoretical aims of worker , as evidenced by post-revolutionary Soviet structures where party elites supplanted direct proletarian control.

Processes and Mechanisms

Nationalization is typically authorized under domestic constitutional provisions affirming the state's sovereign authority to expropriate for public purposes, often framed as an extension of powers but applied to entire industries or enterprises. In constitutional democracies, this authority is constrained by requirements for legislative enactment or executive action subject to judicial oversight, ensuring alignment with and procedural fairness. For instance, Article 27 of Mexico's 1917 Constitution explicitly reserves subsoil resources to the nation, enabling expropriation decrees like the 1938 oil nationalization, which transferred foreign oil company assets to the state-owned Petróleos Mexicanos () following failed negotiations. Procedurally, nationalization often commences with legislative initiatives defining the scope, targeted entities, and transfer mechanisms, followed by valuation assessments and compulsory acquisition orders. In parliamentary systems such as the , primary via Acts of is required for comprehensive nationalizations, as seen in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946, which vested collieries in a public corporation through statutory instruments specifying asset transfers and operational continuity. Secondary may handle details like employee transfers or contract assumptions, subject to affirmative parliamentary resolution and potential for procedural irregularities or proportionality. In the United States, where full-scale industry nationalization is rare outside emergencies, frameworks rely on statutes like the , authorizing presidential requisitions or seizures for national defense, with invoked under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause requiring just compensation upon court condemnation proceedings. For foreign-owned assets, procedures incorporate norms, mandating non-discriminatory application and to avoid violations of bilateral treaties (BITs) or customary rules against arbitrary expropriation. States must provide , opportunity for hearings, and transparent valuation, though often occurs via investor-state under frameworks like the International Centre for Settlement of Disputes (ICSID). In authoritarian contexts, such as Venezuela's 2007 oil nationalization under decree laws, procedures bypassed extensive legislative debate, relying on executive authority amid constitutional amendments expanding state control over strategic sectors, leading to disputes resolved through international tribunals. Judicial frameworks provide checks, with courts assessing whether actions serve a legitimate public purpose and adhere to statutory limits, though deference to executive determinations is common in strategic industries. Challenges may invoke instruments, such as the ' Protocol 1, Article 1, requiring proportionate interference with property rights, potentially resulting in declarations of incompatibility or appeals if compensation is deemed inadequate. Overall, procedural rigor varies by regime stability, with robust democracies emphasizing and rule-of-law safeguards to mitigate risks of abuse.

Compensation Practices and Expropriation

In nationalization processes, compensation to private owners is a standard practice in jurisdictions adhering to rule-of-law principles, typically calculated as the of the assets at the time of transfer to avoid constituting unlawful expropriation. Under , as articulated in the "Hull formula," compensation must be prompt, adequate, and effective, reflecting the property's going-concern value including goodwill and future earnings potential. This standard emerged from U.S. diplomatic protests against uncompensated takings in , such as Mexico's 1938 oil expropriation, where payments were delayed and undervalued relative to market assessments, prompting ongoing disputes resolved partially through settlements in 1944. In contrast, developing states and socialist regimes have advocated "appropriate" compensation tied to net or tax contributions, arguing it suffices for takings, though this often falls short of market equivalents and invites claims. Domestic legal frameworks further shape compensation methods, with market economies favoring statutory formulas to ensure predictability. For instance, in the United Kingdom's post-World War II nationalizations of , railways, and between 1946 and 1951, owners received payments based on average stock exchange valuations over preceding years, totaling approximately £2.5 billion in equivalent modern terms, which mitigated immediate but undervalued intangible assets per some analyses. Similarly, France's 1982 nationalizations under President Mitterrand involved compensating shareholders at book values adjusted for recent profits, leading to stock price drops of 20-40% upon announcement as markets anticipated inadequate recovery, with total payouts exceeding 40 billion francs yet sparking litigation over goodwill exclusions. Bilateral investment treaties and multilateral agreements, such as those under the , reinforce these requirements by mandating non-discriminatory, market-based compensation, reducing risks of unremedied takings for foreign investors. Expropriation without compensation, or with manifestly inadequate payments, deviates from these norms and equates to confiscation, breaching international obligations and eroding property rights. The 1928 Permanent Court of International Justice ruling in the Factory at case ( v. ) established that unlawful expropriations demand full reparation, including damages beyond mere value, distinguishing them from lawful nationalizations where only asset value suffices. Notable instances include Cuba's 1959-1960 seizures of U.S.-owned sugar and oil assets, valued at over $1 billion, for which no direct compensation was provided, resulting in frozen assets and Helms-Burton Act sanctions in 1996. Chile's 1971 copper nationalization under Allende applied a formula deducting "excess profits" from book value—effectively zeroing out payments for foreign firms like Anaconda—framed as expropriation without compensation despite nominal mechanisms, which contributed to investment withdrawal and economic contraction. Such practices, often justified ideologically as rectifying historical inequities, have historically triggered capital expatriation, diplomatic ruptures, and investor-state arbitrations under ICSID, underscoring causal links between uncompensated takings and diminished .

Economic Impacts and Empirical Evidence

Theoretical Predictions from First Principles

From first principles, nationalization transfers and control of productive assets from private individuals or firms, who bear the residual risks and rewards of their decisions, to government entities whose incentives are shaped by political objectives rather than . This separation of from direct economic predicts misaligned incentives, as state managers and politicians lack the personal stake that private owners have in minimizing costs and innovating to survive market competition. Consequently, theoretical analysis anticipates softer budget constraints, where losses are subsidized by taxpayers rather than corrected through or restructuring, fostering overinvestment in unprofitable activities and underinvestment in efficiency-enhancing measures. A core prediction arises from the : without rights in , market prices—essential for valuing scarce resources and computing opportunity costs—cannot form accurately, rendering rational allocation impossible under centralized control. argued that nationalized industries, akin to , face this impasse because administrators cannot determine true production costs or profitability without competitive bidding and exchange, leading to arbitrary resource distribution prone to waste and shortages. This implies systematically lower capital efficiency, as investments prioritize political directives over economic viability, often resulting in excess capacity or duplicated efforts absent price-guided signals. Complementing this, F.A. Hayek's knowledge problem highlights that the dispersed, held by individuals—about local conditions, preferences, and techniques—cannot be fully conveyed to central planners, who must substitute their judgments for market outcomes. In nationalized firms, this predicts decision-making distortions, as bureaucrats rely on incomplete aggregates rather than emergent price mechanisms that coordinate decentralized information, yielding suboptimal outputs like persistent overstaffing to appease employment lobbies or neglect of consumer-driven adaptations. Overall, these principles forecast diminished and relative to private alternatives, with gains possible only in narrow cases of coordination but at the expense of long-term dynamism.

Productivity and Efficiency Outcomes

Empirical analyses of nationalized industries reveal consistent patterns of reduced and , primarily due to softened constraints, diminished competitive pressures, and the substitution of profit-oriented decision-making with political priorities. In resource extraction sectors, where nationalization has been prevalent, productivity metrics such as output per worker often decline substantially post-takeover. For instance, a quantitative assessment of oil industries in expropriating countries documented productivity losses ranging from 30% to 60% relative to U.S. benchmarks between 1962 and 1995, linked to the exodus of skilled foreign personnel and shifts toward employment-maximizing rather than output-maximizing strategies. The nationalization of Venezuela's sector exemplifies these dynamics: pre-nationalization indexed at 130.9 plummeted to an average of 86.4 afterward, with total production falling over 40% from 1970 to amid expanded domestic hiring that prioritized job creation over technical efficiency. Econometric models accounting for labor composition changes explain approximately 80% of this trajectory, estimating a 65% reduction in industry profits from to under state control. Subsequent declines in Venezuelan output—to under 1 million barrels per day by the from peaks exceeding 3 million—further reflect chronic underinvestment and operational inefficiencies, exacerbating the sector's collapse. Cross-country evidence reinforces these findings, with privatization reversals showing inverse effects: formerly nationalized state-owned enterprises (SOEs) exhibit productivity gains relative to persisting SOEs, peaking at 14–16 years post-, indicating that prolonged state ownership entrenches inefficiencies through inadequate incentive structures. —resource distribution across firms—remains higher under private ownership, while nationalizations and related interventions erode productive efficiency by distorting input choices and output levels. Although some sector-specific reviews, often from public-sector advocacy groups, claim equivalence between public and private performance, these are outweighed by econometric studies emphasizing market signals' role in sustaining output per unit input.

Fiscal and Long-Term Effects

Nationalization frequently imposes significant initial fiscal costs through compensation payments to former owners, often financed via government borrowing, which elevates public debt levels. In resource sectors, such as Venezuela's 1976 oil industry takeover, production fell by 55% from 1970 peaks amid mismanagement, rendering the state reliant on volatile oil revenues that funded expansive social programs but eroded fiscal buffers, culminating in and a 74% drop in living standards from 2013 to 2023. Similarly, Argentina's 2012 expropriation of 51% of from triggered , resulting in a $16 billion judgment by 2023 and heightened default risks, as the state's stake became a potential target, straining foreign reserves and credit access. Ongoing operations of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) typically generate fiscal burdens via subsidies to cover losses from inefficiencies, overstaffing, and underinvestment, as political priorities supersede commercial viability. In the UK during the 1970s, nationalized sectors like coal and steel accrued annual losses and borrowings of approximately £3 billion by 1979, necessitating taxpayer-funded bailouts that exacerbated budget deficits and contributed to the IMF bailout in 1976. Empirical analyses of SOEs across emerging markets confirm they impose quasi-fiscal costs through implicit guarantees and transfers, often comprising 1-5% of GDP in subsidies or hidden liabilities, diverting resources from productive public spending. Long-term effects manifest as sustained debt accumulation and stifled , as nationalization deters private through heightened expropriation risks and erodes institutional trust. Hypothetical assessments, such as South Africa's proposed mine nationalization, project net annual fiscal losses of R26 billion after acquisition costs, doubling public debt and curtailing redistribution capacity while discouraging essential for expansion. Cross-country evidence from episodes indicates short-term revenue spikes but enduring GDP drags via reduced productivity and , with privatizations subsequently alleviating fiscal pressures by boosting efficiency and tax bases. In , post-nationalization oil dependency amplified boom-bust cycles, fostering fiscal profligacy that left the economy vulnerable to price shocks and sanctions, underscoring how state control amplifies rather than mitigates long-term vulnerabilities absent market discipline.

Criticisms and Risks

Governance Failures and Corruption

Nationalized industries frequently exhibit governance failures stemming from the principal-agent disconnect between state owners and appointed managers, who often prioritize political objectives over , compounded by soft constraints that shield enterprises from market discipline. Political interference manifests in non-merit-based appointments, leading to unqualified leadership and behaviors, while opacity in operations—due to limited shareholder scrutiny—facilitates mismanagement. Empirical analyses indicate that state-owned enterprises (SOEs) allocate only about 1.5% of operational s to measures, far below norms, exacerbating risks in sectors like where SOEs predominate. Corruption thrives in nationalized entities operating as monopolies or under heavy , where bribes, , and networks distort and . A World Bank assessment highlights that is "most rampant" in such SOEs, with foreign involving SOE officials occurring at higher rates and values than in private firms, per foreign data. These vulnerabilities arise from dual roles of SOEs as commercial actors and policy tools, enabling and conflicts of interest without robust independent oversight. In Brazil's , nationalized since 1953 but intensified under state control, the 2014 Lava Jato investigation exposed a scheme from 2004 onward where executives inflated contracts by up to 3% for kickbacks totaling over $2 billion, funneled to political parties via construction firms like . This led to Petrobras incurring losses exceeding $250 billion in market value by mid-2018 and recovering $920 million by 2021 through settlements, while production stagnated amid governance breakdowns. Similarly, Venezuela's , fully nationalized in 1976 and further centralized under from 1999, suffered embezzlement schemes that drained $11-17 billion between 2004 and 2014, with U.S. Treasury estimates of billions more siphoned for officials' gain, contributing to oil output plummeting from 3.5 million barrels per day in 1998 to below 500,000 by 2020 due to underinvestment and cadre appointments. Zambia's 1969 nationalization of copper mines under Kenneth Kaunda's government resulted in production declines from mismanagement and , with output falling amid that eroded the sector's 90% export share by the 1980s, necessitating bailouts and eventual partial in the 1990s to restore viability. These cases illustrate how nationalization's removal of competitive pressures fosters entrenched , often requiring external probes or leadership changes to mitigate, though systemic risks persist without market-aligned incentives.

Innovation Stagnation and Allocative Inefficiencies

Nationalization often results in innovation stagnation due to the absence of market-driven incentives that propel private firms to pursue disruptive technologies and gains. In state-owned enterprises (SOEs), managers face reduced from and shareholder accountability, leading to preferences for incremental improvements over risky, high-reward innovations. Empirical analyses indicate that SOEs exhibit lower compared to private counterparts, with resources directed toward maintaining employment or fulfilling political objectives rather than fostering breakthrough advancements. For instance, following the nationalization of key industries in in the early , productivity in affected sectors plummeted, as evidenced by a sharp decline in output per worker attributable to diminished incentives for technological upgrades. Allocative inefficiencies arise because nationalized entities distort resource distribution by prioritizing non-economic criteria, such as regional favoritism or ideological goals, over consumer demand and signals. Studies of capital allocation reveal that state ownership systematically misdirects investments toward less productive uses, contributing to aggregate losses. In , publicly listed SOEs demonstrate lower profitability and than non-state firms, with capital funneled into politically favored projects that underperform market tests. This misallocation exacerbates broader economic drag, as SOEs crowd out private investment and perpetuate inefficiencies through soft budget constraints, where losses are absorbed by fiscal transfers rather than corrected via market discipline. Cross-country evidence underscores these patterns, with SOEs in and sectors showing persistent X-inefficiencies—operational slack not attributable to market prices—leading to suboptimal input mixes and output levels. While some SOEs in subsidized environments, such as certain Chinese cases, report elevated R&D spending, this often yields lower-quality outputs and fails to translate into sustained competitiveness, contrasting with private firms' superior rates driven by rivalry and residual claims. Overall, nationalization undermines the Schumpeterian process of , where failing entities are replaced by innovators, resulting in technological lag observable in historically nationalized industries like utilities and heavy across multiple economies.

Political Interference and Rent-Seeking

Nationalized industries frequently encounter political interference, wherein government directives prioritize electoral gains, ideological objectives, or regional favoritism over operational efficiency and profitability. This manifests in decisions such as maintaining excess to suppress statistics or allocating contracts to politically aligned suppliers, often at higher costs. Empirical analyses of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) reveal that such interference diminishes financial , with politically motivated board appointments and resource allocations correlating to reduced returns on assets. Rent-seeking intensifies these vulnerabilities, as politicians, bureaucrats, and interest groups exploit SOEs to extract unearned benefits through , subsidies, or preferential policies rather than productive value creation. In fully state-owned entities, control over appointments enables the distribution of high-paying management and supervisory roles to loyalists, fostering networks of dependency and inefficiency. For example, following Zambia's 1969 nationalization of its industry, state ownership facilitated widespread and , with revenues channeled into systems that prioritized over reinvestment. Case studies from illustrate how nationalization of hydrocarbon sectors perpetuated , as state entities relied on resource rents for political transfers without curbing underlying distributive pressures. Similarly, in various developing economies, SOEs serve as instruments for politicians to secure votes via job creation or subsidies, diverting resources from competitive markets and entrenching fiscal burdens. International guidelines, such as those from the , emphasize insulating SOEs from through independent , yet persistent interference in public contracting and operations underscores the structural incentives inherent in state control. Reforms like partial privatization or stock market listings have shown potential to curb interference by introducing market discipline and diluting direct political oversight, though outcomes vary by institutional quality. In weaker governance environments, however, nationalization amplifies , as evidenced by recurrent SOE failures attributed to politically driven mismanagement rather than .

Case Studies and Comparative Analysis

Notable Successes and Temporary Applications

Norway's establishment of state ownership over its petroleum resources beginning in 1972 exemplifies a successful application of nationalization in the natural resource sector. The government created Statoil (later Equinor) as a fully state-owned national oil company to manage exploration, production, and revenues from the North Sea discoveries, retaining a direct 50% stake in fields alongside the company while channeling excess rents into the Government Pension Fund Global, which grew to over $1.4 trillion by 2023 through disciplined fiscal rules limiting withdrawals to 3% annually. This approach preserved resource sovereignty, fostered technological advancements in offshore drilling—positioning Statoil as a global leader—and avoided the resource curse seen elsewhere by prioritizing long-term savings over immediate spending, with empirical data showing Norway's per capita GDP rising from approximately $10,000 in 1972 to over $100,000 by 2022 in constant terms, bolstered by prudent governance rather than full privatization. In , the nationalization of large-scale mines between 1967 and 1971 transferred control of key assets like El Teniente from foreign firms to the state-owned Corporación Nacional del Cobre de Chile (), increasing government revenue from exports—which constituted over 80% of earnings—from $200 million in 1970 to higher shares post-nationalization, despite initial disruptions. Production levels stabilized and grew under state management, with becoming one of the world's largest producers, demonstrating that nationalization could capture resource rents effectively in a context of strong technical continuity from prior operators and subsequent market-oriented policies. Temporary nationalizations during financial crises have proven effective in specific cases by stabilizing systems without permanent state control. Sweden's response to its 1991-1993 banking crisis involved the government assuming ownership of non-performing assets and injecting capital equivalent to 4% of GDP into failed institutions like Nordbanken, which were restructured, bad loans segregated into companies (e.g., Securum), and reprivatized by the mid-1990s, recovering approximately 58% of costs and enabling a swift economic rebound with GDP growth averaging 3% annually from 1994 onward. This model succeeded due to transparent resolution mechanisms, avoidance of through equity wipes for shareholders, and rapid return to private ownership, contrasting with prolonged interventions elsewhere; no systemic runs occurred, and the banking sector resumed lending without long-term efficiency losses. Similarly, Mexico's temporary nationalization of much of its banking system following the 1994 peso crisis allowed for recapitalization and cleanup of non-performing loans, with the government selling off stakes profitably by the early 2000s, contributing to and supporting GDP recovery to 5% growth rates by 2000. These cases highlight that short-term state intervention, when limited to crisis resolution with predefined exit strategies, can mitigate contagion and restore viability, provided political independence in management and avoidance of indefinite ownership—outcomes empirically tied to credible commitments rather than ideological permanence.

Prominent Failures in Key Industries

In , the nationalization of the oil sector under Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (), intensified after Hugo Chávez's 2003 dismissal of 19,000 striking employees and subsequent state control, resulted in a precipitous decline in production. Output fell from approximately 3.5 million barrels per day in the early 2000s to 540,000 barrels per day by 2020, exacerbated by underinvestment, , and political in hiring. Between 2013 and 2018, production dropped 43.6% to 1.7 million barrels per day, mirroring broader driven by regime control over revenues rather than operational efficiency. The United Kingdom's coal industry, nationalized via the National Coal Board in 1947, experienced chronic inefficiencies, overmanning, and productivity stagnation despite initial hopes for modernization. Coal output declined by 44% over the first four decades post-nationalization, even as demand persisted, leading to reliance on imports by the 1960s despite abundant domestic reserves—a stark indicator of mismanagement under state monopoly. Persistent labor disputes, such as the 1972 and 1974 strikes, highlighted governance failures, with subsidies ballooning to £1.3 billion annually by the 1970s while failing to stem closures of uneconomic pits. In the , the full nationalization of heavy industries following the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution and Five-Year Plans prioritized output quotas over efficiency, yielding systemic waste and technological lag. Central planning distorted , with investments proving far less productive per capita than in market economies; by the , industrial growth stalled amid shortages and poor-quality goods, as evidenced by the need for imported machinery despite massive steel and machinery production drives. and bureaucratic inertia compounded these issues, contributing to the eventual economic unraveling without competitive pressures to innovate. Argentina's 2012 expropriation of 51% of from triggered and legal repercussions, undermining shale development potential in . Foreign investment evaporated post-nationalization, with multinational exits accelerating due to perceived sovereign risk, while ongoing U.S. court rulings as of 2025 demand $16.1 billion in compensation, straining fiscal resources and deterring further inflows. Production growth lagged regional peers, hampered by state interference prioritizing short-term politics over long-term exploration.

Reversals via Privatization

Privatization of previously nationalized industries has frequently reversed the inefficiencies associated with , introducing market incentives that enhance , reduce costs, and spur . Empirical studies indicate that such reversals often yield measurable improvements in operational , with privatized firms exhibiting higher profitability, output growth, and compared to their nationalized predecessors. For instance, a cross-country analysis of privatization programs found average increases in sales per employee by 23 percent post-privatization, alongside gains in profitability and operating . These outcomes stem from the alignment of managerial incentives with , replacing bureaucratic allocation with competitive pressures, though initial disruptions like job losses can occur during transition. In the , the privatization wave initiated under from 1979 onward reversed post-World War II nationalizations across sectors including , , and airlines. British Telecom, nationalized in 1949 and privatized in 1984, saw substantial and service enhancements following its sale, with real prices falling by 50 percent over the subsequent decade due to increased and . Similarly, , privatized in 1986, experienced initial labor dips but recovered sharply as market fostered efficiency gains and lower consumer prices. , transferred to private ownership in 1987, improved profitability and , transforming from chronic losses under state control to a competitive global carrier. Overall, these privatizations boosted sector-wide , with firms like demonstrating sustained post-privatization performance superior to nationalized benchmarks. Chile's electricity sector provides another reversal example, where nationalizations under President in the early 1970s were undone through starting in the mid-1980s under the subsequent military regime. The 1982 Electricity Act and subsequent reforms led to full , attracting soaring private investment and expanding capacity amid and unbundling of , transmission, and distribution. This shift resolved chronic shortages and inefficiencies of state monopolies, enabling reliable supply growth and cost reductions, though later renegotiations highlighted risks from incomplete regulatory frameworks. In post-communist , mass privatizations after reversed decades of Soviet-era nationalizations, with faster and more extensive reforms correlating to stronger long-term growth and efficiency in industries like and services. Countries implementing rapid privatization, such as and , achieved higher GDP recovery and productivity gains than slower reformers, as market entry and foreign investment displaced state inefficiencies. However, outcomes varied, with initial output declines in some cases underscoring the need for complementary institutions like to sustain benefits. Mexico's 1990 privatization of , nationalized in 1970, similarly boosted investment and service expansion, though persistent monopoly elements limited full competitive gains. These cases illustrate that while reversals via do not guarantee uniform success, they empirically outperform prolonged nationalization when paired with and sound .

Sovereignty and International Law

Nationalization invokes the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources, codified in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1803 (XVII) adopted on December 14, 1962, which affirms that peoples and nations possess the right to freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources in conformity with their national interests, including through expropriation for public purposes provided appropriate compensation is paid. This doctrine, rooted in decolonization-era assertions of state control over domestic assets, positions nationalization as an exercise of sovereign authority over territory and economy, overriding private property rights when deemed necessary for development or security. However, sovereignty is not absolute; customary international law imposes constraints, requiring expropriations to serve a legitimate public purpose, avoid discrimination, and entail compensation meeting the "prompt, adequate, and effective" standard, known as the Hull formula after U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull's 1940 articulation demanding full market value in convertible currency without undue delay. Bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and multilateral agreements further delineate these boundaries, obligating states to protect foreign investors from uncompensated takings, with violations triggering investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms such as those under the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). For instance, Venezuela's 2007 nationalization of oil projects like Cerro Negro and led to ICSID claims by affiliates, resulting in a 2014 of over $1.6 billion for breaches including inadequate compensation, underscoring how commitments can compel sovereign states to arbitrate and pay damages despite domestic legal assertions of PSNR. Similarly, in Tenaris v. Venezuela (ICSID Case No. ARB/11/25), a 2016 tribunal awarded compensation for the 2009-2010 expropriation of steel facilities, rejecting arguments that overrides investor protections under the applicable BIT. These cases illustrate causal tensions: while enables nationalization, non-compliance with compensation norms erodes investor confidence, invites enforcement actions like asset seizures abroad, and may deter future , as evidenced by empirical patterns in post-nationalization capital outflows. International law thus balances sovereignty with reciprocal obligations, where states retain discretion to nationalize but face accountability through if foreign interests are impaired without or fair value restitution. Critics from developing nations, often amplified in academic discourse, contend the Hull formula favors capital-exporting states and undermines PSNR, yet tribunals consistently uphold it as reflective of , prioritizing verifiable market valuations over subjective "" discounts. This framework has prompted some states, like and , to renegotiate or exit ISDS provisions, asserting fuller , though such moves risk isolating economies from global capital flows without altering core compensation duties under general .

Investor Protections and Disputes

International investment agreements, particularly bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and multilateral instruments, safeguard foreign against nationalization by prohibiting expropriation unless it pursues a public purpose, adheres to non-discriminatory standards, complies with , and provides prompt, adequate, and effective compensation reflecting . These protections extend to both direct nationalization—such as outright seizure of assets—and indirect or "creeping" expropriation through regulatory measures that substantially deprive investments of value. Disputes over alleged violations typically proceed through investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) frameworks, with the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) handling the majority of nationalization claims via binding . Tribunals assess whether nationalizations meet legality criteria, often awarding compensation for breaches; as of December 2023, ICSID had rendered 434 awards in registered cases, with investors prevailing in a significant portion involving expropriation. Prominent examples include Tenaris S.A. and Talta Trading v. (ICSID Case No. ARB/11/26), where a 2016 tribunal ruled that 's 2010 nationalization of steel facilities constituted indirect expropriation, granting US$172.8 million in damages and pre-award interest under the Italy- and Switzerland- BITs. In Mobil Cerro Negro v. (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/27), arising from the 2007 expropriation of ExxonMobil's oil operations, a 2014 award initially valued compensation at approximately US$1.6 billion, reduced to about US$200 million following a 2017 partial , with resubmission proceedings finalizing further adjustments in 2023. ICSID awards are enforceable under the Convention's Article 54, requiring member states—numbering over 150—to treat them as binding final judgments without substantive review, enabling execution against state assets abroad. Compliance remains high overall, with only seven recorded refusals among 434 awards as of late 2023, though enforcement against non-compliant states like has involved U.S. court orders for asset attachment in cases such as . Persistent resistance can prolong recovery, underscoring limits in coercing sovereigns despite robust legal mechanisms.

References

  1. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nationalization.asp
  2. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/economics/nationalization/
  3. https://www.imf.org/external/np/sta/tfhpsa/2005/09/pandn.pdf
  4. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/context/mlr/article/2211/viewcontent/uc.pdf
  5. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-history-of-corporate-nationalization/
  6. https://www.economicshelp.org/macroeconomics/privatisation/nationalisation/
  7. https://thenextsystem.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/A_History_of_Nationalization_in_the_US-Hanna-NSP.pdf
  8. https://www.kansascityfed.org/documents/7725/rwp14-06.pdf
  9. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w16126/w16126.pdf
  10. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0161893816300151
  11. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17487870.2019.1566065
  12. https://iea.org.uk/the-economics-and-politics-of-nationalisation-and-privatisation/
  13. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=598a5f86-6c79-46e1-9baa-f8a2935ea98d
  14. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2154678
  15. https://iep.utm.edu/socialis/
  16. https://econreview.studentorg.berkeley.edu/rethinking-socialism/
  17. https://thenextsystem.org/history-of-nationalization-in-the-us
  18. https://www.justice.gov/enrd/condemnation/land-acquisition-section/history-federal-use-eminent-domain
  19. http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Finleyetal2017.pdf
  20. https://open.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2790&context=all_theses
  21. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03585522.1993.10415864
  22. https://ehes.org/wp/EHES_151.pdf
  23. https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1917-2/economic-apparatus/economic-apparatus-texts/nationalization-of-banks/
  24. https://theins.ru/en/history/264113
  25. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/mexican-oil
  26. https://www.britannica.com/place/Iran/Wartime-and-nationalization-of-oil
  27. https://www.gov.uk/government/history/past-prime-ministers/clement-attlee
  28. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2498&context=lcp
  29. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitextlo/ess_thirdworld.html
  30. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol4-No4-5
  31. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/bolivias-nationalization-oil-and-gas
  32. https://www.reuters.com/article/business/2007-in-venezuela-year-of-the-nationalization-idUSN01265518/
  33. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-completes-nationalization-uniper-ministries-2022-12-22/
  34. https://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/17/business/worldbusiness/kremlin-reasserts-hold-on-russias-oil-and-gas.html
  35. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2004/dec/24/russia.oilandpetrol
  36. https://iisd.org/itn/2014/09/04/yukos-v-russia-issues-and-legal-reasoning-behind-us50-billion-awards/
  37. https://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/world/americas/02bolivia.html
  38. https://www.npr.org/2007/05/01/9937606/chavez-nationalizes-venezuelan-oil-fields
  39. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-29561345
  40. https://www.reuters.com/article/business/argentina-nationalizes-oil-company-ypf-idUSBRE84306W/
  41. https://apnews.com/article/argentina-us-oil-gas-energy-ypf-judgement-8f2937655b3679ad2590fb5d53542ca4
  42. https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/mexico-nationalizes-lithium-sets-state-owned-company
  43. https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/es-419/knowledge/publications/5dce6a75/mexico-moves-to-nationalize-lithium-mining
  44. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/21/business/germany-uniper-nationalized.html
  45. https://www.uniper.energy/news/uniper-repays-around-26-billion-to-the-federal-republic-of-germany
  46. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405473915000021
  47. https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/blog/nationalisation-for-paper-1-micro-2025-essential-a-level-economics-revision
  48. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5160519
  49. https://ecdpm.org/application/files/3217/1497/9233/Resource-Nationalism-Age-Green-Industrialisation-ECDPM-Discussion-Paper-365-2024.pdf
  50. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-024-03949-8
  51. https://discover.hubpages.com/politics/4-Reasons-Why-Some-Industries-Should-Be-Nationalised
  52. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/politics-and-government/mexico-nationalizes-foreign-oil-properties
  53. https://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-chapter1.html
  54. https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=62650
  55. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-woodrow-wilson-seizes-the-nations-railroads
  56. https://www.aar.org/issue/military/
  57. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1953-1960/suez
  58. https://vtuhr.org/articles/10.21061/vtuhr.v14i1.269
  59. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
  60. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch32.htm
  61. https://irishmarxism.net/2013/01/01/lenin-and-nationalisation/
  62. https://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1947/public-ownership.htm
  63. https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch28.htm
  64. https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1541
  65. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/politics-and-government/nationalization
  66. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/nationalisation-legal-aspects
  67. https://www.dorsey.com/newsresources/publications/client-alerts/2020/03/the-defense-production-act
  68. https://dailyjus.com/legal-insights/2020/07/compensation-for-lawful-nationalization
  69. https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/nationalization-in-latin-america-how-can-companies-ride-out-the-storm/
  70. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=9&article=1003&context=propertyjournal&type=additional
  71. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/soaf110&section=19
  72. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2612&context=uclrev
  73. https://flora.insead.edu/fichiersti_wp/Inseadwp1985/85-21.pdf
  74. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1848&context=dlj
  75. https://www.nber.org/papers/w33572
  76. https://www.oxera.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Incentives-in-public-ownership.pdf
  77. https://sites.duke.edu/djepapers/files/2022/08/Chouliara-Corporate-Governance.pdf
  78. https://fee.org/articles/the-use-of-knowledge-in-society/
  79. https://fee.org/articles/hayek-the-knowledge-problem/
  80. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301420724004112
  81. https://www.epsu.org/article/public-and-private-sector-efficiency
  82. https://manifold.bfi.uchicago.edu/read/a-monetary-and-fiscal-history-of-latin-america-1960-2017/section/d2c8d793-bd56-4e90-bd22-5d07377b372a
  83. https://www.economicsobservatory.com/why-did-venezuelas-economy-collapse
  84. https://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2024/08/02/argentina-faces-serious-medium-term-default-risks-given-ypf-nationalization-case-in-new-york/
  85. https://hbr.org/1992/01/british-privatization-taking-capitalism-to-the-people
  86. https://conservativehome.mystagingwebsite.com/2023/09/15/sarah-ingham-nationalisation-failed-british-industry-in-the-1970s-and-would-fail-british-utilities-now/
  87. https://webimages.iadb.org/publications/english/document/Identifying-and-Mitigating-Fiscal-Risks-from-State-Owned-Enterprises-%28SOEs%29.pdf
  88. http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2225-62532013000100007
  89. https://majrresources.com/how-does-resource-nationalism-affect-a-countrys-economy/
  90. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/venezuela-crisis
  91. https://publications.iadb.org/en/fixing-state-owned-enterprises-new-policy-solutions-old-problems
  92. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2018/08/state-owned-enterprises-and-corruption_g1g90cb1/9789264303058-en.pdf
  93. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/state-owned-enterprises-and-corruption_9789264303058-en.html
  94. https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/600161611679881440-0090022021/original/StateOwnedEnterprises.pdf
  95. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/programmes/grc/grc-see/integrity/Anti-corruption-SOE-Policy-Briefing-Note.pdf
  96. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/brazils-corruption-fallout
  97. https://www.occrp.org/en/news/brazils-petrobras-recovered-over-920-million-it-lost-to-graft
  98. https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-03-23/rampant-corruption-in-venezuelas-national-oil-company-weighs-down-the-economy.html
  99. https://energynews.pro/en/pdvsa-scandal-17-billion-lost-to-corruption/
  100. https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm594
  101. https://fastercapital.com/topics/criticisms-and-challenges-of-nationalization.html/1
  102. https://www.ifc.org/content/dam/ifc/doc/mgrt-pub/dp-2-state-ownership-perotti-2003.pdf
  103. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/state-ownership-and-corporate-leverage-around-world-0
  104. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/001/2021/075/article-A001-en.xml
  105. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3275811
  106. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0147596782900117
  107. https://academic.oup.com/wber/advance-article/doi/10.1093/wber/lhaf024/8290983
  108. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/shleifer/files/state_vs_private.pdf
  109. https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/WP/2019/wpiea2019253-print-pdf.ashx
  110. https://theweek.com/101318/the-pros-and-cons-of-nationalisation
  111. https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/35/3/338/8151456?rss=1
  112. https://apcz.umk.pl/EiP/article/viewFile/EiP.2019.034/24277
  113. https://www.hiebs.hku.hk/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/wp1037.pdf
  114. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1143&context=etd
  115. https://academic.oup.com/book/5736/chapter/148875512
  116. https://oxfordre.com/business/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.001.0001/acrefore-9780190224851-e-93
  117. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2023/01/safeguarding-state-owned-enterprises-from-undue-influence_9a91e6eb/47444e1c-en.pdf
  118. https://islandtimes.org/state-owned-enterprises-soes-need-less-state-interference/
  119. https://www.norskpetroleum.no/en/framework/norways-petroleum-history/
  120. https://www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/energy/oil-and-gas/norways-oil-history-in-5-minutes/id440538/
  121. http://pesd.fsi.stanford.edu/publications/norways_evolving_champion_statoil_and_the_politics_of_state_enterprise
  122. https://mg.co.za/article/2011-09-08-oil-together-now-nationalisation-lessons-from-norway/
  123. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13563-023-00412-z
  124. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/swedish-model-resolving-banking-crisis-1991-93-it-useful-today
  125. https://www.world-economics-journal.com/Papers/Swedens-Bank-Nationalisations.aspx?ID=363
  126. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/business/worldbusiness/23sweden.html
  127. https://www.rferl.org/a/Explainer_How_Sweden_Rescued_Banks_1990s/1379859.html
  128. https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/has-the-time-come-to-nationalize-struggling-banks-yes-but-carefully/
  129. https://www.strausscenter.org/energy-and-security-project/venezuela/
  130. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2021/ph240/lerner2/
  131. https://www.iai.it/en/pubblicazioni/c05/venezuelan-oil-industry-collapse-economic-social-and-political-implications
  132. https://etonomics.com/2021/04/27/the-effects-of-nationalisation-on-the-british-coal-industry/
  133. https://fee.org/articles/selected-facts-in-the-british-nationalized-coal-industry/
  134. https://www.oxera.com/insights/agenda/articles/king-coal-dethroned-the-decline-and-fall-of-the-british-coal-industry/
  135. https://norabelrose.com/2018/10/28/why-the-soviet-union-failed/
  136. https://www.asianometry.com/p/where-the-economy-of-the-soviet-union
  137. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0957178713000350
  138. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/ypf-turnover-ruling-casts-shadow-over-argentina-shale-hopes-fx-2025-07-01/
  139. https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/options-federal-privatization-reform-lessons-abroad
  140. https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/winter-2017/margaret-thatchers-privatization-legacy
  141. https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/cesifo1_wp1126.pdf
  142. https://cps.org.uk/research/the-performance-of-privatisation-vol-iii-privatisation-and-efficiency/
  143. https://ceepr.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/2004-016.pdf
  144. https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/Post-Privatization-Renegotiation-and-Disputes-in-Chile.pdf
  145. https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/25-years-reforms-ex-communist-countries-fast-extensive-reforms-led-higher-growth
  146. https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstreams/7312037c-abbe-6bd4-e053-0100007fdf3b/download
  147. https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/740931485539890357-0050022017/render/WDR17BPPoliticaleconomyoftelecoms.pdf
  148. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/general-assembly-resolution-1803-xvii-14-december-1962-permanent
  149. https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/ga_1803/ga_1803.html
  150. https://jeanmonnetprogram.org/archive/papers/97/97-12-III.html
  151. https://jusmundi.com/en/document/publication/en-prompt-adequate-and-effective-compensation
  152. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/psiteiitd15.en.pdf
  153. https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement/cases/253/mobil-and-others-v-venezuela
  154. https://www.iisd.org/itn/2016/05/16/icsid-tribunal-awards-damages-for-venezuelas-indirect-expropriation-of-steel-industry-investment-tenaris-sa-and-talta-trading-e-marketing-sociedade-unipessoal-lda-v-bolivarian-republic-of-venezuela-ic/
  155. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1440&context=byuplr
  156. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/best_practice_compensation_expropriation_en.pdf
  157. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID3326636_code3067905.pdf?abstractid=3326636&mirid=1
  158. https://academic.oup.com/book/57807/chapter/471292147
  159. https://opil.ouplaw.com/abstract/10.1093/law-oxio/e599.013.1/law-oxio-e599
  160. https://www.trade.gov/bilateral-investment-treaties
  161. https://www.sidley.com/en/us/services/global-arbitration-trade-and-advocacy/investment-treaty-arbitration/sub-pages/the-basics-of-bilateral-investment-treaties/
  162. https://icsid.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/parties_publications/C8394/Claimants%2527%2520documents/CL%2520-%2520Exhibits/CL-0272.pdf
  163. https://jusmundi.com/en/document/publication/en-creeping-expropriation
  164. https://icsid.worldbank.org/
  165. https://academic.oup.com/arbitration/article/41/3/607/8078736
  166. https://www.iisd.org/itn/2015/02/19/awards-and-decisions-18/
  167. https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/exxon-sees-us14-billion-chopped-venezuela-award
  168. https://icsid.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/publications/Enforcement_Paper.pdf
  169. https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I9f074002b21511eabea3f0dc9fb69570/ICSID-award-creditor-granted-recognition-and-enforcement-of-172-million-arbitral-award-against-Venezuela-DC-District-Court?viewType=FullText&ppcid=6f1847e9fcac4bd0a831939589f21db6&originationContext=knowHow&transitionType=KnowHowItem&contextData=%2528sc.RelatedInfo%2529
  170. https://icsid.worldbank.org/resources/publications/compliance-and-enforcement-icsid-awards
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.