As discussed above, Ethiopia’s SOEs are under the administration of various organs. The State Owned Enterprises Supervising Agency and other regulatory bodies such as the Ministry of Industry and Ministry of Defense administer state enterprises. The aim of the paper is not giving a detailed look in to or providing a prototype of SOE management, which is a distinct study. Rather it reflects on the experience of similarly situated countries in preventing and addressing conflict of interest.
The three approaches in the organization and administration of SOEs are the Centralized model, decentralized model, and the dualist model. The Centralized model envisages a situation where the government’s stalk in companies is controlled by one government …show more content…
This multi-layer monitoring system is criticized to hinder effective administration in China. To the contrary, scholars recommend for allocation of real power to the different supervisory organs discussed above instead of reducing their number. In Ethiopia to the contrary, the enterprises are controlled by their board, the board is accountable to the Supervising Agency or the ministry, and the Agency or the ministry is under the Council of Ministers. In China workers of state owned enterprises have a board that represent their interest and that can initiate demotion of a director for misappropriation or any other administrative vice. The board of supervisors in china does not have a parallel in Ethiopia. Instead, the workers of the SOEs have only one representative in the Board of Directors that otherwise consists of a pool of high government officials. In China the independent directors are professionals with certain academic and professional background. This board as well does not have a parallel in Ethiopia. In China the Board of Directors has the committees discussed above with power to ensure the smooth functioning of the enterprise, in Ethiopia even though it is not impossible it is unclear whether the seven members’ board is disintegrated in to various specialized committees for specialized functions. Therefore, compared to China, in terms of structure and not capacity, the possibility of administrative vice is higher in
The three approaches in the organization and administration of SOEs are the Centralized model, decentralized model, and the dualist model. The Centralized model envisages a situation where the government’s stalk in companies is controlled by one government …show more content…
This multi-layer monitoring system is criticized to hinder effective administration in China. To the contrary, scholars recommend for allocation of real power to the different supervisory organs discussed above instead of reducing their number. In Ethiopia to the contrary, the enterprises are controlled by their board, the board is accountable to the Supervising Agency or the ministry, and the Agency or the ministry is under the Council of Ministers. In China workers of state owned enterprises have a board that represent their interest and that can initiate demotion of a director for misappropriation or any other administrative vice. The board of supervisors in china does not have a parallel in Ethiopia. Instead, the workers of the SOEs have only one representative in the Board of Directors that otherwise consists of a pool of high government officials. In China the independent directors are professionals with certain academic and professional background. This board as well does not have a parallel in Ethiopia. In China the Board of Directors has the committees discussed above with power to ensure the smooth functioning of the enterprise, in Ethiopia even though it is not impossible it is unclear whether the seven members’ board is disintegrated in to various specialized committees for specialized functions. Therefore, compared to China, in terms of structure and not capacity, the possibility of administrative vice is higher in