This study contributes to the relevant literature in five ways. First, the study provides
more evidences on how real activities, such as privatization, affect the development of
financial sector. Second, by examining the impact of privatization on financial structure, the study provides more evidence on how privatization has a relative different impact on the development of the banking sector compared to the financial market. Third, by applying new theoretical approaches, the study provides a new analysis on the choices of financing of privatized firms. In the Egyptian context, this enriches the relevant literature by providing new evidence on how privatization affects the financial decisions of privatized firms. Fourth, the study contributes to the relevant literature by examining the lending and risk-taking behavior of privatized banks. Fifth, a uniqueness of the study is the identification of main differences among privatized firms, other publicly listed firms, and state-owned firms. In addition, the study identifies the main differences among privatized financial institutions and privatized non-financial institutions. The study constructs a new dataset that includes data about these firms and institutions.
Previous empirical studies, e.g. Kikeri, et al., 1994, Torino, 2003, Segal, 2004, Kotler
and Lee, 2007, focused mainly on the impact of privatization on investments, foreign direct investment, employment, budget deficit, market competition, economic growth, the
performance of the financial sector, and overall economic welfare, in particular in developed countries. Those studies ignored another important dimension with respect to the relationship between the privatization and the financial structure. In addition, while those studies focused on the impact of privatization on the banking sector performance and stock market returns, they ignored the different relative impact of privatization on the banking sector compared to the financial market. In addition, those studies ignored the choices of financing of privatized firms, and if exists, they focused on cross-country analysis and ignored such analysis at country-level, in particular in developing countries.