Items in this collection
Who Bears the Burden of Environmental Policies within Countries?
This report summarize on the burden of environmental policies within countries. Climate change policies will have distributional consequences across and within countries. Most of the current environmental policy instruments tend to be regressive and impose a higher burden on the poor. Despite their limitations, more systematic incidence assessments for climate change (CC) policies are needed so that adaptation and mitigation policies address their distributional effects within countries.
Infrastructure Performance and Reform in Developing and Transition Economies : Evidence from a Survey of Productivity Measures
The authors review about 80 studies on electricity and gas, water and sanitation, and rail and ports (with a footnote on telecommunications) in developing countries. The main policy lesson is that there is a difference in the relevance of ownership for efficiency between utilities and transport in developing countries. In transport, private operators have tended to perform better than public operators. For utilities, ownership often does not matter as much as sometimes argued. Most cross-country studies find no statistically significant difference in efficiency scores between public and private providers. As for the country-specific studies, some do find differences in performance over time but these differences tend to matter much less than a large number of other variables. Across sectors, private operators functioning in a competitive environment or regulated under price caps or hybrid regulatory regimes tend to catch up best practice faster than public operators. There is a very strong case to push regulators in developing and transition economies toward a more systematic reliance on yardstick competition in a sector in which residual monopoly powers tend to be common.
Emerging Infrastructure Policy Issues in Developing Countries: A Survey of the Recent Economic Literature
The author reviews the recent economic research on emerging issues for infrastructure policies affecting poor people in developing countries. His main purpose is to identify some of the challenges the international community, and donors in particular, are likely to have to address over the next few years. He addresses six main issues: (1) the necessity of infrastructure in achieving the Millennium Development Goals; (2) the various dimensions of financing challenges for infrastructure; (3) the debate on the relative importance of urban and rural infrastructure needs; (4) the debate on the effectiveness of infrastructure decentralization; (5) what works and what does not when trying to target the needs of the poor, with an emphasis on affordability and regulation challenges; and (6) the importance of governance and corruption in the sector. The author concludes by showing how the challenges identified define a relatively well integrated agenda for both researchers and the international infrastructure community.
Is Debt Replacing Equity in Regulated Privatized Infrastructure in Developing Countries?
The main purpose of this paper is to describe the evolution of the financing structure of regulated privatized utilities and transport companies. To do so, the authors rely on a sample of 121 utilities distributed over 16 countries, and 23 transport infrastructure operators and 23 transport services operators distributed over 23 countries. They show that leverage rates vary significantly across sectors, with the highest rates observed in transport and the lowest in water. Moreover, the authors also show that the 1997 Asia crisis led operators to adjust their financial structure differently in different regions. Overall, the evidence they present shows that debt is replacing equity in financing the investment needs of utilities and transport services in developing countries. These results raise some questions as to whether the regulator's mandate should be expanded to monitor the financial structure of companies and as to whether the international community should make a stronger commitment to more transparent regulatory accounting systems.
How Widespread Were Private Investment and Regulatory Reform in Infrastructure Utilities During the 1990s?
This note provides a snapshot as of 2004 of the share of countries with an independent regulatory agency and with at least some private sector financing of its sectoral investment needs for electricity, water and sanitation, and telecommunications. Among other things, they show that: For respectively, electricity, water and sanitation, and telecommunications, 51 percent, 21 percent, and 66 percent of the developing countries in the sample have an independent regulator, that is, an agency separate from a ministry and from the operator. For respectively, electricity generation, electricity distribution, water and sanitation, and telecommunications, 47 percent, 36 percent, 35 percent, and 59 percent of the developing countries in the sample have at least some private sector financing. The shares of both agencies and private sector involvement tend to increase with income levels. Latin and Central America and Eastern Europe are outliers among regions as almost systematically they have among the highest shares for both indicators across sectors (except water).
PPI partnerships versus PPI divorces in LDCs (or are we switching from PPPI to PPDI?)
Thirty years ago, in 1974, Chile launched the first large-scale privatization in a developing country. About 15 years later, Argentina provided a new model of global infrastructure management. Since then a variety of public-private partnerships in infrastructure have been adopted throughout the developing and transition world. These experiences add up to a large and heterogeneous enough sample of experiences from which some fairly robust conclusions on who benefited from the reforms and who did not. Because many of these experiences are also turning sour and the "privatization" fad of the 1990s seems to be turning into an "anti-privatization" fad, it seems important to separate facts from emotions. The author argues that the wide differences in interpretations of the facts can be explained by wide differences in the assessment criteria used by analysts, including the definition of the baseline data chosen to assess the incremental effect of reforms. It is also driven by the sectors, the regions, and probably most important, the actors on which the analysis tends to focus. Once all these factors have been considered, a relatively fair and quantitative assessment of the prospects of the public-private relationship in infrastructure is possible.
Have Consumers Benefited from the Reforms in the Electricity Distribution Sector in Latin America?
The authors bring new empirical evidence on the impact of the choice of ownership and regulatory regime on firms' productivity and prices paid by consumers. They collect the evidence from a sample of electricity distribution companies in Latin America. The authors rely on estimations of labor and operation and maintenance (O&M) input requirement functions using alternative econometric approaches. Their main conclusions are: 1) Private firms perform better (approximately 30 percent) than public firms. 2) The regulatory regimes matter, so that price-cap regulated firms do better than rate-of-return regulated firms, and firms regulated under hybrid regimes have intermediate performance. 3) Private firms operating under rate of return are at most as efficient as public firms. 4) There is no clear pattern of differences in electricity prices according to the regulatory regime. 5) Final prices fell in general but the drop did not match the productivity gains, implying that the operators and the state share some of the gains in the form of rents and higher tax revenue, respectively.
How Concentrated are Global Infrastructure Markets?
In infrastructure, the possibility of a positive relationship between operators' profitability and the degree of concentration is a major political issue in view of the wide diversity of feelings about the potential role of the private sector. This is particularly important in view of (i) the large residual degree of monopolies, (ii) the protection they are granted through exclusivity clauses built in service delivery contracts and (iii) the widespread sense that the same operators tend to be present in most of the privatized operations. The main purpose of this paper is to provide a first set of quantitative assessments of the degree of concentration in infrastructure at the global and at the regional level. Concentration issues were identified in only about 20 percent of the cases studied, a presumption of concentration was found in another 30 percent of the cases. We find no correlation between the degree of concentration and the degree of reform adopted by a region or a sector. In more general terms, we find no scope for simple encompassing regional or sectoral statements because issues are region- and sector-specific. We conclude by arguing that there are a few cases and regions in which it would make sense for a supranational competition or regulation agency to ensure that the interests of the users are protected more effectively against the risks of collusion and other types of anti-competitive behaviors local regulators would not be equipped to address.
Infrastructure Services in Developing Countries : Access, Quality, Costs and Policy Reform
The authors review the evidence on the state of infrastructure in the developing world, emphasizing the investment needs and the emerging policy issues. While their assessment is seriously constrained by data gaps, they provide useful insights on the main challenges ahead, emphasizing that, in addition to the widely discussed access problems, the poorest also face major affordability and service quality issues which were not well addressed by the reforms of the 1990s. The authors make a case for a stronger commitment of the international community to generate the information needed to assess and monitor infrastructure needs and policies.
Are Returns to Private Infrastructure in Developing Countries Consistent with Risks Since the Asian Crisis?
This paper presents a basic assessment of the financial performance of infrastructure service operators in developing countries. It relies on a new database of 120 companies put together to track the evolution of the cost of capital, the cost of equity and the return to equity for electricity, water and sanitation, railways and port operators in 31 developing countries distributed evenly across low-income, low-middle income and upper middle-income countries. The paper shows that between 1998 and 2002, the average cost of capital in developing countries varied from less than 11 percent to over 15 percent across regions and sectors while the cost of equity varied from around 13 percent to over 22 percent. Low-middle-income countries have recovered relatively well from the East Asia crisis, while low-income and upper-middle-income countries have seen their situation deteriorate since the crisis. At the regional level, the main story is that East Asia is recovering quite well from its crisis, and that the financial performance of the operators in Africa and Latin America has deteriorated. Eastern Europe and South Asia are doing relatively better but show a large volatility of returns over time and within sectors. At the sector level, the railways and the energy sectors have seen their performance deteriorate significantly over the period, while the water and port sectors have done relatively better. In all sectors and regions, the average return to equity has been lower than the cost of equity since the Asian crisis.