2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.02.015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The impact of privatization approaches on the productivity growth of the water industry: A case study of Chile

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
7
0
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 65 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
2
7
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Public company’s TFP also improved considerably throughout the whole period at an annual rate of 7%. This result is consistent with previous studies by Molinos-Senante and Sala-Garrido [ 17 ] and Molinos-Senante et al [ 18 ] who reported that FPWCs performed slightly better than CWCs. A study by Molinos-Senante et al [ 25 ] showed that concessionary and private companies increased their TFP by 8.4% and 3.3% per year, respectively.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 93%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Public company’s TFP also improved considerably throughout the whole period at an annual rate of 7%. This result is consistent with previous studies by Molinos-Senante and Sala-Garrido [ 17 ] and Molinos-Senante et al [ 18 ] who reported that FPWCs performed slightly better than CWCs. A study by Molinos-Senante et al [ 25 ] showed that concessionary and private companies increased their TFP by 8.4% and 3.3% per year, respectively.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 93%
“…Like England and Wales, the Chilean water industry is fully privatized and its privatization took place during the years 1998–2004 [ 17 ]. (Two forms of companies were formed namely: i) full private water companies (FPWCs) where the full ownership and operation of infrastructure is undertaken by private consortiums for an infinite time period, and ii) concessionary water companies (CWCs) where the water services are provided by private consortiums for a limited time period (e.g., 30 years) through a concessionary contract [ 18 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Then several methods emerged, in general divided into three parts including parametric methods (specifically, Stochastic Frontier Analysis, Kumbhakar, 1996), semi-parametric methods (Olley and Pakes, 1992; Levinsohn and Petrin, 2003) and non-parametric methods (specifically, Index Number Technique, Diewert, 1992) and Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) (Raj and Mahapatra, 2009; Lindlbauer et al , 2016). In addition, prior literature provide lots of indicators which represent productivity changes commonly, including Hicks–Moorsteen index (Bjurek, 1996), MPI (Oh and Lee, 2010; Tamini et al , 2012; Ali and Klein, 2014), Luenberger productivity indicator (Molinos-Senante et al , 2014; Molinos-Senante and Sala-Garrido, 2015), Färe–Primont index (O’Donnell, 2011; Molinos-Senante et al , 2016). Although there are several developed productivity indicators to assess productivity changes (Molinos-Senante et al , 2016), in this paper, we use the MPI as the methodology to measure productivity changes over time.…”
Section: Literature Review and Hypothesesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, HRW is not incompatible with privatization [164], as private-sector-participation (business models: [165]) may support HRW by service improvements that in turn would justify moderately higher tariffs. For, even assuming that private investors were basically interested in revenue maximization (aiming to charge users higher opportunity costs), by data for Argentina and Chile productivity of privatized water and sewerage companies initially increased due to technical improvements [166,167]. Also a comparison of 308 cities in 102 countries concluded that low water tariffs are not necessarily pro-poor, as lower tariffs tend to go with a higher risk of shortages [143], i.e., water services of poorer quality.…”
Section: Water Conflictsmentioning
confidence: 99%