The reform of the utilities sector in Argentina

Delfino, José A.; Casarín, Ariel A.

doi:10.4337/9781781951316.00017

Cited by 23 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…• Low-income groups: The evidence is not conclusive on whether the poorest income groups have been better or worse off (Delfino and Casarin, 2001;.Ennis and Pinto, 2002;Chisari et al 1997). …”

Section: Case Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…• Improved access: Policies aimed at improving access to service can be effective and combined with privatisation (Ennis and Pinto, 2002;Delfino and Casarin, 2001). …”

Section: Case Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, the study In Argentina, the majority of state-owned firms were privatised between 1989 and 1993, with privatisation proceeds from the electricity sector amounted to about 25% of the total. Delfino and Casarin (2001) examine the welfare impacts of the program in the Gran Buenos Aires area of Argentina, using a family expenditure survey of about 5,000 households. Between the time of privatisation and the end of 1999, expenditure on electricity in real terms for a representative small consumer (average monthly maximum consumption <150 KWh) increased by about 20%, while an average large user (>150 KWh) enjoyed a tariff reduction of about 23%.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, there was a fiscal loss to the government and welfare reduction for non-payee customers (Galal, 1994). • Low-income groups: The evidence is not conclusive on whether the poorest income groups have been better or worse off (Delfino and Casarin, 2001;.Ennis and Pinto, 2002;Chisari et al 1997). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Electricity Sector Reform in Developing Countries : A Survey of Empirical Evidence on Determinants and Performance

Jamasb¹,

Mota²,

Newbery³

et al. 2005

Policy Research Working Papers

141

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

WPS3549 AbstractDriven by ideology, economic reasoning, and early success stories, vast amounts of financial resources and effort have been spent on reforming infrastructure industries in developing countries. It is, therefore, important to examine whether evidence supports the logic of reforms. This paper reviews the empirical evidence on electricity reform in developing countries. We find that country institutions and sector governance play an important role in success and failure of reform. Also, reforms also appear to have increased operating efficiency and expanded access to urban customers. However, they have to a lesser degree passed on efficiency gains to customers, tackled distributional effects, and improved rural access. Moreover, some of the literature is not methodologically robust and on par with general development economics literature. Further, findings on some issues are limited and inconclusive while other important areas are yet to be addressed. Until we know more, implementation of reforms will be more based on ideology and economic theory rather than solid economic evidence.Keywords: Electricity, reform, developing countries JEL Classification: L52, L94, Q48 E El le ec ct tr ri ic ci it ty y S Se ec ct to or r R Re ef fo or rm m i in n D De ev ve el lo op pi in ng g C Co ou un nt tr ri ie es s, , J Ja am ma as sb b, , M Mo ot ta a, , N Ne ew wb be er ry y, , P Po ol ll li it tt t 1 1 IntroductionSince the early 1990s, a large number of developed, transition and developing countries around the world have embarked on electricity sector reform. The pace and the extent of the trend has been remarkable and, by the end of 1990s, the majority of OECD countries and over 70 developing and transition countries had taken some steps toward reforming their electricity sector (Bacon, 1999;Steiner, 2001). This has occurred under a broad paradigm shift from state ownership and centralized organization of infrastructure industries to private ownership, public regulation and market-oriented structures (OECD, 2000). The technological progress and reform pioneered in some countries has encouraged others to follow suit.This trend primarily reflects dissatisfaction with the performance of traditional forms of organisation and a desire to improve efficiency and reduce fiscal drain in the public sector. Added to this is a growing questioning of the theoretical and empirical justification for state-owned enterprise, the development of models of competition within network utilities and theories of incentive regulation of private natural monopolies (see Newbery, 1999).The model adopted for the electricity supply industry (ESI) since the Second World War resulted in the use of costly generation technologies, neglect of customer services and economic inefficiency. Combined with the interruption of demand growth after the oil crisis of the 1970s, the traditional approach to the industry resulted in excess capacity. In addition, the perverse incentives of cost-of-service regulation had received serious criticism (Averch a...

show abstract

Section: Case Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…• Improved access: Policies aimed at improving access to service can be effective and combined with privatisation (Ennis and Pinto, 2002;Delfino and Casarin, 2001). …”

Section: Case Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Electricity Sector Reform in Developing Countries : A Survey of Empirical Evidence on Determinants and Performance

Jamasb¹,

Mota²,

Newbery³

et al. 2005

Policy Research Working Papers

141

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A paper that supports our conjecture about the occurrence of regressive redistribution is Delfino and Casarin (2003), who analyze the change in the consumer surplus in Argentina. The authors found that low-income households were particularly damaged because of the increases in fixed charges in the utilities.…”

Section: Existing Empirical Research On the Redistribution Effects Ofmentioning

confidence: 74%

Privatization Discontent and it's Determinants: Evidence from Latin America

Florio

Grasseni

2003

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Privatization Discontent and Its Determinants:Evidence from Latin AmericaPrivatization policy faces increasing popular opposition in Latin America. After a discussion of recent empirical literature on this topic, we ask two simple questions: Who are the people most dissatisfied with privatization? and: Why are they dissatisfied? To answer, we use social attitudes combined with objective controls at country level. The former include the results of three waves of Latinobarometro surveys (51,635 observations, 1998, 2000 and 2002, in 17 countries). The latter include privatization data and macroeconomic variables. The data on country-specific experiences of privatization come from two different data-set. One data set exploits information about 340 divestitures occurred in Latin American countries, over the period 1990-2001. The second includes 923 infrastructure projects with private participation (including divestitures, concessions and other contracts) over the period [1984][1985][1986][1987][1988][1989][1990][1991][1992][1993][1994][1995][1996][1997][1998][1999][2000][2001][2002]. We test several empirical models and we find that disagreement with privatization is most likely when the respondent is poor, privatization was large and quick, involved a high proportion of public services as water and electricity, in countries where there is high inequality of incomes. A robust non-linear relationship between socio-economic status and dissatisfaction with privatization suggests that particularly middle-to-low income households, with a median level of nine years of education, perceive to have suffered from privatization. While misperceptions cannot be ruled out, this result is broadly consistent with recent empirical research in Latin America that points to distributional concerns in the implementation of privatization policy because of tariff rebalancing not adequately addressed by policy makers and regulators.JEL Classification: H32, G14, L33

show abstract

Fiscal Decentralization

2022

The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Peace and Conflict Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The research of this thesis focuses on the nexus of vulnerability (or the risk to become poor), fiscal decentralization and public service delivery in the perspective of the development of China during the last 50 years. This development has been remarkable: a consistent high level of economic growth, a massive reduction of poverty and at the same time wide and fundamental reform of the public sector. The subject is a contemporary issue in particularly as vulnerability is considered a key for addressing the poverty challenges in the world and is strongly related to public services and decentralisation.The thesis presents a methodology to estimate the evolution of vulnerability by region through analysis of household assets consisting of liquid resources, human capital and health care. This is done on the basis of provincial level panel data in China from 1985 to 2001. Asset composition is estimated through an one-stage Theil decomposition index which is introduced into a logistic regression. The conclusion is threefold: Firstly, liquid assets and human capital contribute to the reduction of vulnerability, while health care does not reduce vulnerability. Secondly, Interior and Western regions have higher degree of vulnerability, while the Eastern region has lower vulnerability. Thirdly, inequalities within regions contribute about 20-30% to vulnerability, while inequality between regions contributes about 70-80% to vulnerability.

show abstract

The reform of the utilities sector in Argentina

Cited by 23 publications

References 3 publications

Electricity Sector Reform in Developing Countries : A Survey of Empirical Evidence on Determinants and Performance

Electricity Sector Reform in Developing Countries : A Survey of Empirical Evidence on Determinants and Performance

Privatization Discontent and it's Determinants: Evidence from Latin America

Fiscal Decentralization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About