2008年-世界发展银行全球_Private_Infrastructure_in_Developing_Countries___Lessons_from_Recent_Experience_48页_1mb

Private Infrastructure in Developing Countries: Lessons from Recent Experience

Core Content

This working paper by Jose A. Gómez-Ibanez explores the role of private sector involvement in infrastructure development in developing countries, focusing on the experiences and lessons from the late 1980s to the mid-2000s. It addresses the controversies and successes of privatization, emphasizing the importance of regulation, cost management, and the distribution of benefits.

Main Points

• Private Participation in Infrastructure: Starting in the late 1980s, many developing countries turned to the private sector to provide infrastructure services such as water, electricity, transportation, and telecommunications. The goal was to increase efficiency and reduce government subsidies.

• Types of Privatization: Three main forms of private participation were identified:

  • Divestitures: Selling state-owned enterprises to the public or strategic investors.
  • Concession Contracts: Granting private companies the right to operate infrastructure for a limited period (often 20-30 years).
  • Management Contracts: Private companies manage existing infrastructure without making new investments.

• Investment Trends: Between 1990 and 2006, over one trillion dollars of private investment flowed into developing countries' infrastructure. The highest investment was in telecommunications, followed by electricity and transport. Investment in water and gas was relatively low.

• Controversies and Failures: Despite some success, there were notable failures and controversies:

  • Asia: High-profile issues included the cancellation of Enron’s Dabhol power plant in India and the takeover of the Second Stage Expressway in Bangkok.
  • Latin America: Mexico’s toll road bankruptcies, Bolivia’s water concession cancellation, and Argentina’s economic crisis led to significant public backlash.
  • Eastern Europe: The M1/M15 toll road concession in Hungary went bankrupt and was nationalized.
  • Africa: Cancellations in Senegal, Tanzania, and Mali were reported.
  • Industrialized Countries: Examples include California’s electricity crisis, the bankruptcy of Railtrack in the UK, and Metronet in London.

• Successes and Efficiency Gains: Studies suggest that private participation often led to efficiency improvements:

  • Water Sector: Increased subscriber numbers and production, with modest employment changes.
  • Electricity Sector: Higher collection rates and significant employment reductions.
  • Consumer Benefits: While prices increased in some cases, improvements in service quality, reliability, and access offset these increases. Consumer surplus generally rose, especially for low and middle-income households.

• Fiscal Impact: Privatization generated substantial fiscal resources, which were sometimes used to reduce debt, lower taxes, or expand social spending. However, the use of these funds varied significantly across countries.

• Employee Impact: Although privatization often led to workforce reductions, the impact was relatively small compared to the overall labor force. Employment in the sector typically rebounded as demand for services grew.

• Regulation and Political Sensitivity: Effective regulation is essential to prevent monopoly abuse and ensure fair distribution of benefits. The political sensitivity of the privatization process and its outcomes was often underestimated, leading to public dissatisfaction.

• Modest and Gradual Approaches: In difficult environments, more modest and gradual schemes of private involvement may be more appropriate.

Key Information

• Private investment in infrastructure reached over one trillion dollars between 1990 and 2006, with the highest levels in telecommunications.
• Controversies were relatively rare, with only 48 projects becoming contentious enough to be cancelled or renationalized between 1990 and 2001.
• Efficiency gains were common, particularly in labor productivity and service quality.
• Consumer benefits included improved access and reliability, with gains in consumer surplus ranging from 0.5 to 2% of household expenditure.
• Employee impact was limited in scope, with only a small percentage of the total workforce affected.
• Regulation is critical to ensuring that private participation does not lead to excessive profits or poor service.

Conclusion

While private participation in infrastructure has faced criticism and public backlash due to some high-profile failures, the overall empirical evidence suggests that it can be beneficial when properly regulated and managed. The paper highlights the need for a balanced approach, emphasizing the importance of political sensitivity, efficiency gains, and equitable distribution of benefits. It also calls for more modest and gradual schemes in difficult circumstances to ensure long-term success.