Investments in Water Networks: A Normative Analysis of Local Public Utilities

We analyze rehabilitation investments in a regulated water industry with perfectly inelastic demand. We compare alternative organizational solutions for local provision (municipalization, corporatization and privatization), though subject to a common regulatory mechanism. We can then assess the effects of incentive regulation in public firms and find that even benvolent politicians always stick to the price-cap, in order to save on distortionary taxation. How- ever, incentives to invest result to be excessive only in private firms, as the cost of capital is accounted differently by public and private undertakings. We also provide a theory of mixed firms, based on strategic interaction be- tween politicians and managers, which contributes to endogenously explain partial privatization and minority participation by private stockholders. In this last case incentives to invest appear to be driven just by governance and ownership reasons.

[1]  Philipp Terhorst,et al.  Re-municipalisation in the early twenty-first century: water in France and energy in Germany , 2013 .

[2]  M. García-valiñas,et al.  Is the price of water for residential use related to provider ownership? Empirical evidence from Spain , 2013 .

[3]  C. Egenhofer,et al.  Which Economic Model for a Water-Efficient Europe? , 2012 .

[4]  G. Venkatesh,et al.  Cost-benefit analysis – leakage reduction by rehabilitating old water pipelines: Case study of Oslo (Norway) , 2012 .

[5]  Carlo Cambini,et al.  Incentive regulation and investment: evidence from European energy utilities , 2010 .

[6]  Bruce Cohen,et al.  Productivity and efficiency in the water industry , 2009 .

[7]  Balázs Égert,et al.  Infrastructure Investment in Network Industries: The Role of Incentive Regulation and Regulatory Independence , 2009, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[8]  E. Pérard Water supply: Public or private? , 2009 .

[9]  Christoph Reichard,et al.  Municipal corporatization in Germany and Italy , 2008 .

[10]  Sheila M. Olmstead,et al.  Water Demand Under Alternative Price Structures , 2007 .

[11]  L. Robotti,et al.  The Provision of Local Public Services Through Mixed Enterprises: The Italian Case , 2007 .

[12]  David Martimort,et al.  Signaling and the Design of Delegated Management Contracts for Public Utilities , 2006 .

[13]  M. Dore,et al.  Privatization of water in the UK and France—What can we learn? , 2004 .

[14]  Alban Thomas,et al.  Regulation of Public Utilities under Asymmetric Information , 2003 .

[15]  Peter Nijkamp,et al.  Price and Income Elasticities of Residential Water Demand: A Meta-Analysis , 2003, Land Economics.

[16]  Edythe S. Miller Privatization, Restructuring, and Regulation of Network Utilities , 2001 .

[17]  Steven Tadelis,et al.  Incentives Versus Transaction Costs: A Theory of Procurement Contracts , 2001 .

[18]  Toshihiro Matsumura,et al.  Partial privatization in mixed duopoly , 1998 .

[19]  O. Hart,et al.  The Proper Scope of Government: Theory and an Application to Prisons , 1996 .

[20]  Arthur Snow,et al.  The marginal welfare cost of public funds: Theory and estimates , 1996 .

[21]  D. Zilberman,et al.  A Spatial Model of Optimal Water Conveyance , 1995 .

[22]  David Joulfaian,et al.  The relationship between on-budget and off-budget government☆ , 1991 .

[23]  S. Wallsten,et al.  The effects of ownership and benchmark competition: An empirical analysis of U.S. water systems , 2008 .

[24]  R. Noll The Economics of Urban Water Systems , 2002 .

[25]  Daniel F. Spulber,et al.  The Capital Structure of a Regulated Firm , 1994 .

[26]  Simon Cowan,et al.  Regulatory Reform: Economic Analysis and British Experience , 1994 .

[27]  J. T. Bennett,et al.  Off-budget activities of local government: The bane of the tax revolt , 1982 .