Privatizing Water Distribution
AbstractBillions of dollars will be spent globally to upgrade water infrastructure in the coming years. The standard economic prescription is privatization and the introduction of water markets. A major lesson from the recent privatization debacle in electricity is that prescriptions for reform must include recognition of the technology for generation, distribution and end-use. The distribution of water has public good characteristics. Alternative institutions with market power in each micro-market are compared with benchmark cases - social planning and a business-as-usual regime with distribution failure. Empirical results show that privatization need not always be Pareto-improving. The regime with market failure in distribution may be preferred to a distribution monopoly, while both may be dominated by monopoly power in the input or output markets. However, if the policy goal is to maximize the size of the grid, the distribution monopoly does best. The structure of each micro-market must be examined before choosing one institution over another.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Department of Economics, Emory University (Atlanta) in its series Emory Economics with number 0403.
Date of creation: Mar 2004
Date of revision:
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2004-07-11 (All new papers)
- NEP-COM-2004-07-11 (Industrial Competition)
- NEP-LAM-2004-07-11 (Central & South America)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Jerry A. Hausman, 1979. "Individual Discount Rates and the Purchase and Utilization of Energy-Using Durables," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 33-54, Spring.
- Paul Joskow & Jean Tirole, 2005.
"Merchant Transmission Investment,"
Journal of Industrial Economics,
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(2), pages 233-264, 06.
- Joskow, Paul & Tirole, Jean, 2004. "Merchant Transmission Investment," IDEI Working Papers 263, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse.
- Paul Joskow & Jean Tirole, 2003. "Merchant Transmission Investment," Working Papers 0304, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research.
- Paul Joskow & Jean Tirole, 2003. "Merchant Transmission Investment," NBER Working Papers 9534, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Joskow, P. & Tirole, J., 2003. "Merchant Transmission Investment," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0324, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
- Chakravorty, Ujjayant & Umetsu, Chieko, 2003. "Basinwide water management: a spatial model," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 1-23, January.
- Jeffry M. Netter & William L. Megginson, 2001. "From State to Market: A Survey of Empirical Studies on Privatization," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 39(2), pages 321-389, June.
- Stephen Holland, 2006. "Privatization of Water-Resource Development," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(2), pages 291-315, 06.
- Ray, Isha & Williams, Jeffrey, 2002. "Locational asymmetry and the potential for cooperation on a canal," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 129-155, February.
- Robert Wilson, 2002. "Architecture of Power Markets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(4), pages 1299-1340, July.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sue Mialon).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.