IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Anforderungen an die konsistente Regulierung der Eisenbahnen

Listed author(s):
  • Frank Miram
Registered author(s):

    A current topic in Germany and the EU is the review of railway legislation regarding access and price regulation as well as unbundling requirements of infrastructure and transport services. The debate focuses firstly on the question whether unbundling requirements should be extended. Secondly, it discusses a possible new design of price regulation principles. Before analysing these proposals, this paper describes the specific requirements for regulation of the railway sector and its current regulation. It shows that the current regulatory system in Germany ensures non-discriminatory access and competition. The integrated structure of the DB group creates a high efficiency within the entire railway system from which also third parties benefit. In contrast to the typical natural monopoly, the railway network does not generate monopoly profits but suffers from insufficient cost recovery and, therefore, from insufficient funding. Hence, the article outlines that reforms of railway regulation should focus on safeguarding long term infrastructure investments. Extensions of regulation can only be justified as far as monopolistic bottlenecks are concerned. In Deutschland und auf europäischer Ebene wird aktuell eine Neufassung eisenbahnrechtlicher Zugangs-, Entgelt- und Entflechtungsbestimmungen erörtert. Zentraler Diskussionspunkt ist neben der Frage, ob die Entflechtung von Infrastruktur- und Verkehrsbetrieb erweitert werden sollte, vor allem eine mögliche Neubestimmung der Entgeltmaßstäbe. Der vorliegende Beitrag beschreibt die spezifischen regulatorischen Anforderungen im Eisenbahnsektor, das aktuelle Regulierungsdesign und bewertet die Vorschläge zu seiner Weiterentwicklung. Bereits heute besteht in Deutschland eine wirksame Zugangs- und Entgeltregulierung, die diskriminierungsfreien Wettbewerb ermöglicht. Gleichzeitig gewährleistet die Verbundstruktur der DB eine hohe Effizienz des Gesamtsystems Eisenbahn, von der auch Dritte profitieren. Das Schienennetz unterscheidet sich von klassischen natürlichen Monopolen, da es keine Monopolgewinne generiert, sondern ein Kostendeckungs- und damit in erster Linie ein Finanzierungsproblem hat. Im Vordergrund von Reformüberlegungen sollte deshalb die langfristige Sicherstellung von Investitionen in die Infrastruktur stehen. Ausweitungen bei der Regulierung sind nur zu rechtfertigen, soweit monopolistische Engpassbereiche betroffen sind.

    If 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.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Article provided by DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research in its journal Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung.

    Volume (Year): 81 (2012)
    Issue (Month): 1 ()
    Pages: 149-165

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:diw:diwvjh:81-1-10
    Contact details of provider: Postal:
    Mohrenstraße 58, D-10117 Berlin

    Phone: xx49-30-89789-0
    Fax: xx49-30-89789-200
    Web page:

    More information through EDIRC

    References listed on IDEAS
    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.:

    in new window

    1. Baumol, William J, 1982. "Contestable Markets: An Uprising in the Theory of Industry Structure," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(1), pages 1-15, March.
    2. Fumitoshi Mizutani & Shuji Uranishi, 2013. "Does vertical separation reduce cost? An empirical analysis of the rail industry in European and East Asian OECD Countries," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 31-59, January.
    3. Christian Growitsch & Heike Wetzel, 2009. "Testing for Economies of Scope in European Railways: An Efficiency Analysis," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 43(1), pages 1-24, January.
    4. Friebel Guido & Niffka Marko, 2009. "The Functioning of Inter-modal Competition in the Transportation Market: Evidence from the Entry of Low-cost Airlines in Germany," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 8(2), pages 1-23, June.
    5. Kenneth E. Train, 1991. "Optimal Regulation: The Economic Theory of Natural Monopoly," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262200848, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:diw:diwvjh:81-1-10. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Bibliothek)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.