IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/juipol/v17y2009i3-4p245-257.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Natural gas distribution in Italy: When competition does not help the market

Author

Listed:
  • Dorigoni, Susanna
  • Portatadino, Sergio

Abstract

In this article consequences of the introduction of competition for the field in the Italian natural gas distribution sector are analyzed. Natural gas distribution constitutes, due to its technical and economic features, a natural monopoly. For this reason, in the framework of the liberalization process, the Italian legislator has introduced, in addition to price regulation, competitive tenders in order to have different operators compete amongst each other for the service concession. After a brief overview of the economic theory referring to competition for the field and an overview of the Italian gas market, the critical aspects of the outlined regulatory framework will be highlighted. More particularly the main features of tenders will be assessed, while, in the following section, the meaning of the imposed revenue cap and its tie to the concession fee will be explained. An analysis of possible reasons for extremely high concession fees will be carried out, evaluating their possible impact on companies' profitability. In the last part of the work, a solution will be proposed in order to build an effective regulatory framework in which competition for the field could actually lead the market to efficiency.

Suggested Citation

  • Dorigoni, Susanna & Portatadino, Sergio, 2009. "Natural gas distribution in Italy: When competition does not help the market," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(3-4), pages 245-257, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:juipol:v:17:y:2009:i:3-4:p:245-257
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957-1787(09)00023-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David E. M. Sappington & Joseph E. Stiglitz, 1987. "Privatization, information and incentives," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(4), pages 567-585.
    2. Paul Klemperer (ed.), 2000. "The Economic Theory of Auctions," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, volume 0, number 1669.
    3. Oliver E. Williamson, 1967. "Hierarchical Control and Optimum Firm Size," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 75, pages 123-123.
    4. William Vickrey, 1961. "Counterspeculation, Auctions, And Competitive Sealed Tenders," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 16(1), pages 8-37, March.
    5. Braeutigam, Ronald R., 1989. "Optimal policies for natural monopolies," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 23, pages 1289-1346, Elsevier.
    6. Klemperer, Paul, 2002. "How (not) to run auctions: The European 3G telecom auctions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(4-5), pages 829-845, May.
    7. Crain, William Mark & Ekelund, Robert B, Jr, 1976. "Chadwick and Demsetz on Competition and Regulation," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 19(1), pages 149-162, April.
    8. Laffont, Jean-Jacques & Tirole, Jean, 1987. "Auctioning Incentive Contracts," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 95(5), pages 921-937, October.
    9. Alfred E. Kahn, 1988. "The Economics of Regulation: Principles and Institutions," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262610523, December.
    10. Simon Domberger & Stephen Rimmer, 1994. "Competitive Tendering and Contracting in the Public Sector: A Survey," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(3), pages 439-453.
    11. Kenneth E. Train, 1991. "Optimal Regulation: The Economic Theory of Natural Monopoly," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262200848, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Carrosio, Giovanni, 2013. "Energy production from biogas in the Italian countryside: Policies and organizational models," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 3-9.
    2. Capece, Guendalina & Cricelli, Livio & Di Pillo, Francesca & Levialdi, Nathan, 2012. "New regulatory policies in Italy: Impact on financial results, on liquidity and profitability of natural gas retail companies," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 90-98.
    3. Capece, Guendalina & Cricelli, Livio & Di Pillo, Francesca & Levialdi, Nathan, 2010. "A cluster analysis study based on profitability and financial indicators in the Italian gas retail market," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 3394-3402, July.
    4. Fernández-Méndez, Laura & García-Canal, Esteban & Guillén, Mauro F., 2015. "Legal Family and Infrastructure Voids as Drivers of Regulated Physical Infrastructure Firms' Exposure to Governmental Discretion," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 135-149.
    5. Opolska, Iweta, 2017. "The efficacy of liberalization and privatization in introducing competition into European natural gas markets," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 12-21.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Paul Klemperer, 2002. "What Really Matters in Auction Design," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(1), pages 169-189, Winter.
    2. Monteiro, Paulo Klinger, 2009. "First-price auction symmetric equilibria with a general distribution," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 256-269, January.
    3. Germa Bel & Anton Costas, 2006. "Do Public Sector Reforms Get Rusty? Local Privatization in Spain," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 1-24.
    4. Christopher M. Anderson & Daniel S. Holland, 2006. "Auctions for Initial Sale of Annual Catch Entitlement," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(3), pages 333-352.
    5. Wedad Elmaghraby, 2005. "The Effect of Asymmetric Bidder Size on an Auction's Performance: Are More Bidders Always Better?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(12), pages 1763-1776, December.
    6. Quintero Jaramillo, Jose E., 2004. "Liquidity constraints and credit subsidies in auctions," DEE - Working Papers. Business Economics. WB wb040604, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía de la Empresa.
    7. Button, Kenneth & McDougall, Glen, 2006. "Institutional and structure changes in air navigation service-providing organizations," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 236-252.
    8. Peeter Peda & Giuseppe Grossi & Margo Liik, 2013. "Do ownership and size affect the performance of water utilities? Evidence from Estonian municipalities," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 17(2), pages 237-259, May.
    9. Dirk Bergemann & Alessandro Pavan, 2015. "Introduction to JET Symposium Issue on "Dynamic Contracts and Mechanism Design"," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2016, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    10. Ulrike Malmendier & Young Han Lee, 2011. "The Bidder's Curse," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 749-787, April.
    11. Estrella Alonso & Joaquín Sánchez-Soriano & Juan Tejada, 2020. "Mixed Mechanisms for Auctioning Ranked Items," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-26, December.
    12. Anne Épaulard & Jean-Pierre Laffargue & Pierre Malgrange, 2008. "Présentation générale," Economie & Prévision, La Documentation Française, vol. 0(2), pages 1-13.
    13. Dirk Engelmann & Veronika Grimm, 2009. "Bidding Behaviour in Multi-Unit Auctions - An Experimental Investigation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(537), pages 855-882, April.
    14. Andersson , Ola & Andersson , Tommy, 2015. "Decomposing the Afternoon Effect: An Empirical Investigation of Sequential Train Ticket Auctions," Working Papers 2015:28, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    15. Subhadip Chakrabarti & Amandine Ghintran & Rajnish Kumar, 2019. "Assignment of heterogeneous agents in trees under the permission value," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 23(3), pages 155-188, December.
    16. B. Caillaud & R. Guesnerie & P. Rey & J. Tirole, 1988. "Government Intervention in Production and Incentives Theory: A Review of Recent Contributions," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 19(1), pages 1-26, Spring.
    17. Moldovanu, Benny & Ewerhart II, Christian, 2001. "The German UMTS Design: Insights From Multi-Object Auction Theory," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 02-05, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    18. Ronald M. Harstad & Aleksandar Saša Pekeč, 2008. "Relevance to Practice and Auction Theory: A Memorial Essay for Michael Rothkopf," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 38(5), pages 367-380, October.
    19. Giuseppe Cinquegrana & Serena Migliardo & Domenico Sarno, 2016. "Comparative analysis of private and public provision of the water and waste services by the Italian municipalities," ECONOMIA PUBBLICA, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2016(3), pages 149-176.
    20. Massarutto, Antonio, 2007. "Municipal waste management as a local utility: Options for competition in an environmentally-regulated industry," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 9-19, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:juipol:v:17:y:2009:i:3-4:p:245-257. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/utilities-policy .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.