IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/col/000091/003322.html

Performance and efficiency in Colombia's power utilities: an assessment of the 1994 reform

Author

Listed:
  • Carlos Pombo
  • Rodrigo Taborda

Abstract

This paper describes the core features of the power sector 1994 regulatory reform and evaluates utility performance and efficiency before and after the reform. The performance analysis assesses the changes in means and medians of a series of profitability, efficiency, investment, sales of the privatized power holdings. Technical efficiency is estimated through DEA technique in a sample of 33 power thermal-plants that account for 85% of the thermal park and 12 distribution utilities. The sample units are plants that were active before the reform and new entrants that started business operations after the reform. The main outcomes show that efficiency scores have improved after the reform and that regulatory policy has had a positive effect on technical efficiency in thermal power generation. In contrasts the less efficient power distributors got worsened after the reform and were not able to undertake plant restructuring in order to catch up productive efficiency with respect to the best practice production frontier. ******************************************************************* El artículo describe las características centrales de la reforma regulatoria al sector eléctrico en 1994 y evalúa el desempeno y la eficiencia de las empresas públicas antes y después de la reforma. El análisis de desempeno evalúa los cambios en medias y medianas en ganancias, eficiencia, inversión y ventas de las empresas privatizadas en el sector. La eficiencia técnica es estimada mediante la técnica DEA en una muestra de 33 plantas térmicas de energía, que representan el 85% del parque térmico; y 12 empresas distribuidoras de energía. La muestra de plantas generadoras está compuesta por plantas que estaban activas antes de la reforma y plantas nuevas que entraron en operación después de la reforma. Los principales resultados muestran que la eficiencia mejoro después de la reforma y que la política regulatoria ha tenido un efecto positivo en la eficiencia de la generación térmica de energía. Por el contrario, las distribuidoras de energía menos eficientes empeoraron después de la reforma y no llevaron a cabo una reestructuración para alcanzar la eficiencia productiva respecto a las empresas que conforman la frontera de eficiencia en distribución de energía.

Suggested Citation

  • Carlos Pombo & Rodrigo Taborda, 2004. "Performance and efficiency in Colombia's power utilities: an assessment of the 1994 reform," Borradores de Investigación 3322, Universidad del Rosario.
    • Handle: RePEc:col:000091:003322
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://repository.urosario.edu.co/bitstream/handle/10336/10814/3322.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Megginson, William L & Nash, Robert C & van Randenborgh, Matthias, 1994. "The Financial and Operating Performance of Newly Privatized Firms: An International Empirical Analysis," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 49(2), pages 403-452, June.
    2. Charnes, A. & Cooper, W. W. & Rhodes, E., 1978. "Measuring the efficiency of decision making units," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 2(6), pages 429-444, November.
    3. repec:bla:scandj:v:94:y:1992:i:0:p:s193-205 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Mark Armstrong & Simon Cowan & John Vickers, 1994. "Regulatory Reform: Economic Analysis and British Experience," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262510790, December.
    5. Rafael La Porta & Florencio López-de-Silanes, 1999. "The Benefits of Privatization: Evidence from Mexico," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(4), pages 1193-1242.
    6. Pacudan, Romeo & de Guzman, Elaine, 2002. "Impact of energy efficiency policy to productive efficiency of electricity distribution industry in the Philippines," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 41-54, January.
    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. Tooraj Jamasb & Rabindra Nepal & Govinda R. Tmilsina, 2017. "A Quarter Century Effort Yet to Come of Age: A Survey of Electricity Sector Reform in Developing Countries," The Energy Journal, , vol. 38(3), pages 195-234, May.
    2. Tooraj Jamasb & Rabindra Nepal & Govinda Timilsina & Michael Toman, 2014. "Energy Sector Reform, Economic Efficiency and Poverty Reduction," Discussion Papers Series 529, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    3. Jamasb,Tooraj & Nepal,Rabindra & Timilsina,Govinda R., 2015. "A quarter century effort yet to come of age : a survey of power sector reforms in developing countries," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7330, The World Bank.
    4. Tim Coelli & Denis Lawrence (ed.), 2006. "Performance Measurement and Regulation of Network Utilities," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3801, August.

    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. Carlos Pombo & Manuel Ramirez, 2002. "Privatization in Colombia: a plant performance analysis," Borradores de Investigación 3377, Universidad del Rosario.
    2. Lourdes Torres & Patricia Bachiller, 2013. "Efficiency of telecommunications companies in European countries," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 17(4), pages 863-886, November.
    3. Rossi, Martin, 2021. "The Performance of Privatized Utilities: Evidence from Latin America," MPRA Paper 110534, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. T. T. Ram Mohan & Subhash C. Ray, 2003. "Technical Efficiency in Public and Private Sectors in India: Evidence from the Post-Reform Years," Working papers 2003-22, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    5. Ombir Singh, 2019. "State ownership and performance of firm: evidence from India," Public Sector Economics, Institute of Public Finance, vol. 43(2), pages 195-217.
    6. Mark Armstrong & David E.M. Sappington, 2006. "Regulation, Competition and Liberalization," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 44(2), pages 325-366, June.
    7. Haikun Zhu, 2018. "Social Stability and Resource Allocation within Business Groups," Working Papers Series 79, Institute for New Economic Thinking.
    8. Costa, Marcelo Azevedo & Lopes, Ana Lúcia Miranda & de Pinho Matos, Giordano Bruno Braz, 2015. "Statistical evaluation of Data Envelopment Analysis versus COLS Cobb–Douglas benchmarking models for the 2011 Brazilian tariff revision," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 47-60.
    9. Andres, Luis & Foster, Vivien & Guasch, Jose Luis, 2006. "The impact of privatization on the performance of the infrastructure sector : the case of electricity distribution in Latin American countries," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3936, The World Bank.
    10. Ming Lu & Zhao Chen & Shuang Zhang, 2008. "Paying for the Dream of Public Ownership: Case Studies on Corruption and Privatization in China," Transition Studies Review, Springer;Central Eastern European University Network (CEEUN), vol. 15(2), pages 355-373, September.
    11. Claessens,Constantijn A. & Djankov, Simeon, 1998. "Politicians and firms in seven central and eastern European countries," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1954, The World Bank.
    12. Sebastián Galiani and Federico Sturzenegger, "undated". "The Impact of Privatization on the Earnings of Restructured Workers," Business School Working Papers longterm, Universidad Torcuato Di Tella.
    13. Ghulam, Yaseen, 2021. "Institutions and firms’ technological changes and productivity growth," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    14. Bram De Lange & Bruno Merlevede, 2020. "State-Owned Enterprises across Europe: Stylized Facts from a Large Firm-level Dataset," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 20/1006, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    15. Gong, Stephen X.H. & Cullinane, Kevin & Firth, Michael, 2012. "The impact of airport and seaport privatization on efficiency and performance: A review of the international evidence and implications for developing countries," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 37-47.
    16. Gleason, Kimberly & McNulty, James E. & Pennathur, Anita K., 2005. "Returns to acquirers of privatizing financial services firms: An international examination," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 29(8-9), pages 2043-2065, August.
    17. Seung‐Doo Choi & Inmoo Lee & William Megginson, 2010. "Do Privatization IPOs Outperform in the Long Run?," Financial Management, Financial Management Association International, vol. 39(1), pages 153-185, March.
    18. Chen, Chung-Chiang, 2010. "A performance evaluation of MSW management practice in Taiwan," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 54(12), pages 1353-1361.
    19. Sebastian Galiani & Paul Gertler & Ernesto Schargrodsky, 2005. "Water for Life: The Impact of the Privatization of Water Services on Child Mortality," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 113(1), pages 83-120, February.
    20. Tatahi, Motasam, 2010. "Enterprise Performance, Privatization and the Role of Ownership in Italy," MPRA Paper 27059, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • L43 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Legal Monopolies and Regulation or Deregulation
    • L51 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - Economics of Regulation
    • L94 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Transportation and Utilities - - - Electric Utilities
    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:col:000091:003322. 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: Facultad de Economía (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ferosco.html .

    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.