Free entry in infrastructure

David Ehrhardt and Rebecca Burdon

No 2093, Policy Research Working Paper Series from The World Bank

Abstract: With a policy of free entry, individuals, firms, or community groups who wish to supply power, water, and sanitation services can do so with minimal legal restrictions. Free entry is the opposite of"exclusivity"or"legal monopoly". Free entry is allowed in most industries, but governments usually allow only one provider of power, water, and sanitation in any given area. This is supposed to prevent wasteful duplication and ensure a supply of essential services to poor and marginal areas. But monopoly water and power utilities often operate at high cost, lack funds to invest, and provide low-quality, unreliable service. Worse, poor and marginal areas are often unserved. When the monopoly model doesn't work, it is time to look at alternatives. The authors provide examples of alternative solutions in developing countries: *In Karachi, Pakistan, the Orangi Pilot Project provides sanitation in an unplanned settlement. Roughly 800,000 working class people lived in an area where sanitary conditions were medievaland a long-hoped-for sewerage system never came. Starting in 1980, a charitable group developed a low-cost approach to piped sanitation, explained the technology to the community, and catalyzed community action. Householders and neighborhoods funded the construction of household pourflush latrines and sewerage lines. * In Paraguay, 300 to 400 private individuals and aguateros supply good quality piped water to areas unserved by the public water company. Unlike the public company, the aguateros allow payment of connection fees on installment, making it easier for low-income consumers to connect. * In Yemen, small-scale electricity providers innovatively meet the rural and village demand for electricity that the public utility does not meet. These entrants seldom duplicate investments, although some government intervention to ensure interconnection could improve efficiency. Limitations on entry may sometimes be justified for environmental reasons or to promote private sector investment, but those cases are rare. Legalizing alternative providers will allow them to expand and meet new needs. Limits on their entry may be needed sometimes, but limits should be the exception, not the rule, the authors argue. Generally, free entry should be allowed in power, water, and sanitation.

Keywords: Health Economics&Finance; Decentralization; Water and Industry; Economic Theory&Research; Environmental Economics&Policies; Town Water Supply and Sanitation; Environmental Economics&Policies; Health Economics&Finance; Water and Industry; Economic Theory&Research (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 1999-03-31
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSC ... d/PDF/multi_page.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wbk:wbrwps:2093

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Policy Research Working Paper Series from The World Bank 1818 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20433. Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Roula I. Yazigi ().