Reforming the Urban Water System in Santiago, Chile
In the late 1980s, Chile planned to privatize Santiago's sanitary works enterprise (EMOS) but instead reformed it under public ownership. It did so through a regulatory framework that mimicked the design of a concession with a private utility,...
Main Authors: | , , |
---|---|
Format: | Working Paper |
Language: | English en_US |
Published: |
World Bank, Washington, DC
2015
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2000/03/438162/reforming-urban-water-system-santiago-chile http://hdl.handle.net/10986/22314 |
Summary: | In the late 1980s, Chile planned to
privatize Santiago's sanitary works enterprise (EMOS) but
instead reformed it under public ownership. It did so
through a regulatory framework that mimicked the design of a
concession with a private utility, setting tariffs that
ensured at least a seven percent return on assets, creating
a neutral regulator independent of ministry intervention,
and giving EMOS the right to appeal the regulator's tariff
decisions. This reform of Santiago's water system is often
cited as a case of successful reform under public
management. Comparing a comprehensive measure of welfare
with a counterfactual example, the authors show surprisingly
large gains from Santiago's reform, given the relatively good
initial conditions. (The gains accrued largely to government
and employees, but consumers benefited from improved service
and coverage). Why did reform in Santiago improve water
system performance, when similar reform attempts under
public management in other countries failed? 1) Chile has a
long tradition of private water rights, shaped by early
recognition that water is a scarce and tradable private
good. 2) The reformed regulatory framework was designed to
attract private investors to the water system and to
motivate them to operate efficiently and expand the system.
3) Chile's unique electoral institutions sustained this
framework under state operation after democracy was
restored. 4) Chile's strong bureaucratic norms and
institutions (permitting little corruption), combined with
Santiago's relatively low-cost water system, permitted prices
that effectively increased quasi-rents for investing in the
system while minimizing the risk of inefficiency or monopoly
rents. The authors also address the question of why EMOS was
reformed but not privatized, and what the costs of not
privatizing were. The system was privatized in 1999, but the
changes from privatization are likely to be less significant
than those introduced in 1989-90. |
---|