The Buenos Aires Water Concession
The signing of a concession contract for the Buenos Aires water and sanitation system in December 1992, attracted worldwide attention, and caused considerable controversy in Argentina. It was one of the worlds largest concessions, but the case was...
Main Authors: | , , |
---|---|
Format: | Working Paper |
Language: | English en_US |
Published: |
World Bank, Washington, DC
2015
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2000/04/437846/buenos-aires-water-concession http://hdl.handle.net/10986/21922 |
Summary: | The signing of a concession contract for
the Buenos Aires water and sanitation system in December
1992, attracted worldwide attention, and caused considerable
controversy in Argentina. It was one of the worlds largest
concessions, but the case was also interesting for other
reasons. The concession was implemented rapidly, in contrast
with slow implementation of privatization in Santiago, for
example. And reform generated major improvements in the
sector, including wider coverage, better service, more
efficient company operations, and reduced waste. Moreover,
the winning bid brought an immediate 26.9 percent reduction
in water system tariffs. Consumers benefited from the
systems expansion and from the immediate drop in real
prices, which was only partly reversed by subsequent changes
in tariffs, and access charges. And these improvements would
probably not have occurred under public administration of
the system. Still, the authors show information asymmetries,
perverse incentives, and weak regulatory institutions could
threaten the concessions sustainability. Opportunities for
the company to act opportunistically - and the regulator,
arbitrarily - exist, because of politicized regulation, a
poor information base, serious flaws in the concession
contract, a lumpy and ad hoc tariff system, and a general
lack of transparency in the regulatory process. Because of
these circumstances, public confidence in the process has
eroded. The Buenos Aires concession shows how important
transparent, rule-based decision-making is to maintain
public trust in regulated infrastructure. |
---|