Journal of Regulatory Economics

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 144–163 | Cite as

Economies of density, scale and scope in the water supply and sewerage sector: a study of four developing and transition economies

Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

Using panel data, we estimate measures of density, scale and scope economies in four countries that differ substantially in their levels of economic development and in their piped water and sewerage coverage: Brazil, Moldova, Romania and Vietnam. We find evidence of economies of scale in Moldova, Romania and Vietnam. In Brazil, we cannot reject the null hypothesis of constant returns to scale. The results of this study show that the cost structure of water and sewerage utilities varies significantly within and between countries and over time.

Keywords

Water supply Sewerage Economies of scale Developing countries Transition economies 

JEL Classifications

D24 L25 L95 O57 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bhattacharyya A., Harris T.R., Narayanan R., Raffiee K. (1995) Specification and estimation of the effect of ownership on the economic efficiency of the water utilities. Regional Science and Urban Economics 25: 759–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blackorby C., Russell R.R. (1989) Will the real elasticity of substitution please stand up? (A comparison of the Allen/Uzawa and Morishima elasticities). The American Economic Review 79: 882–888Google Scholar
  3. Caves D.W., Christensen L.R., Swanson J.A. (1981) Productivity growth, scale economies, and capacity utilization in U.S. railroads. The American Economic Review 71(5): 994–1002Google Scholar
  4. Caves D.W., Christensen L.R., Tretheway M.W. (1984) Economies of density versus economies of scale: Why do trunk and local service airline costs differ? Rand Journal of Economics 15: 471–489Google Scholar
  5. Christensen L.R., Jorgenson D.W., Lau L.J. (1973) Transcendental logarithmic production frontiers. Review of Economics and Statistics 55: 28–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cubbin J., Tzanidakis G. (1998) Regression versus data envelopment analysis for efficiency measurement: An application to the England and Wales regulated water industry. Utilities Policy 7: 75–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Estache, A., Perelman, S., & Trujillo, L. (2005). Infrastructure performance and reform in developing and transition economies: Evidence from a survey of productivity measures. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3514.Google Scholar
  8. Fabbri P., Fraquelli G. (2000) Costs and structure of technology in the Italian water industry. Empirica 27: 65–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Garcia S., Thomas A. (2001) The structure of municipal water supply costs: Application to a panel of French local communities. Journal of Productivity Analysis 16: 5–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hicks J.R. (1932) The theory of wages, 2nd edn. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Hunt L.C., Lynk E.L. (1995) Privatisation and efficiency in the UK water industry: An empirical analysis. Oxford Bulleting of Economics and Statistics 57(3): 371–388Google Scholar
  12. Joskow, P. L. (2005). Regulation of natural monopolies. Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, MIT, Working Paper 05-008.Google Scholar
  13. Kim H.Y. (1987) Economies of scale in multi-product firms: An empirical analysis. Economica 54(214): 185–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kim E., Lee H. (1998) Spatial integration of urban water services and economies of scale. Review of Urban and Regional Development Studies 10(1): 3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kmenta J. (1986) Elements of econometrics, 2nd edn. MacMillan Publishing Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Mizutani F., Urakami T. (2001) Identifying network density and scale economies for Japanese water supply organisations. Papers in Regional Science 80: 211–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mocan N.H. (1995) Quality-adjusted cost functions for child-care centers. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 82(2): 409–413Google Scholar
  18. Panzar J.C., Willig R.D. (1977) Economies of scale in multi-output production. Quarterly Journal of Economics 91: 481–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Saal D.S., Parker D. (2000) The impact of privatization and regulation on the water and sewerage industry. In England and Wales: A translog cost function model. Managerial and Decision Economics 21(6): 253–268Google Scholar
  20. Saal D.S., Parker D. (2001) Productivity and price performance in the privatised water and sewerage companies of England and Wales. Journal of Regulatory Economics 20(1): 61–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Saal, D. S., & Parker, D. (2006). Assessing the performance of water operations in the English and Welsh water industry: A lesson in the implications of inappropriately assuming a common frontier. In T. Coelli & D. Lawrence (Eds). Performance measurement and regulation of network utilities. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  22. Saal D.S., Parker D., Weyman-Jones T. (2007) Determining the contribution of technical change, efficiency change and scale change to productivity growth in the privatized English and Welsh water and sewerage industry: 1985–2000. Journal of Productivity Analysis 28(1–2): 127–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Seroada Motta R., Moreira A. (2006) Efficiency and regulation in the sanitation sector in Brazil. Utilities Policy 14: 185–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shephard R.W. (1953) Cost and production functions. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  25. Stone and Webster Consultants. (2004). Investigation into evidence for economies of scale in the water and sewerage industry in England and Wales. Report commissioned and published by the Office of Water Services, Birmingham, UK. http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/aptrix/ofwat/publish.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/stone_webster_150104.pdf/FILE/stone_webster_150104.pdf. Accessed January 2004.
  26. Tupper H.C., Resende M. (2004) Efficiency and regulatory issues in the Brazilian water and sewage sector: An empirical study. Utilities Policy 12: 29–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zellner A. (1962) An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions and tests for aggregation bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association 58: 997–992Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Toulouse School of EconomicsToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations