Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 23, pp 23251–23260 | Cite as

Evaluation of the influence of economic groups on the efficiency and quality of service of water companies: an empirical approach for Chile

  • María Molinos-Senante
  • Rodrigo Farías
Research Article
  • 37 Downloads

Abstract

The privatization of water and sewerage services (WSS) has led to the foundation of water economic groups, which integrate several water companies and have gained notable importance at the global level. In the framework of benchmarking studies, there are no prior studies exploring the impact that economic groups have on the efficiency and quality of service provided by water companies. This study investigates, for the first time, whether the membership of water companies in an economic group influences their performance. Quantity- and quality-adjusted efficiency scores were computed using data envelopment analysis models. An empirical application was developed for the Chilean water industry since most of their water companies are private and belong to an economic group. The results show that independent water companies provide WSS with better quality than do water companies that belong to an economic group. From a statistical point of view, it was evident that membership in an economic group impacts both the quantity- and quality-adjusted efficiency scores of water companies. The results of this study illustrate that applying the model-firm regulation to the Chilean water industry has significant drawbacks that should be addressed by the water regulator to promote the long-term sustainability of the water industry.

Keywords

Privatization Water companies Urban water Quality of service Performance 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank several employees of the Chilean “Superintendencia de Servicios Sanitarios” for their valuable comments and suggestions.

Supplementary material

11356_2018_2363_MOESM1_ESM.docx (94 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 93.5 kb)

References

  1. Alegría M, Celedón E (2006) Historia del sector sanitario chileno. De la gestión estatal hasta el proceso de privatización. Instituto de Investigación de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo Social, Política Social y Desarrollo, 29. (In Spanish)Google Scholar
  2. Araral E (2009) The failure of water utilities privatization: synthesis of evidence, analysis and implications. Polic Soc 27(3):221–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baer M (2014) Private water, public good: water privatization and state capacity in Chile. Stud Comp Int Dev 49(2):141–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berg SV (2013) Seven elements affecting governance and performance in the water sector. Util Policy 43:4–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berg S, Marques R (2011) Quantitative studies of water and sanitation utilities: a benchmarking literature survey. Water Policy 13(5):591–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bitrán E, Estache A, Guasch J, Serra P (1999) Privatizing and regulating Chile’s utilities 1974–2000: successes, failures, and outstanding challenges. In: Perry G, Leipziger D (eds) Chile: recent policy lessons and emerging challenges. The World Bank, Washington, p 438Google Scholar
  7. Bustos Á, Galetovic A (2002) Regulación por empresa eficiente: ¿quién es realmente usted?. Estudios Públicos, 86, Otoño. (In Spanish)Google Scholar
  8. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes EL (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 2:429–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cooper WW, Seiford LM, Zhu J (2007) Handbook on data envelopment analysis. International series in operations research & management science. Springer, first editionGoogle Scholar
  10. Corton ML, Berg SV (2009) Benchmarking Central American water utilities. Util Policy 17(3–4):267–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Witte K, Marques RC (2010) Designing performance incentives, an international benchmark study in the water sector. CEJOR 18(2):189–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dobbie MF, Brown RR, Farrelly MA (2016) Risk governance in the water sensitive city: practitioner perspectives on ownership, management and trust. Environ Sci Policy 55:218–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Färe R, Grosskoppf S, Lovell CAK (1994) Production frontiers. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferro G, Mercadier AC (2016) Technical efficiency in Chile’s water and sanitation providers. Util Policy 43:97–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fuentes F, Saavedra E (2007) Un Análisis Comparado de los Mecanismos de Regulación por Empresa Eficiente y Price Cap. ILADES – Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Santiago (In Spanish)Google Scholar
  16. Galetovic A, Sanhueza R (1999) Regulación de servicios públicos: ¿hacia dónde debemos ir?. Sociedad de Fomento Fabril. (In Spanish)Google Scholar
  17. García-Rubio MA, González-Gómez F, Guardiola J (2010) Performance and ownership in the governance of urban water. ICE Proceedings 163(1):51–58Google Scholar
  18. Gómez-Lobo A, Vargas M (2001) La regulación de las empresas sanitarias en Chile: una revisión del caso de EMOS y una propuesta de reforma regulatoria. Departamento de Economía, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Administrativas, Universidad de Chile, Santiago (In Spanish)Google Scholar
  19. Guerrini A, Romano G, Campedelli B (2013) Economies of scale, scope, and density in the Italian water sector: a two-stage data envelopment analysis approach. Water Resour Manag 27(13):4559–4578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. GWI (2016) Global Water Intelligence webpage. Available at: www.globalwaterintel.com
  21. Hernández-Sancho F, Molinos-Senante M, Sala-Garrido R, Del Saz-Salazar S (2012) Tariffs and efficient performance by water suppliers: an empirical approach. Water Policy 14(5):854–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. IWA (2015) Reduction of Non-Revenue Water Around the World. Available at: http://www.iwa-network.org/reduction-of-non-revenue-water-around-the-world/
  23. Kruskal WK, Wallis WA (1952) Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J Am Stat Assoc 47(260):583–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lannier AL, Porcher S (2014) Efficiency in the public and private French water utilities: prospects for benchmarking. Appl Econ 46(5):556–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marques RC, Simões P (2008) Does the sunshine regulatory approach work?. Governance and regulation model of the urban waste services in Portugal. Resour Conserv Recycl 52(8–9):1040–1049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marques RC, Berg S, Yane S (2014) Nonparametric benchmarking of Japanese water utilities: institutional and environmental factors affecting efficiency. J Water Resour Plan Manag 140(5):562–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mbuvi D, De Witte K, Perelman S (2012) Urban water sector performance in Africa: a step-wise bias-corrected efficiency and effectiveness analysis. Util Policy 22:31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Molinos-Senante M, Sala-Garrido R, Lafuente M (2015) The role of environmental variables on the efficiency of water and sewerage companies: a case study of Chile. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22(13):10242–10253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Molinos-Senante M, Mocholi-Arce M, Sala-Garrido R (2016) Efficiency assessment of water and sewerage companies: a disaggregated approach accounting for service quality. Water Resour Manag 30(12):4311–4328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Molinos-Senante M, Donoso G, Sala-Garrido R, Villegas A (2018) Benchmarking the efficiency of the Chilean water and sewerage companies: a double-bootstrap approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:8432–8440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Morales M, Heaney J (2016) Benchmarking nonresidential water use efficiency using parcel-level data. J Water Resour Plan Manag 142(3):04015064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pérard E (2007) Water supply: public or private? Working paper presented at the conference “The role of the state in public service delivery” at Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, September 2007Google Scholar
  33. Romano G, Guerrini A, Marques RC (2017) European Water Utility Management: Promoting Efficiency, Innovation and Knowledge in the Water Industry. Water Resour Manag 31(8):2349–2353Google Scholar
  34. SISS (2015) Informe de Gestión del Sector Sanitario 2014. Available at: ​http://www.siss.gob.cl/586/w3-propertyvalue-6415.html
  35. Smirnov N (1948) Table for estimating the goodness of fit of empirical distributions. Ann Math Stat 19:279–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tupper HC, Resende M (2004) Efficiency and regulatory issues in the Brazilian water and sewage sector: an empirical study. Util Policy 12(1):29–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Water and Waste Digests (2015) Report ranks world’s 50 largest private water utilities. Available at: https://www.wwdmag.com/trends-forecasts/report-ranks-world%E2%80%99s-50-largest-private-water-utilities

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Ingeniería Hidráulica y AmbientalPontificia Universidad Católica de ChileSantiagoChile
  2. 2.Instituto de Estudios Urbanos y TerritorialesPontificia Universidad Católica de ChileSantiagoChile
  3. 3.Centro de Desarrollo Urbano Sustentable CONICYT/FONDAP/15110020SantiagoChile
  4. 4.Departamento de Ingeniería ComercialUniversidad Técnica Federico Santa MaríaValparaísoChile

Personalised recommendations