|
|
State versus private sector provision of water services in Armenia |
Naira HARUTYUNYAN() |
Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy, Central European University, Nador u. 9, H-1051, Budapest, Hungary |
|
|
Abstract Despite increasing advocacy and adaptation of public-private model of water governance worldwide since the 1990s, today only 5% of the world’s population is served by water utilities with private involvement. The present article examines the experience of the water sector in Armenia with private sector participation. The study describes the process of the introduction of public-private partnerships in the water sector and focuses on analyzing the impact of privatization on water utility performance. The analysis employs the partial indicator method for evaluating the impacts in relation to operational, finance, and environmental performance, done by drawing on the database for the five water companies in Armenia. The empirical evidence shows that private participation in general led to improved overall performance. In particular, private involvement resulted in increased operational efficiency in terms of labor productivity, water metering, continuity of service, and revenue collection efficiency. There were mixed improvements in the operating cost coverage ratio. As for environmental performance, there were gains in the reduction of residential water consumption, accompanied, however, by an increase in non-revenue water.
|
Keywords
water governance
water privatization
public-private partnership
operational efficiency
Armenia
transition economy
|
Corresponding Author(s):
HARUTYUNYAN Naira,Email:Harutyunyan_Naira@ceu-budapest.edu
|
Issue Date: 01 October 2012
|
|
1 |
Economic Commission for Africa, United Nations Economic and Social Council (UN ECOSOC). Public-Private Partnerships for Service Delivery: Water and Sanitation. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Committee on Human Development and Civil Society , 2005
|
2 |
Foster V, Tiongson E R, Ruggeri Laderchi C. Utility Reforms. In: Coudouel A, Patermostro S, ed. Analyzing the Distributional Impact of Reforms: A Practitioner’s Guide to Trade, Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy, Utility Provision, Agricultural Markets, Land Policy and Education . Washington DC: World Bank, 2005, 73–143
|
3 |
Medalye J. Water governance. In: Cleveland C J, ed. The Encyclopedia of Earth ,April2008, http://www.eoearth.org/article/Water_governance
|
4 |
Marin Ph. Public-Private Partnerships for Urban Water Utilities: a Review of Experiences in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2009
|
5 |
Hall D, Lobina E. Water Privatization. London: Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU), 2008
|
6 |
Davis J. Private-sector participation in the water and sanitation sector. In: Annual Review, ed. Annual Review of Environment and Resources . Palo Alto: Annual Reviews, 2005, 30: 145–183 doi: 10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144635
|
7 |
Renzetti S, Dupont D. The performance of municipal water utilities: evidence on the role of ownership. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. Part A: Current Issues , 2004, 67(20–22): 1861–1878 doi: 10.1080/15287390490492340
|
8 |
Ruester S, Zschille M. The impact of governance structure on firm performance–an application to the German water distribution sector. Utilities Policy , 2010, 18(3): 154–162 doi: 10.1016/j.jup.2010.03.003
|
9 |
Gassner K, Popov A, Pushak N. An Empirical Assessment of Private Sector Participation in Electricity and Water Distribution in Developing and Transitions Countries. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2007
|
10 |
Hirschhausen C, Meinhart B. Infrastructure Policies and Liberalization in the East European Transition Countries – Would Less Have Been More? Proposal for the Annual Congress of the European Economic Association. Lausanne , Switzerland: Université de Lausanne, 2001
|
11 |
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). Evaluating Infrastructure Reforms and Regulation: a Review of Methods. ACCC/AER working paper 2. Melbourne: ACCC/AER working paper series, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission , 2010
|
12 |
The World Bank. The International Benchmarking Network for Water and Sanitation Utilities (IBNET). http://www.ib-net.org/
|
13 |
Lampietti J, Kolb A, Gulyani S, Avenesyan V. Utility Pricing and the Poor. Lessons from Armenia . World Bank Technical Paper 497 . Washington, DC: World Bank, 2001
|
14 |
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Consumer Protection in Urban Water Sector Reform in Armenia: Ability to Pay and Social Protection of Low Income Households. Final Report , January2004, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/48/35052145.pdf
|
15 |
OECD. Promoting the Use of Performance-Based Contracts between Water Utilities and Municipalities in EECCA. Case study no. 2: Armenian Water and Wastewater Company. SAUR Management Contract , 2008, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/25/20/40572630.pdf
|
16 |
Efimova T. EECCA-wide trends of water utility performance. Presentation in OECD EAP Task Force, Helsinki , 2007
|
17 |
Corton M. Benchmarking in the Latin American water sector: the case of Peru. Utilities Policy , 2003, 11(3): 133–142 doi: 10.1016/S0957-1787(03)00035-3
|
|
Viewed |
|
|
|
Full text
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
|
Cited |
|
|
|
|
|
Shared |
|
|
|
|
|
Discussed |
|
|
|
|