[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

infrastructure debate

As a first suggestion, could I suggest that the work earlier done (which
is already on the web) be put up at the head of this work? I also had
submitted it to the list yesterday. I really would like to see a sense of
continuity in the work: people have actually ruined their health in this
process of debating and the previous work must be at the very top. New
work comes next. The final work can be a 'cross' between the two,
whichever is the consensus. Thanks for your consideration for other
people's time! thanks!!SS

On Fri, 25 Sep 1998, Pratap Raju wrote:

> Summary of the debate so far
> Major points
> 1] The private sector should be involved in the provisioning of infrastructure.
> 2] The govt should not directly construct or maintain any structure, but
> sub-contract these services to private vendors. 
> 3] Defining clearly property rights is vitally important in cleaning up
> corruption, as well as improving the environment
> Secondary-order policies to be applied across all infrastructure sectors.
> 1] Guarantees
> -  The govt should not extend public guarantees to private infrastructure
> projects
> 2] BOT (Build-Operate-Transfer)
> -   Unsure if BOT is superior to the govt directly seeking tenders.
> 3] Make the bidding process  open and transparent
> 4] Create additional capacity to meet demand
> 5] User pay principle to remove any cross-subsidies, which may be handled
> better  through social safety nets
> Sectors to include in an infrastructure policy:
> Drinking water
> - Govt should completely allow the private sector into water facilities,
> collecting dues locally
> Hygiene
> - Local govt should privatize the clean-up of cities, paid by local taxes
> - Appropriate here?
> Electricity
> - Open up completely to MNCs and local firms, giving tax breaks to invest in
> new technology
> - No tax concessions necessary
> Roads
> - Hire MNCs and locals to develop National Highways, while management
> contracts should be awarded to the private sector, too
> Telecom
> - Privatize VSNL and Mahanagar Telecom as well as other state telecom boards
> Transport - Road, rail, air, ports
> - Privatize all transportation facilities save perhaps airports, bus
> terminals, and railway stations
> - Abolish octroi and such
> Postal Service
> - It works, don't fix it
> Health
> - Appropriate here?
> Environment
> - Appropriate here?
> Basic public amenities
> - Such as a community garden/park, planned out developmental activities in
> terms of maintenance and development of public distribution systems of
> essential commodities
> Please forgive me if I seemed to have left out some of the debate... I will
> go back through the debate at www.indiapolicy.org a little later and fill in
> the missing points (if any).
> _________________________
> Please consider the following..
> As per Dr. Roy's point about property rights, I agree that defining such
> rights clearly is extremely important in maintaining investor confidence as
> well as the rule of law. Though, extremely important, and as because we are
> taking a very comprehensive and integrated approach to India, I believe that
> we should place this very important idea in a higher-level document and let
> its implications be implicitly embodied in sector specific policy. E.g., we
> are assuming the existence of the rule of law when considering the design of
> infrastructure contracts awarded to the private sector, though we will take
> up this topic more directly next week.
> As per  the inclusion of the environment, health, and basic civic amenities
> like parks,  it seems very inappropriate to include these topics in an
> infrastructure policy, although they are extremely important. I argue that
> they deserve a separate policy grouping (esp health and environment) just
> like education (which fulfills much of the same infrastructure role, that is
> in human capital , as health). Our infrastructure policy should include
> sectors that tend to become 'natural monopolies' or have significant
> externalities (i.e., its social benefits far outweigh private benefits and,
> as such, may be supplied below the socially optimal amount).
> I believe that the basic idea behind the privatization of infrastructure is
> that, besides the existence of 'market failures', we are beginning to
> understand that there are also 'public failures'. As such, the privatization
> of infrastructure 'may' lead to gains in efficiency, increase potentially
> the amount of private funds available to such, and increase the use of
> entrepreneurial talent available among the people (while at the same time
> freeing up the use of our better civil servants to concentrate in areas
> where govt involvement is more appropriate).
> As such, we should privatize and open to competition as much as possible may
> infrastructure areas. For areas where competition is not possible (i.e. the
> transmission of electricity which seemingly lends itself to become a
> 'natural monopoly' as the costs of developing more than one set of
> transmission lines is exorbitant and perhaps 'wasteful'), we should award a
> long term concession (unless the sector is not capital-intensive an requires
> many years to recoup the full cost of such) in an open, transparent bidding
> process that maximizes the revenue obtained. An independent, regulatory body
> should be set up to make any necessary adjustments to tariffs, and which
> should comprise at most minority govt representation.
> More on the this later...
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This is a posting to India_Policy Discussion list:  debate@indiapolicy.org
> Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a posting to India_Policy Discussion list:  debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/