Do State Holding Companies Facilitate Private Participation in the Water Sector? Evidence from Cote d'Ivoire, the Gambia, Guinea, and Senegal

Kerf, Michel

World Bank, Washington, DC

关键词: ACCESS TO SAFE DRINKING WATER;    BOARD MEMBERS;    BUILD-OWN;    CENTRAL GOVERNMENT;    COMMERCIAL BANKS;   

DOI  :  10.1596/1813-9450-2513
RP-ID  :  WPS2513

学科分类：社会科学、人文和艺术（综合）

来源: World Bank Open Knowledge Repository

【 摘 要 】

When the Gambia, Guinea, and Senegaldecided to involve the private sector in the provision ofwater services, they also established state holdingcompanies - state-owned entities with exclusive or partialresponsibilities for: a) owning infrastructure assets; b)planning and financing investments (replacing assets andexpanding networks); c) regulating the activities of theprivate sector; and d) promoting public acceptance ofprivate participation in the sector. In Cote d'Ivoire,by contrast, when private participation was introduced (in1960), no state holding company was established. Todetermine whether state holding companies help privateparticipation in the water sector succeed, the authorreviews the four functions these entities are expected toperform in the Gambia, Guinea, and Senegal. In light ofexperience in all four countries, he examines whether, andunder what circumstances, state holding companies might bethe entities best suited for carrying out such functions. Heconcludes that creating a state holding company is often notthe best solution. A state holding company might be bettersuited than other entities for planning and financinginvestments when (and only when): a) investmentresponsibilities cannot be transferred to the privateoperator; b) tariffs are insufficient, at least for a time,to cover investment needs, so it is crucial that a publicentity has access to other sources of finance; and c) theholding company's financial strength andaccountability, or its incentives and ability to promote thegradual adoption of cost-covering tariffs, are superior tothose of a ministerial department. When one or more of theseconditions are not met, the main investment responsibilitiesshould be transferred to the private operator or, if that isnot possible, left to the government itself. The other threefunctions should not, as a general rule, be performed by astate holding company.