468. Markets and government
It is
difficult to find an industry where markets are completely free, without
regulation or intervention. The very notion of ‘free’ is problematic.
Institutions are required not only to correct but also to enable
markets.
In the most
general terms, conditions for markets are conditions for the freedom of choice
for users and freedom of enterprise for producers. To the extent that these
freedoms are constrained, which is always the case to a greater or
lesser extent, markets function only to some extent.
A question
then is when we reach a point that regulation dominates freedom to such an
extent that we can hardly still speak of markets. The question then becomes
when regulations to channel and restrict the operation of a market go so far
that it might be more efficient to take the alternative approach of public
planning, which of course requires its own correction mechanisms. The question
is not regulation or not, but how much regulation is needed.
Between
‘pure’ market, if that notion makes sense, and ‘pure’ public administration
there is a range of forms with more or less public participation and
regulation.
John
Groenewegen identified several categories of public-private hybrids. In the
first category the state owns and manages the assets, though it can by
contract allocate the decision rights to a public agency or corporatized public
entity. We may find that in the infrastructure of network industries, such as,
for example railways, energy, water supply. Since there are no competing
producers one can hardly speak of a market. However, the government can impose
benchmarks that show the best performance achieved to challenge producers, or
use them to set ceilings to costs. Sometimes the mere threat of privatization
may stimulate efficiency. Also, producers may hive off part of their activities
to markets, by outsourcing activities other than their core activities to
commercial suppliers.
In the
second category, Public-Private-Partnerships (PPPs), there are different
distributions of ownership and decision rights. Private parties take risks in
the supply of capital and responsibility for operating them. In return, they
claim rights in the commercial supply of the service, a right to operate, and
the right to design, build and operate the asset. Government maintains property
and decision rights to the extent needed to guarantee a minimum level and
quality of service. In some PPPs ownership is public and ‘peripheral parts’ are
privately owned, and in others the building and maintenance of assets is
private but the government is responsible for its design. Here, there is the
possibility of concessions sold to private operators for a limited period,
after which the rights are returned into public hands. Here we can think of the
concession of rail and bus services.
The third
category is regulated industries, where sector-specific regulators can
by law intervene in the structure of the market or directly in the behaviour of
the private actors. Here we find the telecom market, for example, where the
government can intervene in tariff structures, for example. In case of a natural
monopoly, where cost considerations, such as avoidance of any duplication
of investments, such as with railway tracks or water or gas ducts, dictate a
monopoly, there may be regulation concerning access to the infrastructure,
quality, and price caps. We find this,
for example, in energy pipelines.
No comments:
Post a Comment