ASi" kUCTURE FlOR DEVELOPMENT
ASi" kUCTURE FlOR DEVELOPMENT
ASi" kUCTURE FlOR DEVELOPMENT
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
to this purpose without sacrificing other socially - .-..*-..<br />
beneficial public expenditures. 4 E m s e centrally<br />
Price subsidies to infrastructure almost always plannedecnonomies,infrastructurebsubsidides<br />
benefit the nonpoor disproportionately. In develop- ' wentmainlyto the better-o'. -<br />
ing countries, the poor ue kerosene or candles<br />
rather tain electricity for lighting, they rely on pri- -.<br />
* vate vendors or public standpipes rather than inhouse<br />
connections for ater supply, and they are in- . t<br />
ge.(1:1)<br />
frequently served by sewerage systems. In Ecuador . Rt of subsidy to better-off;<br />
the electricitysubsidy was found.to be $36 a year for<br />
tossidytoporthe<br />
37 percent of residential consumers with lowest -- 0 . 1 - 3 '-<br />
use but $500 a year for the better-off households >'.-1 -.<br />
-with highest use. In Bangladesh subsidies on infra- Eleciity -<br />
structure services are roughly six times larger for<br />
the nonpoor than for the poor. Although poor peo- Hou old'gas<br />
ple generally consume more water and sanitation .<br />
services than they do power, a study of five Latn ' UrbaIrsp_ ..<br />
American countries found that water and sewerage<br />
subsidies are diected more to richer than to poorer<br />
"u":-:::'<br />
households (Figure 4.3) Even in fonnerly centraly -. -.<br />
planned Algeria and Hungary, the rich have re- . ' xauo of subsidylto better-of<br />
ceived more than the poor in the way of infrastruc- to ssidy i- to por<br />
tireservicesubsidies (Figure4.4). :. 3' 4<br />
There are, however, ways in which infrastructre, a. - V; - - ' '<br />
subsidies can be structured to improve their effecdireness<br />
in reaching the poor. For example, for<br />
-'<br />
water, increasing-block tariffs can be. used-charg- Wat aind<br />
ing a particularly low "'leline" rate for the firt part '<br />
of consumption (for example, 25 to 50 liters per per- _ ,t,<br />
son per day) and higher rates for additional .<br />
'blocks" of water. This block taiff links price to volume,<br />
and it is more efficient at reaching the poor rtdildtand HimayandWorld-Bank<br />
than a general subsidy because it limits subsidized 19e 9 '5' <<br />
consumption. Increasing-block tariffs also encourage<br />
water conservation and efficent use by increasing<br />
charges at higher use. These tariffs are most effective<br />
when access is universal. When the poor lack connection costs to public services, especially when<br />
access, as is frequently the case, they do not receive payment is required in advance of connection. In<br />
the lifeline rate and typically end up paying much such circumstances, access to credit may be more<br />
higher puces for infrastructure services or their sub- important than subsidized prices. Utilities are often<br />
stitutes-<br />
useful conduits for extending loans to finance con-<br />
Subsidizing access to public infrastructure ser-. nection costs because they can use their regular<br />
vices is often more. useful for ibe poor than price billing procedures to secure repayment In Banglasubsidies-<br />
In Colombia in the early 1980s, water u:il- desh the Grameen Bank provides credit to about 2<br />
ities in Bogoti and Medelin used household survey million poor and landless persons-most of them<br />
data to distinguish between rich and poor house- women. The Bank combines group lending, which<br />
holds and specifically targeted the poor with sub- allows the poor to substitute social oollateral based<br />
- . . sidized connection charges and increasing-block on peer pressure for financial colla -al, with financ-<br />
*: ' tariffs. This cross-subsidy scheme resulted in the ing mechanisms to extend credit for tubewells and<br />
poorest 20 percent receiving a subsidy equivalent to sanitary latrines. In 1993 the Grameen Bank lent $18<br />
* 3.4 percent of their income, financed by the richest million for this purpose and sLice 1992 has proquintile,<br />
who paid a- "tax" equivalent to 0.1 percent<br />
of their income. Many low-income households carnot<br />
mobilize the funds needed to pay heavy initial<br />
- .. . . . . .~~~~~~~~~<br />
vided loans for about 70,000 suction tubewells.<br />
In certain crcumstances, programs providing<br />
employment to the poor represent a highly effective