1 REVENUE Seminar Leuven June 9th 2004 WP2.3 Management of investment funds and theory of incentives...
-
Upload
austen-ryan -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of 1 REVENUE Seminar Leuven June 9th 2004 WP2.3 Management of investment funds and theory of incentives...
![Page 1: 1 REVENUE Seminar Leuven June 9th 2004 WP2.3 Management of investment funds and theory of incentives Yves Balasko David Meunier Emile Quinet ENPC, CERAS.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022082712/56649ea35503460f94ba7832/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
REVENUE Seminar Leuven June 9th 2004
WP2.3 Management of investment funds
and theory of incentives
Yves Balasko
David Meunier
Emile Quinet
ENPC, CERAS
![Page 2: 1 REVENUE Seminar Leuven June 9th 2004 WP2.3 Management of investment funds and theory of incentives Yves Balasko David Meunier Emile Quinet ENPC, CERAS.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022082712/56649ea35503460f94ba7832/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Synthesis• 1 Introduction• 2 The principal agent model• 3 The case for an investment agency• 4 Public-Private Partnership • 5 Three polar cases
– motorways, – new rail tracks, – issues about multi-principals
• 6 Elements for case studies
![Page 3: 1 REVENUE Seminar Leuven June 9th 2004 WP2.3 Management of investment funds and theory of incentives Yves Balasko David Meunier Emile Quinet ENPC, CERAS.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022082712/56649ea35503460f94ba7832/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Principal-agent model
• Principal (P) wants agent (A) to produce according to P’s objectives, but divergence of objectives and asymmetry of information (adverse selection, moral hazard)
• P designs a menu of contracts for A, linking fee paid to A to (imperfect) observations incentive power of contracts : from cost-plus to price-cap
• thus, P selects a better A or obtains more from A, but at the expense of rent plus transaction costs; problem for implementation of control (audits, enforcement,…)
![Page 4: 1 REVENUE Seminar Leuven June 9th 2004 WP2.3 Management of investment funds and theory of incentives Yves Balasko David Meunier Emile Quinet ENPC, CERAS.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022082712/56649ea35503460f94ba7832/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Incentive regulation
• what is the order of magnitude of present welfare loss due to divergence of objectives ?
• what is the regulatory environment ?• informational ?
• transactional ?
• administrative and political ?
• importance of timing issues
![Page 5: 1 REVENUE Seminar Leuven June 9th 2004 WP2.3 Management of investment funds and theory of incentives Yves Balasko David Meunier Emile Quinet ENPC, CERAS.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022082712/56649ea35503460f94ba7832/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
Investment agency
• Direct regulation of transport, or investment agency ?
• Missions:– implementing infrastructure investment, advising
and information gathering
– planning / scheduling / organizing / implementing infrastructure operation (includes operating investments)
![Page 6: 1 REVENUE Seminar Leuven June 9th 2004 WP2.3 Management of investment funds and theory of incentives Yves Balasko David Meunier Emile Quinet ENPC, CERAS.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022082712/56649ea35503460f94ba7832/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Investment agency
• Discussion of advantages:– independence : credibility of commitments, continuity of
infrastructure development– outsourcing of debt, and outsourcing of risk ?– better borrowing conditions (sometimes)– reduction of costs, but possible transaction costs
and risks of deviation– skills in contract engineering – reduction of information asymmetries : may give precious
help whatever the precise definition of the agency
![Page 7: 1 REVENUE Seminar Leuven June 9th 2004 WP2.3 Management of investment funds and theory of incentives Yves Balasko David Meunier Emile Quinet ENPC, CERAS.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022082712/56649ea35503460f94ba7832/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Public-Private partnership (PPP)
• The choice between public and private management (and the balance between them) depends highly on :– divergence of objectives (externalities, market power)– financial aspects (cost of public funds compared to the
risk premium; leverage, ratings,...)– efficiency of control (depending on information
asymmetry, power of the regulator, commitment, ..)
![Page 8: 1 REVENUE Seminar Leuven June 9th 2004 WP2.3 Management of investment funds and theory of incentives Yves Balasko David Meunier Emile Quinet ENPC, CERAS.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022082712/56649ea35503460f94ba7832/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Three polar cases: the framework
• a public authority, possibly acting through an investment agency endowed with financial autonomy
• this public authority (or investment agency) can :– either build and run the infrastructure by itself– or franchise it to a private concessionaire under a BOT
contract– these two cases are extreme situations, many
intermediate possibilities are open
![Page 9: 1 REVENUE Seminar Leuven June 9th 2004 WP2.3 Management of investment funds and theory of incentives Yves Balasko David Meunier Emile Quinet ENPC, CERAS.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022082712/56649ea35503460f94ba7832/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Three polar cases: Motorways• Characteristics:
– uncertainty on traffic forecasts– externalities, for motorway users and outside, congestion and
environment– information asymmetry on real time operation– downstream market is competitive– superposition of demand segments :
• by nature (freight vs passengers; professionnal vs leisure;…)• by network use (long distance vs short, international vs nat ’l)
multiple principals or interest groups vs quasi-unicity of product (per motorway link).
![Page 10: 1 REVENUE Seminar Leuven June 9th 2004 WP2.3 Management of investment funds and theory of incentives Yves Balasko David Meunier Emile Quinet ENPC, CERAS.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022082712/56649ea35503460f94ba7832/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Three polar cases: Motorways
• Recommendations:– rue defining a bonus on the fee linked to the technical
quality of service provided,
– price-cap on average tariffs, allowing for time modulation, with appropriate principal monitoring § control
– the extra tariff (above the average price-cap) necessary to achieve a predetermined level of service should go to a fund managed by the public authority, not by the concessionaire
– consider endogenous duration of franchises (beware of possible side-effects)
![Page 11: 1 REVENUE Seminar Leuven June 9th 2004 WP2.3 Management of investment funds and theory of incentives Yves Balasko David Meunier Emile Quinet ENPC, CERAS.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022082712/56649ea35503460f94ba7832/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Three polar cases: Motorways
• Recommendations (continued):– size of the concession – furthermore, size of the
regulatory scope- should be adapted to size of the transport market; area concession ? (to take into account congestion externalities)
– if externalities are too high (case of urban areas) the system of concession is to be questioned compared to direct command and control by the public authority (with outsourcing but fee paid to outsources set independently of revenues from infrastructure charges)
![Page 12: 1 REVENUE Seminar Leuven June 9th 2004 WP2.3 Management of investment funds and theory of incentives Yves Balasko David Meunier Emile Quinet ENPC, CERAS.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022082712/56649ea35503460f94ba7832/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Three polar cases: New rail tracks• Characteristics:
– distinction infrastructure / operations– externalities lower than for roads– access to infrastructure more difficult to achieve : both pricing and
regulation (path allocation)– demand is segmented but products may be more differentiated– operators have more influence on final demand than for roads– downstream market is monopolistic / oligopolistic, incumbent
operator has higher cost but better information on demand;– very difficult to extract information from incumbent in order to
optimize the downstream market, and to control the proper level of investment and quality of service
![Page 13: 1 REVENUE Seminar Leuven June 9th 2004 WP2.3 Management of investment funds and theory of incentives Yves Balasko David Meunier Emile Quinet ENPC, CERAS.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022082712/56649ea35503460f94ba7832/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Three polar cases: New rail tracks
• Recommendations: – roughly the same as for motorways, plus (due to potentially
conflicting objectives of a profit-seeking infrastructure manager and of a regulator, e.g. for path allocation) :
– the concession to a private firm could preferably be limited to the cases of small links (tunnels)
– the oligopolistic nature of the market should lead to set infrastructure charges below marginal cost, and information asymmetry could lead to differentiation of charges between incumbent and entrant.
![Page 14: 1 REVENUE Seminar Leuven June 9th 2004 WP2.3 Management of investment funds and theory of incentives Yves Balasko David Meunier Emile Quinet ENPC, CERAS.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022082712/56649ea35503460f94ba7832/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
Three polar cases: issues about multi-principals
• Characteristics :– several adjacent regulators (e.g. country regulators)
– European Commission operates somewhat like a super-regulator above country regulators
– regulators suffer from information asymmetry vis-à-vis the operators
– sub-networks may be in the same time complementary and substitutable, depending on the demand segment considered
![Page 15: 1 REVENUE Seminar Leuven June 9th 2004 WP2.3 Management of investment funds and theory of incentives Yves Balasko David Meunier Emile Quinet ENPC, CERAS.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022082712/56649ea35503460f94ba7832/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Three polar cases: issues about multi-principals
• Consequences:– for infrastructure funding, multiple regulators are likely to achieve a lower
efficiency level (but may be positive for commitment, protecion from collusion, …)
– adjacent regulators may induce sub-optimal pricing § investment
– each regulator should cover the « most completely possible pertinent transport market » (but pb of interconnected networks)
– on the ground of incentive and commitment, a hierarchy of regulators (decentralization) should be better than a single one (provided that local information on actions is better)
![Page 16: 1 REVENUE Seminar Leuven June 9th 2004 WP2.3 Management of investment funds and theory of incentives Yves Balasko David Meunier Emile Quinet ENPC, CERAS.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022082712/56649ea35503460f94ba7832/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Framework for case studies
• 1. Main actors and their missions/ strategies :
• 2. Relations between actors (delegation, contracts, co-ordination, collusion,..) :
• 3. General frame of contracts :
• 4. Resources and constraints :
• 5. System used for measuring : reduction of information asymmetry ?
• 6. Incentive schemes and regulation :
• 7. Global analysis of organizational setting : incentive power of the system ? Efficiency ?
![Page 17: 1 REVENUE Seminar Leuven June 9th 2004 WP2.3 Management of investment funds and theory of incentives Yves Balasko David Meunier Emile Quinet ENPC, CERAS.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022082712/56649ea35503460f94ba7832/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
Rather favourable elements Rather unfavourable elements Difficulties Clear public objectives Changing or vague objectives Conflict between objectives
Multiple authorities or interest groups Well-defined scope Unprecise scope or external dynamic
effects Relevant scope may evolve on the long term
Major information asymmetry
Minor information asymmetry (re)design an information system and impose it in the contracts
Good systemic analysis
Poor systemic analysis Analyse properly the actors and their interactions, the coherence of agency’s missions, and the acuteness of internal constraints
Good notions about demand and production functions
No notion or poor notions
Real will to have an independent entity Will to monitor very closely the agency Estimating the « right level of independence or autonomy »
Good vision of infrastructure needs Bad or biased vision of infrastructure needs
Low transaction costs High transaction costs Estimating transaction costs supposes to have a good analysis of the monitoring system needed to reach efficiency
Clear view of constraints allowed, proper definition and measure
Vague view of constraints allowed, wrong definition or measure
Defining the constraints beforehand, rather than after a major problem has really occurred
Identification and control of possible side effects or of multiple principals
No checking for possible side effects, or ignorance of multiple principals
Side effects may appear during specific phases of a dynamic process and become critical for selecting final equilibrium
Existence of reasonable external regulation Poor external regulation, or too tough external regulation
External regulation changes on the mid and long term
Better borrowing conditions for an agency Equivalent or more constrained borrowing conditions
Exogenous factors