Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-17T01:29:18.214Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Structure des coûts d'alimentation en eau potable: une analyse sur un panel d'unités de production ivoiriennes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 January 2015

Daouda Diakite  and
Alban Thomas
Get access

Résumé

Dans cet article, nous analysons la structure des coûts d'alimentation en eau potable des villes de Côte d'Ivoire à partir d'un panel des centres de production. Considérant les services d'eau comme des monopoles multi-produits fournissant conjointement deux biens (volumes d'eau facturés et volumes d'eau perdus), nous estimons une fonction de coût translog multi-produits sur la base de la dualité entre fonctions de production et de coût. Les différentes mesures de rendements calculées révèlent que le service d'eau moyen ivoirien produit dans la zone des rendements constants. Cependant, en classant les services en petits, moyens et grands selon différents critères, il apparaît clairement que l'opérateur a un avantage économique à accroître sa production et les connections dans la plupart des petits et moyens services. Aussi, la présence d'économies de gamme révèle que la production conjointe des deux biens considérés dans certaines proportions est plus bénéfique que l'amélioration du rendement du réseau. Enfin, les évaluations des coûts estimés font apparaître un coût marginal supérieur en moyenne aux prix marginaux des premières tranches de la grille tarifaire.

Summary

Summary

This paper analyses the structure of water supply costs in Côte d'Ivoire municipalities using a panel of water utilities. Considering water utilities as multi-output monopolies providing jointly two goods (billed water and lost water), we estimate a multi-output translog cost fonction using duality between production and cost function. We compute several measures of return to reveal that, at the mean level, Ivorian water utilities operate with constant return to scale. But, ranking our production units by size using various criteria, it clearly appears that it is more profitable for the water operator to increase its production and connection in most small and medium utilities. Moreover, the presence of significant economies of scope reveals that the jointly production of the two goods considered in a certain degree is more beneficial than improving the network return. Finally, the estimated marginal cost at the mean is higher than the marginal prices of the first blocks of the tariff system.

Keywords

Water utilityMulti-output Translog cost fonctionPanel dataC33D24Q25service d'eau potablefonction de coût translog multi-produitsdonnées de panelC33D24Q25
Type
Research Article
Information
Recherches Économiques de Louvain/ Louvain Economic Review , Volume 79 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 83 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de recherches économiques et sociales 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Université de la Réunion, CÉMOI. 15, Av. René Cassin – BP 7151, 97715 Saint-Denis Messag Cedex 9. Email: ddiakite@univ-reunion.fr

†

Toulouse School of Economics et UMR 1081 LERNA, INRA. Université Toulouse 1-Capitole, 21 allée de Brienne, 31000 Toulouse. Email: thomas@toulouse.inra.fr

References

Abbott, M. and et Cohen, B. (2009), “Productivity and Efficiency in the Water Industry”, Utilities Policy, 17, pp. 233–244.Google Scholar
Amemiya, T. and Macurdy, T. E. (1986), “Instrumental Variable Estimation of an Error-Components Model”, Econometrica, 54(4), pp. 869–880.Google Scholar
Baumol, W.J. (1977), “On the Proper Cost Tests for Natural Monopoly in a Multiproduct Industry”, American Economic Journal, 67(5), pp. 809–822.Google Scholar
Breusch, T. S., Mizon, G. E. and Schmidt, P. (1989), “Efficient Estimation Using Panel Data”, Econometrica, 57(3), pp. 695–700.Google Scholar
Caves, D.W., Christensen, L.R. and Swanson, J.A. (1981), “Productivity Growth, Scale Economies, and Capacity Utilization in U.S. Railroads, 1955-74”, American Economic Review, 71(5), pp. 994–1002.Google Scholar
Christensen, L.R., Jorgenson, D.W. and Lau, L.J. (1973), “Transcendatal Logarithmic Production Frontiers”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 55, pp. 28–45.Google Scholar
Collignon, B. (2002), Ürban Water Supply Innovations in Côte d'lvoire: How Cross-Subsidies Help the Poor”, Water and Sanitation Program, Africa.Google Scholar
Cornwell, C., Schmidt, P. and Wyhowski, D. (1992), “Simultaneous Equations and Panel Data”, Journal of Econometrics, 51, pp. 151–181.Google Scholar
Cowing, T.G. and Holtmann, A.G. (1983), “Multiproduct Short-Run Hospital Cost Functions : Empirical Evidence and Policy Implications from Cross-Section Data”, Southern Economic Journal, 49(1), pp. 637–653.Google Scholar
Crain, W.M. and Zardkoohi, A. (1978), “A test of the Property-Rights Theory of the Firm: Water Utilities in the United States”, Journal of Law and Economics, 21(2), pp. 395–408.Google Scholar
Diakité, D. (2007), “L'Eau à Usage Résidentiel en Côte d'Ivoire: Une Analyse Economique de la Demande, des Couts d'Alimentation et de la Tarification”, Thèse de Doctorat, Université de Toulouse I – Sciences Sociales.Google Scholar
Diakité, D. and Thomas, A. (2011), “La Demande Domestique d'Eau Potable: une Etude sur un Panel de Communes Ivoiriennes”, forthcoming in L'Actualite Economique.Google Scholar
Diakité, D., Semenov, A. and Thomas, A. (2009), “A Proposal for Social Pricing of Water Supply in Cote d'Ivoire”, Journal of Development Economics, 88, pp. 258–268, 2009.Google Scholar
Diewert, W.E. and Wales. E., T.J. (1986), “Flexible Functional Forms and Global Curvature Conditions”, Econometrica, 55(1), pp. 43–68.Google Scholar
Estache, A. and Kouassi, E. (2002), “Sector Organization, Governance and the Inefficiency of African Water Utilities”, in World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, No. 3374.Google Scholar
Feigenbaum, S. and Teeples, R. (1983), “Public Versus Private Water Delivery : A Hedonic Cost Approach”, Review of Economics and Statistics, pp. 672–678.Google Scholar
Ford, J.L. and Warford, J.J. (1969), “Cost Functions for the Water Industry”, Journal of Industrial Economics, 18(1), pp. 53–63.Google Scholar
Garcia, S. (2001), “Analyse Economique des Couts d'Alimentation en Eau Potable”, Thèse de Doctorat, Université de Toulouse I – Sciences Sociales.Google Scholar
Garcia, S. and Thomas, A. (2001), 'The Structure of Municipal Water Supply Costs: Application to a Panel of French Local Communities”, Journal of Productivity Analysis, 2001, 16, pp. 5–29.Google Scholar
Hausman, J. A. and Taylor, W. E. (1981), “Panel Data and Unobservable Individual Effects”, Econometrica, 49(6), pp. 1377–1398.Google Scholar
Hayes, K. (1987), “Cost Structure of the Water Utility Industry”, Applied Economics, 19, pp. 417–425.Google Scholar
Kim, H.Y. (1987), “Economics of Scale in Multiproduct Firms : An Empirical Analysis”, Economica, 54 (214), pp. 185–206.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, C., Parker, D. and Zhang, Y.F. (2006), “State versus Private Sector Provision of Water Services in Africa : An Empirical Analysis”, The World Bank Economic Review, 20(1), pp. 143–163.Google Scholar
Panzar, J.C. (1989), “Technological Determinants of Firm and Industry Structure”, in Schmalensee, R. et Willig, R.D. (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, Vol.1, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., pp. 3–59.Google Scholar
Panzar, J.C. and Willig, R.D. (1977), “Economics of Scale in Multi-Output production”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 91(3), pp. 481–493.Google Scholar
Salvanes, K.G. and Tjotta, S. (1994), “Production Differences in Multiple Output Industries : An Application to Electric Distribution”, Journal of Productivity Analysis, 5(1), pp. 23–43.Google Scholar
Schmidt, P. (1990), “Three-Stage Least Squares With Differenrs Instruments for Differents Equations”, Journal of Econometrics, 43, pp. 389–394.Google Scholar
Teeples, R. and Glyer, D. (1987), “Production Function for Water Delivery Systems : An Analysis and Estimation Using Dual Cost Function and Implicit Price Specifications”, Water Resources Research, 23, pp. 765–773.Google Scholar
Walter, M. and al. (2009), “Quo vadis Efficiency Analysis of Water Distribution? A Comparative Literature Review”, Utilities Policy, 17, pp. 225–232.Google Scholar
Zellner, A. (1962), “An Efficient Method of Estimating Seemingly Unrelated Regression and Test for Aggregation Bias”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58, pp. 348–368.Google Scholar