This paper explores the economies of scale and scope in the electricity, gas and water utilities. These issues have a crucial importance in the actual policy debates about unbundling the integrated utilities into separate entities, a policy which has often been supported by the ongoing reforms in the deregulation of network industries. This paper argues that the potential improvements in efficiency through unbundling should be assessed against the loss of scope economies. Several econometric specifications including a random-coefficient model are used to estimate a cost function for a sample of utilities distributing electricity, gas and/or water to the Swiss population. The estimates of scale and scope economies are compared across different models and the effect of heterogeneity among companies are explored. While indicating considerable scope and scale economies overall, the results suggest a significant variation in scope economies across companies due to unobserved heterogeneity.
AsteriouD.HallS. G. (2007). Applied econometrics: A modern approach. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
2.
BaumolW. J.PanzarJ. C.WilligR. D. (1982). Contestable Markets and the Theory of Industry Structure. New York: Hartcourt Brace Jovanovich.
3.
Bi0rnE.LindquistK.-G.SkjerpenT. (2002). “Heterogeneity in Returns to Scale: A Random Coefficient Analysis with Unbalanced Panel Data.” Journal of Productivity Analysis18(1): 39-57.
4.
CameronA. C.TrivediP. K. (2005). Microeconometrics Methods and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
CavesD. W.ChristensenL. R.TrethewayM. W. (1980). “Flexible Cost Functions for Multiproduct Firms.” Review of Economics and Statistics62(3): 477-81.
6.
ChamberlainG. (1982). “Multivariate Regression Models for Panel Data.” Journal of Econometrics18(1): 5-46.
7.
ChappellH. W.WilderR. P. (1986). “Multiproduct Monopoly, Regulation, and Firm Costs: Comment.” Southern Economic Journal52(4): 1168-74.
8.
DG Energy & Transport (2004). Note of DG Energy & Transport on the Directives 2003/54/EC and 2003/55/EC on the internal Market in Electricity and Natural Gas, The Unbundling Regime, Brussels.
9.
DymekB.GlaubitzD. (2003). “Rutteln am eidgenossischen Tor.” Energie & Management19: 4-5.
10.
FarsiM.FetzA.FilippiniM. (2007). Economies of scale and scope in local public transportationsJournal of Transport Economics and Policy41(3): 345-361.
11.
FeatherstoneA. M.MossC. B. (1994). “Measuring Economies of Scale and Scope in Agricultural Banking.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics76(3): 655-61.
12.
FollmiR.MeisterU. (2005). “Product-Market Competition in the Water Industry: Voluntary Non-discriminatory Pricing.” Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade5(2): 115-35.
13.
FraquelliG.PiacenzaM.VannoniD. (2004). “Scope and Scale Economies in Multi-Utilities: Evidence from Gas, Water and Electricity Combinations.” Applied Economics36(18): 2045-57.
14.
FriedlaenderA. F.ChiangW. (1983). “Productivity Growth in the Regulated Trucking Industry.” Research in Transportation and Economics1: 149-84.
15.
HsiaoC. (2003). Analysis of panel data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16.
IsaacsJ. P. (2006). Determining the Regulatory Impact on Vertical Economies in the Electric Utility Industry, Fourth Annual International Industrial Organization Conference, Boston, Massachusetts.
17.
Jara-DiazS. R.Martinez-BudriaE.Ramos-RealF. J. (2003). “Adapting Productivity Theory to the Quadratic Cost Function: An Application to the Spanish Electric Sector.” Journal of Productivity Analysis20(2): 213-29.
18.
JohnstonJ.DiNardoJ. (1997). Econometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
19.
KasermanD. L.MayoJ.W., (1991). “The measurement of Vertical economies and the Efficiency Structure of the Electricity Utility Industry” Journal of Industrial Economics34 (5): 483-502.
20.
MayoJ. W. (1984a). “Multiproduct Monopoly, Regulation, and Firm Costs.” Southern Economic Journal51(1): 208-18.
21.
MayoJ. W. (1984b). “The Technological Determinants of the US Energy Industry Structure.” Review of Statistics and Economics66 (1): 51-58.
22.
PanzarJ. C. (1989). Technological Determinants of Firm and Industry Structure, Handbook of Industrial Organization, R. Schmalensee and R. D. Willig, Amsterdam, Elsevier, Volume 1: 3-59.
23.
PiacenzaM.VannoniD. (2004). “Choosing among Alternative Cost Function Specifications: An Application to Italian Multi-utilities.” Economics Letters82(3): 415-22.
24.
PulleyL. B.BraunsteinY. M. (1992). “A Composite Cost Function for Multiproduct Firms with an Application to Economies of Scope in Banking.” Review of Economics and Statistics74(2): 221-30.
25.
PulleyL. B.HumphreyD. B. (1993). “The Role of Fixed Costs and Cost Complementarities in Determining Scope Economies and the Cost of Narrow Banking Proposals.” Journal of Business66(3): 437-62.
26.
SingM. (1987). “Are combination Gas and Electric Utilities multiproduct natural Monopolies?” Review of Economics and Statistics69(3): 392-8.
27.
TovarB.Jara-DiazS. R.TrujilloL. (2007). “Econometric Estimation of Scale and Scope Economies Within the Port Sector: A Review.” Maritime Policy & Management34(3): 203-23.
28.
VerbeekM. (2004). A guide to modern econometrics. Chichester: Wiley.
29.
VSG (2007). Erdgas - Daten und Fakten, Tabellen und Grafiken 2006/07,Verband der Schweizeri-schen Gasindustrie (VSG), Zurich.
30.
WaldmanD. E.JensenE. J. (2001). Industrial organization theory and practice. Boston: Addi-son-Wesley.
31.
YatchewA. (2000). “Scale Economies in Electricity Distribution: A Semiparametric Analysis.” Journal of Applied Econometrics15(2): 187-210.
