Bidding for Concessions

Authors

  • Michael Klein Shell International

Keywords:

concessions, auctions, infrastructure, privatisation, concession contracts, sealed bids

Abstract

Privatisation of infrastructure ventures in sectors such as energy, telecommunications, transport and water has become popular over the last decade. Often –for good or bad reasons– private firms are given monopoly franchises under some type of long-term concession agreement, for example "Build-Operate-Transfer" schemes. The article surveys the issues arising in designing concession contracts and in awarding them to private parties. It is crucial to define performance specifications as well as incentive and risk-sharing parameters comprehensively and consistently both to achieve efficient performance by the concessionaire and to minimize post-award re-negotiation. Concession award should as a rule be made competitively, unless special requirements of speed, innovation or excessive transaction costs argue otherwise. Typically, competitive concession award is made by first price sealed bids. There are strong arguments, however, to consider open auctions more seriously in a number of cases. Auctions may also be re-awarded by way of auction. However, somewhat arbitrary bid preferences may have to be set. Auctioneers for complex concession contracts should operate at arms-length for all interested parties, including politicians. It may be sensible to let independent agencies that regulate the concession scheme run the auction.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Michael Klein, Shell International

Chief Economist at Shell International

References

Armstrong, M., Cowan, S., & Vickers, J. (1994). Regulatory reform: Economic analysis and British experience. MIT Press.

Bartone, C. R., Leite, L., Triche, T., & Schertenleib, R. (1991). Private sector participation in municipal solid waste service: Experiences in Latin America. Waste Management and Research, 9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0734-242x(91)90050-h

Bulow, J., & Klemperer, P. (1994). Auctions vs. negotiations (NBER Working Paper N.º 4608). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Chadwick, E. (1859). Results of different principles of legislation in Europe. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 22(3), 381–420.

Demsetz, H. (1968). Why regulate utilities? Journal of Law and Economics, 11(1), 55–65.

Domberger, S., Meadowcroft, S. A., & Thompson, D. J. (1994). Competitive tendering and efficiency: The case of refuse collection. In M. Bishop, J. Kay, & C. Mayer (Eds.), Privatization and economic performance. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198773436.003.0014

Engel, E., Fischer, R., & Galetovic, A. (1996). Licitación de carreteras en Chile. Estudios Públicos, (61).

Feldman, R. A., & Mehra, R. (1993). Auctions: Theory and applications. IMF Staff Papers, 40(3), 485–511. https://doi.org/10.5089/9781451842838.001

Kerf, M., Gray, D. R., Irwin, T., Levesque, C., & Taylor, R. (1997). Concessions: A guide to the design and implementation of concession arrangements for infrastructure services. Inter-American Development Bank y World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/0-8213-4165-0

Klein, M., So, J., & Shin, B. (1996). Transaction costs in private infrastructure projects. Public Policy for the Private Sector. https://doi.org/10.1596/11605

Kwoka, J. E. (1996). Privatisation, deregulation and competition: A survey of effects on economic performance (PSD Occasional Paper 27). World Bank.

Laffont, J., & Tirole, J. (1993). A theory of incentives in procurement and regulation. The MIT Press.

Mayer, C., & Jenkinsen, T. (1997). Regulation, diversification and the separate listing of utilities. In M. Beesley (Ed.), Regulating utilities: Broadening the debate. Institute of Economic Affairs.

McAfee, P. R., & McMillan, J. (1987). Auctions and bidding. Journal of Economic Literature, 25(2), 699–738.

McAfee, P. R., & McMillan, J. (1988). Incentives in government contracting. University of Toronto Press.

McMillan, J. (1992). Games, strategies and managers. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195074307.001.0001

McMillan, J. (1994). Selling spectrum rights. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(3), 145–162. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.8.3.145

Milgrom, P. (1989). Auctions and bidding: A primer. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3(3), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.3.3.3

Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1992). Economics, organisation and management. Prentice Hall.

Riley, J. G. (1989). Expected revenue from open and sealed bid auctions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3(3), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.3.3.41

Smith, W., & Klein, M. (1994). Infrastructure regulation [Mimeo]. World Bank.

Thaler, R. (1988). Anomalies: The winner's curse. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2(1), 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.2.1.191

Williamson, O. E. (1976). Franchise bidding for natural monopolies: In general and with respect to CATV. Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 7(1), 73–104. https://doi.org/10.2307/3003191

Zupan, M. (1989). The efficiency of franchise bidding schemes in the case of cable television. Journal of Law and Economics, 32(2), 401–456. https://doi.org/10.1086/467183

Downloads

Published

1998-04-30

How to Cite

Klein, M. (1998). Bidding for Concessions. Economic Analysis Review, 13(1), 25–49. Retrieved from https://www.rae-ear.org/index.php/rae/article/view/118

Issue

Section

Articles

Article usage

ViewsTimes this article's page was opened since the journal started recording statistics. One person can visit more than once.
271
DownloadsTimes the full text of this article (usually the PDF) was opened or downloaded.
213

All time, as recorded by the journal.

Among the top 9% by views · last 2 yearsCompared with all the journal's articles by views in the last 2 years, this one is among the top 9%.

Last 2 years: 132 views, 79 downloads.

Main countries of traffic origin:Countries this article was consulted from, according to the internet connection. They are not necessarily people. Brazil 17% · United States 17% · Germany 10%

0.79 downloads per view (journal average 1.65).Downloads of the full text for every abstract view of this article, compared with the whole journal.

Explore the journal's metrics