Full‐cost recovery = debt recovery: How infrastructure financing models lead to overcapacity, debt, and disconnection,WIREs Water

当前位置： X-MOL 学术 › WIREs Water › 论文详情

Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)

Full‐cost recovery = debt recovery: How infrastructure financing models lead to overcapacity, debt, and disconnection
WIREs Water ( IF 6.8 ) Pub Date : 2020-12-15 , DOI: 10.1002/wat2.1503
Kathryn M. Furlong ₁

Affiliation

Since the 1970s, the international community has pushed a commercial model for water supply based on utility autonomy and full‐cost recovery. This was supposed to deftly solve the persistent problems of poor service coverage and quality, insufficient revenue, and indebtedness. These problems were attributed to poor governance, considered inherent to government management and almost universal to utilities in low‐income cities, especially in the global South. A good dose of business‐like discipline would get these utilities on track. Things are never so simple. Instead, the international debt‐financing system was at the root of many problems that commercialization was supposed to solve, driving both the acquisition of new debt and a focus on large infrastructure projects that further increased debt burdens while failing to meet the needs of the urban poor. The real goal of commercialization was debt collection: to ensure that international lenders and international investors under financialization–are paid. This has led to unaffordable tariffs and consumer debt for utility services. Escaping this “debt trap” requires a new philosophy of infrastructure financing, one that democratizes decision‐making, focuses on smaller projects of social and environmental value, and considers “use value” rather than simple exchange‐value in assessments of what it means for an investment to be productive.

中文翻译：

全成本回收=债务回收：基础设施融资模式如何导致产能过剩，债务和脱节

自1970年代以来，国际社会一直在基于公用事业自治和全额成本回收的基础上推动商业化供水模式。本来可以巧妙地解决服务覆盖范围和质量差，收入不足和债务持续存在的问题。这些问题归因于治理不善，人们认为治理不善是政府管理所固有的，而在低收入城市，尤其是在南方的全球，公用事业几乎普遍存在。大量类似业务的纪律可以使这些实用程序步入正轨。事情从未如此简单。相反，国际债务融资系统是本应解决的许多问题的根源，推动新债务的获取，并着重于大型基础设施项目，这些项目进一步增加了债务负担，但又无法满足城市贫困人口的需求。商业化的真正目标是追收债款：确保偿还处于金融化阶段的国际贷方和国际投资者。这导致难以负担的关税和公用事业服务的消费者债务。摆脱这种“债务陷阱”需要一种新的基础设施融资理念，该理念可使决策民主化，专注于具有社会和环境价值的较小项目，并在评估其含义时考虑“使用价值”而不是简单的交换价值。富有成效的投资。确保支付金融化中的国际贷方和国际投资者的报酬。这导致难以负担的关税和公用事业服务的消费者债务。摆脱这种“债务陷阱”需要一种新的基础设施融资理念，该理念可使决策民主化，专注于具有社会和环境价值的较小项目，并在评估其含义时考虑“使用价值”而不是简单的交换价值。富有成效的投资。确保支付金融化中的国际贷方和国际投资者的报酬。这导致难以负担的关税和公用事业服务的消费者债务。摆脱这种“债务陷阱”需要一种新的基础设施融资理念，该理念可使决策民主化，专注于具有社会和环境价值的较小项目，并在评估其含义时考虑“使用价值”而不是简单的交换价值。富有成效的投资。

更新日期：2021-02-05

点击分享查看原文

点击收藏

阅读更多本刊最新论文