WPS3595 COMMENTS/ADDITIONS/CORRECTIONS WELCOME How widespread were private investment and regulatory reform in infrastructure utilities during the 1990s?1 Antonio Estache and Ana Goicoechea The World Bank, INFVP Abstract This note provides a snapshot as of 2004 of the share of countries with an "independent" regulatory agency and with at least some private sector financing of its sectoral investment needs for electricity, water and sanitation and telecoms. Among other things, it shows that: · For respectively, electricity, water and sanitation, and telecoms, 51%, 21% and 66% of the developing countries in the sample have an "independent" regulator; i.e. an agency separate from a Ministry and from the operator. · For respectively, electricity generation, electricity distribution, water and sanitation, and telecoms, 47%, 36%, 35% and 59% of the developing countries in the sample have at least some private sector financing. · The shares of both agencies and private sector involvement tend to increase with income levels. · Latin and Central America and Eastern Europe are outliers among regions as almost systematically they have among the highest shares for both indicators across sectors (except water). World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3595, May 2005 The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the view of the World Bank, its Executive Directors, or the countries they represent. Policy Research Working Papers are available online at http://econ.worldbank.org. 1 We are grateful to colleagues across the multilateral development agencies for their help in generating this information. We are particularly grateful to Ian Alexander, Inger Andersen, Pierre Audinet, Jean-Francis Benhamou, Philippe Benoit, John Besant-Jones, Jaime Biderman, Jose Carbajo, Vivien Foster , Katarina Gassner, Eric Groom, Jose-Luis Guasch, Jose-Luis Irigoyen, David Kennedy, Fabienne Ilzkovitz, Nigel Ings, Phil Lam, Anat Levin, Augustin Mapapa Mbangala, Fatimata Ouedraogo, Eustache Ouayoro, Sergio Perelman, Maria Elena Pinglo, Martin Rodriguez Pardina, Gary Stuggins, Gaetane Tracz, Lourdes Trujillo, Caroline van den Berg, Richard Verspyck, Quentin Wodon, Tito Yepes and Christine Zhen-Wei Qiang, 1 1. Introduction As the debate on the optimal infrastructure reform design heats up again in the development community, it seems useful to take stock of how much reform actually took place during the 1990s. This stocktaking is warranted because the generic debate tends to be much more dogmatic, or at least emotional, than based on facts. Among the many implicit assumptions built in these debates on infrastructure sector reforms in the 1990s, two stand out: (i) private operators have taken over the main dimensions of infrastructure service delivery and (ii) independent regulatory agencies (i.e. agencies separated from the Ministry and from the incumbent operator) have been created to supervise the residual private infrastructure monopolies in the sectors.2 The main purpose of this note is to report the results of a 2004 survey designed to provide a baseline on these two very basic dimensions of the reforms. The idea is to get an up-to-date rough snapshot of the extent to which the various regions of the world have actually introduced some private sector participation in infrastructure sectors and have created separate regulatory agencies. A few much more ambitious sector specific surveys have been conducted over the last five years or so (examples are Bacon and Besant-Jones (2001) for electricity, and Halpern (2002) for water) but these are already somewhat out of date. This note is not as rich in substantive coverage or as subtle in the design as these earlier surveys but it has the advantage of covering a much larger set of sectors and countries. Depending on the sectors, our sample sizes range from 124 to 207 countries, including developing, OECD and non-OECD developed countries. The survey reflects the situation as of mid-2004. It was conducted between August and mid-November 2004. It draws on four main sources: (i) the publications of international or bilateral agencies (ITU, IEA, WHO, EEC, DFID, GTZ, AFD, ADB, IDB, and EBRD among others); (ii) the databases collected as part of research efforts and made available to other researchers in public sources (the research department at the World Bank, AEI- Brookings, and independent academic researchers); (iii) the desk officers for each sector in international organizations; (iv) government officials working on the relevant sectors. When sending questionnaires or interviewing individuals the two specific questions asked were as follows: (a) Has a regulatory body that is separate from the utility and from the Ministry started to work?3 (b) Is there any (significant) private participation in the financing of the sector?4 The information collected does not say anything about the intensity or the share of the private sector contribution to the sector and it is well known that the relative importance of the private sector in a given infrastructure activity varies 2A third dimension commonly mentioned is the unbundling of the sector. But this has many more facets and is hence less simple to summarize than the two dimensions discussed in this paper. 3 Note that, to keep the questionnaire as simple as possible, we did not ask whether the agencies were multisectoral or sector specific. Some respondents volunteered this information but it was not sufficient to be able to have wide enough coverage. We expect to be able to generate this information from a follow-up questionnaire. 4Note that there is no normative assessment associated with the figures reported here. 2 significantly across countries. On the regulatory agency, we realize that the information collected only reflects the existence of the regulatory agency but it does not capture the extent to which the agency is de facto independent. The multiplicity of sources has allowed us to check the robustness of the information reported. Indeed, in most sectors, we identified inconsistencies across sources which needed to be investigated and corrected. This required significant efforts to contact officials in the countries and when that option was not available to contact desk officers in international agencies. In general, there was a lack of systematic formal interaction with the original sources which may be the main limitation of this database. Since at this stage we are quite confident about the emerging big picture, we have decided to disseminate a summary of the information collected so far while we continue our quality control. This means that this note should be followed up by updates and corrections. The rest of this note presents the information collected on the two basic indicators for each sector in two main forms: (i) across income groups as per the standard World Bank indicators' classification5 and (ii) across geographical regions. The information collected on the first classification is generally much more robust than the second one because for some regions it was not possible to get large enough sample sizes (in particular for East Asia). The note covers electricity, water and sanitation, and telecoms. While we briefly discuss the main results of the survey for each sector, the main interest lies in the tables summarizing the information collected. In most cases, these tables speak for themselves. Note that in each table we have tried to be as clear as possible about sample sizes. Country specific data are provided in the appendix. 2. Electricity For electricity, the main source of information was a questionnaire sent to task managers at the World Bank. However, this is the sector for which we benefited from the largest set of alternative sources of information. A web search of all available publications and a reality check with a series of commercially available databases yielded relatively robust information6. We distinguished between electricity distribution and generation because we expected to get a different rate of private sector participation in these two segments of the business. Tables 1 to 6 give an overview of the institutional changes that took place in the electricity sector during the 1990s according to the responses obtained. It provides a snapshot as of mid-2004 of the number of countries with "independent" regulatory 5 Low income countries (LIC) are those in which 2001 GNI per capita was $745 or less. Lower-middle income countries (LMC) are those in which 2001 GNI per capita was between $745 and $2,975. Upper- middle income countries (UMC) are those in which 2001 GNI per capita was between $2,976 and $9,205. High income countries are those in which 2001 GNI per capita was $9,206 or more. 6See ABS Energy Research (2004), Bacon (1999), Estache and Gassner (2004a and 2004b), Henisz et. al. (2003), International Power Finance Review (2003-04), International Power and Utilities Finance Review (2004-05), Wallsten et. al. (2004), World Bank Caribbean Infrastructure Assessment (2004), and World Bank Global Energy Sector Reform (1999). 3 agencies (tables 1 and 2), of the number of countries with private participation in generation (tables 3 and 4) and in distribution (tables 5 and 6). The sample size represents over 75% of the countries of the world, about 90% of the developing countries and 50% of developed countries. The results are thus quite robust for developing countries but may reflect a sample selection bias for developed countries. Table 1 shows that in electricity the commitment to the creation of an independent regulator seems to increase with the income level. About 60% of the countries have created such an agency. This average is misleading and hides a major difference between developed and developing countries with corresponding scores of 92% and 50% respectively. Table 1: Independent Electricity Regulatory Agency by Income Groups (2004) Universe Sample Countries with IRA (# of countries) (# of countries with data) (% of sample) Developing countries 155 136 51% Low income 65 61 38% Lower-middle income 52 43 63% Upper-middle income 38 32 63% Developed countries (high income) 52 29 79% Total 207 165 56% Table 2 allows for an interesting refinement for developing economies. It shows that Latin America and Eastern Europe and Central Asia have actually been quite committed to the creation of these agencies while other developing regions have been much less committed, with the Middle East at the bottom of the list. It is interesting to note that the most committed regions have also engaged in additional activities of relevance to the effectiveness of reforms. Both Latin America and Eastern Europe have created regional associations of energy regulators, representing a step forward in benchmarking regional performances and hence generating data of the type used in this note. Table 2: Independent Electricity Regulatory Agency by Regions (2004) Universe Sample Countries with (# of countries) (# of countries IRA with data) (% of sample) Sub-Saharan Africa 48 44 36% East Asia & Pacific 22 11 36% Eastern Europe & Central Asia 28 27 78% Latin America & Caribbean 33 30 73% Middle East & North Africa 16 16 19% South Asia 8 8 50% Rest of Countries 52 29 79% Total 207 165 56% 4 Tables 3 and 4 show that roughly half of the countries around the world have private participation in electricity generation. Again, there is a significant difference between developing and developed countries and the shares seem to increase with income level. However, the difference between low and lower-middle income groups is less marked than the one for the creation of regulatory institutions. It is interesting to note that for developing regions there are 23 countries with regulatory agencies but without private participation in generation, and 15 countries with private participation but without an independent regulator. Table 3: Private Participation in Electricity Generation by Income Groups (2004) Sample Countries with Universe Private Participation (# of countries) (# of countries with data) in Generation (% of sample) Developing countries 155 134 47% Low income 65 59 41% Lower-middle income 52 42 48% Upper-middle income 38 33 58% Developed countries (high income) 52 30 70% Total 207 164 51% Table 4 once more refines the regional pictures but not as precisely as for the agencies. First, for one region, East Asia, the sample size is not large enough to be able to draw good lessons from the table. Second, there was some confusion from the information collected as to how large the private sector participation had to be to be accounted for. We left it to the interviewees to decide whether the presence was significant enough or not. This is clearly a subjective criterionwhich may not be acceptable to everyone. Table 4: Private Participation in Electricity Generation by Regions (2004) Universe Sample Countries with Private (# of countries) (# of countries Participation in Generation with data) (% of sample) Sub-Saharan Africa 48 46 41% East Asia & Pacific 22 6 67% Eastern Europe & Central Asia 28 27 41% Latin America & Caribbean 33 31 68% Middle East & North Africa 16 16 31% South Asia 8 8 38% Rest of Countries 52 30 70% Total 207 164 51% 5 Table 5 shows that the role of the private sector is lower in distribution than in generation. Less than 40% of the countries have any type of private financing of their electricity distribution. There is some difference again according to income groups within developing countries. About 3 in 10 countries of the bottom two income groups have private participation in distribution, while for the upper-middle income group approximately 5 in 10 have private participation. However, note that the presence of private participation in developed countries is not too different from the one in developing countries. Table 5: Private Participation in Electricity Distribution by Income Groups (2004) Sample Countries with Private Universe Participation in (# of countries) (# of countries with data) Distribution (% of sample) Developing countries 155 138 36% Low income 65 62 29% Lower-middle income 52 43 37% Upper-middle income 38 33 48% Developed countries (high income) 52 21 43% Total 207 159 37% Table 6 shows major differences across developing countries as well. The role of the private sector is significantly larger in Eastern Europe and Latin America than in any other part of the world with roughly 2 in 3 countries with private investment in distribution. This is more than the 43% share in developed countries. The Middle East and South Asia have been much less successful or interested in doing so (although it may be worth to point out that the sample size for East Asia and developed countries is not high enough to be able to draw generic conclusions on these two regions). Table 6: Private Participation in Electricity Distribution by Regions (2004) Countries with Private Universe Sample Participation in (# of countries) (# of countries Distribution with data) (% of sample) Sub-Saharan Africa 48 46 28% East Asia & Pacific 22 10 20% Eastern Europe & Central Asia 28 27 48% Latin America & Caribbean 33 31 61% Middle East & North Africa 16 16 13% South Asia 8 8 13% Rest of Countries 52 21 43% Total 207 159 37% 6 3. Water and sanitation For the water sector, the challenge in accounting for the existence of the private sector came with the large number of contractual forms that tend to prevail in the sector. Private capital was recorded when there are contracts that require capital investment by private parties in the sector. These contracts are: concessions, built-operate-transfer (BOT), and divestitures. On the other hand, service, management, affermage, and lease contracts were not classified as private capital7. Tables 7 to 10 show that in this sector the information is less robust than for the others. We only have observations for about 66% of the countries of the world. Moreover the sample size is particularly small for developed countries. With these limitations in mind, the story that emerges is that significantly fewer countries have created independent regulators in the water sector than in electricity (or telecoms as discussed later). Less than 25% of the countries have an independent water utility regulator. Table 7: Independent Water Regulatory Agency by Income Groups (2004) Universe Sample Countries with IRA (# of countries) (# of countries with data) (% of sample) Developing countries 155 122 21% Low income 65 55 11% Lower-middle income 52 38 32% Upper-middle income 38 29 28% Developed countries (high income) 52 15 20% Total 207 137 21% Table 8 shows that Latin America is somewhat an upper bound outlier in the world since 1 in 2 countries in our large sample has created and agency. On the other hand, South Asia appears to be the lower bound outlier as no independent agency has been created in the region. The sample size for East Asia is not representative enough to be able to draw any lessons on this region. It is relevant to mention that the somewhat low commitment to the creation of independent water regulators might reflect the fact that the regulation of water utilities is part of the water resource management regulation, or that it is a decentralized matter at the municipal level, cases in which the creation of an independent regulator is seen as a costlier management model for the sector. 7Sources different from the questionnaire include: ABS Energy Research (2004), ADB Water in Asian Cities (2004), ADB Developing Best Practices for Promoting Private Sector Investment (2000), Bayliss (2002), Budds and McGranahan (2003), Estache and Gassner (2004a), Estache and Tracz (2004), Hall et. al. (2002a, 2002b, and 2002c), Lobina (2001), World Bank Sector Note on Water Supply (2004), World Bank Caribbean Infrastructure Assessment (2004), and World bank Water Supply and Sanitation and the MDGs (2003). 7 Table 8: Independent Water Regulatory Agency by Regions (2004) Universe Sample Countries with IRA (# of countries) (# of countries with data) (% of sample) Sub-Saharan Africa 48 42 12% East Asia & Pacific 22 8 25% Eastern Europe & Central Asia 28 20 20% Latin America & Caribbean 33 30 50% Middle East & North Africa 16 14 0% South Asia 8 8 0% Rest of Countries 52 15 20% Total 207 137 21% Tables 9 and 10 show that the private sector has a relatively strong presence in the delivery of water services of middle-income countries. Indeed, it is not unusual to find BOT deals in major cities to treat water. These opportunities are however more limited in low income countries, where management contracts tend to be much more common than contracts that require at least some private sector financing. Table 9: Private Capital in Water and Sanitation by Income Groups (2004) Universe Sample Countries with Private (# of countries) (# of countries Capital with data) (% of sample) Developing countries 155 127 35% Low income 65 55 18% Lower-middle income 52 40 50% Upper-middle income 38 32 47% Developed countries (high income) 52 20 80% Total 207 147 41% Table 10 shows the strong variation across regions. Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South Asia, which include many of the poorest countries of the world, have had very little success in attracting private capital to the sector. In East Asia, there are only a few large concessions but many BOTs and service deals managed by international private companies, including very aggressive Asian companies who have managed to get a fair share of the deals in China and in Asia's "tiger countries". In contrast, for Latin America and Eastern Europe national private investment plays a very important role. Argentina, Brazil and Chile have enjoyed a reasonable collaboration of the international and national private capitals, and in Eastern Europe countries like the Czech Republic have developed a very active local private sector. The diversity reflected in Table 10 also suggests that the ability to attract capital investment by private parties is driven by multiple factors and not only by income levels. In many countries, strategic decisions regarding water continue to be made at the local level, often municipal rather provincial or regional, allowing for a much wider variety of 8 preferences and supply structures than in the energy sector. Commercial risk levels might however be quite important as reflected by the low attractiveness of Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and the Middle East. Table 10: Private Capital in Water and Sanitation by Regions (2004) Universe Sample Countries with (# of countries) (# of countries Private Capital with data) (% of sample) Sub-Saharan Africa 48 44 20% East Asia & Pacific 22 11 64% Eastern Europe & Central Asia 28 21 62% Latin America & Caribbean 33 29 41% Middle East & North Africa 16 14 21% South Asia 8 8 13% Rest of Countries 52 20 80% Total 207 147 41% 4. Telecoms For the telecom sector, we have relied on an annual publication by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) called "Trends in Telecommunication Reform" (latest data available for 2004)8. The report lists countries with an independent regulatory agency. After consulting with ITU and World Bank ICT experts, our classification assumes that countries that do not appear in the list do not to have an independent agency. This allows us to have a sample of 207 countries for this indicator. Tables 11 and 12 suggest that this is the sector in which the commitment to institutional reform has been the strongest. Two out of three countries in the world have an independent telecom regulator. The developing countries have in fact a stronger commitment to this reform than developed countries. The lowest income groups are particularly impressive in that regard. Table 11: Independent Telecom Regulatory Agency by Income Groups (2004) Universe Sample Countries with IRA (# of countries) (# of countries with data) (% of sample) Developing countries 155 155 66% Low income 65 65 69% Lower-middle income 52 52 60% Upper-middle income 38 38 71% Developed countries (high income) 52 52 56% Total 207 207 64% 8Other sources used to crosscheck data include: Henisz et. al. (2003), Wallsten et. al. (2004), World Bank Caribbean Infrastructure Assessment (2004), and Zhen-Wei Qiang (2004). 9 Table 12 shows that the two poorest regions of the world, Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia have been among the most committed to the creation of an independent regulator. Latin America is once again an outlier in its strong commitment to reform in comparison to other parts of the world. East Asia may be somewhat of a surprise in its modest commitment to reform since it appears that about 1 country in 4 has engaged in this specific institutional reform. Table 12: Independent Telecom Regulatory Agency by Regions (2004) Universe Sample Countries with IRA (# of countries) (# of countries with data) (% of sample) Sub-Saharan Africa 48 48 77% East Asia & Pacific 22 22 27% Eastern Europe & Central Asia 28 28 57% Latin America & Caribbean 33 33 85% Middle East & North Africa 16 16 50% South Asia 8 8 100% Rest of Countries 52 52 56% Total 207 207 64% Regarding private capital, we focus on the existence of private ownership in the local loop. Private capital is credited when the operators are partially or fully privatized (or equivalently when the operator is not state-owned). The story emerging from tables 13 and 14 is quite strong in showing that the commitment to the creation of an independent regulator is not a sufficient condition to attract private capital in the local loop. The presence of the private sector in the local loop of the lowest income groups is indeed much more limited than the commitment to regulatory reform. It turns out that for this group, corporatization of the operators is much more common than their privatization. Developed countries have had much fewer problems in attracting the private sector. Table 13: Private Capital in Telecommunications by Income Groups (2004) Universe Sample Countries with (# of countries) (# of countries Private Capital (% of with data) sample) Developing countries 155 146 59% Low income 65 64 50% Lower-middle income 52 50 62% Upper-middle income 38 32 72% High income 52 38 84% Total 207 184 64% 10 The regional distribution reinforces the impression that the ability to attract private capital is not strongly correlated with the commitments to the creation of independent regulators. Africa, for instance, has 77% of the countries with telecom regulators and only 51% with private participation in the local loop--note that the regulator deals with the interconnection issues of the very successful mobile telephony whether the fixed operators are public or private. In contrast, East Asia, Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and the developed countries are the groups in which the presence of private capital is larger than the presence of independent regulators. Table 14: Private Capital in Telecommunications by Regions (2004) Universe Sample Share of Countries (# of countries) (# of countries with Private with data) Participation Sub-Saharan Africa 48 47 51% East Asia & Pacific 22 18 61% Eastern Europe & Central Asia 28 27 70% Latin America & Caribbean 33 31 74% Middle East & North Africa 16 15 33% South Asia 8 8 50% Rest of countries(developed) 52 38 84% Total 207 184 64% 11 5. Conclusion The main ambition of the paper was to generate data on the actual importance across sectors of the implementation of the two major reforms of the 1990s: the creation of independent regulators, and privatization. While the data are far from perfect, they provide a reasonable sense of the state of infrastructure reform around the world along these two dimensions. The main obvious conclusions to be drawn from the survey are the following: · The strongest commitment to the creation of an independent regulatory capacity in the world is in the telecoms sector and the weakest one is in the water and sanitation sector, since respectively, 64% and 21% of the countries have introduced independent agencies. Electricity also seems to be strongly committed to the reform as 56% of the countries have created an "independent" energy regulator. · The institutional commitment to independent regulation is stronger in developing countries than in developed countries in telecoms and water and sanitation; it is only in electricity that it is stronger in developed countries. · Around the world, private participation to meet the sectors' financing needs is strongest in telecoms with 64% of the countries benefiting from some private financing in the local loop and it is the lowest in electricity distribution with 37%. · The ability to attract private investment across sectors is generally higher for developed countries than for developing countries. The biggest gap is observed in water and sanitation. · Within developing countries, the shares of both regulatory agencies and private sector involvement tend to increase with income levels. · Latin America and Eastern Europe & Central Asia (ECA) are outliers among the regions as they have, almost systematically across sectors, the highest shares for both indicators (an exception is ECA in water). 12 Bibliography ABS Energy Research (2004), Electricity Deregulation Report: Global, London. ABS Energy Research (2004), Water and Waste Utilities of the World, London. Asian Development Bank (2004), Water in Asian Cities - Utilities Performance and Civil Society Views, Manila. Asian Development Bank (2000), Developing Best Practices for Promoting Private Sector Investment in Infrastructure: Water Supply, Manila. Bacon, Robert (1999), "A scorecard for Energy Reform in Developing Countries". Public Policy for the Private Sector, Note No. 175. The World Bank. Bacon, Robert, and John Besant-Jones (2001), "Global Electric Power Reform, Privatization and Liberalization of the Electric Power Industry in developing Countries". Annual Reviews Energy and the Environment, 2001, 26:331-359. Bayliss, Kate (2002), Water Privatization in SSA: Progress, problems and policy implications, Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU). Budds, Jessica, and Gordon McGranahan (2003), Privatization and the Provision of Urban Water and Sanitation in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Human Settlements Discussion Paper Series. Estache, Antonio, and Katharina Gassner (2004), Recent Economic Developments in Electricity and Water Services in ECA countries: Basic facts and emerging issues, Mimeo. The World Bank. Estache, Antonio, and Katharina Gassner (2004), The Electricity Sector of Sub-Saharan Africa: basic facts and emerging issues, Mimeo. The World Bank, 2004. Estache, Antonio, and Gaetane Tracz (2004), Recent Economic Developments in the Water and Sanitation Sectors of Selected Sub-Saharan Countries, Mimeo. The World Bank. Hall, David, Kate Bayliss, and Emanuele Lobina (2002), Water Privatization in Africa, Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU). Hall, David, and Emanuele Lobina (2002), Water Privatization in Latin America, Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU). Hall, David, Emanuele Lobina, and Robin de la Motte (2002), Water Privatization and Restructuring in Central and Eastern Europe and NIS Countries, Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU). 13 Halpern, Jonathan. (2002), A Global Overview of Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Reform: Water Sector Reform Scorecard, Mimeo. World Bank, Henisz, Witold, Bennet Zelner and Mauro Guillén (2003), International Coercion, Emulation and Policy Diffusion: Market-Oriented Infrastructure Reforms, 1977- 1999, Wharton School research paper. International Power Finance Review 2003-2004. Euromoney Publications. London, 2003. International Power and Utilities Finance Review 2004-2005. Euromoney Publications. London, 2004. International Telecommunications Union (2004), Trends in Telecommunication Reform: Licensing in an Era of Convergence, Geneva, 2004. Lobina, Emanuele (2001), Water Privatization and Restructuring in Central and Eastern Europe, Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU). Wallsten, Scott, George Clarke, Luke Haggarty, Rosario Kaneshiro, Roger Noll, Mary Shirley, Lixin Colin Xu (2004). "New Tools for Studying Network Industry Reforms in Developing Countries: The Telecommunications and Electricity Regulation Database." Policy Research Working Paper No. 3286. The World Bank. World Bank (2004), Sector Note on Water Supply and Sanitation for Infrastructure in East Asia and the Pacific, prepared by Castalia Strategic Advisors. World Bank (2004), Caribbean Infrastructure Assessment. Report No. 29680. World Bank (2003), Water Supply and Sanitation and the MDGs, DC2003-004/Add.3. Paper prepared for the Spring Meetings of the Development Committee, Washington DC. World Bank (1999), Global Energy Sector Reform in Developing Countries: A Scorecard. Joint UNDP/World Bank Energy Sector Management Assistant Programme (ESMAP). Zhen-Wei Qiang, Christine (2004), Regulatory Reform and Competition Policy: Evolution of Regulatory Framework, Mimeo. The World Bank. 14 Appendix: Data by Country 15 Table A15: Extent of Reforms in Electricity Sector as of 2004 Income Geographic Country Name Have Independent Regulatory Have Private Participation in Have Private Participation in Level (1) Region (2) Agency? (Yes/ No) Generation? (Yes/No) Distribution? (Yes/No) LIC SAR Afghanistan No No No LMC ECA Albania Yes No No LMC MNA Algeria Yes Yes No UMC EAP American Samoa NOC OTH Andorra LIC AFR Angola No Yes No UMC LRC Antigua and Barbuda No No No UMC LRC Argentina Yes Yes Yes LIC ECA Armenia Yes Yes Yes NOC OTH Aruba OEC OTH Australia Yes Yes OEC OTH Austria Yes Yes LIC ECA Azerbaijan No No No NOC OTH Bahamas, The NOC OTH Bahrain No No LIC SAR Bangladesh Yes Yes No UMC LRC Barbados Yes Yes Yes LMC ECA Belarus No No No OEC OTH Belgium Yes Yes No LMC LRC Belize Yes Yes LIC AFR Benin No No No NOC OTH Bermuda Yes LIC SAR Bhutan No No No LMC LRC Bolivia Yes Yes Yes LMC ECA Bosnia and Herzegovina Yes No No UMC AFR Botswana No No No UMC LRC Brazil Yes Yes Yes NOC OTH Brunei LMC ECA Bulgaria Yes No No LIC AFR Burkina Faso No Yes No LIC AFR Burundi No No No LIC EAP Cambodia Yes Yes LIC AFR Cameroon Yes Yes Yes OEC OTH Canada Yes LMC AFR Cape Verde Yes Yes Yes NOC OTH Cayman Islands LIC AFR Central African Republic No No No LIC AFR Chad No Yes No NOC OTH Channel Islands UMC LRC Chile Yes Yes Yes LMC EAP China No No No LMC LRC Colombia Yes Yes Yes LIC AFR Comoros Yes Yes LIC AFR Congo, Dem. Rep. No No No LIC AFR Congo, Rep. No No No UMC LRC Costa Rica Yes Yes No LIC AFR Cote d'Ivoire Yes Yes Yes UMC ECA Croatia Yes No No LMC LRC Cuba No No No NOC OTH Cyprus No No UMC ECA Czech Republic Yes Yes Yes OEC OTH Denmark Yes Yes Yes LMC MNA Djibouti No No No UMC LRC Dominica No Yes Yes LMC LRC Dominican Republic Yes Yes Yes LMC LRC Ecuador Yes LMC MNA Egypt, Arab Rep. No Yes No LMC LRC El Salvador Yes Yes LIC AFR Equatorial Guinea No No No LIC AFR Eritrea No No No UMC ECA Estonia Yes Yes Yes LIC AFR Ethiopia No No No NOC OTH Faeroe Islands LMC EAP Fiji OEC OTH Finland Yes OEC OTH France Yes No No NOC OTH French Polynesia UMC AFR Gabon No Yes Yes LIC AFR Gambia, The No Yes No LIC ECA Georgia Yes Yes Yes OEC OTH Germany Yes Yes Yes LIC AFR Ghana Yes Yes Yes OEC OTH Greece Yes Yes No NOC OTH Greenland 16 Table A15: Extent of Reforms in Electricity Sector as of 2004 Income Geographic Country Name Have Independent Regulatory Have Private Participation in Have Private Participation in Level (1) Region (2) Agency? (Yes/ No) Generation? (Yes/No) Distribution? (Yes/No) UMC LRC Grenada No Yes Yes NOC OTH Guam LMC LRC Guatemala Yes Yes Yes LIC AFR Guinea Yes Yes LIC AFR Guinea-Bissau No No No LMC LRC Guyana Yes Yes Yes LIC LRC Haiti No No No LMC LRC Honduras Yes No No NOC OTH Hong Kong, China Yes UMC ECA Hungary Yes Yes Yes OEC OTH Iceland No No LIC SAR India Yes Yes Yes LIC EAP Indonesia No Yes No LMC MNA Iran, Islamic Rep. No No No LMC MNA Iraq No No No OEC OTH Ireland Yes UMC ECA Isle of Man NOC OTH Israel Yes No No OEC OTH Italy Yes Yes Yes LMC LRC Jamaica Yes Yes Yes OEC OTH Japan Yes LMC MNA Jordan Yes No Yes LMC ECA Kazakhstan Yes Yes No LIC AFR Kenya Yes Yes No LMC EAP Kiribati LIC EAP Korea, Dem. Rep. No Yes No OEC OTH Korea, Rep. No No No NOC OTH Kuwait No No No LIC ECA Kyrgyz Republic Yes No No LIC EAP Lao PDR No No UMC ECA Latvia Yes No No UMC MNA Lebanon No No No LIC AFR Lesotho No No No LIC AFR Liberia No No No UMC MNA Libya No No No NOC OTH Liechtenstein UMC ECA Lithuania Yes Yes Yes OEC OTH Luxembourg Yes Yes Yes NOC OTH Macao, China LMC ECA Macedonia, FYR Yes No No LIC AFR Madagascar No No No LIC AFR Malawi No No No UMC EAP Malaysia Yes Yes No LMC SAR Maldives No No No LIC AFR Mali Yes Yes Yes UMC MNA Malta Yes No No LMC EAP Marshall Islands LIC AFR Mauritania Yes No No UMC AFR Mauritius No Yes No UMC AFR Mayotte UMC LRC Mexico Yes No No LMC EAP Micronesia, Fed. Sts. LIC ECA Moldova Yes No Yes NOC OTH Monaco LIC EAP Mongolia Yes No LMC MNA Morocco No Yes Yes LIC AFR Mozambique Yes Yes Yes LIC EAP Myanmar No LMC AFR Namibia Yes No No LIC SAR Nepal No No No OEC OTH Netherlands Yes Yes Yes NOC OTH Netherlands Antilles NOC OTH New Caledonia OEC OTH New Zealand Yes Yes LIC LRC Nicaragua Yes Yes Yes LIC AFR Niger Yes No No LIC AFR Nigeria Yes Yes No NOC OTH Northern Mariana Islands OEC OTH Norway Yes Yes No UMC MNA Oman No No No LIC SAR Pakistan Yes No No UMC EAP Palau UMC LRC Panama Yes Yes Yes LIC EAP Papua New Guinea LMC LRC Paraguay Yes No No LMC LRC Peru Yes Yes Yes 17 Table A15: Extent of Reforms in Electricity Sector as of 2004 Income Geographic Country Name Have Independent Regulatory Have Private Participation in Have Private Participation in Level (1) Region (2) Agency? (Yes/ No) Generation? (Yes/No) Distribution? (Yes/No) LMC EAP Philippines Yes Yes UMC ECA Poland Yes Yes Yes OEC OTH Portugal Yes Yes Yes UMC LRC Puerto Rico No No NOC OTH Qatar No Yes LMC ECA Romania Yes No Yes LMC ECA Russian Federation Yes Yes Yes LIC AFR Rwanda Yes No No LMC EAP Samoa NOC OTH San Marino LIC AFR Sao Tome and Principe No No No UMC MNA Saudi Arabia No No No LIC AFR Senegal Yes Yes Yes UMC AFR Seychelles LIC AFR Sierra Leone No No No NOC OTH Singapore Yes UMC ECA Slovak Republic Yes No Yes NOC OTH Slovenia Yes No No LIC EAP Solomon Islands LIC AFR Somalia No No No LMC AFR South Africa Yes No No OEC OTH Spain Yes Yes No LMC SAR Sri Lanka Yes Yes No UMC LRC St. Kitts and Nevis No No No UMC LRC St. Lucia No Yes Yes LMC LRC St. Vincent and the Grenadines No No No LIC AFR Sudan No No No LMC LRC Suriname Yes LMC AFR Swaziland Yes No No OEC OTH Sweden Yes Yes Yes OEC OTH Switzerland No LMC MNA Syrian Arab Republic No No No LIC ECA Tajikistan No No No LIC AFR Tanzania No No No LMC EAP Thailand No Yes No LIC AFR Togo Yes Yes Yes LMC EAP Tonga UMC LRC Trinidad and Tobago Yes Yes No LMC MNA Tunisia No Yes No LMC ECA Turkey Yes Yes Yes LMC ECA Turkmenistan No No No LIC AFR Uganda Yes Yes Yes LIC ECA Ukraine Yes Yes Yes NOC OTH United Arab Emirates No Yes OEC OTH United Kingdom Yes Yes Yes OEC OTH United States Yes Yes Yes UMC LRC Uruguay Yes No No LIC ECA Uzbekistan No No No LMC EAP Vanuatu UMC LRC Venezuela, RB Yes Yes Yes LIC EAP Vietnam No No No NOC OTH Virgin Islands (U.S.) No No LMC MNA West Bank and Gaza No Yes No LIC MNA Yemen, Rep. No No No LMC ECA Yugoslavia, FR (Serbia/Montenegro) No No No LIC AFR Zambia Yes No Yes LIC AFR Zimbabwe No No No 18 Table A2: Extent of Reforms in Water Sectoras of 2004 Income Geographic Country Name Have Independent Regulatory Agency? (Yes/ No) Have Private Participation? (Yes/No) Level (1) Region (2) LIC SAR Afghanistan No No LMC ECA Albania Yes Yes LMC MNA Algeria No Yes UMC EAP American Samoa NOC OTH Andorra LIC AFR Angola No No UMC LRC Antigua and Barbuda No No UMC LRC Argentina Yes Yes LIC ECA Armenia No No NOC OTH Aruba OEC OTH Australia Yes OEC OTH Austria No Yes LIC ECA Azerbaijan No No NOC OTH Bahamas, The NOC OTH Bahrain LIC SAR Bangladesh No No UMC LRC Barbados Yes No LMC ECA Belarus No OEC OTH Belgium Yes LMC LRC Belize Yes LIC AFR Benin No No NOC OTH Bermuda LIC SAR Bhutan No No LMC LRC Bolivia Yes Yes LMC ECA Bosnia and Herzegovina Yes UMC AFR Botswana No No UMC LRC Brazil No Yes NOC OTH Brunei LMC ECA Bulgaria No Yes LIC AFR Burkina Faso No No LIC AFR Burundi No No LIC EAP Cambodia No Yes LIC AFR Cameroon No Yes OEC OTH Canada LMC AFR Cape Verde Yes Yes NOC OTH Cayman Islands LIC AFR Central African Republic No No LIC AFR Chad No No NOC OTH Channel Islands UMC LRC Chile Yes Yes LMC EAP China Yes LMC LRC Colombia Yes Yes LIC AFR Comoros LIC AFR Congo, Dem. Rep. No No LIC AFR Congo, Rep. No Yes UMC LRC Costa Rica Yes No LIC AFR Cote d'Ivoire No Yes UMC ECA Croatia Yes Yes LMC LRC Cuba Yes NOC OTH Cyprus No No UMC ECA Czech Republic Yes OEC OTH Denmark No No LMC MNA Djibouti No UMC LRC Dominica No Yes LMC LRC Dominican Republic No No LMC LRC Ecuador No Yes LMC MNA Egypt, Arab Rep. No No LMC LRC El Salvador No No LIC AFR Equatorial Guinea No No LIC AFR Eritrea No No UMC ECA Estonia No Yes LIC AFR Ethiopia No No NOC OTH Faeroe Islands LMC EAP Fiji OEC OTH Finland No Yes OEC OTH France No Yes NOC OTH French Polynesia UMC AFR Gabon No Yes LIC AFR Gambia, The No No LIC ECA Georgia No No OEC OTH Germany No Yes LIC AFR Ghana Yes No OEC OTH Greece No Yes NOC OTH Greenland UMC LRC Grenada No No 19 Table A2: Extent of Reforms in Water Sectoras of 2004 Income Geographic Country Name Have Independent Regulatory Agency? (Yes/ No) Have Private Participation? (Yes/No) Level (1) Region (2) NOC OTH Guam LMC LRC Guatemala No No LIC AFR Guinea No No LIC AFR Guinea-Bissau No No LMC LRC Guyana No Yes LIC LRC Haiti No LMC LRC Honduras Yes Yes NOC OTH Hong Kong, China No UMC ECA Hungary No Yes OEC OTH Iceland No LIC SAR India No Yes LIC EAP Indonesia No Yes LMC MNA Iran, Islamic Rep. No No LMC MNA Iraq No No OEC OTH Ireland No Yes UMC ECA Isle of Man NOC OTH Israel OEC OTH Italy Yes Yes LMC LRC Jamaica Yes No OEC OTH Japan LMC MNA Jordan No No LMC ECA Kazakhstan No Yes LIC AFR Kenya No No LMC EAP Kiribati LIC EAP Korea, Dem. Rep. OEC OTH Korea, Rep. NOC OTH Kuwait LIC ECA Kyrgyz Republic No LIC EAP Lao PDR Yes No UMC ECA Latvia No No UMC MNA Lebanon No No LIC AFR Lesotho No No LIC AFR Liberia No No UMC MNA Libya No NOC OTH Liechtenstein UMC ECA Lithuania No No OEC OTH Luxembourg No NOC OTH Macao, China LMC ECA Macedonia, FYR No LIC AFR Madagascar No LIC AFR Malawi No No UMC EAP Malaysia No Yes LMC SAR Maldives No No LIC AFR Mali Yes Yes UMC MNA Malta No LMC EAP Marshall Islands LIC AFR Mauritania No No UMC AFR Mauritius No UMC AFR Mayotte UMC LRC Mexico Yes Yes LMC EAP Micronesia, Fed. Sts. LIC ECA Moldova NOC OTH Monaco LIC EAP Mongolia No LMC MNA Morocco No Yes LIC AFR Mozambique Yes Yes LIC EAP Myanmar LMC AFR Namibia No No LIC SAR Nepal No No OEC OTH Netherlands No Yes NOC OTH Netherlands Antilles NOC OTH New Caledonia OEC OTH New Zealand Yes LIC LRC Nicaragua Yes No LIC AFR Niger Yes Yes LIC AFR Nigeria No No NOC OTH Northern Mariana Islands OEC OTH Norway UMC MNA Oman No LIC SAR Pakistan No No UMC EAP Palau No No UMC LRC Panama Yes No LIC EAP Papua New Guinea No No LMC LRC Paraguay Yes No LMC LRC Peru Yes No LMC EAP Philippines Yes Yes 20 Table A2: Extent of Reforms in Water Sectoras of 2004 Income Geographic Country Name Have Independent Regulatory Agency? (Yes/ No) Have Private Participation? (Yes/No) Level (1) Region (2) UMC ECA Poland No Yes OEC OTH Portugal Yes UMC LRC Puerto Rico NOC OTH Qatar Yes LMC ECA Romania Yes Yes LMC ECA Russian Federation Yes LIC AFR Rwanda No No LMC EAP Samoa NOC OTH San Marino LIC AFR Sao Tome and Principe No No UMC MNA Saudi Arabia No Yes LIC AFR Senegal No No UMC AFR Seychelles LIC AFR Sierra Leone No No NOC OTH Singapore No UMC ECA Slovak Republic No Yes NOC OTH Slovenia No Yes LIC EAP Solomon Islands LIC AFR Somalia LMC AFR South Africa No Yes OEC OTH Spain Yes Yes LMC SAR Sri Lanka No No UMC LRC St. Kitts and Nevis No No UMC LRC St. Lucia No No St. Vincent and the LMC LRC Grenadines No No LIC AFR Sudan No No LMC LRC Suriname LMC AFR Swaziland No No OEC OTH Sweden No OEC OTH Switzerland LMC MNA Syrian Arab Republic No No LIC ECA Tajikistan No No LIC AFR Tanzania No No LMC EAP Thailand Yes LIC AFR Togo No No LMC EAP Tonga UMC LRC Trinidad and Tobago No No LMC MNA Tunisia No No LMC ECA Turkey Yes LMC ECA Turkmenistan No No LIC AFR Uganda No No LIC ECA Ukraine NOC OTH United Arab Emirates OEC OTH United Kingdom Yes Yes OEC OTH United States Yes UMC LRC Uruguay Yes Yes LIC ECA Uzbekistan LMC EAP Vanuatu UMC LRC Venezuela, RB No No LIC EAP Vietnam No Yes NOC OTH Virgin Islands (U.S.) LMC MNA West Bankand Gaza No No LIC MNA Yemen, Rep. No No Yugoslavia, FR LMC ECA (Serbia/Montenegro) No Yes LIC AFR Zambia Yes No LIC AFR Zimbabwe No No 21 Table A3: Extent of Reforms in ICT Sector as of 2004 Income Geographic Country Name Have Independent Regulatory Agency? (Yes/ No) Have Private Participation? (Yes/No) Level (1) Region (2) LIC SAR Afghanistan Yes No LMC ECA Albania Yes No LMC MNA Algeria Yes No UMC EAP American Samoa No NOC OTH Andorra No No LIC AFR Angola Yes Yes UMC LRC Antigua and Barbuda No No UMC LRC Argentina Yes Yes LIC ECA Armenia No Yes NOC OTH Aruba No OEC OTH Australia Yes Yes OEC OTH Austria Yes Yes LIC ECA Azerbaijan No No NOC OTH Bahamas, The Yes No NOC OTH Bahrain Yes Yes LIC SAR Bangladesh Yes No UMC LRC Barbados Yes Yes LMC ECA Belarus No No OEC OTH Belgium Yes Yes LMC LRC Belize Yes Yes LIC AFR Benin Yes No NOC OTH Bermuda No LIC SAR Bhutan Yes No LMC LRC Bolivia Yes Yes LMC ECA Bosnia and Herzegovina Yes Yes UMC AFR Botswana Yes No UMC LRC Brazil Yes Yes NOC OTH Brunei Yes No LMC ECA Bulgaria Yes Yes LIC AFR Burkina Faso Yes No LIC AFR Burundi Yes No LIC EAP Cambodia No No LIC AFR Cameroon Yes No OEC OTH Canada Yes Yes LMC AFR Cape Verde Yes Yes NOC OTH Cayman Islands No LIC AFR Central African Republic Yes Yes LIC AFR Chad Yes No NOC OTH Channel Islands No UMC LRC Chile Yes Yes LMC EAP China No Yes LMC LRC Colombia Yes Yes LIC AFR Comoros No No LIC AFR Congo, Dem. Rep. Yes No LIC AFR Congo, Rep. No No UMC LRC Costa Rica Yes No LIC AFR Cote d'Ivoire Yes Yes UMC ECA Croatia Yes Yes LMC LRC Cuba No Yes NOC OTH Cyprus Yes No UMC ECA Czech Republic Yes Yes OEC OTH Denmark Yes Yes LMC MNA Djibouti No No UMC LRC Dominica No Yes LMC LRC Dominican Republic Yes Yes LMC LRC Ecuador Yes No LMC MNA Egypt, Arab Rep. Yes No LMC LRC El Salvador Yes Yes LIC AFR Equatorial Guinea No Yes LIC AFR Eritrea Yes No UMC ECA Estonia Yes Yes LIC AFR Ethiopia Yes No NOC OTH Faeroe Islands No LMC EAP Fiji No Yes OEC OTH Finland Yes Yes OEC OTH France Yes Yes NOC OTH French Polynesia No UMC AFR Gabon Yes No LIC AFR Gambia, The Yes No LIC ECA Georgia Yes Yes OEC OTH Germany Yes Yes LIC AFR Ghana Yes Yes OEC OTH Greece Yes Yes 22 Table A3: Extent of Reforms in ICT Sector as of 2004 Income Geographic Country Name Have Independent Regulatory Agency? (Yes/ No) Have Private Participation? (Yes/No) Level (1) Region (2) NOC OTH Greenland No UMC LRC Grenada Yes Yes NOC OTH Guam No LMC LRC Guatemala Yes Yes LIC AFR Guinea Yes Yes LIC AFR Guinea-Bissau Yes Yes LMC LRC Guyana Yes Yes LIC LRC Haiti Yes Yes LMC LRC Honduras Yes No NOC OTH Hong Kong, China No UMC ECA Hungary Yes Yes OEC OTH Iceland Yes Yes LIC SAR India Yes Yes LIC EAP Indonesia Yes Yes LMC MNA Iran, Islamic Rep. No Yes LMC MNA Iraq No No OEC OTH Ireland Yes Yes UMC ECA Isle of Man No NOC OTH Israel No Yes OEC OTH Italy Yes Yes LMC LRC Jamaica Yes Yes OEC OTH Japan No Yes LMC MNA Jordan Yes Yes LMC ECA Kazakhstan No Yes LIC AFR Kenya Yes No LMC EAP Kiribati No Yes LIC EAP Korea, Dem. Rep. No OEC OTH Korea, Rep. Yes Yes NOC OTH Kuwait No No LIC ECA Kyrgyz Republic Yes Yes LIC EAP Lao PDR No Yes UMC ECA Latvia Yes Yes UMC MNA Lebanon No No LIC AFR Lesotho Yes Yes LIC AFR Liberia No No UMC MNA Libya No No NOC OTH Liechtenstein Yes No UMC ECA Lithuania Yes Yes OEC OTH Luxembourg Yes Yes NOC OTH Macao, China No LMC ECA Macedonia, FYR No Yes LIC AFR Madagascar Yes Yes LIC AFR Malawi Yes No UMC EAP Malaysia Yes Yes LMC SAR Maldives Yes Yes LIC AFR Mali Yes Yes UMC MNA Malta Yes Yes LMC EAP Marshall Islands No Yes LIC AFR Mauritania Yes Yes UMC AFR Mauritius Yes Yes UMC AFR Mayotte No UMC LRC Mexico Yes Yes LMC EAP Micronesia, Fed. Sts. No No LIC ECA Moldova Yes No NOC OTH Monaco No Yes LIC EAP Mongolia Yes Yes LMC MNA Morocco Yes Yes LIC AFR Mozambique Yes Yes LIC EAP Myanmar No No LMC AFR Namibia Yes No LIC SAR Nepal Yes No OEC OTH Netherlands Yes Yes NOC OTH Netherlands Antilles No NOC OTH New Caledonia No OEC OTH New Zealand No Yes LIC LRC Nicaragua Yes Yes LIC AFR Niger No Yes LIC AFR Nigeria Yes No NOC OTH Northern Mariana Islands No OEC OTH Norway Yes Yes UMC MNA Oman Yes No LIC SAR Pakistan Yes Yes UMC EAP Palau No UMC LRC Panama Yes Yes LIC EAP Papua New Guinea Yes No 23 Table A3: Extent of Reforms in ICT Sector as of 2004 Income Geographic Country Name Have Independent Regulatory Agency? (Yes/ No) Have Private Participation? (Yes/No) Level (1) Region (2) LMC LRC Paraguay Yes No LMC LRC Peru Yes Yes LMC EAP Philippines Yes Yes UMC ECA Poland Yes Yes OEC OTH Portugal Yes Yes UMC LRC Puerto Rico No NOC OTH Qatar No Yes LMC ECA Romania Yes Yes LMC ECA Russian Federation No Yes LIC AFR Rwanda Yes Yes LMC EAP Samoa No No NOC OTH San Marino No Yes LIC AFR Sao Tome and Principe No Yes UMC MNA Saudi Arabia Yes Yes LIC AFR Senegal Yes Yes UMC AFR Seychelles No Yes LIC AFR Sierra Leone No No NOC OTH Singapore Yes Yes UMC ECA Slovak Republic Yes Yes NOC OTH Slovenia Yes Yes LIC EAP Solomon Islands No Yes LIC AFR Somalia No Yes LMC AFR South Africa Yes Yes OEC OTH Spain Yes Yes LMC SAR Sri Lanka Yes Yes UMC LRC St. Kitts and Nevis No UMC LRC St. Lucia Yes Yes LMC LRC St. Vincent and the Grenadines Yes Yes LIC AFR Sudan Yes Yes LMC LRC Suriname Yes No LMC AFR Swaziland No No OEC OTH Sweden Yes Yes OEC OTH Switzerland Yes Yes LMC MNA Syrian Arab Republic No No LIC ECA Tajikistan No Yes LIC AFR Tanzania Yes Yes LMC EAP Thailand Yes LIC AFR Togo Yes No LMC EAP Tonga No No UMC LRC Trinidad and Tobago Yes No LMC MNA Tunisia Yes No LMC ECA Turkey Yes No LMC ECA Turkmenistan No No LIC AFR Uganda Yes Yes LIC ECA Ukraine No No NOC OTH United Arab Emirates No Yes OEC OTH United Kingdom Yes Yes OEC OTH United States Yes Yes UMC LRC Uruguay Yes No LIC ECA Uzbekistan No No LMC EAP Vanuatu No Yes UMC LRC Venezuela, RB Yes Yes LIC EAP Vietnam No No NOC OTH Virgin Islands (U.S.) No LMC MNA West Bank and Gaza No LIC MNA Yemen, Rep. No No Yugoslavia, FR LMC ECA (Serbia/Montenegro) No Yes LIC AFR Zambia Yes No LIC AFR Zimbabwe Yes No 24 Notes to tables: (1) The income level classification was made according to the WDI criteria: * LIC: Low-income economies. Those in which 2001 GNI per capita was $745 or less. * LMC: Lower-middle-income economies. Those in which 2001 GNI per capita was between $745 and $2,975. * UMC: Upper-middle-income economies. Those in which 2001 GNI per capita was between $2,976 and $9,205. * OEC: High-income OECD. OECD countries in which 2001 GNI per capita was $9,206 or more. * NOC: High-income non-OECD. Non-OECD countries in which 2001 GNI per capita was $9,206 or more. (2) Composition of regions based on the World Bank's analytical regions for low and middle-income economies: * EAP: East Asia and Pacific * ECA: Europe and Central Asia * LCR: Latin America and Caribbean * MNA: Middle East and North Africa * SAR: South Asia * AFR: Sub-Saharan Africa High income economies were classified as OTH