Discussion Paper D-73E

ENERGY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES SERIES

The Role of Rural Electrification
in Development

Elizabeth Cecelski with Sandra Glatt

A Discussion Paper from the Center for Energy Policy Research

RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE / WASHINGTON, D.C.

Discussion Paper D-73E
ENERGY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES SERIES

THE ROLE OF RURAL ELECTRIFICATION
IN DEVELOPMENT

Elizabeth Cecelski
with
Sandra Glatt

The Center for Energy Policy Research issues this paper in the Energy in Developing Countries Series. Presentation of this paper does not constitute formal publication, and references to this work should cite it as "unpublished" material.

RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE / WASHINGTON, D.C.
April 1982

Acknowledgement
The research for this study was funded by the Ford Foundation under
Cooperative Agreement No. AID/DSAN-CA-0179 established between Resources
for the Future and the U.S. Agency for International Development, Office of
Energy (Directcr, Alan B. Jacobs), Pamela L. Baldwin is the A.I.D. Project
Officer for this Cooperative Agreement. The research staff at RFF is
headed by William Ramsey, Project Officer and Principal Investigator, and
Joy Dunkerley, Co-Principal Investigator. Manuscript preparation was
coordinated by Marilyn M. Voigt.
The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and should
not be interpreted as representing the views of either A.I.D. or Resources
for the Future.

iii

List of Tables

Page Table 1. Table 2. Extent of Rural Electrification, by Region Lending for Rural Electrification by Come International Aid Organizations Percentage Achieved of Forecast Targets for Rural Electrification in Selected Areas of India Electricity Consumption by Sector in Some Rural Areas Changes in the Sectoral Distribution of Electricity Consumption Over Time in Some Rural Areas Potential Benefits from Rural Electrification Average Annual Electricity Consumption Per Residential Consumer, and Growth Rates, Selected Rural Areas Extent of Rural Electrification by Size of Population Centers, Andhra Pradesh, India, 1975 Distribution of Rural Incomes and Electricity Consumption, Connected Households, El Salvador Table 10. Table 11. Appliance Ownership in Some Rural Areas Changes in Agricultupal Output and Value with Electrification of Tubewells, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh, India Returns Per Acre, Using Electric, Diesel and Both Electric and Diesel as Motive Power for Tubewells, Rural Gujarat, India Additional Income Realized by Pumpset/ Tubewell Users After Electrification, by Size of Holding, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, India 24 27 2 3

Table 3.

6

Table 4.

10

Table 5.

11

Table 6. Table 7.

14 18

Table 8.

20

Table 9.

22

Table 12.

28

Table 13.

30

India 31 32 Table 16. Uses for Electricity in Small Industries. Gujarat. Table 15. 50 53 Table 23. Misamis Oriental Province. India Selected Variable Charges for Electricity Financial Statement. Table 22. Artisan Crafts and Small Industries. 42 Table 19. El Salvador Crude Birth Rates. 60 Table 26. 34 Table 17. 38 Table 18. Selected Areas Comparative Costs of Diesel Engines and Electric Motors for Irrigation. Table 20. El Salvador Share of the Expenditure of Electricity on Total Operating Costs. India 1970-73 Total Cost Comparisons Between Electricity and Its Substitutes. 61 .Iv Table 14. 1971-75 Typical Comparative Costs of Autogeneration and Central Grid. India Number of Industries Before and After ElectriIndian Schemes by Size of Village Case Studies of Comparative Benefits of CentrallyGenerated Electricity and Alternatives for Industry. Table 24. 46 48 Table 21. Chilean Manufacturing Census 1967 Fuel an a Percent 3f Total Production Costs. El Salvador Household Expenditures on Electricity and Substitutes for Lighting. India Labor-Intensivity and Productivity in SmallScale Industries With Different Production Technologies. 55 58 Table 25. Kodinor Rural Electric Cooperative.

irrigation. Because the electrification projects involve high capital actual impact of rural electrification in developing countries needs to be evaluated. productive impacts. including regional and social equity. this kind. autogeneration.I. from connecting to the electrification grid. in the Low rural incomes may prevent rural families The original assumptions of development planners regarding rural electrification may not necessarily be fulfilled. rural industries. and in very general terms the comparative costs of central grid. "The Role of Rural Electrification in Development." a discussion paper. and alternative eneirgy programs.v Introductory Note Rural electrification has been the cornerstone of rural energy programs in developing countries. Cecelski reviews important issues involved in rural electrification. is an analytic review of recent research on rural electrification. and most early policy planners felt that the same or similar benefits could be achieved in developing societies. water. Resources for the Future has made a major commitment to addressing many of the issues presented in this Discussion Paper. One of the major goals of the ARDEN (A. Ms. funded in part by the Rockefeller Foundation. in the final However. Recently questions have been raised regarding whether the benefits of rural electrification for a developed society can be duplicated developing country context. funded by the Agency for International Development under Cooperative Agreement No. Electricity has provided a safe and efficient energy source for residential and public lighting. and costs and benefits of rural electrification in developing nations. refrigeration. rural electrification has been beneficial to developed societies. expenditures.-RFF Development and ENergy) program. pumping drinking others. and many Clearly. indirect benefits. . as is the case with most reviews of questions than chapter the paper raises more answers. AID/DSAN-CA-0179.D. has been to examine the socioeconomic impacts from.

The Colombia study investigates the extent of subsidies involved Discussion Papers reporting on the above papers in rural electrification. and of eliciting comments on our own efforts. one being carried out in India and the other in Colombia. covering over The 1500 surveys households in 180 communities. of stimulating research elsewhere. Costs and some specific economic benefits of rural electrification are examined in other studies in the same two countries. We issue this report on work in progress with the multiple purposes of informing the policy community of the state of knowledge. The purpose of the India study is to determine the corporative subsidy required to extend the central grid to villages with different development profiles. Milton Russell Director Center for Energy Policy Research . Both studies evaluate effects on rural productivity and social equity. will soon be available. and investigate conditions complementary analyses will to be successful based on outcomes recent from field rural electrification.vi Socioeconomic impacts are examined in two major projects. India and Colombia.

not great overall. and In output through irrigation and mechanization. for example. and 4 (World village--rural population in Latin America. with an even larger amount expected to be invested in the next ten years (World Bank. 3). Data from India. so these figures are probably greatly over-estimated. electrification considered important subsidize extensively. indicate that perhaps 10 percent of houses in electrified villages actually have connections. The role of international aid organizations is a key one in this area. local independent grids. the benefits introduction of the central grid. 1975b). "Served" means that the village was connected to a grid. The extent of rural electrification is nonetheless As table 1 illustrates. 1. or a central regional or national grid. small-scale Electricity supplied such autogeneration. dispersed areas Rural electrification can be defined as the provision of electricity Low can demand be and highly to potential through consumers. about 23 percent of the 15 percent in Asia. both because a significant part of the funds being spent on rural electrification are in the form of loans at concesslonal rates from these groups. to the growth of rural industries. participation in rvral electrificatio to areas of Table 2 indicates the magnitude of of the largest concessional lenders. grid In this paper. not that its total population was using electricity. "rural electrification" usually refers to the central because most data on impact are based on changes after the In most cases. . 1975b. p. however. percent in Africa south of the Sahara are served by electricity Bank. and because much of the technical and planning advice on electrification and other energy alternatives in development of rural areas emerges from these lenders as well. The provision of electricity in rural areas is widely believed to be a stimulus raising to the increased living rural agricultural of productivity people.1 Introduction Substantial resources have been devoted to rural electrification in developing countries for both economic and social reasons--an estimated $10 billion by 1971 in the nonCommunist regions. and to standards rural is most developing enough to countries.

Source: World Bank. Population data are from United Nations documents. Saudi Arabia. Generally. . Morocco. Iran. about which there may be considerable variance. Middle East. bThe definitions of "village" and "rural" vary between countries. dAlgeria. villages are conglomerations of 5.2 Table 1. Rural Electrification: D. 17. 1975) p. Extent of Rural Electrification. and North Africa Asia Africa 282 140 (50) 32 23 143 934 182 1. and rurkey.541 87 700 165 1.000 inhabitants or less. A World Bank Paper (Washington.000 to 10..ope. often living in clusters close to large farms.C.092 (61) (75) (91) 71 45 105 7 189 15 15 4 12 Note: Electrification data have been compiled from miscellaneous documents and correspondence with countries. cElectrification data are not available for each country and the percentages should be taken as typical levels for countries in the region. World Bank. Tunisia. aPopulation figures refer to the whole region. Cyprus. except in the case of Eur. by Region Population in (millions Region Total Village b 1971a Village-rural populationbc served in 1971 Millions Percentage Rural b Latin America Selected countries in Europe. Middle East. rural refers to low-density populations outside the villages. Egypt (Arab Republic of). and North Africa (see footnote d). and are not official statistics.

77 b U. and Personal Communication. IDB.555 1.288 582 386 6. Agency for International Development. 1979). IDB Annual Report. Energy Section.233 Ecuador El Salvador Regional Other Total 170 109 394 665 3.S. bExcludes two projects in Asia.. D. 1978. World Bank. two in Latin America. 19 6 1.047 Inter-American Development Bank.S.079 282 1.19 7 8 a IDB loan Argei~tina Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia 219 174 1. . aIncludes total electrification lending. Lending for Rural Electrification by Some International Aid Organizations (U. and ID. Infrastructure Division. & Telecommunications Division. 1961-78 Africa Asia Latin America Near East Central Funds Total 0 278 93 59 405 835 Source: Personal Communication.052 90 415 Total cost of projects 895 206 8.C. Water. for which financial data was unavailable. 1978. A Program to Accelerate Petroleum Production in the Developing Countries (Washingon.560 19. 1976-1978 India Egypt Syria Philippines Thailand 57 48 40 60 25 Total Rural 230 Total Electri­ fication 3. The World Bank Electricity.3 Table 2. and World Bank. $ millions) World Bank. and one centrally funded.

different frameworks of analysis frequently used in evaluating rural electrification projections are reviewed for their usefulness in assessing Then. however. Costs. developing countries with higher per capita incomes typically consume more electricity per capita (Strout. the attention. 1977. areas for future First. . Given the lack of systematic studies on this topic. Given that expenditures on rural electrification represent scarce investment resources that could be fruitfully spent in a number of different ways to meet energy the lack of studies examining the causal relationship between rural electrification and socio-economic development is surprising. in that new electricity-specific services are provided by both autogeneration and the grid. Today. p. so a discAnction is made between autogeneration and central grid in the section on costs and at other points where it is relevant to do so. and the effects of availability. of causation in the direction relationship between electricity and rural economic development has not been well established. Costs of electricity and its most common substitutes--autogeneration in industry. The intent of this paper is to examine in a preliminary way this relationship between rural electrification and economic growth. then. "rural" electrification cannot really be separated from electrification in general. because investments in generation and distribution are also investments in future rural electrification. the to rural electrification than do poorer countries. 1969). would be different. the assumed developmental benefits of rural electrification are compared with evidence from actual projects. any conclusions drawn from previous primary studies focus is are necessarily tentative and limited: instead. and diesel engines in irrigation--are examined. Pricing policies and subsidies are discussed. reliability. The introduction of electricity through the grid to rural areas is also usually preceded by its use in urban areas and large towns. though less so when one considers the difficulty of the task.4 from using electricity would be similar with autogeneration. 14) and also devote more investment resources Nevertheless. kerosine in household lighting. and impacts of electrification on rural econoiic development. on identifying promising or other development needs. the use of electricity has been almost linearly associated with rising incomes and productivity (Guyol. Historically. In one sense.

Sen Lalit. and (4) benefit-cost analysis. 2. some reasonable Presumably the yearly targets are the load forecast upon assumptions about the unsatisfied effective demand for But in many electricity that exists or will exist in the countryside. forecasting. cases targets instead appear to represent the minimum load levels required to make a project financially viable. 1974. and promotion of use. See. pumpset connections sold. the funds spent in the prescribed way. First. Table 3 shows the extent to which targets for village electrification have been achieved in some areas of India: in most cases connections and number of villages electrified have fallen short of expectations. Since these forms of appraisal have largely determined the type of data information which is available about past rural electrification programs. CMA. benefits. especially if targets are set carefully. 1977. a variation In of this theme is number whether targets in the rural electrification scheme have been met: of villages electrified. etc. and production decisions are analyzed. (3) impact analysis. Finally. lenders have commonly asked simply: was the project completed? Were the required number of miles of power lines constructed within the allotted time period. 2 "released. The State-of-the-Art Frameworks for Analysis: Some of the frameworks most commonly used in evaluating the success of rural electrification projects are limited in their usefulness in assessing the impact of rural electrification on economic development." kilowatt hours The use of targets is a good means of checking success in construction. a preliminary assessment about how rural electrifi­ cation programs and research should proceed in the future is suggested on the basis of these findings. and Sen Gupta. four merit consideration here: (1) meeting "targets" or "forecasts". 1974.? national rural electrification projects. for example.5 price of electricity on use. (2) financial viability. .

. 4-5 and Perspective Plan for Rural Electrification in the Telangana Region of Andhra Pradesh (1975-76 to 198889) (New-Delh-- NCAER. Cost Benefit Study of Electrification Schemes in Madhya Pradesh Selected Rural and Tittar Pradesh (New Delhi. Gupta and P. K. 1976) p. Impact of Electrification on Rural Industrial Development: A Study in Kurnool District. Gunvant M. October 1974). Andhra Pradesh (Yousufguda. Center for Management in Agriculture. I Kodinar Rural Electricity Cooperative Ltd. NCAER.2 Andhra Pradesh Kurnool 54 30 16 - Telangana 97 37 22 15 54 Una 85 18 37 38 2 Gujarat BayadModasa Kodinar 65 13 56 42 38 42 20 58 68 - Sources: National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER).. Percentage Achieved of Forecast Targets for Rural Electrification in Selected Areas of India (% of forecast targets) Madhya Pradesh Pench Villages electrified Pumpset connections Rural industries Domestic/Commercial Street lights 86 63 387 81 174 Depalpur 203 14 92 19 163 Uttar Pradesh Modinagar 91 127 28 9 15 Chandauli 29 44 15 0. II Una Scheme. Vol. Small Industry ExtensionTraining Institute (SIETI). Hyderabad. Elecri fication in Rural Gujarat: Vol. 108. Desai. III Bayad-Modasa (Ahmedabad. V. 444-445. May 1978) pp.4 0. Sambrani. Vol.Table 3. M. Shingi. SIETI. Shreekaut. 1977) pp.

1977. roads. however. See. Davis. Few developing country utilities appear isolated from political considerations. 1974.s for these purposes is in terms of its success of a rural electrification projet Since social benefits and costs are excluded from approach is still on insufficient: the part but financial does viability indicating willingness-to-pay of consumers provide a direct if imperfect measure of jome benefits from the project and a presumption of a positive economic rate of return. respectively. from just listing potential benefits that might result from el'-ctrification. 1973. and finally to attempting tu establish an actual causal linkage between electrification and certain results. for example. and that the power sector be insulated from political pressures in other parts of the government. for.. The use of financial viability or completion of agreed construction as criteria for success is an understandable approach on the part of lenders. indeed. A project lacking financial viability may still have a positive economic rate of return.7 A second and somewhat more useful approach rating the financial viability. authors have argued that internat . . 1978. NRECA.al lenders should accept this political aspect of rural electrification programs and determine how best to achieve efficiency goals in the power sector within this framework (Tendler. and NCAER. and telecommunications is different from that of most other projects in that the outputs of infrastructure 3. McCawley. if rural electrification is to be an effective for part of a development program. however. who will oe concerned that they be re aid in a timely fashion. A third way of evaluating rural electrification projects is to ascertain its impact on users: what changed after electrification? This approach can assume various levels of sophistication. 1979). See. thi. example. 4. the goals of politics are probably Some important determining electrification policy. to quantifying concrete changes in output pre.and post-electrification. 3 the calculations. 4 The evaluation of impacts of infrastructure projects such as electrification. NRECA. since uncounted social benefits will almost always outweigh the uncounted social costs. 1978.

such as cost savings over alternative fuels. and net benefits of rural electrification projects calculated and compared with the net benefits of other uses for capital. A fourth approach to evaluating these effects is benefit-cost analysis. as discussed above.8 projects are often difficult to define and measure. This review will adopt benefit-cost framework as a point of view for examining rural electrification. many effects will only become evident years after the project has been completed. are relatively easy to attribute to electrification. are not. . while satisfactory in many respects--if these measurement problems can be solved--still only takes into considera­ tion the benefits while ignoring the costs of rural electrification. Thus. It is thus perhaps surprising. Another situation in difficulties problem is order to normally the need to know both the "before" measure associated impacts with accurately. such as changes in productivity. at first glance. One obvious reason for this neglect is the difficulty of determining and measuring impacts and linkages. consumer surveys in and "after" all the developing Besides countries and among the poor. This is particularly true in attempting to analyze the impact of rural electrification on economic development. and indirect benefits such as environmental improvement are even more difficult to assign. Benefit-cost analysis seems the most appropriate framework of the four described above to use for getting at the role of rural electrification in development. others. This framework will be an exceedingly broad one. while those carried out afterwards must rely upon the memory of users as to energy consumption and prices. including both direct and indirect effects--at least in theory. since the primary interest output--electricity--out the more indirect here is not the direct in production and changes lifestyles whicn result from its use. Furthermore. Since investment resources in developing countries are scarce and have many competing uses. impact analysis. surveys made prior to electrification can only ask for approximations of intended use. that this approach has been so rarely used in the evaluation of rural electrification programs. while some direct effects. ideally all social costs and benefits should be valued in money terms. Then too.

150). of course. Benefits from Electrification Sectoral Consumption Before examining benefits from rural electrification in detail. both in the aggregate and consumed in rural per consumer. where agricultural or industrial uses predominate and consume most of the total in some rural areas. this sectoral distribution appears to have been a result of policy: in the Philippines. 25-26). For example. it should be realized that the quantities of electricity areas tend to be very small. the distribution of these uses appears to change little over time in most cases (see table 5) although the establishment of industry uith a large load (many industries have higher consumption levels than an entire village of residential consumers) can make a big difference in a short period. irrigation has been put at the forefront of electrification. it is useful to get an overall impression of how electricity consumption is distributed among sectors of the economy and the quantities that are consumed. these areas. as compared to urban areas--less than one fourth of urban levels. according to World Bank figures (World Bank. the share of the large commercial and industrial sector rose from 3 percent to 23 percent of total But in the other areas consumption in only three years (see table 5). In the Philippines. however. . It is not clear the extent to which this distribution reflects the desire for electricity in In some cases.9 Usually. 1976. the data from past rural electrification projects will only support a qualitative or anecdotal valuation of impacts. residential-commercial share being quite high--about 25 to 60 percent in the surveyed areas of most countries--with the notable exceptions of India and parts of Nicaragua. 1975b. First. pp. 90 percent of connected rural households in a surveyed area of the Philippines where rural electrification is considered highly successful used less than 35 kilowatt-hours of electricity a month--about enough to use two 100-watt light bulbs for four hours a day (USAID. electricity the weight of different sectors in total 4 rural shows area the Table consumption varies enormously. for example. or different types of agriculture. a promotional campaign has emphasized households. Second. p. Interestingly. and in India. and the structure of the costs is also usually not transparent.

Usages. Johns Hopkins University Press for the World Bank. Center for Management in Agriculture. iSmall business 16. Kodinar Rural Vol. Cost Benefit Study of Selected Rural Electrifiation Uttar Pradesh (New Delhi. a Includs street lights. Electrification: Case Studies of Pilot Proects in Latin America (New York. III Bayd-Modasa (Ahmedabad. dSmall business and industry. James E. gProblacions 21.S. National Council of Applied Economic Research. Inc. and Moon. World Bank.S. Center for Latin American Development (Center for Tropi- Studies. medium 3. 1976). Gainesville. Davis..5. (1971) Una. Study in Suryapet Taluk N A Case olonda Dstrict Andhra Pradesh (Hyderabad. 'Al.(4) 67 60 62 63 26 77 93 86 __ 3 30 25 67 Othera 3 4 8 11 20 2 1 1 5 28 11 11 11 3 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 3 Sources: Ross. 1972). An Evaluation of the Pro ram Performance of the International Program Dlvislon of theational Rural Electric Association (RRECJ). II Una Scheme. Large business and mining. . 1974). Anderson. Desal. Electricity Economics: Essays USAID. Michael. World Bank. Moses.P. report to U. A. PEA (1972) 30 36 30 26 21 6 13 18 69 59 6f 30 Commercial (2) 22 24 -AM 6d 6 12 1 13 18 -29 21 16 31 Industrial (3) 45 34 2 e 55 18e 17 7 23 3 3 -- 23h Irrigation (4) -2 6o 4 2 8 88 79 54 -1 2 -- All Productive Uses (2)+(3). Ross. Agency for International cal Agriculture. Vol. Gilbert and Kational Rural October Elactric Cooperative Association (NRECA). report to U.P. eLarge business and industry. A Case Study in El Salvador. I.. U. general business 12. Report on Rural Eletrfication Costs Benefits. Shreekaut. 1974)" K. Electricity Consumption by Sector in Some Rural Areas (% of kWh consumed) Residential (1) Costa Rica (1973) El Salvador (1972) Nicaragua (1976) COERAN CODERSE CAEER Telangana.C. Gupta and P. D. rural 23. An Evaluation Study of the Misamis Oriental Electric Service Cooperative (Manila. Elentrification Electricity Cooperative Ltd in Rural Guiarat Vol. M.S. LV 14 and HV motive power 20. D. 1974). NRECA. D. Developing Alternatives. Gujarat (1973) Indonesia (1974-75) Philippines (1975-76) Caaarlnes Sur I Albay Coop. Gujarat (1973) Bayad-Modasa. barrios 32. Gunvant M. P. water pumps and systems. Shingi.C.3. 1977). Res.n in Indonesia--Is 5 (Washington. it Time?* Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies (1979).. Benefits of Rural Electrification: Florida. James E.5. Misra. and own use by plant. J. University of Florida.0. AID Cooperatve (Washington.. "Rural Electrificati. Galen C. John Saunders. rProblaoions 31. Sent Schemes in Madhy Pradesh and Lalit K. 1973). V. January 28.C. Misamis Oriental Thailand. 1977). bPercent connected load. and GiriLh K. 1977). Agency for International Development (USAID). NCAER. Costs McCawley. Regional Planning for Rural Electrification. Ralph and Dennis mud Case Studies (Baltimore. medium business 6.. Turvey. Issues and Developments in Five Countries (Washington. 1975). and Peter. Rural Electrification: on Economic and Social Changes in Costa Rica An Evaluation of Effects and Colombia. government offices. Community Development. U.Table 4. (1975s76) Suryapet. National Institute of Sambrani. hsmall 18. A. Cooperative Rural Praeger. public buildings.

. Gujarat. A. India Residentialb Industrial Irrigation 16 7 77 100 14 13 73 100 13 7 79 100 20 15 16 44 4 100 20 14 16 47 3 100 19 13 16 49 3 100 19 12 16 51 2 100 21 12 17 48 2 100 .11 Table 5. India Residential Commercial Industrial Irrigation Other Una. Changes in the Sectoral Distribution of Electricity Consumption Over Time in Some Rural Areas (% of total kWh) Year la 2 3 4 5 6 El Salvador Domestic General Motive Power Ir-igation Public Lighting 40 27 23 2 8 100 36 24 34 2 4 Thailand Households Business Small General Medium Large Mining Irrigation Waterworks 35 13 17 2 10 20 2 100 30 16 12 6 30 3 2 100 Philippines (Misamis) Residential poblacions rural Public buildings Commercial small large & Industrial Irrigation Water System Public Lighting 26 27 7 26 3 1 10 100 22 24 4 22 13 2 3 10 100 23 24 4 21 15 2 3 8 100 21 23 4 16 23 2 5 6 100 Telangana.P.

NCAER. Regional Planning for Rural Electrification. . year one is the first year after electrification. 1973). January 28. An Evaluative Study of the Misamis Oriental Electric Service Cooperative (Manila. National Institute of Community Development.C. Andhra Pradesh (Hyderabad. Rural Electrification.. Usages. report to U. bIncludes commercial. Florida. DevelopinS Alternatives. October 1974). Electricity Economics: Essays and Case Studies (Baltimore. USAID. Gainesville. Agency for International Development (Washington. Kodinar Rural Electricity Cooperative Ltd. III Bayad-Modasa (Amhedabad.C. V.U. Ross. World Bank. 1972). 1975).S. Moses. J. McCawley. Shingi. Gilbert and National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA). and Moon. John Saunders. An Evaluation of the Program Performance of the Inter­ national Program Division of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA). 1977). James E. 1974). Gujaratp India Residentialb Industrial Irrigation Other 12 81 4 3 100 21 54 21 4 100 24 25 46 5 100 18 23 54 5 100 Sources: Ross.S. 5 (Washington. D. D. University of Florida. Davis. Benefits. Ralph and Dennis Anderson. II Una Scheme. Electrification in Rural Gujarat: Vol. Johns Hopkins University Press for the World Bank. 1976). "Rural Electrifi­ cation in Indonesia--Is it Time?" Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies (1979). Issues and Developments in Five Countries (Washington. 1977). Report on Rural Electrification Costs. Turvey. May 1978). aln most but not all cases. M. Inc. Shreekaut Gunvant M. Desai. Galen C. Praeger. Center for Latin American Studies. Res.S. National Council of Applied Economic Research. NRECA. Misra. and Girish K.. Peter. Vol. U. World Bank.. Center for Management in Agriculture.. K. Perspective Plan for Rural Electrification in the Telangana Region of Andhra Pradesh (1975-76 to 1988-89) (New Delhi. An Evaluation of Effects on Economic and Social Changes in Costa Rica and Colombia. Cooperative Rural Electrification: Case Studies of Pilot Projects in Latin America (New York. Agency for International Development (Center for Tropical Agriculture. A Case Study in Suryapet Taluk. report to U. Gupta and P. Michael. I.C. 1974). Nalgonda District. Sambrani. Costs and Benefits of Rural Electrification: A Case Study in El Salvador.. D. P.12 Table 5 continued Bayad-Modasa. Sen Lalit K. James E. Agency for International Development "USAID). DAI. Vol.

will be considered. a quantitative way. Second. and modernization. p. Another related problem is that detailed over long periods of time would be needed to capture all benefits. 1977." (DAI. in at least a qualitative and whenever possible. higher services are achieved. both direct benefits to households. environmental improvements. the fewer benefits can be attributed to rural electrification. and Here. and industry. studies and effects become more difficult to assign to causes as time passes. employment. Developmental benefits often cited as potentially or possibly due to rural electrification are numerous. without explicitly considering costs. as discussed above. it is simpler first to view gross benefits assumed to result from rural electrification. electricity may allow the performance of entirely new tasks. agriculture. 6. foreign exchange savings.13 surveyed here. indirect benefits in terms of social and public uses. same energy services. 84). the availability of cheaper energy or this ability to perform essentially new tasks can result in more energy . This myriad of benefits have rarely been tested and quantitative evidence of their importance or however. Benefits of net benefits in While ultimately desirable to arrive at a measure terms of economic development due to electrification. Where television new or and improved quality lighting become electrification. One review has gone so far as to conclude that "the more objective the study and the more thorough the data collection and analysis techniques. A difficulty here is that some of the most important assumed benefits are the hardest to measure. electricity may cost less than alternatives providing the sorts. political stability. direct benefits to users of electric power are of three First. as can be seen from table empirically. Direct Benefits In theory. sectoral shares of consumption of electricity have generally remained relatively stable. or may perform the same tasks so much more efficiently than other energy sources that they are actually qualitatively available new with tasks. and compare these assumed benefits with evidence from projects. In addition. electric pumps may be cheaper than diesel. demographic changes. indeed their existence is difficult to find.

11. etc. 9. 10. Potential Benefits From Rural Electrification Few would disagree that one of the most significant differences between the developing nations of the world and those in which people e±'joy healthy. 3.S. Automated poultry processing/breeding systems. productive lives is the establishment and widespread use of effective electric power systems. Irrigation systems utilizing electric system equipment. . 4. Fish farms in areas where pumps required. The following list of 50 indicators of social and economic benefits demonstrates that rural electrification.. Department of State and to other international agencies and institutions involved with the planning and development of feasible rural electric distribution systems in countries throughout the world. can introduce immediate and tangible benefits to the rural population. Working through his Cooperative provides farmer with some degree of leverage in the marketplace. especially for women. IPD assistance has been utilized in 33 countries to establish or improve rural electrification programs. tube wells. and over four million people are now benefiting from this assistance. processing. Agriculture employment opportunities generated. 2. 1. Electrically powered grain drying. Refrigeration of perishable farm agricultural products and utilization of milk coolers. as part of a rural development program. Electrically powered handicraft industries allowing for varied and increased production. Since 1961 NRECA's International Programs Division hap provided management consulting services and technical assistance to the Agency for International Development of the U. 5. Property formulated livestock and poultry feeds prepared in small mills. (Due to electricity. Employment opportunities. (Cottage or home produced items can be made during off peak seasons of agricultural cycles). especially the rural poor. women with reduced homemaking chores are able to earn much needed extra income either on full-time or part-time basis). in commercial nonagricultural industries. Conservation of export quality timber (electricity replaces wood for cooking and heating). storage systems and fumigation.14 Table 6. 8. allowing for multiple cropping. 6. 7.

15 12. Allows for home economics training for women utilizing sewing machines and home appliances. Home refrigeration prevents spoilage of perishale foods adn reduces health hazards. 30. 29. Electric pumps provide potable water. 14. Increased security due to night lighting. 20. Students academically improve. Decrease in spoilage of perishables. meters and transformers for electric distribution systems. Crime rate decreases. Refrigeration of medical supplies by clinics and hospitals. Limited school facilities utilized for night classes. insulators. Teachers more productive and better prepared dua to home lighting. contractors. 16. Wider use of audio visual equipment and materials in schools and adult education programs. Lighted outdoor athletic facilities such as basketball courts allows for community recreation. (Too hot in tropical countries to participate during daytime. which allows for daughters to be freer to attend school. Restaurants utilizing electrical appliances and refrigeration reduce health hazards. Use of sterilizers and electrical detection equipment in rural clinics. National Electrification Administration. hardware. 21. cross arms.) 22. 13. Home electrical appliances allow for sanitary preparation of food and water. 31. Women's routine home chores eased. . 32. 24. Employment opportunities created by Cooperatives. Lighted homes provide social benefiti. Development of industries supplying poles. 18. Community facilities such as libraries opened in evenings. 25. 26. 27. 17. 28. Development of small industries to meet created demand for simple electric appliances. 15. 19. Correlation of home lighting and decrease in population growth rate. Market/stores utilizing refrigeration. especially in tropical areas. Homework better prepared. auditing and accounting firms. 23. Reliable source of power for hospitals and operating rooms.

Improved and increased craft production in addition to economic benefits. Cooperatives provide outlet for community and national participation by rural population. (A central generator is a much more efficient method for supplying energy. Keeps the economic proceeds of a region invested locally. Rural population participating in a "self-problem solving" climate rather than a "depending on the government" climate. 35.) Source: National Rural Electric Cooperative (NRECA) "Social and Economic Benefits of Rural Electrification Cooperatives" (Washington.. to communicate with its citizens. New home construction and improvement results from electrification. . 42. Leveling of ethnic differences. 1978). enhances the cultural and aesthetic values that craftsmen and crafts tradition mean to a nation (national pride). 40. Stems rural migration to rities and improves rural-urban balance. 38. hot plates.16 33. 39. D. 45. situation improves. Decentralizes economic activity. 34. 36. Government able 50. 41. 48. Accelerates the monetization of the rural society.C. Reduced socioeconomic imbalance in the population. 47. Reduced foreign exchange expenditures for kerosine and oil used for lighting. Expanded communications system to entire population. cooking and heating. 44. 46. rather than each household purchasing fuel. 37. organization and facilities utilized for members' services (Better Family Living) such as family planning. crafts. entertainment and leisure. Provides experience in management and democratic decision-making. 43. Improved citizens-government relationship. 49. simple washing machines reduce work burden for women. Appliances4 such as irons. Increased rural economic activity absorbs expanding rural labor force. Utilization of radio and television for education. home economics. Increased net tax revenues to government. Change in social well being. Cooperative institution. Index of satisfaction with one's current New confidence.

etc. but rates of growth can be hign.S. these have been treated in the following section on indirect benefits. availability of credit for necessary electricity using devices. (3) the have rather small higher percentages incomes of than households connected relatively unelectrified households. for example. however. (2) more advanced and larger areas tend to be more electrified than smaller and more that backward are ones. some of the benefits may be direct and others indirect. Households. the demand for lighting could result from demands for education. electricity. Benefits from electrification may be reaped by (1) households. the demand for electricity for pumps is a result of the demand for irrigation. While average consumption per household are very low. (2) With respect to social and public uses of farms. and (4) appliance ownership is the single most important determinant of electricity consumption and its growth. for convenience. the benefits obtainable from electrification will depend equally upon complementary investment devisions and inputs. government information services. . adding value in other areas--more irrigation resulting in more agricultural output. Growth in consumption also appears to proceed quite rapidly in many cases. Thus. necessitating reading at night. schools and other infrastructure. 1975). table 7. from a very low number of kilowatt-hours a month in the Philippines. or neuz processes being used in rural industry (Selowsky. and (3) industry.17 being used and in new production being undertaken. rates of growth can be high. and so on. rural levels in Costa Rica. the existence of transport. to greater than early U. average consumption per household is very low. benefits to Thus the extent of use is an important measure of direct The data support four generalizations: (1) households. the demand for electricity for motive power in small industries derives from demand for their products. which shows average annual consumption This is clear from of electricity by residential consumers is low but varies greatly. Direct benefits to households are presumably present if consumers choose to use electricity--since a household would not allocate funds to purchase electricity unless it provided a lower cost or higher quality services. with annual growth rates of over 50 percent at times. It is important to keep in mind. Average consumption per household. that tho demand for electricity is a derived demand.

D.6 7 )a Philippines (1972-75) poblacion rural United States (1 9 4 1 )b 607 414 419 kWh 630 370 463 2 Change 4% -11% 11% kWh 697 400 1086 3 Change 11% 8% 134% kWh 717 411 602 4 Change 3% 3% -45% kWh -- 5 Change -- 429 940 4% 56% 29 23 600 28 20 -4% -13% 36 22 29% 10% 40 24 11% 9% -- -­ Sources: U. 12 and p. Selected Rural Areas 1 kWh Costa Rica (1970-1973) Nicaragia (1968-73) El Salvador (1 9 6 3 . D. p.. GPO. An Evaluative Study of the Misamis Oriental Electric Service Cooperative (Manila. Usages.C. World Bank. Benefits. Moon. USAID. D. p.S. Res. Costs and Benefits of Rural Electrification: A Case Study in El Salvador. Issues and Developments in Five Countries (Washington. U. Gilbert and National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA).C. Department of Agriculture Rural Electrification 1972 Rural Lines: The Story of Cooperative Rural Electrification (Washington. Average Annual Electricity Consumption Per Residential Consumer. bIncludes farms. 1972). S. 1974. aAll users. and U. 1976. 158 of 198 Annex L). . World Bank. 46). P. Report on Rural Electrification Costs..Table 7. Agency for International Development (USAID). 5 (Washington. and Growth Rates. NRECA. 1975).C.

19). receiving electricity.10 percent (Sen Lalit.5 percent percent (Ramsay. p. where electrification investment has been widely rather than deeply. smaller ones. Sen Lalit. p. economically this undoubtedly makes sense. 1974. 167. 1974. p. of all In a surveyed rural area of the Philippines. than fewer of rural households with access to electricity had connected (DAI. p.19 Distribution of Benefits: Size of Population Centers. 29). B-16). p. 112). p. 1977. 57). Sen Lalit. (ORG. 107. 1976. Punjab is claimed only 30 as a completely of its electrified population state for example. 109. 1978. not that connections have actually been made. . for example. an informal survey revealed electricity--in desired) that (NEA. 1974. Sen Gupta. 1976). 1977. These spread figures for India. p. p. Other studies not surprisingly. Selowsky. There is of course. electrification. 28 to 34 percent households were electrified (though 54 to 74 percent had access to other 1978. an average of only electrified villages use electricity. half words. 20). are probably lower than for some other countries. is there necessarily anything wrong with only some households who desire it particularly if this contributes to building up an 5. The average NCAER. than areas. to be more electrified as well (see. nothing wrong in itself with only larger villages Nor being electrified--in fact. in Karnataka the figure is 8 . size table in 8 shows the percent of electrified localities by population one of the most advanced Indian states in rural larger population centers are more electrified have shown larger and more advanced Andhra Pradesh. of the 1979. but actually has access to reportedly electricity 3. In Nicaragua. clearly. It is worth noting here that "electrified" in Indian parlance means that a distribution transformer has been provided to supply power for low tension lines. houses in In rural Suryapet. could have received a connection had they so p. 5 number of connections in some "electrified" Indian villages has been reported as low as 10 or 12 (SIETI. 1977. 84. More advanced and larger areas tend to be more electrified than smaller and more backward ones. p.

9 31. 1976.6 55. . 1975 Size of Population Center (1971 Census) Total Number of Villages Percent of total Electrified 0-499 500-999 1000-1999 2000-4999 9733 5438 6421 4832 7.20 Table 8. Impact of Electrification on Rural Industrial Development: A Study in Kurnool District.0 Source: SIETI. Andhra Pradesh. Hyderabad.1 100. 107).1 76. Andhra Pradesh (Yousufguda. Extent of Rural Eleotrifioation by Size of Population Centers. SIETI. p.2 5000-9999 More than 10000 725 89 89. India.

in Costa Rica and Colombia. showed income that families began to consume electricity at very low levels of (World Bank. 74). and (b) if household use is subsidized. users were found to educated electrified and have higher had incomes an than nonusers. with household use merely adjunct. of nonusers at 1977. Evidence is strong that electricity is not widely to the poor. where income levels are fairly high. as is common in most ostensibly to make electricity accessible to the developing countries. and in El family income of 4869 Salvador. 1975a. 1975.21 off-peak becomes are load less in a project designed primarily for productive uses. poor. correlation between family income and levels of electricity use. with use increasing from 90 kWh annually for the lowest income groups to over 1000 kWh for the highest. better showed the mecian income of users at about $100. 73). Use available groups by the P ir. 1976. it is strongly felt and observed by many rural electrification practitioners that the rural poor do value electricity and are willing to spend as much as 20 percent of their income on it. 1977. The El Salvador study Still. A-33-34). the recent emphasis has been on paying for a project economically through irrigation uses. it has also been pointed out that electricity rates in this area are the second lowest in the Philippines due to cheap hydroelectric power (DAI. The Misamis Oriental Survey in the 7 Philippines gave similar results (USAID. for example. is much less available to lower income to higher income ones. 6 It however (a) if productive uses for electricity justifiable. pp. versus 1102 colones ($441) for nonelectrified households Table 9 shows generally a very strong (World Bank. Another exception in usage by the poor probably be has made been areas such as the Philippines. p. p. may Use by the poor in Latin America. or at least. P. In India. but in practice aiding higher income households. . households average colones ($2. also be different in Asia.958). In Nicaragua. however. 7. an informal survey of than households $57 be (DAI. The sampling techniques in this survey have come under attack. where rural heavily promoted by the government and by the for should electrification 6. 26-27). B-27). ignored. pp.

Distribution of Rural Incomes and Electricity Consumption. Connected Households. C. 1975). D. U. World Bank. 5 (Washington. . Res. Costs and Benefits of Rural Electrification: A Case Study in El Salvador. P. El Salvador (Salvadorian colones) Average Family Income Range Less than 600 600-1200 1201-1800 1801-2400 2401-3000 kWh Per family Per Year 90 100 166 403 254 3001-3600 3601-4200 4201-4800 4801-5400 5401-6000 6001-9000 More than 9000 499 627 590 1225 444 1375 1105 Source: World Bank.22 Table 9..

" . Ironing and fans in some climates appear to be the most popular with radios and TV washing following. here may that not be one possible advantage of appliaace of great importance in developing opportunities tasks are limited (though ownership. 1978. uses. personally. household in the saving where the if alternative drudgery a of employment many household of may still be a benefit). record players and even electric stoves are purchased. and sewing machines.) States Finally. NEA. with lighting probably being be the most important single use of electricity. refrigerators. what Even in cases where lower income groups do have is it used for? of Appliance ownership is the consumption and its connections.23 president provided. to India low appliance ownership generally. is used. 39. it own them. At higher income levels. in surprisingly the appliance ownership in some backward areas. The Ownership. saving However. but Second. first important household use of electricity at all income levels p. 23. It should noted labor. is for lighting (NCAER. 1973. Table households the results 10 in gives rural for high some areas. used by low "appliances. shortly as in it after is of the Philippines than in noncooperative that appliance usage in the United interest rural electrification was also of the same order of magnitude developing countries today. to include broader definition appliances water pumps and cornmills. areas. other productive uses of electricity One observer describes how these electrical income families in the Mexican PIDER rural home become possible. p. blenders. point data on appliance ownership by connected First. most and important family and most determinant electricity income correlates strongly with appliance ownership. p. 1977. 14). areas of (This is clear that more people use appliances--in particular television sets and refrigerators--than effect is somewhat stronger incouperative-electrified areas. Philippines (and probably elsewhera if there were data available). Davis. and where liberal credit for connections has been Appliance electric single growth. Several points are of interest here.

John Saunders. Colombia San Carlos.6 10.tribal) 86. 5 (Waahi:iion. University of Florida. P.7 18. Res.7 22. ORG. Lalit K. NEA. A Case Study in Survapet Taluk.9 96.2 15. Rural Electrification Administration. . Nalgonda District Andhra Pradesh (Hyderabad.. C.Table 10.5 58 Radio 41.6 24. D. Galen C. 1975). Report to U.7 4 4.4 23 TV 12.0 30. Moses. Sen and Girish K.S. Consumer Response to Rural Electrification (Baroda. Florida. Nationwide Survey of Socio-Economic Impact of Rural Electrification (Philippines. Center for Latin American Studies.8 11. U. Regional Planning for Rural Electrification.6 - 6. Costa Rica El Salvador India (some areas) OA (ordinary advanced) OB (ordinary backward) SU 1 (special under­ developed ­ hilly) SU 2 (special under­ developed . James E.7 - Philippines Cooperatives Owners Users Non-cooperatives Owners 47 53 70 43 50 50 32 59 48 27 33 40 24 31 34 6 7 10 Users Rural United States. An Evaluation of Effects on Economic and Social Chanqes in Costa Rica and Colombia.6 27. Department of Agriculture.0 13. 1972). Misra.S.1 27. Appliance Ownership In Some Rural Areas (% of electricity consumers owning) Electric Iron Tisma.6 39 Fan - Refrigerator 12.8 3. D.3 12. GPO.3 -- 72 - 42 - 38 20 11 - Sources: J. Operations Research Group. 1973). Gainesville.5 30 Stove 8. Costs and Benefits of Rural Electrification: A Case Study in El Salvador. Agency for International Development (Center for Tropical Agriculture. 1930s 72 -- 52 84. U. C. World Bank.9 7. October. Rural Lines: The Story of Cooperative Rural Electrification (Washington. 1977). 1974).. National Institute of Community Development. June 1978). Rural Electrification. Michael Davis. Ross. National Electrification Administration.4 3.

Agriculture. This is also a reason for the extreme underutilization of pumpset motors. electricity equipment threshers. There is evidence that the benefits of electricity for those uses can be quite substantial (see table 16 below) but they require may that a be can reliable used remove to and power continuous seasonally supply needed source. in agriculture privately examines sector. First.25 development water and project. interest of the Indians in irrigation is understandable: 54 percent of total variance in agricultural production for India as a whole is 8. it may be used on a day to day basis by large commercial agricultural enterprises. and benefits of electrification in the agricultural Electricity can be used on the farm in three main ways. in heating and lighting for hatcheries and poultry farms. such as hullers. . In India. permitting the irrigation and gardens and resulting in greatly improved nutrition personal communication. where the households to irrigation The shifted from interest of increasing agricultural productivity. industry. 8 Third. millers. analysis The the most in in here interesting electrification the will country has in this respect is India. The emphasis tubewells. which could potentially be used for these purposes as well. cultivation among families (Auguste Schumacher. Electricity Board rules do not permit these "non­ agricultural" uses on an agricultural irrigation connection because tariffs are lower for irrigation than for agro-processing. and crushers. electricity can be used for irrigation: this section concentrates on this most important use. grinding of home have saved several hours of work a day in lifting corn for household use. Though household benefits of electrification may be of some importance. in agro-processing labor bottlenecks at harvest time. June 1979). and milking machines and cooling for dairy farms. These uses will be dealt with the following section. the more significant potential for economic development through rural electrification and through the use lies in its use in productive enterprises. Second. Electricity for these uses can be generated This section autogeneration or publicly from the grid. lean heavily on the Indian situation for this reason.

can be accomplished quite effectively using diesel irrigation cannot therefore be attributed to Since both diesel and electric power can lift motors. table 4). The in returns from any sort of tubewell irrigation are apparently quite good these schemes. Pattikonda Taluk. what produces most of the benefits here. the share in total consumption in the Indian projects is much greater irrigation that of any other country. 109). An increase in value of come from (a) an increase in irrigated area. use of both diesel and electric In this case. Lift irrigation most benefits per is se. 271. example. Some for India output are can given in table 11.26 explained Gujarat by and irrigation. primarily due to the switch from lower value grains such as korra. although the average for all India is 12. . resulted in in a Rs. vegetables. In two of the three. Diesel and electric pumps can also be compared in terms of their effects on output. 1977. is of interest. it is that the electrification of tubewells has not taken place on a scale as wide as was originally hoped for.) 39 percent (Haryana). with the of output often increasing severalfold in a short period. to paddy. and other higher value cash crops.000 increase in the value of agricultural output in that Taluk. The change in output and cropping patterns in newly irrigated areas due to electrification is even more striking. however. Agricultural a percentage of total electricity consumption in states of (including metropolitan areas) has been as high as 29 percent (Tamil t. from electrification water. a 20 For percent increase in irrigated area irrigation. p.6 (Sen Gupta. table 12 illustrates one such comparison with inconclusive results. groundnut. the availability of pumps had the best returns per acre. The value results impact of irrigation on a suitable area can be dramatic. and baJra. 1978. Rajasthan as are and that variance increases to 70 percent if consumption India Nadu) percent of than clear excluded (NCAER. (b) able to grow another crop or even two agricultural greater during cropping the intensity--being dry season or (c) a change to higher value crops which require This last appears important in the Indian areas surveyed. jowra. a comparison of examined in the section on costs below. looking again at table 2. relative which costs. Referring back to table 4.

. Hyderabad. to the increase in agricultural production in new well areas. of Electrification on Rural Industrial Development: A (Yousufguda.. % change crop output 150 (-)100 change in value of output 5 (-)2 % change crop outputs new .. India (% change and Rs. Impact 1978. obtained by applying a factor for each crop.75 125 364 Source: Small Industry Extension Training Institute (SIETI). thousands) Electrified "Old Wells" Pattikonda Taluk Dhone Taluk Pattikonda Taluk New Wells Dhone Taluke % change irrigated area Paddy Korra Jowar Hybrid Joward Bajra Wheat Groundnut Chillies Vegetables Tomatoes Onions Cotton Subtotal: Increases in crop value Subtotal: Decreases in crop value Net Total 20 - % change crop output 173 (-)94 (-)100 change in value of output 81 (-)1 (-)18 % change irrigated area 60 (-)100 .-- change in value of output 23 % change crop output& new (-)95 change in value of oJtput 278 (-)36 (-)18 11 - 63 (-)100 (-)100 . Andhra Pradesh. study in Kurnool District..... (-)100 hev 288 new new new 22 36 7 9 201 new new new new - (-)5 (-)97 ....75 12 19 2 4 2 -- (-)3 6 88 88 15 7 8 ....SIETI.. Kurnool District.. A1 .75 -22 -271 248 - -2 77 -6 56...a1 where A1 new area irrigated and a1 = old area irrigated a1 for old wells.. Changes in Agricultural Output and Value with Electrification of Tubewells.. (-)100 new 76 348 71 63 116 -- new (-)1 . Andhra Pradesh aThis is the amount of the change in agricultural production that can be attributed soley to electrification...Table 11...-- (-)55 new new new new new (-)71 155 22 8 12 3 489 293 79 62. .. 288 new new new ... (-)100 new 43 78 42 39 54 -- (-)100 ...

116. and Both Electric and Diesel as Motive Power for Tubewells. Gunvant M. K. Returns Per Acre.103 300 713 3.59 Source: Shreekaut Sambrani. October 1974) pp.22 1. Center for Management in Agriculture. . III Bayad-112dasa (Amhedabad. 66. India (Rs.) a ch Una Scheme a Electric Diesel Both BayadModasa Scheme Electric Diesel n Kodinar Scheme Both Electric Diesel Both Gross value of output/ acre Costs/acre Net returns/ acre Benefit-cost ratio 1.43 801 361 440 2. I Kodinar Rural Electricity Cooperative Ltd! Vol.69 1. V. Diesel.118 461 657 2.305 794 511 1.81 1. 86. Using Electric. Electrification in Rural Gujarat: Vol.73 894 242 652 3.28 Table 12.187 654 533 1.532 962 570 1.68 889 432 457 2. Rural Gujarat.05 830 303 527 2. H. Desai. aRabi (irrigated season only). Shiugi.64 1. II Una Scheme: Vol. Gupta and P.

here the general results of electrification for new industries and industrial ways area. also used in table 15 (although the data do not give any idea of how large Most new rural industries of the same and type as nut this change is in comparison with past profits). Nonetheless. primarily due Note that in table 13. 1977. in expansion in an area will be briefly examined. It is imagine any modern large-scale industry without electricity. Industry. as possible economies of scale--users of both diesel and electric had the largest land holdings. industrial uses are listed in table 14. ground crushers--without introducing any new processes. increase in income per hectare for smaller farmers was in nearly every case greater than that for larger farmers. . the to more intensive cultivation by small farmers.29 diesel as well as a backup to a variable electric supply may have been important. Cost differences are discussed in the section below on costs and pricing. Another is to estimate the change in profits after electrification (this could also be done for autogeneration). including the use of new processes only possible with electricity. There are several in an of looking at the impact of electricity on industrial output none of them 15--to entirely cite the satisfactory. and electric last. to oil have ghani been previously--small (presses). with diesel-irrigated holdings pumps also second in size. necessary Gravity such or before rain a close examination of the hydrology of a region will be advocating fed tubewell (water lifting) irrigation at all. There is also more some evidence that the small farmer may benefit proportionately than the large farmer from irrigation. p. Industrial small-scale from electricity use are of two types: cost savings and increased profit. in these Indian cases flour appear mills. groundwater availability or quality is insufficient to run pumpsets for more than a few hours a day if at all (Sen Gupta. irrigation is sufficient in many areas in countries as Indonesia and the potential for tubewell irrigation may be limited 1979. 62). Indeed. difficult some benefits output or to Industrial uses of electricity are many and varied. 42). well. in some electrified areas of India as (McCawley. p. number The most common is illustrated appeared table of industries which have since grid electrification.

Table 13. Additional Income Realized by Pumpset/Tubewell Users After Electrification, by Size of
Holding, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, India (Rs.)

Average increase in income per hectare (Rs.)
Size of cultivated
holding (hectares) Less than 2.0 2.1-5.0 5.1-10.0 More than 10.0 All classes Pench 1,136 626 349 178 419 Depalpur 1,176 627 277 114 178 Modinagar 1,563 891 1,127 1,429 1,107 Chandauli
1,250
449
293
122
292

Source: Council of Applied Economic Research, Cost Benefit Study of Selected Rural Electrification
Schemes in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh (New Delhi, NCAER, 1977).

31

Table 14.

Uses for Electricity in Small Industries, India

Blacksmithy

Coal oven, power blower, metal hacksaw, bench drill grinder, sheet cutting machine

Brass smithy

Polishing machine, gas welding unit, power blower

Carpentry drilling equipment, wood

Wood turning lathe, bench cutting circular, power driven hand tools

Leather footwear Oil Ghani

Power grinder, swing machines Power ghani (crusher), crushing miller, seaver

Pottery Weaving

Pottery wheel Semi-automatic loom

Source:

Small Industry Extension Training Institute

(SIETI) Prospects for Modernising Rural Artisan Trades and
Decentralized Small Industries (Yousufguda, Hyderabad, 50045,

32

Table 15.
Number of Industries Before and After Electrification, Indian Schemes

by Size of Village
Pench Depalpur Modinagar Pattikonda Dhone

Size of village
Less than 750 750-1,500 1,501-3,000 More than 3,000

BE
1 9 6

-

AEa
7 15 15
-

BE
3 5
-

AEa
8 8 ­

BE
-

AE
-. ..

BE

AEb

BE

AEb

3 7 5

6 11

.
. .

. . .

. .
.

.
.
.

14
31

Total Average increase
in net income
per user (Rs.) Notes:

16

37

8

16

15

5

32

4

41

660

573

3,139

BE = Before Electrification; AE - After Electrification.

Sources: Small Industry Extension Training Institute, Impact of Electrifi­ cation on Rural Industrial Development: A Study in Kurnool District, Andhra
Pradesh (Yousufguda, Hyderabad, SIETI, 1976) and National Council of Applied
Economic Research, Cost Benefit Study of Selected Rural Electrification Schemes
in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh (New Delhi, NCAER, 1977).
aone year after electrification.
bup to twenty years after electrification.

33

Anecdotal small

evidence

is

used, too: by auto a

for example, one report cites 515
electric shops, cooperative box factories, in the
small

businesses

serviced new

rural repair

Philippines,

including

sawmills, hollow block factories, wood and furnitures, a movie theater, and
five report new medium and large-scale industries (Herrin, 1979, p. 71). from Latin America cited Another

the increase in business in commercial

establishments due to customers coming in to watch television (Davis, 1973,
p. 181). While or subjective, grid this information probably is has nonetheless useful:
led to increased

autogeneration industrial all these and new

electrification

commercial value produced in many areas. industries and changes in

But to attribute

output to electrification is

undoubtedly a mistake, especially since the causal link between the two has
not been satisfactorily described.
A case third studies approach has tried to estimate the difference in profits for
of businesses using alternative forms of energy. This

approach yields the result that in many cases the net benefits available to
industry from using central grid electricity may be quite high: table 16

compares the profits of a number of businesses using their actual source of
energy and a hypothetical substitute. less from to even Profits in this sample are generally

using alternative energy sources than using electricity--net benefits
electricity are from 0.6 to 100 percent of profits. It is difficult

generalize using this case study method, since as table 16 illustrates,
in an electrified area, electricity may not be the cheapest form of

supply.

Indirect Benefits
Electrification on economic in rural areas may have significant indirect effects
through (1) social and public uses, (2)

development,

employment, (5) impacts

(3) environmental improvements, (4) foreign exchange savings,
on migration and fertility, (6) political stability, and (7)
In some cases, these benefits may be
However, many of these developmental
effectively, be achieved through other

encouraging innovation and modernity. of some considerable also, importance. more

goals means.

could

perhaps

8 Autogen.3 Electric Diesel Electric Electric tons tons tons tons 113509 -3598 261073 813920 Diesel Electric Diesel Diesel 112879 -3943 260289 809551 630 345 784 4369 . A Case Study in El Salvador. Autogen.12m 20.6 100 .7 Oxen Electric 8 tons 97 tons 932 191 1846 5455 177 1569 Electric Diesel 158 1387 -19 182 -1.2 1. n.a..a. Diesel -431 -380 n. El Salvador (Salvadorian colones) ACTUAL Type of Energy Coffee Processing C1 C2 C3 Sugar Processing (large) S1 S2 S3 Sugar Processing (small) SS1 SS2 Rice Processing RI R2 R3 R4 Corn Mills HI M2 M3 Poultry Farms PF1 PF2 Shop Refrigeration RFI RF2 Portable Water Pumping W1 W2 W3 W4 Milk Cooling MC2 MC3 MC4 Annual Production Profits WITH SUBSTITUTE Type of Profits Energy Net Benefits of Electricity Percent of Actual Profits Steam Diesel Electric 0.7 4.09m .a.5 L Diesel Electric Electric Electric Flectric .02m eggs n.2 -5.a. . Res. 0.47m lbs llm lbs 1.86m 1. n.a.5 -4.a.6 .6 9.20m 2. 5 .18m lbs .3 10.2m lbs 3593 tons 46818 tons 2909 tons 18861 41830 49356 Electric Electric Autogen. D.a. n. 17781 42351 46020 -1080 521 3336 -5.5m lbs 1. 475 2569 -17 24790 131353 124 305 127 155 994 35.3 6.a.6 1.6 .Table 16.10m 20939 -124114 -66468 10. p.3 . Costs and Benefits of Rural Electrification: (Washington.22m 2.0 Electric Electric Gasoline Electric Oxen Manual Electric Electric Electric 119 120 n. 100).44m bottles 0. World Bank.31m. Autogen. n. P.8 100 1004.a.a.73m bottles Source: World 'ank.03m gal gal gal gaL 351 2874 127 24945 132347 Electric Diesel Diesel Autogen.7 1. 33828 20710 43855 Kerosine Kerosine Electric Diesel Electric Electric Autogen.C.99m 1. Case Studies of Comparative Benefits of Centrally-Generated Electricity and Alternatives for Industry. n. 32238 19750 43412 119 120 -41 1985 597 6 1590 958 443 0.0 m . U.16m Electric Electric Electric 0. n. Autogen. n. 1975.2m lbs 2.71m bottles 0. Autogen.eggs 4.

in agriculture to of related existence (1) the a market are energization probably greatest irrigation . and merit further Employment benefits from productive uses of electricity and industry could be significant. Certainly electrification does not often induce health clinics or schools to be built. Iublic water systems may he extremely important in improving health. and many Indian villages reportedly light The major (the State Electricity Board will install a street light if there are ten domestic connections in a village). Street towns have lights. causation in public health benefits would appear to be the investment in a school or health clinic. especially if these are offered Some have argued that these public benefits higher-income the to be to free or nearly free of charge. therefore tend possibly justifiz electricity (Tendler. can improve public and social uses of electricity seem of some interest for benefits of electrification for the poor. Street lights appear to have benefits in making people feel more secure and in some cases extending street businesses into the night. such as chicken. sterilizationl and refrigeration in health water systems.-public renting use of of electricity that may have considerable is the space by individual families in commercial street refrigerators prolonging nutrition. 1976). rather than the marginal advantage of electrification. and street lighting. investigation. Another benefits semi. Electricity can be used for lighting and teaching public the in schools. which by preventing wasteage of food and supplies of protein sources. Such uses are likely poLr disproportionately. villages one are less likely to be installed in poor areas of (Selowsky. unless it is part of a larger developmental package.35 Social vocational clinics. are indeed likely which more important for the poor than are household reach groups to a large extent. These the in bars and stores. to benefit and Public Uses. these benefits are expansions for the in output already discussed and (2) the The employment uses. 1978). Employment. benefits of since more for output. of social uses of subsidization benefits. but may be powered by diesel engines or use artesian flow. and only however.

returning substitute substitution 1978. for centrally-generated But these environmental minuses would have electricity. in substitution cooking in areas like Latin America where electrification The major alternative fuel to electricity in practice but air pollution problems of kerosine in the has been widespread. marketing may be a significant problem with increasing output. But these benefits are more due to water--which can be lifted using various energy sources--than to electricity. although in the household smoke from kerosine and Diesel engines are notorious. wood charcoal in ironing (NCAER. in the efficiency of burning fossil fuels in autogenerators or Foreign station facilities would also have to be considered here. is often kerosine. noise. central grid electricity is generated using mainly local coal and hydro. 25. by electricity for lighting The substitution of kerosine and diesel oil and motive power could be a net benefit in foreign exchange savings--if the central supply is not based on oil imports as well. are countryside wood their used burning minor.36 labor-intensive crops are often grown with irrigation and the agricultural season is lengthened. 1978. 69). for could be a problem. and employment effects would be positive on net. 1975a. Another it for for to wood problem may the soil or or as dung in be the these uso uses. there has been growing World Bank. of dung as fuel instead of Electricity is not often a though there may be some fertilizer. In India. for example. p. However. however. p. markets for small industrial output will also be increasing. Environmental Improvements. NEA. increase productivity). and smell. and employment could even decrease with electrification (or other measures to If output and incomes are rising generally in an area. while diesel and kerosine are imported. p. too. In small industry. savings also Differences central exchange will not have an infinite value. taking into account differing to be compared with the pollution produced by the fossil fuel energy source efficiencies as well. The major'energy related environmental problem in developing countries is deforestation and erosion caused by fuelwood gathering for cooking--the largest use of energy for the poor--and heating. 105. fumes. Foreign Exchange Savings. so these benefits .

39). there appears to be effect would be difficult to monitor. pp. a unelectrified national late population program was launched in 1970 (electrification began in and economic development in the area appeared to be advancing Agrin from such an effect on birth rates is plausible. with 17 percent and 23 percent pregnancy rates respectively (NEA. if the Another electrification to development to birth rates. Philippines. 1971). 1975. is generally. 1975b. see Squire. but if a link could drawn between electrification and development in rural areas. In addition. rates in found in electrified areas of Misamis Oriental Province 17). linkage study in the Philippines found that 22 percent of electrified families used family planning. where a (and The only evidence on this point is also from the commitment was made by the government to rural programs) as a means of wining support major other electrification 9. . already whether Philippines have dropped fairly steadily since 1971. versus 19 percent of nonelelectrified. and not clear from that data (a) whether birth rates were in the electrified area before electrification or (b) faster than birth rates in areas electrified later or not at all (see table But dropping income or other developmental differentials in the electrified and areas might better explain the results. reduced migration to cities would be a plausible side effect. higher The most direct and effects on will to through incomes family planning One extent birth that electrification contributes to these. Impacts on Migration and Fertility. also clear from But it was the study that electrified households had higher incomes and socioeconomic status than unelectrified ones. 7). such The fact is. p.37 should be measured in terms of a "shadow exchange rate" expressing the true 9 value of a foreign exchange to the economy. employment. and in any event. Electricity is often thought to have an impact on reducing rural migration to cities through its effects on levels evidence an no be of of living. 1978. Impacts fertility programs. and incomes. Political Stability. For a full discussion of the calculation of shadow foreign exchange rate. 38. study on fertility likely the that the it is be are similar. evidence on this issue in one direction or another. The World Bank has found no this result (World Bank.

. . no. 40..9 35.7 40.1 39. 67.5 Source: Alejandro N." Population and Development Review vol. 1971-75 1971B 1972A 1972B 1973A 1973B 1974A 1974B 1975A Rural west (early electrification) Rural west (later electrification) 45. Herrin. .. 1 (March 1979). 5.8 -- 39.9 35.3 29.1 51.1 31. "Rural Electrification and Fertility Change in the Southern Philippines..38 Table 17.0 -- 39.0 -- 38. .6 Rural east (no electrification) . . Misamis Oriental Province.1 31.3 35.6 32.6 -- 48. Crude Birth Rates. p.

electricity has an especially important A key question is whether areas. with 14 to 19 percent believing the situation was the not same (NEA. the in was One of electrification study India major the in can potentially be important as a "change the 1960s by the National Institute of Community that apart that from the influence of local seemed to make a substantial concluded village resource the level of adoption of agricultural innovations in Indian availability But credit. 5). or technology--could have a similar effect Clearly. P.. p." Development leaders. these benefits households. p.it and strengthens responses to opportunity of the rural folk. this strategy worked quite well. 7). 27). as a change in the availability of any key productive land. have been as important. agriculture. of electric power (Fliegel and coauthors. Since resources invested in rural electrification will . even using rural the broad framework chosen here. and Subsidies While for electrification has considerable direct and indirect benefits and industry in rural areas. Pricing. come at some cost." Implicit here is the idea that the true benefits of electrification areas are somehow greater than the sum of its parts. all must be provided for development to take place. Innovation inducing attitudes p. if all inputs are lacking. in and Modernity.. difference villages 1971. 1976. modernism. or one input must the stimulus for entrepreneurs to secure the others. "Electricity is a potent instrument for the forces of change in stagnant (SIETI. role to play in rural Comparative Costs. 1978.39 away from the Communists in the countryside (Tendler. as was its evidence of a strong government commitment to the improvement of the rural areas. agent. Certainly. According A later to a survey in the Philippines. survey with of the the "perception of of change in the peace and order that 84 percent of situation coming electricity" showed electrified households and 78 percent of nonelectrified households believed the situation was better. The effects of electrification in itself may however. 1978. either input--such under they be the right circumstances. 103).

of electricity for all uses. or net benefits is of great interest in looking at the impact of electrification on economic development in rural areas. The from traditional and renewable energy sources as substitutes for electricity are not considered here. comparing benefits minus coats. for example. the can be accomplished using alternative sources of energy. scale that hold mean that at the generation stage. (2) Distance from the grid and density.40 other pressing uses in developing countries. kerosine for household lighting. supplying more kilowatt-hours to rural areas may be very low--only the costs. or if desirable. central station electricity is generated using cheap hydro and natural gas with few alternative uses. for performing similar tasks. and diesel engines for water lifting in agriculture and motive power in industry. by using autogeneration instead of attaching to Under in costs. and the more dispersed demand centers are (for example. same tasks electricity the major central is In many cases. have alternatives areas. Pricing and the operation of subsidies are discussed in the last part of this section. this section will focus on some of the to central-station electricity in rural These alternatives are autogeneration practice grid. potential Autogeneration Versus the Central Grid costs of electricity in rural areas are higher than in urban areas due to the dispersed and low nature of demand. Autogeneration using mini-hydro may also be very cheap. the cost of generation Rural loads may also be off-peak for the system as a whole. . Marginal the United States in the 1920s. for example. If for fuel In excess capacity exists in the central facility. grid power is likely to be much cheaper than autogeneration. isolated farms kilometers apart). one incentive for electric utilities to expand service to rural areas was that urban summer loads--which were only one-fourth of winter ones--could then be augmented The extreme economies of in electricity generation by seasonal farm irrigation and machinery demand. Costs for autogeneration of electricity versus centrally-generated supplies depend upon at least four elements: (1) The cost of generation. The more remote the area to be electrified is from the main grid. In Pakistan. the higher the costs of transmission and distribution from the central generating plant.

but fuel. Often since residential and agricultural users will have a low factor use is for only a few hours a day. or At this point. (4) users are Other influences. more capital-intensive central generating facility will be lower. since they can be spread out over more units of demand. Autogeneration cation. however. Capital the grid costs are more is are higher for the grid supply. aptly is often only a preliminary step to grid electrifi­ Electrification of rural areas typically proceeds in four phases. while industrial The rate structure is (evening for demand is more spread out through the day and night. . and case. percent load factor. percent interrelationship of these costs for one particular case is shown 18. mining. small farms refrigeration and lighting in shops. then costs the system. higher for autogeneration. but at 29 kilometers autogeneration is by far cheaper. competitive than Even at a 10 autogeneration at 4 At a 50 maintenance kilometers. 4). the grid is cheaper than autogeneration even at 29 kilometers from the main grid. usually at the same lighting and morning for irrigation). The in table operation. or human labor for motive power. (but fairly large and productive First. described by the World ILank (World Bank. must be The terrain through which transmission and built and the existence of roads and other distribution construction-related infrastructure can also influence the relative costs of autogeneration and the grid. that cannot compete with the operating economies of scale of the costs central load time grid. industrial but have low costs of connection and consumers servicing utility. often for the lines large Besides having a high load factor. animals. high load factor means high fuel and operating costs for autogeneration. industries are using small diesel engines. a few isolated and thus able to afford the capital investment and high cost of autogeneration) industries or farms may generate possibly and their own electricity for dairy and poultry farms.41 (3) consumption for a the Load for factors. often used to improve the load factor for centrally generated electricity by offering concessional rates to these uses with higher load factors. On the other hand. The load factor is the ratio of average t3 peak If use and load factors are high. 1975b. p.

200 200 500 1.100 2.000 7. .600 25% 5. $ thousands) Autogeneration Cost Components Load Factor Grid 10% Annual capital costs Fuel. and maintenance Billing and administration Totala Average kWh cost (€) 4 km 29 km 25% 4.600 6. D.600 21 -- 12 --- 9 18 40 7 17 4 8 Source: World Bank. C.S.500 2.000 2. a Costs are for grid at 29 km only. Typical Comparative Costs of Autogeneration and Central Grid. Rural Electrification: A World Bank Paper (Washington.500 50% 4.Table 18.000 13.000 8. operation.000 9.000 8.800 2.600 50% 5. World Bank.600 13. 20-21.100 2. El Salvador (U. 1975) pp.000 19.600 4.700 2.100 2.500 10% 5..

and the purchased second hand.. central electricity may not be the cheapest form of supply. it is clear that even in an electrified area. In tix. . S3) were generating their own electricity partly from sugarcane wastes. third phase. except where the producer had already bought other energy equipment bpfore electrification. connection may be very long in coming. and photovoltaic cells. for example. Subsidies will be 10. 14 June 1979. P. 11.43 Later. In a sense. In addition. but one of timing as to when demand will justify the distances involved. uses. the question would be not autogeneration versus the grid for areas where substantial population exists and incomes are expected to increase. I0 suffice for many rural uses for a long time--does this mean higher energy costs for these consumers? above appear to refer to conventional Not necessarily--the costs used diesel autogeneration but small generation units can be powered by a variety of sources including biogas. mining. the sugar mills (S2. using oxen for a very low level of water pump engine (W1) had been gasoline-powered The possibility that locally available renewable or special circumstance might make autogeneration more economical in eome cases needs to be further investigated. 1 1 sources of fuel (SS1). businesse3 had on their own chose the profit-maximizing form of supply. and farms. where appropriate. It is also illuminating that investigators found that in every case. the costs of running electric lines to some rural areas of the West to operate water pumps for cattle have caused farmers to turn to windmills for autogeneratin (Wall Street Journal. back to table 16. therefore. small networks may form around autogeneration centers for other households. centers of low demand can be connected at very low marginal cost. mini-hydro. there are a number of reasons why the net advantages of the central grid may be overestimated in rural areas. Referring wind. Even in the United States. The coffee mill (Cl) with negative benefits from (hypothetical) electrification was too far from the transmission line to make a distribution line worthwhile. and in another case production. and other Autogeneration may have to long term. But for many isolated agricultural. these "microgrids" and other major demand centers are connected and hooked up to the main grid system. 1). businesses. Finally.

thus minimizing the uncertainties inherent in projecting rural loads It is nonetheless not clear on net whether these uncounted costs of centrally-generated electricity are as important in relative costs as the generation. For both these reasons. p. It is difficult to compare costs of electricity (Tendler. 51-52). 1978. 1978. 1977. In the Philippines. As important may be the notorious unreliability of rural power systems--which discourages productive applications in particular. 77 to 96 percent of households in electrified areas reported from one to ten power interruptions in the previous month (ORG. and that if losses from downtime were taken into account. they might be less in total for autogeneration than for the grid (Tendler. power shedding due to a shortage of generating capacity in the central grid is not infrequent either: more than of all consumers in "advanced" rural areas in an Indian survey reported daily power cuts. and load factor aspects discussed earlier. 1976). pp. maintaining autogeneration capacities demands and managerial skills as well. and more than eighty percent weekly cuts. pp. But it is difficult to see why this should necessarily be so: scarce technical indeed. with equipment only lasting three to four years. Voltage fluctuations can damage equipment or affect its use as well. 1979.44 discussed at length later. 44-45).000 kw) diesel generators has been reported as comparatively complicated and requiring unavailable technical staff. It has been argued that the central grid transmits these outages and voltage variations to all parts of the system. USAID. 45). . The operation and maintenance of small (40-1. according to developing country representatives to an ESCAP meeting on rural electrification (McCawley. distance. One advantage to autogeneration not included in cost comparisons is certainly that it spreads out capital costs of electrification by making small investments in capacity as demand develops. many productive users of electricity maintain back-up generators at high cost. capacity half While maintenance problems and outages of autogenerating are well known and expected. Other Fuels in Key Economic Development Uses Kerosine in Lighting.

Bhatia's (1979) calculations show biogas as more economical in one rural area of India than diesel. although electric lighting kerosine is is higher quality as and more a backup convenient. so their total energy expenditures would likely be higher in any event. windmills.12 also often used for motive power in industry. The this reason be expected to introduction of electricity should not for reduce total household expenditures on energy in most cases. Diesel engines are the costs and many of arguments presented below apply to industrial use as well. or photovoltaic power. however. grid for motive though power for The major energy alternative to the central lifting water oxen. electricty and kerosine may be substitutes to an extent. electricity even often higher connected often used Total costs households. The cost comparisons--essentially for lighting--in table 19 are not completely accurate. Ramaswamy (1978) believes the existing stock of bullocks in India are less expensive to use than electricity for shallow water lifting. autogeneration electricity have also been proposed as alternatives. biogas in practice plants. to As table by 19 shows. but since these new and different services are being used. or unavailable with other energy sources (TV) that the service is essentially a new and different one.45 with those of other sources service provided by for households. at least in rural areas. convenient (ironing). More detailed studies of costs for comparable services and at the same income level are necessary in order to make any more meaningful conclusions here. 12. and has been diesel of engines. The most important use for electricity in increasing productivity in agriculture appears to be though powering irrigation pumpsets. Water Lifting: Diesel Versus Electric. for energy are for electrified households than for unelectrified ones. Lighting is one energy service in which. A further complication is that electrified households probably have higher incomes overall than nonelectrified ones. such a difference is not surprising. electric. because in many cases the electricity is so much higher quality energy (lighting). . since the electricity charges include other loads such as ironing and fans. autogeneration has already been discussed.

51 81 83 .48 1.36 1.86 . An Evaluation of Effects on Economic and Social Changes in Costa Rica and Colombia.00 . Selected Areas (costs per month) Candles % Using Cost Kerosine % Using Cost Electricity % Using Cost Total Average Cost Costa Ricaa Electrified Non-electrified Colombiaa Electrified Non-electrified Indiaa (Pench. M. 1973) and Council of Applied Economic Research.20 .75 1.P.36 1.S. Report to U. James E.74 100 .56 .14 2.) Electrified Non-electrified India a (Depalpur.P.92 . 1977). Ross. Cost Benefit Study of Selected Rural Electrification Schemes in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh (New Delhi. M. Center for Latin American Studies.22 . Michael Davis.P. Rural Electrifica­ tion. Galen C. John Saunders.54 .56 . Moses. University of Florida.52 47 74 .) Electrified Non-electrified India a (Modinagar.22 .79 1.) Electrified Non-electrified 16 75 .09 .56 . NCAER.05 .25 .86 . Florida.75 Sources: J.76 .34 1. U.Table 19. Gainesville.26 . Agency for International Development (Center for Tropical Agriculture. .45 100 2. Household Expenditures on Electricity and Substitutes for Lighting.05 41 98 .

6/liter as the social cost and Rs. outages due to load shedding may be as important for electric pumps. in fact. 1. NCAER. p. Note. the comparisons in table 20--with the excepti of Bhatia's--reflect only the private market prices. Administrative roadblocks and delays in installing diesel engines are also reportedly much lower (Child. respectively. p. . 148. costs electricity and diesel fuel at their social cost. but on the other hand.47 Costs of electric versus diesel pumpsets are much disputed. Bhatia's study.41/liter as the market price of light diesel oil.40/kWh as the market price and social cost of electricity. Bhatia. diesel. 1978. . 259). electric motors have a total cost advantage over diesel engines in table 20 in all but Bhatia's social cost calculations for the Bihar area of India and in the Chandauli scheme. 1975. not the social costs of supply. and Rs. into account. especially if the 15 percent is used for annualizing capital This confirms a 1969 study which 13. shows a cost advantage for diesel in Bihar. 159) while movability of diesel engines is an advantage where landholdings are scattered. while maintenance and operating costs tend to be higher for. Convenience and easier maintenance are often cited among the advantages of electric motors (ORG. p. however. Downtime for repairs to diesel engines has been reported as high as 30 percent greater than for electric. 1977. 20 gives some ranges of costs of tubewells in India in the mid to late 1970s. taking subsidies. 13 for example. . their relative competitiveness will fall. 1. costs. As diesel Table prices continue to rise. Using a 10 percent rate for annualizing capital costs. Capital costs for electric motors are generally higher than for diesel.12/kWh and Rs. if shadow prices for inputs and the social cost of -pupply of diesel and electricty are used. which gives shadow prices to labor and capital inputs and. that the choice of a 15 percent rate would make diesel engines cheaper than electric motors in four of the seven cases--at their current oil prices. since both diesel fuel India and many other deve)nning countries. believes that the most economical energy source of all for water lifting is biogas. more importantly. and electricity are subsidized in Furthermore. Bhatia uses Rs.

aIncludes maintenance and depreciation on mains. "Trip Report on India.msay.. prorated. 1979. Energy Alternatives for Irrigation Pumping: Some Results for Small Farms in North Bihar (Delhi. . Cost Benefit Study of Selected Rural Electrification Schemes in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh (New Delhi.Table 20. 1979). 1977)." Resources for the Future. Dunkerley. Institute of Economic Growth.) CAPITAL COSTS Electric Diesel OPERATING COSTS Electric Power 0 & M Total Fuel 305 220 29 86 231 102 21 53 536 321 50 139 600 131 84 138 ANNUALIZED CAPITAL COSTS AT 1OZ Electric Diecel Total 793 228 171 195 615 445 366 336 495 433 255 390 1151 766 416 475 1288 661 426 585 TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS Electric Diesel Diesel 0 & M 193 97 87 57 Modinagar Chandauli Depalpur Pench Lalit Sen in Ramsay Bhatia Market Price Social Cost 6147 4454 3655 3364 4954 4330 2550 389/ 4560 6075 7350 4720 3300 3150 1004 216 720 4 70a 1474 1416 1620 2215 630 720 500 1536 1236 2715 2166 1956 456 608 735 472 330 315 1930 2024 2355 3187 2496 2271 1200 900 Sources: National Council of Applied Economic Research. Ramesh. P. January 1-17. NCAER. India (Rs. Comparative Costs of Diesel Engines and Electric Motors for Irrigation. W . and J. and Bhatia.

from as low as by category of consumer are given in table 21.50/kWh for large Rates countries. . breakeven at he end of the tenth. P. As the load factor and 14. and so on). while capital costs are picked up by the central system or government. appear to Africa. p. the social costs of diesel were two-thirds those of the electric motors (Child. and highest in be generally In general.14 beginning of a rural project. costs 100/kWh. since most tariff structures are declining block: the first block of. with domestic power (for appliances) only slightly lower on average. The Rural Electrification Corporation of India expects negative returns on projects in "ordinary advanced" areas up to the sixth year and 3. adjusting for appropriate shadow prices. to 160/kWh for domestic lighting in Mauritania. for "ordinary backward" areas.49 concluded that although the privace costs of irrigation with a diesel engine were 50 percent above those for an electric motor. 2).5 percent after twenty years (SenGupta. 1975. and (b) in order to promote the use of electricity and an Thus at the increase in the load factor (World Bank. and public street lighting also around 2-80/kWh. in developing industry in India. 1975b.5 percent at the end of the fifth year. and 3. domestic rates for lighting are in the 3-100/kWh range. negative 3. Pricing and Subsidies Pricing. 1979. (Larger users will tend to pay towards the low end of the prices. Prices for electricity in rural areas should be typically higher than in urban areas but below average costs in the early years of a project. one would not Often a rural electrification cooperative will be expected to cover operating and maintenance expenditures out of revenues. 50 kWh. enormously Some representative charges for electricity in rural areas Prices for power vary . 259). (a) because costs are very high before demand has developed to a reasonable load factor. lower in Latin America and Asia. expect financial viabiity. pp. 8-9). the next of 200 kWh costs 80/kWh. with rates averaging around 1-90/kWh for LT and 1070/kWh for HT. say. High tension (large) businesses typically pay lower rates than low tension (small to medium) businesses.5 percent returns by the end of the fifteenth. Irrigation is in the 2-80kWh range.

Table 21. 1977) Camarines Sur I (1974) (1976) Albay (1974) (1976) Thailand (MEA) 12-8 16 3 4 9 2 8 12-8 11-8 14 10-6 11* 1* 5-2 5 1-. 5* 8 6 8 14 3 1* 5-2 3 8 1 8 Ln 9 2-1 8 6 2-1 5-4 8 5 9 5 8 5-3 5 9 5 8 5-3 7 8-3 5 8-5 9-3 5 9 8 3 4 4 4 2-1* 3 2 Vietnam (SCES) 3 2 2 2 2 2 . Selected Variable Charges for Electricity (US € per kWh) Commercial/ Industry (Low Tension) 4-2* 2* Large Industry (High Tension) 4-2* 9* Domestic Lighting Power Ethiopia (EELPA) Ghana (ECG) 6-4* 9 2* 2* Irrigation/ Water Pumps Street Lights Mali (EM) Mauritania (SAFELEC) Iraq (NEA) Syria (DES) Cambodia India Bombay Laccadine Islands Philippines (DAI.

Florida. Gupta and P. "Rural Electrification in Indonesia--Is It Time?" Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies. the second for the last block or off-peak (the size of these blocks varies from country to country). (cont'd. An Evaluation of the Program Performance of the International Program Division of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA). Agency for International Development (Center for Tropical Agriculturp. I Kodinar Rural Electricity Cooperative LTD: Vol. Gunvant M. C. M. Ross. the first (usually higher) is for the first block of power.) Argentina (SEGBA) Bolivia (DAI. P. October 1974). Report to U. Costs and Benefits of Rural Electrification: A Case Study in El Salvador. C. UN. V. Electrificy Costs and Tariffs: A General Study (New York. World Bank. Most charges are for rural areas. Agency for International Development (Washington. Center for Management in Agriculture. 1977). 1975). Shreekaut Sambrani. Development Alternatives. (1979). John Saunders. Peter McCawley. II Una Scheme: Vol.Table 21. 1972). Electrification in Rural Gujarat: Vol. U. DAI. United Nations. An asterisk means some fixed charge related to maximum demand or other parameters is also charged in addition to the variable charge given. Shiugi. January 28.S.. 1977) ENALUF CONODER Note: 2* 2-1* 2 2 3-1 3* 2 9-11 3* 2 3 3 2-1 4-1* 1 6 2-1* 2-1* 1 9-4* 2 1 3 3 1 3 5 may not be in rural areas but have been included for comparative purposes. 1977) El Salvador CEHRL CEL (El Sal. Galen C. D. Res. Michael Davis. Report to U. D. Sources: J. Desai. University of Florida.. Rural Electrifi­ cation. III Bayad-Modasa (Amhedabad.. Inc. Where two figures are given. 1973). 1975) 3* 5 5* 5-4* 3 2* 3 2 8-3 3 5 6-2 4-2 6-2 6-2 5-1 CAESS (El Sal.S. some of the African and Middle Eastern utilities . Center for Latin American Studies. 1975) Mexico (CFE) Nicaragua (DAI. 5 (Washington. Gainesville. An Evaluation of Effects on Economic and Social Changes in Costa Rica and Colombia. James E. 1972) and are presumably from the early 1970s. United Nations. K. Undated citations are from Electricity Costs and Tariffs: A General Study (New York. Moses.

Excluding capital costs. where use is low. and even as the load rose from 2.6 percent. for residential and irrigation users will be high.1 million kilowatt-hours sold. The rates in table 16 may be somewhat indicative of cross-subsidies. other parts of Often. etc. B-32). while operating and maintenance In this case. returns should rise. B-32). the percentage of subsidy did not drop consistently--from 17. domestic and commercial use subsidizes irrigation and large industry (DAI.25 to . the economy are paying for rural electrification. then back to 16. servicing. for example. (2) take the Government subsidies to the rural electrification system often form of interest-free loans. while the per user fixed costs of connection.43 of a cent. and of three main types: (1) Cross-subsidies from one category of consumer to another. through extending the grid rather than through rising load levels. continued shows).8 percent. but not entirely so. even expenditures are financed through revenues. large industrial users will often have low connection. low use. and metering costs per user. expansion comes frustrate this goal. Subsidies. 1977. however. (d) International loans at concessional rates are also a source of Rates as subsidies for developing country rural electrification programs. such as from domestic to industrial uses. since the marginal costs of supplying different consumer varies. operating costs may not be covered in the early years: table 22 is the financial statement for an Indian rural electric cooperative in its first three years. the average per kWh subsidy varied from . In Nicaragua. declining block rates to large users (as table But 21 and pricing below consumer's willingness-to-pay often combine to In some cases. too. It can be argued that this capital still has an opportunity cost to the economy of the . 1977.6 percent of costs to 11.5 prices for electricity in 1975 (DAI. low as 2 percent and grace periods of ten years or more are not uncommon by international donor organizations for backward areas.3 percent (irrigation) of from 29. as well as high load factors whiciz will reduce system costs. percent Another study in Nicaragua found marginal costs o! (residential) to 223. however. Subsidies to rural electrification projects are general.52 density of use increases over time.86 to 9.

Financial Statement. aConverted to U. Kodinar Rural Electricity Cooperative Ltd.7% ----------------------------------------------------------------Sambrani.73 31707 20.80 5000 11. V. M. . II Una Scheme. Gupta and P.61 9.2 Rs/$U.07 157073 1.56 4.10 154024 1.19 51585 1. India 1970-1973 (U.S.59 74024 1.5% 188780 2.09 84390 1.69 62682 2. Desai. Source: Center for Management in Agriculture. Shreekaut Gunvant M. Electrification in Rural Gujarat: Vol. K.86 44634 1.S.0% 95853 2. Kodinar Rural Electric Cooperative.53 Table 22.84 11463 1L.S. Gujarat. dollars from rupees at 8. III Bayad-Modasa (Amhedabad. Vol. Vol. Shingi. I. $ and 0) 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 Million units Cost of electricity kWh cost (0) Cost of electricity plus operating expenses Total kWh cost (0) Sales revenues kWh sale price () Net loss Average kWh subsidy (0) 2. October 1974).

however. since it would be loaned in that country in any event for some other purpose. Once expenditures on connections and appliances have been made. For these uses. making subsidies unnecessary The case for electrification (and for the subsidization of electric rates) rests on the assumption that users will make different decisions about consvumption. are mostly received by the relatively better off in rural areas. But this is less the case where specific funds and lending rates assigned specifically for rural electri­ fication. As has already been shown. and (2) energy is only a small portion of total operating costs of most businesses. and location of enterprises on the basis of thp availability and the price of electricity. users of electricity. particularly for new and productive users. production. Effects of Electrification on Consumer and Producer Decisions There is nothing if they inherently accomplish wrong the with subsidies for which to rural they are electrification objectives designed. because (1) electricity itself is only a part of the total costs of using electric power for households and business. as for example in recent USAID programs. Table 23 compares costs for electricity and its substitutes. especially those other than lighting. as well as the cost of electrci­ ty. household benefits from subsidies to rural electrification rates. respectively. the costs of electricity itself are from 30 to 60 percent of the total costs of using electricity. as 16 have shown. the price of electricity will probably .54 developing country involved. Households The total costs of using electricity in households includes the costs of connection and the cost of appliances. This section argues that availability and reliability are more important than price in these decisions. Quite high returns are experienced by production-oriented tables 11 and here as well.

World Bank. El Salvador (Salvadorian colones) Connection Lights Iron Refrigerator Cooking 60 60 75 75 Electrical Appliances AppliElectri.C. Galen C. P. Florida. An Evaluation of Effects on Economic and Social Changes in Costa Rica and Colombia. Moses. National Electrification Administration. Department of Agriculture. 1972). University of Florida. Andhra Pradesh (Hyderabad.S. D. Ross. June 1978). 1975). 1974). A Case Study in Suryapet Taluk. Agency for International Development (Center for Tropical Agriculture. . GPO. National Institute of Community Development. 1977). Misra. U.200 300 10 7 80 70 22 20 260 120 Substitute Annual Type Costs Kerosene Flat iron Kerosene Wood 7-13 5 500 '5 Sources: J. Regional Planning for Rural Electrification. John Saunders. 1973).55 Table 23. D. Gainesville.. James E. Rural Electrification. Nationwide Survey of Socio-Economic Impact of Rural Electrification (Philippines. Center for Latin American Studies. ORG.. Opera­ tions Research Group. U.C. Res. Costs and Benefits of Rural Electrification: A Case Study in El Salvador. NEA.S. Sen and Girish K. Report to U. Consumer Response to Rural Electrification (Baroda. Rural Lines: The Story of Cooperative Rural Electrification (Washington.Annual ance city Total 5/year 35 1. Michael Davis. Rural Electrification Administration. 5 (Washington. Total Cost Comparisons Between Electricity and its Substitutes. October. Lalit K. Nalgonda District.

41-42). storage. making the cost of electricity itself a fairly minor part of total costs. implements.15 But subsidies to electric rates on consumption. pp. table 6). Lack of credit has often been cited as an obstacle to small farmer irrigation: in parts of India. unless alone are unlikely to have a substantial effect subsidies or liberal credit are also provided for connections and appliance purchases.5 to 2. One section of the U. especially for small farmers. 2. for example. 7. Subsidizing electricity rates therefore is unlikely to have a substantial impact on the decision to irrigate unless these other costs are also subsidized or credit liberally provided. .56 have more of an effect on consumption.S. 1976. cases of farmers maintaining both diesel and electric pumpsets have already been noted. 45). farmers. Although the case is cited of flat rates for electricity being so low that customers leave light bulbs burning all month. has lent money for electricity-using irrigation pumps with some success (USAID.74 hectare (SenGupta. and electricity.000 to Rs. digging a well. 4. 1979.16 Irrigation As in the case of households. Furthermore. MORESCO. farm machinery. Connection costs for pumpsets have been estimated by Bhatia at Rs. pumpsets. irrigation is only a part of total operating expenses for a farm. Rural Electrification Cooperative Act provided for loans to homes. and other equipment. 16. Total costs of connection. total cost of electricity for irrigation include costs of connection. 3. and marketing. where more than 30 percent of farmers own less than . 15.5 hectares of land has to be offered as security for loans for pumpsets. a minimum of 1. 1977. a Philippine utility in a rural area near Manila. in order to save the filament. Differences in the price of electricity are probably less crucial than its availability and reliability. which include purchases of seeds.000 ($500-$850). fertilizers.000 higher than his estimate of Rs. and businesses in newly electrified areas to purchase electricity-using home appliances.075 for the electric motor itself (Bhatia. and the electric motor in India appear to range from Rs. p.

Small Rural Industries The !'ecord for establishment of new small-scale industries in newly electrified rural areas is a rather poor one. and paperboard--have costs advantages in the cost of electricity in rural areas are likely to have little difference in locational or production decisions for most large industries. A legitimate question then is why large industries have not already located in an unelectrified area. paper. Marginal advantages in rural areas--cement and pulp. P. In addition. eggs and lighting poultry farms requires continuous service. which includes motors and machines. due to lower marginal costs in the central system (with its economies of scale and maybe hydro) and the fact that industrial demand is often off peak load for the system as a whole (Selowsky. in Nicaragua. availability and reliability may be more important. electricity costs are only a small portion of total costs of most large industries.57 Large Industries Autogeneration of electricity is a clear option for large industries wishing to locate in an unelectrified area. For example. using autogeneration? the area becomes And why should large firms choose to locate there if electrified. Kilowatt-hours are only a part of the total cost of using electricity. with possibly lower costs of centrally electricity? One likely reason is electricity costs through autogeneration on a small scale are often higher than the costs of centrally producing electricity. 1975). incubating A hatchery (DAI. 1979. therefore. Production decisions for small rural industries are a different matter than for large. One report from India cites average new employment per year per taluka (sub-district) in industry in Karnataka after electrification as six persons (SenGupta. as is evident from table 24. 10). most agro-industrial users preferred central station electricity for its convenience but also kept generators for supplementary and emergency use: milking cows. even had an automatic switching device to a gas generator B-20). electricity Only two industries of those likely to enjoy locational greater than 10 percent of total costs. cooling milk. The costs of autogeneration per kilowatt hour are much higher . 1977.

5 3.4 0.8 1. rectifying and blending of spirits Wine industries Breweries and manufacturing of malt Soft drinks and carbonated water industries Tobacco manufactures Spinning. World Bank.4 1.4 3.1 1.. Sewage) (Draft. August 1976).5 0.7 0.2 0. .0 1.1 2.2 Source: Marcello Selowsky.3 2. preparation and preserving of meat Manufacture of dairy products Canning and preserving of fruits and vegetables Canning and preserving of fish and other sea foods Vegetable and animal oils and fats Manufacture of grain mill products Manufacture of bakery products Sugar factories and refineries Manufacture of cocoa. Chilean Manufacturing Census 1967 ISIC Classification Share of electricity in total cost (%) 201 202 203 204 312 205 206 207 208 209 211 212 213 214 220 231 232 233 243 241 291 293 251 252 259 260 271 272 331 334 Slaughtering.6 2. weaving and finishing textiles Knitting mills Cordage rope and twine industries Manufacture of wearing apparel except footwear Manufacture of footwear Tanneries and leather finishing plants Manufacture of leather products (except footwear) Saw mills. Washington.6 0.58 Table 24.6 1.4 10.7 2. D.6 1. The Distribution of Public Services by Income Groups: A Case Study of Colombia.6 1. chocolate and sugar confec­ tionary Manufacture of miscellaneous food preparations Distilling.5 1. paper and paperboard Manufacture of articles of pulp.6 1.1 1.2 3.2 1.C.8 11. planing. and other wood mills Wooden and cane containers Manufacture of cork and wood products (except furniture Manufacture of furniture and fixtures Manufacture of pulp. Share of the Expenditure of Electricity on Total Operating Costs. Part I (Electricity.8 1.2 3.2 1.7 2.1 1.1 1.0 2. paper and paperboard Manufacture of structural clay products Manufacture of cement Manufacture of cement products Manufacture of fiber-cement products Manufacture of plaster products 0. Water.

The incentives for electrification in order to achieve these higher output and profit levels are weak for small rural industries.9) 25 shows gur very high percentages for making (12. may be and underestimated here (it is not clear in the source whether figures given for wages include self-employed labor of the artisan and his family). Table 26 producing more output and in both shows steady progression capital-intensity and output per worker as typically small-scale industries move from traditional production technologies to manually-operated machines. p. raising the necessary capital to improve If no markets can be found for extra production. that fuel costs are a higher proportion of total production costs in small industries than in large. too. 42). This problem of finding markets for increased production is especially severe for small industries. One study found that most artisans amid small craftspeople in several districts felt there was no scope for using power in their work because there would not be a demand for their goods or services if production were increased (SIETI. While flour mills total costs (25. and second. . Changes in the price of electricity might therefore have more of an effect on production decisions of small industries than large. result If in the and labor-surplus incomes are economies developing output increasing generally with electrification.9). but it is hard to imagine them more than doubling). and finally to electrically-powered machines. There is some evidence. Such constraints on increasing output have been reported in Indonesia for coconut sugar and bamboo proces. however. The first.7). however. worker. most not a desirable countries. 1979. difficulties are twofold: productivity. finding a market for the extra production. that have traditionally sought local markets. Electrified capitalized profits per small rural industries as well a appear as to be more heavily than nonelectrified. small industry output of consumer goods and agricultural implements should have no difficulty finding markets.ing (McCawley.59 for very small scale use. then higher productivity simply means less of employment. these shares of energy in total costs are on the whole much higher than those for large industries (total energy costs for large industries would be higher if nonelectric sources were included. pottery Table (29. even those of very small horsepower.

05-12.hether "wages" include self-employed labor of artisan and family. Fuel as a Percent of Total Production Costs.7 15.60 Table 25.3 3. India Industry Percent Black smithy Brass smithy Metal works Carpentry Flour mills Flour and oil Khandasari and oil Pottery Gur (palm) making Oil ghani Palm fibre 2.3-3. aTotal costs may be underestimated. SIETI.2 29. Hyderabad.9 12.8 1.9 .0 25. . since it is not clear %. 1978).2 .1 . Prospects for Modernising Rural Artisan Trades and Decentralized Small Industries (Yousufguda.9 2. Artisan Crafts a and Small Irdustries.0 Source: Small Industry Extension Training Institute (SIETI).

Labor-Intensivity and Productivity in Small-Scale Industries With Different Production Technologies.500 6.4 1.0 2.04 23.2 2.750 .73 1.2 1.438 .75HP) .000 Source: Small Industry Extension Training Institute (SIETI).000 .25HP) .61 Table 26.500 (.25 1.67 1.05 5. 1978).750 (1.08 10.450 (I/8HP) .8 1. SIETI.) Traditional Manual Machines Power Machines Black smithy labor/capital output/worker (Rs) Brass smithy labor/capital output/worker (Rs) Carpentry labor/capital output/worker (Rs) Leather Footwear labor/capital output/worker (Rs) Oil Ghani labor/capital output/worker (Rs) Pottery labor/capital output/worker (Rs) Weaving labor/capital output/worker (Rs) .750 . Prospects for Modernising Rural Artisan Trades and Decentralized Small Industries (Yousufguda.18 7. .750 4.28 6.33 1.0 1.5HP) . India (Rs.33 1.13 14.50 3.750 .200 (5HP) .000 (.250 .08 9.875 (lHP) .8 4.000 (4HP) .000 1. Hyderabad.000 .05 5.800 2.350 .000 1.

13). p. 13). then deducts their cost from the sale price he gives the artisan. whereby a trader provides raw materials on credit. effectively paying him wages. Conclusion Rural electrification is commanding large sums of investment capital and subsidies in developing countries. with a view to making some preliminary assessment of their success. indicating that reliability of supply may be as valued in small industries as in large (SIETI. given by craftsmen as disadvantages of electrification. This problem is further complicated in India by the common contract system. and actual users within electrified areas are a small percentage . Cooperatives in some localities have helped artisans with marketing Frequent powei cuts and shortages were also often (SIETI. Summing up Sectoral Patterns. a primary focus here must be on indicating the kinds of data that should be gathered and analysis that ought to be attempted in future rural electrification programs and research. 1978.62 1976). and the first point that stands out is that use of electricity in rural areas is very low compared to industrialized countries or to urban areas of developing countries: geographic coverage in rural areas tends to be limited. 1978. P. however. Benefits from electrification are related to use. This working paper has examined scattered evidence from some rural electrification experiences. Without more systematic studies. An important unresolved problem in this research is therefore whether rural small industries--where cheap electricity could on a priori grounds be an important stimulus--can be expeditiously developed by a well-planned program that provides other key factor inputs (and necessary infrastructure) to potential entrepreneurs. on the assumption that the benefits in terms of raising living standards and economic development are commensurate. in order to better establish the relationship between rural electrification and development and provide an improved basis for policy.

largely determines consumption. commercial. with Africa at the low end. event. These Indirect Benefits. Some of the major reasons often given in favor of rural electrification are the indirect benefits which are expected to flow from the introduction of a major modernizing catalyst into an area. . since diesel-powered irrigation also has quite high returns. agriculture. 17. since gravity and rain-fed irrigation is possible in many areas. The often small percentage of the population that use electricity in rural areas tends to be drawn disproportionately from the relatively better off. Sectorally. to small as well as to large farmers.63 of the population.17 of electricity on the other hand Industrial benefits from the use quite high as compared to appear alternative energy sources. High returns to tubewell irrigation using electricity. and groundwater appears insufficient for tubewells in others. and tend to be better able to reap the benefits of electrification to households. correlates highly with income. but there is evidence on the other hand that the poor do value electricity and in some cases are willing to allocate a high proportion of their income to its use. But these benefits are clearly not attributable solely to electricity. more intensive cultivation. larger and more advanced localities are more electrified than smaller ones. Naturally. industry. irrigation--make up most of the remainder. perhaps 10 percent in many cases. Coverage and quantiti i used appear higher in Latin America than in Asia. and industry. The most significant potential for economic development through rural electrification lies in its use in productive enterprises. with the predominant which uses Amounts consumed are low in any being lighting electricity and ironing. residential use is about a third to one-half or more of the total in most projects. in agriculture an. Geographic and Income Equities. Productive Uses. and productive uses--industrial. and changes in cropping patterns. the applicability of water-lifting irrigation to rural areas is also not general. due to increasing cultivated area. have been experienced. In general. often Appliance ownership.

it is in practice difficult to separate the effect of electrification from other aspects of economic development which often accompany schools and health it. especially generated with low cost domestically available fuels such as hydro. some of the indirect benefits might be more effectively achieved through other means. and second. and natural gas. centrally generated electricity could be more expensive than autogeneration. the density of consumption. and it is also fair to say that little effort has been made to measure them. but could be negative in industry in the absence of more general economic growth. First. and costs to consumers and society in terms of outages and voltage fluctuations are not counted. In any event. refrigeration that is rented to households could be beneficial to the poor in particular. demand. Subsidies are The net advantages of the grid nay also be overestimated. the distance of the area to be electrified from the main grid. coal. depending upon the circumstances: the availability of local renewable fuels is one factor. and for commercial clinics. It is likely that employment impacts of electrification would be positive in agricultural use for irrigation. generating central station electricity. the load factor of demand. social and public uses as in for street lighting. Costs of Autogeneration. Two important facts must be borne in mind. Environmental and foreign exchange impacts are secondary and not unambiguously positive on net. while autogeneration uses imported diesel oil or gasoline. The impact of electrification on modernity and innovation probably been important in some cases. are probably Effects on fertility and migration may be present but more to general economic development than to related electrification. effects of electrification but the other together with in the countryside has possible "synergistic" productive inputs are a key question. Still. Costs of autogeneration versus central grid electricity depend on the cost of generation. the low costs of generation of central station if grid electricity electricity is may outweigh these considerations. but this depends largely on the fuel used f". often concealed. and other factors.. But many areas In general. and autogeneration may still have to be used in such areas for a long time in the future. autogeneration is more expensive than the grid except for remote areas with very low and scattered in developing countries are of this type.64 are difficult to measure. Even in electrified areas. .

too. Once investments will in appliances and connections made. subsidies more -likely influence . especially in the early years of rural electrification. even for the grid. than kerosine for lighting but t~rat this may be because use and quality of lighting are greater and incomes higher in electrified households. Subsidies appear common. important than its cost for most productive uses. Subsidies to electricity may sometimes make little difference in production and locational decisions. and productive uses of electricity seem quite The availability and reliability of electricity appear more profitable.65 Costs some of Alternative Energy Forms. since those to households appear to benefit the better o. Water lifting costs for diesel engines versus electric motors are much disputed. since costs of central electricity supplies will not be afected proportionately due to cheap hydro and the large share of transmission and distribution costs in central grid electricity. of course. Scattered cost comparisons for of the major alternatives show that to electricity in practice in developing electricity is often more expensive countries for households. capital subsidies from other government revenues. A key question is whether these subsidies the desired primarily effects. Prices for electricity in rural areas vary greatly. This analysis will change. and the share of electricity costs in total operating costs of farms and industries is in many cases around are 3 to 5 percent. For households the costs of connections and appliances can be 30 to 60 percent of the total costs of using appliances. as fossil fuel prices rise. as evidenced by the use of backup generators for both irrigation and industry in rural areas. and are very site-specific since grid costs are related to the distance from the main grid and the load. but are reported as high as 160/kWh in some cases. with cross-subsidies from households to productive uses. since electricity is only a portion of the total costs of using electricity.f. particularly for new productive users. and loans at concessional rates from international donor organizations being the most usual forms. The choices of a true cost of capital and a shadow price for foreign exchange used to buy diesel are also key here. and energy costs are just a small part of total operating costs for most enterprises. Prices and Subsidies. Effects produce on Production.

Other factors such as the availability of credit and marketing are probably even more crucial for small producers. Research Recommendations Large sums of money electrification while are currently being expended on rural lacking a clear notion of its impact on economic development. (2) Alterntives to the central grid. consumption. including analysis of: (1) Alternatives to electrification. . and the potential for locally available renewable means of autogeneration or motive power shoula be explored. This working paper has based some limited conclusions on scattered data and anecdotal evidence: but the nL.J for systematic research in this area is clear. On the other hand. price may be more of a factor. Subsidies to other forms of energy. electrification may facilitate these other goals. Electrification may not be the most important need for backward areas. and the feedback effects are complex and deserving of study. since energy costs are a higher proportion of total costs. Using social cost calculations and examining particular circumstances will energy has likely show other ways of generating economical electricity or other than alternatives sources entirely as often more been supposed. The effects of rising oil prices in the future on the relative costs of autogeneration and the grid could be critical. or for poor people in electrified areas. The devotion of a part of these funds to research on some key unanswered question about this relationship therefore appears Justified. though reliability still is somewhat important. to other basic needs such as food or clean water supplies or to income-generating opportunities might make more sense if the poor are the target group.66 For small rural industries. In addition. autogeneration may be the only choice in many localities for a long time in the future.

. The true costs of rural electrification often obscure. the effects of subsidies on use by households. groundwater. (4) order to Impact analysis. The relative price. and by productive users require further definition. espcially needs to be explored. but fairly backward status. by the poor. given the scarcity of investment resources in developing countries? 18 One of the clearest conclusions that emerges from this analysis is that costs. aid that there is a need for more explicit targeting of suitable areas in rural electrification planning. the important information needed in the effects changes in of rural standard electrification on of living. This is not the information currently being gathered in most electrification projects. This information so that the economic employment. and the availability of other inputs vary from place to place. appropriateness. as for many transportation projects. and advocates priority electrification of areas with good groundwater resources and adequate infrastructure. and backwardness. 18. Both direct and indirect benefits could be analyzed in this manner. infrastructure. effectively evaluate development is the importance of production Clearly. in order to take into account both efiiciency and equity considerations. infrastructure.67 are Subsidies and effects. 1977) has ranked talukas (sub-districts) in one district using an index of groundwater availability. making it impossible to make judgments about net (3) benefits. Since more advanced and larger areas seem to have higher returns backward ones. suoh an evaluation could be incorporated systematically into project appraisals. should from rural electrification than more these localities therefore be electrified first. versus availability and reliability in decisions. a broader approach is needed though to include overall effects on economic development. (5) Priorities for electrification. In particular. One Indian study (Sen Gupta. 1979). and other should be collected ariables after electrification. A framework for an evaluation of this sort of impacts on the poor has been proposed in a report to USAID (PCI. output. for periods spanning several years long-term effects of rural electrification can be examined.

report to U. I. Gainesville.C. Lalit Sen and Joseph Kivlin. Gupta and P. Ross. D. 1979). Shingi. Productivity. "Agricultural InnovatioLIs in Indian Villages" in Joseph Kivlin. 1977)." Economic Developmemt and Cultural Change vol. II Una Scl me. Household Energy and the Poor in the Third World (Washington. M. Shreekaut Gunvant M. 1971). Fliegel. with an appendix by Emmanuel Mbi.. Inc. 2 (January 1975) pp.S. Prodipto Roy and Lalit Sen.C." appendix chapter in R. Kodinar Rural Electricity Ccoperative Ltd. Juy Dunkerley and William Ramsay. Agency for International Development (Center for Tropical Agriculture.. John Saunders. An Evaluation of the Program Performance of the International Pro­ gram Division of the National lural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA). Rural Electrification.S. K. Surjit. October 1974). Agrarian structure and Productivity in Developing Countries (Johns Hopkins. institute of Economic Growth. Prodipto Roy. Moses. Florida. Developing Alternatives. No. Frederick Fliegel. III Bayad-Modasa (Ahmedabad. report to U. Child. "Links to the Green Revolution: A Study of Small-Scale. Center for Latin American Studies. Baltimore. Galen C. eds. January 28. "Farm Size. AID (Washington. Cecelski. Fredrick. 1973). Desai. Hyderabad. 23. and Hiromitsu Kaneda. Center for Management in Agriculture. Energy Alternatives for Irrigation Pumping: Some Results for Small Farms in North Bihar (Delhi. James E.68 REFERENCES BHALLA 1979 Bhalla. Resources for the Future. Davis. A. Bhatia.. 1979). V. Frank C. Sambrani. Vol. J. Vol. Cline. DAI. Ramesh.. BHATIA 1979 CECELSKI 1979 CHILD 1975 CMA 1974 DAI 1977 DAVIS 1973 FLIEGEL 1971 . Agriculturally-Related Industry in the Pakistan Punjab. An Evaluation of Effects on Economic and Social Changes in Costa Rica and Colombia. Electrification in Rural Gujarat: Vol. Michael. and Technical Change in Indian Agriculture. Elizabeth. Berry and W. University of Florida. 1979). 249­ 275. D. Innovation in Rural India (National Institute of Community Development.

69 GORDON 1979 Gordon. 1969). D. ... D. Nationwide Survey on Socio-Economic Impact of Rural Elec­ trification (Philippines. Resources for the Future. IOC No. NCAER. AID/otr-c-1377 Work Order #20. 1977). Herrin. National Rural Electric Cooperative (NRECA). GUYOL 1969 HERRIN 1979 IDB 1978 McCAWLEY 1979 NCAER 1977 NCAER 1978 Perspective Plan for Rural Electrification in the Telangana Region of Andhra Pradesh (1975-76 to 1988-89) (New Delhi. C. no. report to AID. 5. Issues and Developments in Five Countries (Washington. Operations Research Group. 1977). Benefits. C. Another Development: Approaches and Strategies (Uppsala. IDB. Peter. 61-87. D." Population and Development Review vol. N. 1978).. Response to Rural Electrification (Baroda. Marc. Annual Report 1970 (Washington. ed. October 1977). Dag Hammerskjold Founda­ tion. Report on Rural Electri­ fication Costs. "Social and Economic Benefits of Rural Electrification Cooperatives" (Washington. Cost Benefit Study of Selected Rural Electrification Schemes in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh (New Delhi. The World Electric Power Industry (Berkeley. pp.. 1978). June 1978).C. 1 (March 1979). Gilbert and National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA). Consumer. Inter-American Development Bank. ORG. Incorporated. NEA 1978 National Electrification Administration. NERFIN 1977 NRECA 1974 NRECA 1978 ORG 1977 PCI 1978 .C. Practical Concepts. "Rural Electrification in Indonesia-­ is it Time? Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies (1079). May 1978). 1974). 1979)... National Council of Applied Economic Research. B. Usages. NEA. NCAER.. Nerfin. "Rural Electrification and Fertility Change in the Southern Philippines. 1978. University of California Press. NRECA. Moon. D. Guyol. December 12. Alejandro N. "Energy Implications of Alternative Development Patterns" (Washington. Patterns in Electri­ fication Projects: An Analysis of AID's Automated Data. Lincoln. NRECA. McCawley.

. Misra. Part I (Electricity. Energy Planning for Karnataka State 1979 Phasel--Towards a More Rational Distribution of Electrical Energy (Bangalore. Personal communication 1979. Small Industry Extension Training Institute (SIETI). of Agriculture. 10 (Bangalore.. Impact of Electrification on Rural Industrial SEN LALIT 1974 SIETI 1976 .. Sewage). . June RAMSAY 1979 REA 1972 ROSS 1972 SCHUMACHER 1979 SELOWSKY 1975 Selowsky. C. 1972). Lalit K. Energy Planning for Karnataka State Phase 1--Towards a More Rational Distribution of Electrical Energy (Bangalore. Ramsay. GPO. Dunkerley. Cooperative Rural Electrification: Case Studies of Pilot Projects in Latin America (New York. D. Notes on the Appraisal of Rural Electrification Projects. Rural Lines: The Story of Cooper­ tive Rural Electrific ation (Washington. D. 1972). Marcello.70 PCI 1979 RAMASWAMY 1978 Practical Concepts Incorporated. Andhra Pradesh (Hyderabad. The Distribution of Public Services SELOWSKY 1976 by Income Groups: A Case Study of 'olombia. National Institute of Community Development... D. (Draft. and Management of Animal Energy Resources in India. 1979. James E. Evaluation Planning for the Aguan Valley Rural Electrification Project- Honduras (Washington. Karnataka State Council for Science and Technology. U. 1974). Ramaswamy. Marcello. May 1977). from Auguste Schumacher. Sen. P. Praeger. World Bank. World Bank. and Girish K. PCI. Ross. Indian Insti­ tute of Science. Sen Gupta. A Case Study in Surya et Taluk. C. P. . Development." Occasional Paper No. "The Planning. D. and J. S.. Indian Institute of Science.S. draft mimeograph (Washington. May 1977). January 1979). D.. Rural Electrification Admin­ istration. Karnataka State Council for Science and Technology. 1975). Water. January 1-17. Nalgonda District.C. Washing­ ton." Resources for the Future. SEN GUPTA 1977 SEN GUPTA D.C. Regional Planning for Rural Electrification. N. August 1976). "Trip Report on India.. Indian Institute of Management (October 1978). W. Dept.

TENDLER 1978 Tendler. Ralph and Dennis Anderson. SIETI. Hyderabad. Johns Hopkins University Press for the World Bank.. Rural Infrastructure Projects: Electrification. . 1978). Turvey. Economic Analysis of Projects (Baltimore.. 1977). "The Future of Nuclear Power in the Developing Countries. Johns Hopkins University Press for the World Bank. U. 1977). pp. Electricity Costs and Tariffs: A General Study (New York. 1972)." Energy Laboratory Working Paper No. Agency for International Development (USAID). Office of Evaluation. Res. Bureau for Program and Policy Coordination. . D. 1977. Lyn. . United Nations. SIETI. An Evaluative Study of the Misamis Oriental Electric Service Cooperative (Manila.. TURVEY 1977 UNITED NATIONS 1972 USAID 1976 USMANI 1979 WORLD BANK 1975a WORLD BANK Rural Electrification: A World Bank Paper 1975b WORLD BANK (Washington. 1977 and April 3-14. 1979).. World Bank.. A Program to Accelerate Petroleum Production 1979 in the Developing Countries (Washington. 1975). 1977). H. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 6 (June 1979). October. Squire. SIETI 1978 SMITH 1977 Prospects for Modernising Rural Artisan Trades and Decentralized Small Industries (Yousufguda. World Bank.71 Development: A Study in Kurnool District." #MIT-EL-77-06 WP SQUIRE 1975 STROUT 1977 (Cambridge. 5 (Washington. D. 1976).S. and Herman G. Alan M. no. United Nations. 50045. Douglas V. 1976). Strout. van der Tak. MIT. Hyderabad. 1978. I." Bulletin of Atomic Scientists vol. Andhra Pradesh (Yousufguda. U. "Energy Banks for Small Villages. USAID. C. D. World Bank. World Bank. 1975). Costs and Benefits of Rural Electrifica­ tion: A Case Study in El Salvador. Electricity Economics: Essays and Case Studies (Baltimore. C. MIT-EL-77-025 WP (Cambridge. P.. 40-44. 1975). 35. Usmani. USAID. Judith. report to Studies Division. "Small-Scale Energy Activities in India and Bangladesh--Trip Reports--March 17-31. Smith. C.

Gianessi and H. by Clifford S. August 1977. April 1977. ECONOMIC ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEOUENCES OF ALTERNATIVE ENERGY REGIMES: AN APPLICATION OF THE RFF/SEAS MODELING SYSTEM. by Raymond J. August 1977. A SURVEY. THE AMES-ROSENBERG HYPOTHESIS AND THE ROLE OF NATURAL RESOURCES IN THE PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY. April 1977. D-15 THE IMPLICATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION FOR OPTIMAL MAINTENANCE. May 1977. CONCLUSIONS. W.. MEASURING NATURAL RESOURCE SCARCITY: Smith. Myrick Freeman. by L. THE DISTRIBUTIONAL EFFECTS OF THE UNIFORM AIR POLLUTION POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES. KoDp and V. Peskin. Gianessi. August 1977. Kerry Smith. by William D. May 1977. M. by Blair T. by John V. Krutilla and Anthony C. AN ECONOMETRIC MODEL OF THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY. by R. CONTROL COSTS AND DAMAGES OF ALTERNATIVE NATIONAL POLLUTION CONTROL POLICIES. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AS A REGULATORY PROCESS. May 1977. February 1977. THEORY AND PRACTICE. by Tran Thl Ngoc Bich and V. January 1977. MANAGEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. Jr. visher with Richard E. Rice. MODELS OF THE PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY FOR ELECTRICITY SUPPLY: by Thomas G. Wolff. March 1977. H. Peskin and E. D-2 D-3 D-4 D-5 D-6 D-7 D-8 D-9 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFLUENT CHARGE SYSTEMS. Watson. Kerry Smith. by V. Shapanka. Kerry Smith. by L. Kerry Smith. III. M. Watson. by Clifford S. Kerry Smith. P. and A. Russell. by V. December 1976. August 1977.. Kerry D-1O D-11 D-12 SUMMARY. Bower and Patricia L. December 1978. Rosenfield. Russell. April 1977. Cowing and V.72 RFF DISCUSSION PAPERS D-I VOTE TRADING: AN ATTEMPT AT CLARIFICATION. Ridker. D-13 D-14 THE ROLE OF AIR AND WATER RESIDUALS IN STEAM ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION. WATER POLLUTION DISCHARGES: A COMPARISON OF RECENT NATIONAL ESTIMATES. P. by A. SCRAPPAGE AND INVESTMENT. by Patricia Rice and V. . AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF THE MONTANA COAL STUDY.

TOWARD A DEFINITION OF THE SPATIAL LIMITS OF TRAVEL COST RECREATIONAL DEMAND MODELS. Kerry Smith and Raymond Kopp. January 1978. April 1978. Krutilla. February 1978. RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS TO GROWTH. Myrick Fraeman. by V. UNCERTAINTY AND ALLOCATION DECISIONS INVOLVING UNIQUE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES. by V. by Helen Ingram and Nancy Laney. February 1978. by A. February 1978. by Robert C. May 1978. Kerry Smith and John V. January 1978. by Marion Clawson. CITIZEN LEGISLATURES: THE BARRIERS TO TURNING GOOD INTENTIONS INTO GOOD POLICY. Robert S. DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN ALTERNATIVE PROCESS ANALYSIS MODELS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT: AN ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS. THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT AND ITS POLITICAL CONTEXT: AN OVERVIEW.S. Clarence Davies. Watson. by V. October 1977. Sizemore. PRICING OF OUTDOOR RECREATION. Jr. Kerry Smith. Philip M. September 1977. by William D. SOME ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS. III.. Aay 1978.. FRONTIER PRODUCTION FUNCTION ESTIMATES AND THE TECHNOLOGY OF STEAM ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANTS: AN ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS. by Adele Shapanka. Raup. THE NUCLEAR DEBATE. Jr. Wilman. Kerry Smith. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE NAVAJO SULFUR CHARGE IN CURBING SO EMISSIONS AT THE FOUR CORNERS POWER PLANT. Mitchell. by William D. Watson. by Robert C. by Elizabeth A. and William R. Manthy. POPULATION AND ECONOMIC GROWTH: 1975-2025. by Winston Harrington. BACKGROUND PAPERS FROM WORKSHOP ON ALTERNATIVES FOR NONINDUSTRIAL PRIVATE FORESTS. COSTS AND BENEFITS OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL: THE HIGH COST OF INEFFICIENT POLICY. Vaughan. SOME EXTENSIONS OF A SIMPLE VALUE OF LIFE SAVING MODEL. January 1978. by D-17 D-18 D-19 D-20 D-21 D-22 D-23 D-24 D-25 D-26 ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT PHASEOUT. January 1978. CONTINUED CARE OF URANIUM MILL SITES: Winston Harrington. by V. November 1977. by V. May 1978. by Raymond J. May 1978. May 1978. III.73 D-16 REGULATING ENERGY: INDICATIVE PLANNING OR CREEPING NATIONALIZATION?. Kopp and V. November 1977. LONG-RANGE TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTS FOR USE IN STUDYING THE RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF U. Kerry Smith and William J. Mitchell and J. Kerry Smith. D-27 D-28 D-29 D-30 D-11 D-32 .

July 1978. by William D. by William D. D-47 ON THE MEASUREMENT OF PRODUCTIVE EFFICIENCY: CONCEPTS AND SUGGESTIONS. MANAGEMENT OF ARID LANDS: AN AGENDA FOR RESEARCH. by V. Kopp. AND MEASUJRI)TG ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS: A SURVEY OF THE ISSUES. Watson. May 1978. by Clifford S. by Raymond J. June 1978. bv Robert C. Kerry Smith and William J. Rosemary Nichols.74 D-33 THE COSTS OF FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL POLICY AND THEIR DISTRIBUTION. THE MEASUREMENT OF TECHNICAL EFFICIENCY INDEXES: AN APPLICATION TO STEAM-ELECTRIC GENERATION. Peskin. Anne Gault. by Raymond J. ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC OPINION: TRENDS AND TRADEOFFS 1969-1978. July 1978. by Kathryn Utrup. V. Kerry Smith. Kopp and V. III. January 1979. HOUSEHOLD CLEANING COSTS AND AIR POLLUTION. July 1978. Myrick Freeman. !ArIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LOBBIES AND THE LOGIC OF COLLECTIVE ACTION: TOWARD A THEORETICAL PARADIGM OF WHY PEOPLE CONTRIBUTE TO THE PRODUCTION OF COLLECTIVE GOODS. March 1979. October 1978. September 1978. Kerry Smith. THE PERCEIVED ROLE OF MATERTALS IN NEOCLASSICAL MODELS OF THE PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY. Russell. CAPITAL-ENERGY COMPLEMENTARITY: FURTHER EVIDENCE. Kopp and V. Kerry Smith and William J. Vaughan. by V. THE COLLECTION OF POLLUTION CONTROL EXPENDITURE DATA. April 1979. December 1978. by Raymond J. and Patricia L. Jr. HEDONIC PRICES. by Raymond J. Kopp. EVALUATING PERCEIVED TECHNICAL INEFFICIENCY WITH STOCHASTIC COST FRONTIERS: AN APPLICATION OF PSEUDO-DATA. Watson. Jr. July 1978. by L. July 1978. by A. THE REVIVAL OF ENGINEERING APPROACHES TO PRODUCTION ANALYSIS: ESTIMATION WITH PSEUDO-DATA. Mitchell. by Raymond J. PROPERTY VALUES. October 1978. and John Jaksch. Kopp. by Henry M. Kerry Smith and William J. February 1979. M. Peskin. by Helen Ingram. August 1978. Rosenfield. APPLICATIONS OF PUBLIC CHOICE THEORY: AN INTRODUCTION. D-34 D-35 D-36 D-37 D-38 D-39 D-40 D-41 D-42 D-43 D-44 D-45 D-46 THE IMPLICATIONS OF MODEL COMPLEXITY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT. ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS IN CONTROLLING MERCURY POLLUTION.. Gianessi and H. Vaughan. D-48 . Vaughan. P.

by Elizabeth A. MEASURING THE PROSPECTS FOR RESOURCE SUBSTITUTION UNDER INPUT AND TECHNOLOGY AGGREGATIONS. by V. June 1979. Mitchell. by Raymond J. "DEEP" OR "LEFT?" PRESENT CONSTITUENCIES IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT FOR CERTAIN WORLD VIEWS. October 1979. November 1979. Krutilla. Kopp. November 1979. by Robert C. ANALYSIS OF FUNDAMENTAL POLICY DIRECTIONS: NATIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT AS AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE. RESIDUALS AND INEFFICIENCY: AN ENGINEERING-ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF ABATEMENT COSTS. Krutilla. Mitchell. February 1980. by Robert C. Kopp and V. December 1979. Mitchell. Krutilla. July 1979. by Robert C. April 1979. MULTIPLE USE FORESTY AND THE ECONOMICS OF THE MULTIPROUCT ENTERPRISE. by Rebecca Logan and D-60 PUBLIC OPINION ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER AND THE ACCIDENT AT THREE MILE ISLAND. Dorothy Nelkin. September D-54 D-55 D-56 D-57 D-58 1979. ENVIRONMENTAL LAW GROUPS. Kerry Smith. ENERGY. Kerry Smith.S. D-53 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND ECONOMIC EVALUATION RESEARCH NEEDS FOR COASTAL AND MARINE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. Kenneth Godwin and Helen Ingram. May D-51 D-52 1979. May 1979. Mitchell. Wilman and John V. THE PUBLIC RESPONSE TO THREE MILE ISLAND: A COMPILATION OF PUBLIC OPINION DATA ABOUT NUCLEAR ENERGY. by Robert C. by Winston Harrington. Bowes and John V. THE POLLS AND NUCLEAR POWER: A CRITIQUE OF THE POST-THREE MILE ISLAND POLLS. Mitchell. October 1979. D-59 LABOR AND THE ANTI-NUCLEAR MOVEMENT IN THE U. by Mark Sharefkin. August 1979. by Raymond J. by Robert C. SUBSIDIES FOR DOMESTIC OIL SUBSTITUTES AND TAXES ON OIL IMPORTS: THE TWENTY TO THIRTY DOLLAR MISUNDERSTANDING. May D-61 D-62 D-63 D-64 1q80. . Kopp. by John A. HOW "SOFT". by R. May 1979. Haigh and John V. by Raymond J.S. August 1979.. ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTION AND WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT. by Michael D. THE EMPIRICAL RELEVANCE OF HOTELLING'S MODEL FOR EXHAUSTIBLE NATURAL RESOURCES. D-50 SINGLE ISSUES: THEIR IMPACT ON POLITICS.75 D-49 PRODUCTIVITY MEASUREMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL RFfULATION: AN ENGINEERING-ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS. SINCE SILENT SPRING: THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF COUNTER-EXPERTISE BY THE U.

April 1982.. Alan J. Martin. September 1980. July 1981. ECONOMETRIC MODEL. Kneese. Portney. by Joy Dunkerley and Gunnar Knapp. THE PERFORMANCE OF NEOCLASSIC-ECONOMETRIC MODELS OF NATURAL RESOURCE SUBSTITUTION IN THE PRESENCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS. Laney. by Henry M. September 1980. Jankowski. March 1982. Kopp and V. by Elizabeth Cecelski with Sandra Glatt. Kopp. Peskin. ENERGY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES SERIES D-73A INDUSTRIAL ENERGY DEMAND AND CONSERVATION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. by Eduardo Moran and Pierre Vernet. October 1980. INTER-FUEL SUBSTITUTION IN THE INDIAN ECONOMY. Kopp and Paul R. Kerry Smith. Krupnick. INDUSTRIAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN A DEVELOPING COUNTRY: THE ECUADORIAN CASE. October 1980. Russell. William E. June 1981. ESTIMATING ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR INDUSTRY: ENGINEERING AND ECONOMIC APPROACHES. D-73B D-73C D-73D D-73E D-74 D-75 D-76 . Magat. July 1981. June 1981. by Raymond J. July 1980. CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT CASE STUDY. D-66 D-67 D-68 D-69 D-70 D-71 D-72 MEASURING THE BENEFITS OF CLEAN AIR. by William J. Jr. by Wesley A. ESTIMATING THE CHANGING PROBABILITY OF PARTICIPATION IN RECREATIONAL FISHING DUE TO CHANGING WATER QUALITY. THE ROLE OF RURAL ELECTRIFICATION IN DEVELOPMENT. Kopp and V. by Raymond J. Kcnp and W. July 1981. March 1981. Erwin Diewert. by Allen V. MODELING NON-NEUTRAL TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE: AN EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS. THE DECOMPOSITION OF FRONTIER COST FUNCTION DEVIATIONS INTO MEASURES OF TECHNICAL AND ALLOCATIVE EFFICIENCY. REGULATORY RULEMAKING IN THEORY AND PRACTICE: THE CASE OF EPA'S EFFLUENT GUIDELINES. Desai.ING OF PRODUCTION ACTIVITY: THE CASE OF NONFUEL MINERAL DEPI(AND. October 1980. by Clifford S. by Ashok V. Vaughan and Clifford S. by Raymond J. Kerry Smith. by Raymond J.76 D-65 ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND CONTROLLED TRADING OF POLLUTION PERMITS. FACTORS AFFECTING THE COMPOSITION OF ENERGY USE IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. December 1981. and Winston Harrington. Russell. by Raymond J. with Sandra Glatt. by John E. TWO PAPERS ON NATIONAL ACCOUNTING AND THE ENVIRONMENT. and Nancy K. by Helen Ingram. October 1980.

DE FACTO SYSTEMS OF MULTIPLE USE PLANNING IN THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT: INTEGRATING COMPREHENSIVE AND FOCUSED APPROACHES. Vaughan and Clifford S. by William J. Krutilla. David Montgomery. David Montgomery. by John V.77 D-77 VALUING A FISHING DAY. THE DISTRIBUTION OF RECREATIONAL BENEFITS FROM IMPROVED WATER QUALITY: A MICRO SIMULATION. AN ECONOMIST'S REFLECTIONS ON MAN'S RELATION TO NATURE. Bohi and W. Lareau. APPLICATIONS OF THE RFF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA INVENTORY. Adams. Gianessi and Henry M. and Leonard P. by Harry G. by Winston Harrington. by John J. Vaughan. Russell. July 1981. by Thomas J. A. SELECTED ISSUES IN PUBLIC LAND POLICY. D-82B D-82C D-82D THE IMPACT OF OIL MARKET DISRUPTIONS ON OTHER FUEL PRICES. December 1981. TARIFFS AND THE ECONOMIC COSTS OF AN OIL DISRUPTION. January 1982. January 1982. by Douglas R. July 1981. Vaughan. Krutilla. December 1981. D-84 D-85 D-86 D-87 D-88 D-89 . RATIONALITY AND IRRATIONALITY IN THE PUBLIC'S PERCEPTION OF NUCLEAR POWER. Gordon. by Leonard P. FORMAL VS. Fischman. Clifford S. January 1982.. by Christopher K. July 1981. February 1982. Russell. January. ENERGY AND NATIONAL SECURITY SERIES D-78 D-79 D-80 D-81 D-82A SOCIAL COST OF IMPORTED OIL AND U. 1982. REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF OIL IMPORT PREMIUM ESTIMATES. ORDINAL AND DUMMY EXPLANATORY VARIABLES: AN ERRORS IN VARIABLES APPROACH.. November 1981. Leonard L. Samuel S. Landsberg. December 1981. January 1982. December 1981. by Robert Cameron Mitchell. by William J. Lemqn. Schanz. Carson. Nielsen. January 1982. Jr. Victor Radcliffe. and Radford Schantz. Gianessi. THE NATIONAL RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL. by Richard T. by Clifford S. D-83 MATERIALS REQUIR94ENTS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH: A COMPARISON OF CONSUMPTION PATTERNS IN INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES. MEASURING AND PREDICTING WATER OUALITY IN RECREATION RELATED TERMS. December 1981. Bohi and W.. IMPORT POLICY. and Hans H. ISSUES IN URANIUM AVAILABILITY. by Douglas R. Broadman. Peskin. Russell and William J. Richard L. Jr.S. Jr. by S. L. by John V.

February 1982. by John A. Shortle and John A. March 1982. April 1q82. NATURAL GAS DEREGULATION: Russell. Miranowski and Ruth Larson Bender. Miranowski. by James S. BY Milton D-91 D-92 . IMPACT OF EROSION CONTROL POLICIES ON WILDLIFE HABITAT ON PRIVATE LANDS.78 D-90 A DYNAMIC ANALYSTS OF CROPLAND EROSION CONTROL POLICY. OVERVIEW OF POLICY ISSUES.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.