DOCSLIB.ORG

2020 Spruit Public Administration

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2020 Spruit Public Administration Hoe wordt privatiseren een succes Succesfactoren voor privatisering in Nederland, Verenigd Koninkrijk en Italië Master Thesis MSc Public Administration, IEG track 31 Augustus 2020 Student: Daniël Spruit Studentnummer: S1066420 Supervisor: dr. Jelmer Schalk Tweede lezer: dr. Petra van den Bekerom Universiteit Leiden Instituut Bestuurskunde 1 2 Master Thesis voor de graad van Master of Science (MSc) Universiteit Leiden Instituut Bestuurskunde Den Haag 3 4 Voorwoord Ik heb deze thesis geschreven aan het einde van mijn master Public Administration. Ik heb veel geleerd gedurende de studie en ben veel te weten gekomen over verschillende bestuurskundige fenomenen. Van deze intrigerende fenomenen heb ik er één gekozen om nader te onderzoeken, namelijk het fenomeen van privatiseren. Ik heb voor dit onderwerp gekozen omdat het van begin af aan mijn interesse opwekte door de discussie over publiek en privaat. Ook later, wanneer het onderwerp af en toe ter sprake kwam, wist het nog steeds te boeien en ik ontdekte dat ik me afvroeg waarom het onderwerp eigenlijk steeds meer naar de achtergrond is verdwenen. Dit raadsel is wat me uiteindelijk ertoe heeft gezet om deze thesis te schrijven. Deze thesis is bedoeld voor degenen die interesse hebben in het onderwerp privatiseren en daar meer over willen weten. Met name studenten en ambtenaren kunnen hun voordeel doen met de inzichten uit deze thesis. Het is een lange en zware weg geweest en ik wil graag de volgende mensen bedanken: mijn begeleider dr. Jelmer Schalk voor al zijn advies, behulpzaamheid en geduld, dr. Petra van den Bekerom die de verantwoordelijkheid van tweede lezer op zich neemt en alle respondenten die de tijd hebben genomen om te helpen bij dit onderzoek. Daarnaast wil ik in het bijzonder graag mijn ouders en vriendin bedanken voor alle begrip en steun. Daniël Spruit Augustus 2020 5 6 Inhoudsopgave LIJST VAN TABELLEN 10 ABSTRACT 11 1. INLEIDING 12 1.1 Algemene inleiding 12 1.2 Voorgesteld onderzoek 14 1.3 Relevantie 16 1.4 Opzet onderzoek 16 2. THEORETISCH KADER 17 2.1 Overzicht van onderwerpen 17 2.2 Privatisering 17 2.2.1 Definitie privatisering 17 2.2.2 Verwante termen 19 2.2.3 Privatisering in verschillende bestuurskundige stromingen 19 2.2.4 Variabelen die de mate van privatisering beïnvloeden 20 2.2.5 Historische trend privatisering 21 2.3 Succes van privatisering 22 2.3.1 Definitie van succes 22 2.4 Voor- en nadelen van privatisering 22 2.4.1 Voordelen van privatisering 22 2.4.2 Nadelen van privatisering 24 2.5 Succesfactoren voor privatisering 26 2.6 Ordening van succesfactoren 30 2.7 Landsafhankelijk en casusafhankelijk 31 2.8 Transportsector 33 3. CONTEXT 35 3.1 Privatisering in de transportsector 35 3.2 Nederland 35 3.2.1 Treinvervoer 35 3.2.2 Stads- en streekvervoer 37 3.2.3 Vliegvervoer 38 3.3 Verenigd Koninkrijk 39 3.3.1 Treinvervoer 39 3.3.2 Stads- en streekvervoer 40 3.3.3 Vliegvervoer 41 7 3.4 Italië 42 3.4.1 Treinvervoer 42 3.4.2 Stads- en streekvervoer 42 3.4.3 Vliegvervoer 43 4. METHODIEK 44 4.1 Selectie van landen 44 4.2 Selectie van casussen 45 4.3 Operationaliseren succes(factoren) 46 4.3.1 Voordelen en nadelen 47 4.3.2 De Financiële factor, Kwaliteitsfactor en Sociale factor 49 4.3.3 Operationaliseren succesfactoren 52 5. ANALYSE 56 5.1 Resultaten interviews 56 5.2 Analyse casussen Nederland 58 5.2.1 NS & ProRail (1995 tot heden) 58 5.2.2 Connexxion (2007 tot heden) 60 5.2.3 Qbuzz (periode 2008 tot heden) 61 5.2.4 KLM (1996 tot heden) 62 5.2.5 Succesfactoren in Nederland 62 5.3 Analyse casussen Verenigd Koninkrijk 63 5.3.1 British Rail & Railtrack (1989 tot heden) 63 5.3.2 London Buses (1994 tot heden) 64 5.3.3 British Airways (1987 tot heden) 65 5.3.4 Succesfactoren Verenigd Koninkrijk 66 5.4 Analyse casussen Italië 66 5.4.1 Alitalia (2008 tot heden) 66 5.4.2 Succesfactoren Italië 67 5.5 Verschillen tussen de landen 67 6. CONCLUSIES EN AANBEVELINGEN 70 6.1 Beantwoorden van de onderzoeksvraag 70 6.2 Discussie 71 6.2.1 contributie & limitatie 71 6.3 Aanbevelingen 72 6.3.1 aanbevelingen voor praktijk 72 6.3.2 aanbevelingen voor toekomstig onderzoek 72 REFERENTIES 73 BIJLAGE A: CASUSSEN PRIVATISERING 82 BIJLAGE B: INTERVIEWVRAGEN 86 BIJLAGE C: LOGBOEK 88 8 BIJLAGE D: DATABRONNEN 89 1 NS/ProRail 89 2 Connexxion 89 3 Qbuzz 89 4 KLM 89 5 British Rail/Network Rail 89 6 London Buses 89 7 British Airways 90 8 Alitalia 90 BIJLAGE E: INTERVIEWVERSLAGEN 91 Qbuzz 91 Connexxion 96 ProRail 102 NS 109 Ministerie van I & W (1) 115 Ministerie van I & W (2) 119 9 Lijst van tabellen Tabel 1: Voordelen van privatisering. 23 Tabel 2: Nadelen van privatisering. 25 Tabel 3: Succesfactoren voor privatisering, op volgorde van impact. 31 Tabel 4: Gekozen casussen. 46 Tabel 5: Samengevatte voor- en nadelen van privatisering. 47 Tabel 6: Geïnterviewden. 48 Tabel 7: Coderingscategorieën. 49 Tabel 8: Drie factoren en de operationalisering daarvan. 52 Tabel 9: Casus NS & ProRail. 60 Tabel 10: Casus Connexxion. 61 Tabel 11: Casus Qbuzz. 62 Tabel 12: Casus KLM. 62 Tabel 13: Casus British Rail & Railtrack. 64 Tabel 14: Casus London Buses. 65 Tabel 15: Casus British Airways. 66 Tabel 16: Casus Alitalia. 67 Tabel 17: Landsverschillen wat betreft de factoren. 69 Tabel 18: Casussen transportsector Nederland. 82 Tabel 19: Casussen transportsector Verenigd Koninkrijk. 82 Tabel 20: Casussen transportsector Italië. 84 10 Abstract The popularity of privatization has dropped dramatically over the last decade. During the early days of privatization it was said to bring many advantages. Over time however, many studies have discussed this and found that this is not always the case. A lot of research has been done on the subject of privatization, however most of the studies focused on describing the process and how it should be implemented. The purpose of this study is to try and explain the factors influencing the success of privatization. This study attempts to clarify what factors influence the success of privatizations, once it is clear what factors there are it should maximize the chances of success of future privatizations. All factors known to influence the success of privatization will be summarized, ranked in order of importance and will be tested to see if they differ between countries. The study is a comparative study between countries selected using the most similar design method. Several cases are selected per country, however due to constraints only public transport cases in those countries are examined. The data is gathered by conducting a literature study combined with in-depth interviews with experts who are knowledgeable about privatization. There are two kinds of interviews: interviews with individuals from privatized organizations who have experienced/knowledge about a privatized organization to gather in- depth data and also there will be interviews with individuals tasked with regulating/monitoring the transport sector to gather data on the results of privatization. The results show that all the factors do indeed influence the success of privatization. Also in all cases of full privatization the result was worse than cases where partial privatization was chosen. It can be concluded that due to many factors influencing the success of privatization, it is impossible to fully privatize successfully and therefore partial privatization (or public-private partnership) should be chosen. 11 1. Inleiding 1.1 Algemene inleiding Privatisering is een bestuurskundig fenomeen. Door de jaren heen heeft de populariteit ervan een flinke ontwikkeling meegemaakt. Vóór de jaren tachtig werd er niet of nauwelijks geprivatiseerd, of werd het althans niet zo genoemd. In de jaren tachtig werd privatisering geïntroduceerd als een breed inzetbare oplossing voor de toenmalige problemen met de te grote en trage overheid. Dit leidde tot een grote populariteit van privatiseren. Maar de laatste paar jaren is de populariteit ervan aan het afnemen (Stellinga, 2012). Privatisering wordt tegenwoordig nog maar zelden genoemd in het politieke debat dat in Nederland gevoerd wordt. Er zijn zelfs meerdere voorbeelden van deprivatisering, oftewel het terugdraaien van een eerdere privatisering (Diekman, 2017; Kishimoto, 2018). Hoe kan het dat het eens zo populaire privatisering zo in populariteit is afgenomen en vindt deze ontwikkeling ook plaats in het buitenland? Privatisering is binnen de bestuurskunde en politiek geïntroduceerd als middel om overheidsorganisaties efficiënter te laten functioneren. Goodman en Loveman (1991) definiëren privatisering als een verzameling activiteiten, gericht op het overdragen van de levering van goederen en diensten van de publieke naar de private sector . Goodman en Loveman plaatsen daarbij echter de kanttekening dat het fenomeen privatisering niet scherp afgebakend kan worden. Er zijn dan ook meerdere definities en beschrijvingen in omloop. Sommigen, zoals Smith Nightingale en Pindus (1997), gaan uit van een bredere definitie waaronder ook uitbesteding van goederen, diensten en programma’s naar de private sector valt. Privatiseren kan voordelen met zich meebrengen, zoals dat het de overheid klein en efficiënter houdt (Kuiper et al., 2012) en dat een concurrerende markt ertoe leidt dat de geprivatiseerde organisatie wordt aangezet tot innovatie en prijsverlaging (Stellinga, 2012; Veraart, 2013). Verschillende voordelen kunnen van toepassing zijn op dezelfde casus. De voordelen zijn als argumenten te gebruiken om een privatisering uit te willen voeren. In theorie kan privatisering dus meerdere voordelen met zich meebrengen, maar ook in de praktijk blijkt dat privatisering positief kan uitpakken. Guriev en Megginson (2005) en Marcelin en Mathur (2015) tonen aan dat privatisering kan leiden tot een hogere productiviteit en andere positieve effecten die de samenleving ten goede komen. Helaas is privatisering lang niet altijd een succes. Tegenwoordig is er zelfs een trend van deprivatisering te zien om mislukte privatiseringen terug te draaien (Diekman, 2017; Kishimoto, 2018).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • South Western Franchise Agreement
    _____ September 2006 THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT and STAGECOACH SOUTH WESTERN TRAINS LIMITED SOUTH WESTERN FRANCHISE AGREEMENT incorporating by reference the National Rail Franchise Terms (Second Edition) CONTENTS CLAUSE PAGE 1. INTERPRETATION AND DEFINITIONS ............................................................................. 4 2. COMMENCEMENT .......................................................................................................... 5 3. TERM 5 4. GENERAL OBLIGATIONS ................................................................................................ 6 5. SPECIFIC OBLIGATIONS ................................................................................................. 6 6. COMMITTED OBLIGATIONS ......................................................................................... 48 7. SUPPLEMENTAL TERMS ............................................................................................... 48 8. RECALIBRATION OF THE BENCHMARKS ...................................................................... 49 9. DOCUMENTS IN THE AGREED TERMS .......................................................................... 49 10. ENTIRE AGREEMENT ................................................................................................... 49 APPENDIX 1 ........................................................................................................................... 52 Secretary of State Risk Assumptions (Clause 5.1(y)) ................................................. 52 APPENDIX
    [Show full text]
  • Key to Maps for Details in Central London See Overleaf
    S 1 N B C 712.724 M S 2 O 9 Maldon Manor Station, The Manor Drive, Worcester Park, Dorchester Road, North Cheam, London Road, Windsor Avenue, H A C 242.C1.C2 M H 310.311 W1† 614 S 298 308.312 610 66.103.175 D 9 757 to D NE R R 2 E Cuffley 381 3 R E R A A 8 N LEY 4 1 A 5 .39 FF H U . 364 5.248 . A L N 12 A CU IL D 1 T A E P C1.C3.C4 6 621 N 615 A 3 A 380.880 L 191 W8 W10 247.294.296 O 8 - * Luton Airport E Cranborne Road . L T H 8 Stayton Road, Sutton, Cedar Road, Langley Park Road, Lind Road, Westmead Road, Carshalton, Carshalton Beeches, D R 2 9 O 1 R Breach Barns A R D Colney D * L T N 2 84 N C1 K B81 Y . O 2 648.N15 4 N S3 R 6 TI 242 I 8 E . E 0 84.302 A 365.375.575 S . A 797 D *T C T 2 S S C1 W9 O O L M B 298 B Industrial 3 RD C 382 9 . E N 7 6 G Y R . 8 CH 880 G * S S 1 T I U Street E . R R 242 211.212† 6 4 8 602 A U O R C Belmont, Royal Marsden Hospital, Sutton Hospital (Mon-Sat except evenings). Quality Line M O O O 4 398 H R 169 R T H S Shenleybury B 0 E 242 F .
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Space Ltd Land South of Coldharbour Road, Gravesend
    Capital Space Ltd Land South of Coldharbour Road, Gravesend Transport Assessment July 2016 Gravesham Borough Council Contents 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 2 SITE AND LOCAL AREA ........................................................................................ 2 Site Location ....................................................................................................... 2 Local Road Network ............................................................................................ 2 Public Transport .................................................................................................. 3 3 POLICY ................................................................................................................ 4 National Planning Policy Framework .................................................................. 4 Supplementary Planning Guidance SPG 4 Kent Vehicle Parking Standards (July 2006) ................................................................................................................... 4 Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy (September 2014) ................................... 5 4 BASELINE CONDITIONS ..................................................................................... 6 Existing Traffic Conditions .................................................................................. 6 5 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 7 Overview
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Fleetlists.Xlsx
    Fife Scottish Omnibuses Limited (trading as Stagecoach in Fife) Fleet 2001… 40th Anniversary Fleet strength 294 (25 less than 1996 and back to 1991 level) After being a constant since the fleet was formed in 1961 the last Leyland single deckers are withdrawn 30 low floor 'Loliner' branded buses are now in service at Cowdenbeath and Dunfermline A return to operating Scottish Citylink services has brought a number of toilet fitted coaches back into the fleet Over 50 former London double deckers have arrived to replace older vehicles from the 1970s Stagecoach Express coach fleet has grown to over 40 vehicles, including articulated coaches Livery notes; A new group livery for Stagecoach UK operations is introduced. Retaining white, orange, red and blue in a new design From 2000 Fife, Stagecoach Perth and Bluebird Buses in Aberdeen are being managed by common management albeit remaining as separate companies * LF next to a fleet number indicates it is low floor/wheelchair accessible ** Seating code shows a bus, dual purpose or coach (starts with a B, DP or C) followed by number of seats and then F (for front entranced) a 't' at the end means toilet fitted *** Double decker seating is shown 'H' followed by the upper deck seating/lower deck seating and then the door code (F for front entranced). Open top vehicles start 'O' MINIBUSES (Total 20) 2001 Fleet Depot Registration Chassis Vehicle Seats** Year Notes Number* Alloc Number Type Type New 16 K F234NLS Mercedes Benz 609D Mercedes Benz DP18F 1988 ex Alisons in 2000 17 K M317RSO Mercedes Benz
    [Show full text]
  • ANNUAL REPORT and ACCOUNTS 1999 Contents
    ANNUAL REPORT AND ACCOUNTS 1999 Contents Finance director's review 1 Consolidated balance sheet 19 Directors' report 8 Company balance sheet 20 Corporate governance 11 Consolidated cash flow statement 21 Remuneration report 15 Additional statements 22 Auditors' report 17 Notes to the accounts 23 Consolidated profit and loss account 18 Financial highlights 4 Total turnover »1,548.4 million, up 15% 4 Total operating profit of »274.7 million, up 27% 4 Profit before tax of »219.9 million, up 39%* 4 Basic earnings per share of 12p, up 26% 4 Adjusted earnings per share of 12.7p, up 32%* 4 Final proposed dividend for the year of 2.0p 4 Total dividend for the year of 3.0p (net), up 25% 4 Free cash flow of »279.8 million 4 Capital investment of »263.1 million *before goodwill amortisation and exceptional items Turnover Profit before tax Earnings per share in » million in » million in pence Important Note This document contains detailed financial and statutory information for the group for the year ended 30 April 1999. It should, however, be read in conjunction with the Annual Review which contains the Chairman's statement and the Chief Executive's review. Finance director's review The financial results demonstrate the operational improvements being made and the strong contributions from recent acquisitions. Turnover grew 15% across all of our businesses in 1999, 4% before acquisitions and disposals in the current year. Pre-taxprofits before taking account of goodwill amortisation and exceptional items have increased 39%. Keith Cochrane, Group Finance Director Trading results Adjusted earnings per share before taking account of Operating profits were »274.7 million compared to goodwill amortisation and exceptional items grew 32% »216.3 million in 1998.
    [Show full text]
  • Getting on the Right Track
    spotlight LEVERAGED FINANCE GETTING ON THE RIGHT TRACK JOANNA HAWKES OF ANGEL TRAINS EXPLAINS SOME OF THE ISSUES FACING THE ROLLING STOCK LESSOR IN THE FUNDING AND LEASING OF TRAINS TO THE OPERATING COMPANIES. he purpose of this article is to outline the issues facing the rolling stock lessor, both from the perspective of financing the purchase of rolling stock, as well as leasing it to the trains operating companies (Tocs). It focuses mainly on the Tactivities and experiences of Angel Trains (Angel). BACKGROUND. The three rolling stock leasing companies (Roscos) Angel, Porterbrook Leasing and HSBC Rail (formerly Eversholt tandem with extended and renegotiated franchises. As the market Leasing) were originally formed in 1994 out of the privatisation of has developed, lease contracts have become more bespoke and very British Rail. Their business is owning, maintaining and leasing rolling heavily negotiated. stock. At the time of public offer, fears of re-nationalisation under For a number of reasons – partly strategic, partly historic – Angel an incoming Labour government were high. Offers to buy from the Trains finances about 80% of its portfolio in the banking market, finance sector were limited and consequently two of the three were rather than via its parent. Figure 2 illustrates the current simplified the subject of management buy outs. Over subsequent years, industry structure. however, Roscos have migrated towards their natural home for UK leasing companies, and each has become a subsidiary of a big TYPES OF LEASES. There are a number of variations in the types of financial institution: Royal Bank of Scotland (Angel), Abbey National lease structures, but generally capital rentals are fixed.
    [Show full text]
  • INTERIM REPORT 2000 UK Bus East Manchester South Midlands East Midlands North East South West East Scotland North West West and Wales London South East West Scotland
    INTERIM REPORT 2000 UK Bus East Manchester South Midlands East Midlands North East South West East Scotland North West West and Wales London South East West Scotland Overseas Bus Australia Hong Kong Citybus New Zealand Portugal Coach USA New England Region West Region North Central Region Canada North East Region Taxi Division South Central Region Transit Division South East Region Rail Island Line South West Trains Supertram Virgin Rail Group (Joint Venture) Prestwick Airport Strategic Investments Prepayment Cards Road King Infrastructure thetrainline.com United Kingdom Canada USA Portugal Hong Kong & China Australia / New Zealand FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS Turnover – continuing operations £1,085.5 million, up 30% Operating profit * – continuing operations £128.7 million, up 14% “Stagecoach aims to provide Profit before tax* £91.8 million (1999 – £130.2 million) long-term shareholder value by creating a global transport Earnings per share * 5.3p (1999 – 7.6p) business, focused on innovation and quality, which benefits both Interim dividend 1.3p, up 8% our customers and employees.” * before goodwill amortisation and exceptional items CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT Brian Souter Executive Chairman I am pleased to present the Group's results Since mid-October, rail operatingperformance for the six months ended 31 October 2000. has however been significantly impacted by the emergency engineering work being carried The disposal of Porterbrook in April 2000 out by Railtrack followingthe tragicaccident reduced the Group's earnings. Earnings per at Hatfield and the subsequent flooding. share before goodwill amortisation and Conditions for customers and staff have been exceptional items was 5.3p (1999 ^ 7.6p). extremely difficult and we have been working However, excludingthe contributions made by hard with Railtrack and the shadow Strategic Porterbrook and Swebus to our results for the Rail Authority (sSRA) to get services back to equivalent prior-year period, turnover has normal as quickly as possible.
    [Show full text]
  • The Next Stage
    the next stage Annual Report 2002 STAGECOACH GROUP PLC Company No. SC100764 Contents 1 Highlights 27 Corporate governance 2 Stagecoach Group Key Data 31 Remuneration report 4 Chairman's and Chief Executive's 33 Auditors' report statement 34 Accounts 6Operating review 74 Shareholder information 18 Finance Director's review 75 Registered office and advisers 22 Directors 75 Financial calendar 24 Directors' report 76Five year financial summary Our national and local managers We took action to cut costs have focused over the year on immediately in the wake of the recruiting and training staff to September 11 attacks and are now ensure a consistent high quality of rebuilding the revenue by focusing service to our passengers. We have on new business opportunities. also improved our marketing to These include new ``twin city'' line highlight the attractiveness and runs, new transit contracts and accessibility of our services. The extending our sightseeing services. Ferrytoll Park and Ride partnership We are undertaking a full business with Fife Council and the Fuel review of Coach USA. Saver marketing campaign won awards at the UK Bus industry's ``Oscars''. We have been focusing on improvements to our services in line with commitments made to Using our trolley bus experience in the Strategic Rail Authority as part Wellington, New Zealand, we have of the new franchise which we continued performance trials to expect to sign shortly. Our new develop such a service for Hong Desiro trains order is on schedule Kong. We have also continued to with first delivery later this year. invest in new infrastructure in Hong Kong.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements
    108244_STC_Back PRINT_108244_STC_Back V12 03/07/2014 16:05 Page 67 Notes to the consolidated financial statements Note 1 IFRS accounting policies These consolidated financial statements are presented in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”), as adopted by the European Union. The principal accounting policies adopted in the preparation of these consolidated financial statements are set out below. These policies have been consistently applied to all the years presented, unless otherwise stated. • Basis of preparation The consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with IFRS and International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee (“IFRIC”) interpretations as adopted by the European Union (and therefore comply with Article 4 of the EU IAS Regulation), and with those parts of the Companies Act 2006 applicable to companies reporting under IFRS. The consolidated financial statements have been prepared under the historical cost convention as modified by (i) the revaluation of available for sale financial assets and (ii) financial assets and financial liabilities (including derivative financial instruments) at fair value through profit or loss. The consolidated financial statements are presented in pounds sterling, the presentation currency of the Group, and the functional currency of the Company and all values are rounded to the nearest one hundred thousand (£0.1m) except where otherwise indicated. • New accounting standards adopted during the year The following new standards, amendments
    [Show full text]
  • Case No COMP/M.5263 - DEUTSCHE BANK LONDON / LLOYDS TSB BANK / ANTIN INFRASTRUCTURE PARTNERS (BNP Paribas) / PORTERBROOK LEASING
    EN Case No COMP/M.5263 - DEUTSCHE BANK LONDON / LLOYDS TSB BANK / ANTIN INFRASTRUCTURE PARTNERS (BNP Paribas) / PORTERBROOK LEASING Only the English text is available and authentic. REGULATION (EC) No 139/2004 MERGER PROCEDURE Article 6(1)(b) NON-OPPOSITION Date: 01/12/2008 Office for Official Publications of the European Communities L-2985 Luxembourg In electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5263 Office for Official Publications of the European Communities L-2985 Luxembourg COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 01/12/2008 SG-Greffe(2008) D/207469 C(2008) 7877 In the published version of this decision, some PUBLIC VERSION information has been omitted pursuant to Article 17(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 concerning non-disclosure of business secrets and MERGER PROCEDURE other confidential information. The omissions are ARTICLE 6(1)(b) DECISION shown thus […]. Where possible the information omitted has been replaced by ranges of figures or a general description. To the notifying parties: Dear Sir/Madam, Subject: Case No COMP/M.5263 - DEUTSCHE BANK LONDON/ LLOYDS TSB BANK/ ANTIN INFRASTRUCTURE PARTNERS (BNP Paribas)/ PORTERBROOK LEASING Notification of 27/10/2008 pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation No 139/20041 1. On 27/10/2008, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 by which the undertakings Deutsche Bank AG (“DB”, Germany), Lloyds TSB Bank plc (“Lloyds”, UK) and Antin Infrastructure Partners FCPR ("AIP", UK), an investment fund sponsored by BNP Paribas SA (“BNP”, France) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of Porterbrook Leasing Company Limited and subsidiaries (“Porterbrook”, UK), by way of purchase of shares.
    [Show full text]
  • Investment, Reprocurement and Franchise Contract Length in the British Railway Industry*
    INVESTMENT, REPROCUREMENT AND FRANCHISE CONTRACT LENGTH IN THE BRITISH RAILWAY INDUSTRY* Luisa Affuso a and David Newbery Department of Applied Economics, University of Cambridge This Draft: May 2001 Abstract This paper studies the interaction between repeated auctions of rail franchises of different lengths, uncertainty, and incentives for investment in rolling stock, following the privatisation of British Rail. Theoretical predictions are tested empirically using a unique panel of data. Theory suggests that short franchise lengths reduce incentives to invest in specific assets. Our empirical results suggest that competition and strategic behaviour at the re-procurement stage can create incentives for delayed investment. Investing just before the end of the franchise enhances the incumbent’s probability of having the contract re-awarded and provides it with a first-mover advantage, while raising the entry cost for other potential bidders. JEL Classification: L22, L92, D23, C23 Keywords: Railways, Investment, Contracts, Panel Data * We are very grateful to Manuel Arellano, Richard Green, Jonathan Köhler, Chris Nash, Volker Nocke, Richard Price, Roger Price, Mike Waterson, Helen Weeds, Melvyn Weeks and the participants to the CEPR meeting of December 2000 for very helpful comments and suggestions. Many thanks to Chris Bowdler and Philip Gaudoin for their valuable research assistance, and to the ESRC for sponsoring this research, Grant No. R000237928. The usual disclaimer applies. a Corresponding author: Department of Applied Economics, University of Cambridge, Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9DD, United Kingdom. E-mail: [email protected]. 1. Introduction The 1993 Rail Act resulted in a dramatic restructuring and subsequent privatisation of British Rail (BR).
    [Show full text]
  • East Midlands Rail Franchise Agreement
    VERSION 4.0X FOIA 2000 PUBLIC REGISTER COPY Dated 15 September 2015 (1) The Secretary of State for Transport (2) East Midlands Trains Limited FRANCHISE AGREEMENT – EAST MIDLANDS VERSION 4.0X FOIA 2000 PUBLIC REGISTER COPY CONTENTS Clause Page 1 INTERPRETATION ........................................................................... 6 2 DEFINITIONS ............................................................................... 10 3 COMMENCEMENT .......................................................................... 80 4 TERM .......................................................................................... 81 5 GENERAL OBLIGATIONS ................................................................ 81 6 RELATIONSHIP WITH PREVIOUS FRANCHISE AGREEMENT ................. 82 7 COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS .............................................................. 82 8 ENTIRE AGREEMENT/WARRANTY .................................................... 82 9 GOVERNING LAW ......................................................................... 83 Schedules 1 Passenger Service Obligations ........................................................ 86 SCHEDULE 1.1 ............................................................................. 87 Service Development .................................................................... 87 SCHEDULE 1.2 ........................................................................... 101 Operating Obligations .................................................................. 101 SCHEDULE 1.3 ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]