DOCSLIB.ORG

Railways: 2004 White Paper

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Railways: 2004 White Paper Railways: 2004 White Paper Standard Note: SN/BT/3142 Last updated: 31 March 2010 Author: Louise Butcher Section Business and Transport This note summarises the White Paper The Future of Rail published on 15 July 2004. The document and associated information can be found on the Department for Transport's archive. The then Secretary of State for Transport, Alistair Darling, announced a review of the railways in January 2004; this was followed by a report of the Transport Select Committee in April; and the Government’s conclusions and response to the Committee was published in a White Paper in July. The Secretary of State had ruled out renationalising the railways before the review took place and after consideration, he decided against radically changing the structure to a system of common ownership of the track and train. The White Paper identified weaknesses in the existing system for managing the railways and proposed changing the structure by: • Abolishing the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) and moving its strategic functions and financial obligations to the Department for Transport; • Giving responsibility for operating the network and for its performance to Network Rail; • Reducing the number of passenger franchises and aligning them more closely with Network Rail's regional structure; • Increasing the role of the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Assembly and the London Mayor, in determining passenger services and where appropriate, infrastructure; and • Giving the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) responsibility for safety, performance and cost. A number of these changes – notably the closure of the SRA, the transfer of safety regulation, and proposals relating to devolved decision-making – were legislated for in the Railways Act 2005. This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual. It should not be relied upon as being up to date; the law or policies may have changed since it was last updated; and it should not be relied upon as legal or professional advice or as a substitute for it. A suitably qualified professional should be consulted if specific advice or information is required. This information is provided subject to our general terms and conditions which are available online or may be provided on request in hard copy. Authors are available to discuss the content of this briefing with Members and their staff, but not with the general public. Contents 1 Rail Review, January 2004 2 2 Transport Committee report, April 2004 4 3 White Paper, July 2004 5 4 Impacts of the White Paper on the railway industry 7 4.1 Department for Transport 7 4.2 Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) 7 4.3 Network Rail 8 4.4 Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) 8 4.5 Train operating companies (TOCs) 9 5 Railways Act 2005 10 1 Rail Review, January 2004 Rapidly rising costs and continuing poor performance led the then Secretary of State for Transport, Alistair Darling, to announce a review of the rail industry on 19 January 2004. In a statement to the House, he explained how the industry stood: The recent regulatory review published last December confirms that the cost of upkeep of Britain's railways is £1.5 billion a year more than was thought necessary just three years ago. The review implied that Network Rail inherited a business from Railtrack with unit costs substantially higher than they ought to be. Network Rail is tackling these inefficiencies and is working to bring costs down. Taxpayers and fare-paying passengers alike need to know that their money is being well spent and that increased spending will improve performance. Cost control is absolutely essential (…) There remains a further and very serious difficulty facing the industry—that is, its structure and organisation. The way in which it was privatised has led to fragmentation, excessive complication and dysfunctionality that have compounded the problems caused by decades of under-investment. Quite simply, there are too many organisations, some with overlapping responsibilities, and it has become increasingly clear that that gets in the way of effective decision making and frequently leads to unnecessary wrangling and disputes. That is no way to run the railways. 1 Mr Darling went on to restate the Government’s commitment to public-private partnership on the railways and he ruled out any return to nationalisation: The Government are committed to a partnership between public and private sectors. It happens on railways throughout the world. However, the long-term inefficiencies and costs of privatisation have, as time has passed, become an even bigger barrier to the success of the railways, so in the spirit of partnership between private and public sectors, we need to put right the problems that the authors of privatisation left behind. We need to build on that investment and on the structural changes we have already put in place, not only to put the railways on a sound financial footing, but at the same 1 HC Deb 19 January 2004, cc1075-76 2 time to provide them with the right structure and organisation to take them through the next 20 or 30 years [...] However, structural change is not just needed in order to make better spending decisions. It is also needed if rail is to operate effectively and to meet the needs of passengers and other customers. Privatisation had some disastrous and far-reaching consequences for the railways—Railtrack's performance, for example—but the private sector has brought considerable increased investment, and in many cases train companies have provided innovation that was conspicuously lacking in the past. We want to build on that. That is why the Government believe that renationalisation would not solve the problems that the railways face. What is essential is to put in place a structure that works and can deliver not just cost control but safe, reliable railways that work efficiently.2 He then set out the objective of the rail review as follows: Our objective is a streamlined structure and organisation with clear lines of responsibility and accountability. Network Rail is already operating in the public interest, and with the right franchising arrangements so should the train operators, but we have a clear responsibility to examine the roles and relationships of all the other organisations with a view to streamlining the present structure. The review will therefore look at the regulation of safety, which at the moment is the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive, the Health and Safety Commission and the Rail Safety and Standards Board. Safety is of paramount importance, and all those involved undoubtedly work hard to ensure safe railways, but there is now a plethora of industry standards, some of which are over-cautious or are being applied in an over-cautious way. Safety regulation needs to be focused on the real risks to passengers and employees and should not be an obstacle to providing reliable services. We need the right organisation to do that. Our reforms must make the structure as simple and as straightforward as possible. The complex structure at privatisation has contributed to the daily frustrations of the public, many of which are shared by the dedicated and committed people across the country working to improve the railways and deliver better services.3 Responding to the statement, the Conservative Transport Spokesman, Theresa May, criticised the ‘chopping and changing’ of rail policy since 1997 and the centralisation and bureaucratisation that the industry was now subject to: This statement heralds the fifth change in the structure of the railways in nearly seven years of this Labour Government. They came in promising immediate benefits for the travelling public, but after seven years passengers are seeing no improvement on the railways, and for many services are getting worse. One in five trains run late, targets for increasing passenger numbers have been cut, and work on new lines has been scrapped [...] Having obstructed those at the sharp end of the industry with regulation, targets and ministerial intervention, now, when they are failing to deliver, their answer is to set up a review, change the system and put decisions in the hands of the politicians. The statement makes one thing clear—this is not about finding the right structure for the railways, but about increasing centralisation and political control. The Government are 2 ibid., cc1076-77 3 ibid., c1078 3 tearing up the very structure that they created less than four years ago ... Who created the Strategic Rail Authority? It was the brainchild of the Deputy Prime Minister. Who created Network Rail? It was the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers). This Secretary of State is having to clear up the mess left by his predecessors. As ever with this Government, when there is a problem to be solved they do not look for efficiency and new ideas, but reach straight for centralisation, interference and bureaucracy. The statement takes 57 paragraphs to tell us that the Secretary of State is setting up a review.4 2 Transport Committee report, April 2004 Following the announcement in January 2004 the Transport Select Committee held an inquiry into the future of the railway. Its three main conclusions were that a public sector Railway Agency should be set up to combine the functions of the SRA and Network Rail; that economic regulation of the railways had largely failed; and that industry and the safety regulator needed to work better together: A public sector Railway Agency is needed. This new executive body would combine the strategy and output delivery functions of the SRA with control of the infrastructure, and must be given all the powers required to manage the entire rail system and to deliver excellent services for the travelling public.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Strategic Rail Authority
    Guidance on Complaints Handling Procedure Strategic Rail Authority February 2005 Contents Introduction 3 Principles 3 Accessibility and publicity 4 Simplicity of understanding and use 5 Speed of response 6 Confidentiality 7 Full and fair investigation 7 Effective response and appropriate redress 8 Monitoring, auditing and review 8 Interface with insurance claim publicity and procedures 9 Consultation 9 Annex A: Principles for dealing with ‘frivolous and vexatious’ complaints 10 Annex B: Principles for dealing with complaints involving two or more operators 12 2 Introduction 1. Passenger train and station operators are required to have complaint handling procedures, approved by the Rail Regulator (before 1 February 2001) or by the Authority (after 1 February 2001), in place from commencement of licensed operations. 2. Operators may propose whatever procedures best suit the needs and expectations of their customers and the requirements of their businesses. However, this guidance document sets out fundamental principles which the Authority will expect to see reflected in any complaint handling procedure submitted to it for approval and the way in which those principles should be incorporated into operators’ procedures. Whilst this guidance document imposes no absolute requirements upon licensed operators, the Strategic Rail Authority will, as far as possible, measure complaint handling procedures proposed by operators against the contents of this guidance. Principles 3. A complaint handling system should: • Be easily accessible and well
    [Show full text]
  • DIRECTIONS and GUIDANCE to the Strategic Rail Authority
    DIRECTIONS AND GUIDANCE to the Strategic Rail Authority ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STRATEGIC RAIL AUTHORITY 1. The Strategic Rail Authority (“the Authority”) has been established under section 201(1) of the Transport Act 2000 (“the Act”) as a body corporate. PURPOSES OF THE STRATEGIC RAIL AUTHORITY 2.1. The Authority is to provide leadership for the rail industry and ensure that the industry works co-operatively towards common goals. This objective should underpin the whole range of the Authority’s activities. The Authority will set priorities for the successful operation and development of the railway. It will work with other industry parties to secure continuing private investment in the railway, and to deploy public funding to best effect. To this end, the Authority has been given a wide range of statutory powers and duties. 2.2. Section 205 of the Act sets out the Authority’s purposes as: • to promote the use of the railway network for the carriage of passengers and goods; • to secure the development of the railway network; and • to contribute to the development of an integrated system of transport for passengers and goods. 2.3. Section 207 of the Act requires the Authority to exercise its functions with a view to furthering its purposes and it must do so in accordance with any strategies that it has formulated with respect to them. In so doing the Authority must act in the way best calculated: • to protect the interests of users of railway services; • to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development; 1 • to promote efficiency and economy on the part of persons providing railway services; • to promote measures designed to facilitate passenger journeys involving more than one operator (including, in particular, arrangements for the issue and use of through tickets); • to impose on operators of railway services the minimum restrictions consistent with the performance of its functions; and • to enable providers of rail services to plan their businesses with a reasonable degree of assurance.
    [Show full text]
  • The Strategic Case for Hs2
    THE STRATEGIC CASE FOR HS2 October 2013 THE STRATEGIC CASE FOR HS2 October 2013 High Speed Two (HS2) Limited has been tasked by the Department for Transport (DfT) with managing the delivery of a new national high speed rail network. It is a non-departmental public body wholly owned by the DfT. Department for Transport Great Minster House 33 Horseferry Road London SW1P 4DR Telephone: 0300 330 3000 Website: www.gov.uk/dft Department for Transport has actively considered the needs of blind and partially sighted people in accessing this document. The text will be made available in full on the Department’s website. The text may be freely downloaded and translated by individuals or organisations for conversion into other accessible formats. If you have other needs in this regard please contact the Department. © Crown Copyright, 2013, except where otherwise stated. Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown. You may re-use this information (not including logos or third-party material) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence v2.0. To view this licence, visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or e-mail: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third-party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. To order further copies contact: DfT Publications Tel: 0300 123 1102 Web: www.dft.gov.uk/orderingpublications Product code: DfT 014 Printed in Great Britain on paper containing at least 75% recycled fibre.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulating Rail
    Regulating Rail For Whom Should Regulation Work? Chris Bolt On Track...? Politeia Debates POLITEIA 2008 First published in 2008 by Politeia 22 Charing Cross Road London WC2H 0QP Tel: 020 7240 5070 Fax: 020 7240 5095 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.politeia.co.uk © Politeia 2008 Policy Series No. 60 ISBN 978-1-900525-92-3 Cover design by John Marenbon Politeia gratefully acknowledges support for this publication from The Foundation for Social and Economic Thinking Printed in Great Britain by: Hobbs the Printers Ltd Brunel Road Totton Hampshire SO40 3WX Preface to the Series Transport and energy have rarely been of such importance to the policy debate as they are today. While central to a successful economy, they have also become important to voters because of their impact on daily life: travel today is unreliable – often with delays in the most routine journeys - and expensive; fuel costs are rising and uncertain; and there is growing sensitivity to the impact on the environment of too much of the wrong energy consumption. In transport there are fears that things will get worse: the Government’s ill - thought - out schemes for mass housing development and the influx of new people are adding to the strains on an already overburdened transport system – air, rail and road. What should UK policy be? Though the issues are complex, the fundamental questions of policy are clear. What course should be followed? What role should the government have? How should it set the rules? Who should bear the cost? The transport debate is an old one, and Politeia’s new series, On Track…?, opened by focusing on rail.
    [Show full text]
  • THE RAILWAYS in a THIRD TERM “Integrated, Accountable and Publicly Owned” Pre-Election Briefing March 2005
    THE RAILWAYS IN A THIRD TERM “Integrated, accountable and publicly owned” Pre-election briefing March 2005 In September 2004 Labour Party constituencies and affiliates voted at the annual party conference to adopt a policy of “resolving the fragmented structure of the [rail] industry by introducing an integrated, accountable and publicly owned railway”. It has long been recognised that such a move would be supported by an overwhelming majority of the public and would prove immensely popular at a general election. This pre-election briefing shows how this policy can be put into practice in a third term and beyond. We can afford to bring the railways back into public ownership. Such a move would make sound financial sense as well as reaping significant social, economic and environmental benefits in the longer term. SUMMARY • the government’s hopes for a “rail renaissance” with its attendant social, economic and environmental benefits have been frustrated by a privatised rail industry that has absorbed extra public investment without delivering real improvement or growth • ministers have proclaimed their commitment to “the principle of a public private and partnership” for rail. But the private sector is not delivering value for money on the railway – the public sector has proved itself to be more efficient and cost effective • any private sector investment in the railway must ultimately be paid for by farepayers and taxpayers – with interest. Around £800m a year is taken out of the industry as returns to private lenders and investors – a total leakage of more than £6b since 1996 • the majority of passenger services could be taken into the public sector by 2013 at no cost.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2004-2005
    Report of the Office of Rail Regulation To the Secretary of State for Transport and the Scottish Ministers I enclose the report of the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) for the year ending 31 March 2005 as required by section 74(1) of the Railways Act 1993 and the Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc) Order 1999. I confirm that during this period ORR: (a) made no references to the Competition Commission; and (b) received no general directions under section 69(2) of the Railways Act 1993. Chris Bolt Chairman, Office of Rail Regulation May 2005 Presented to Parliament in pursuance of section 74 of the Railways Act 1993 Office of Rail Regulation 1 Annual Report 2004−05 Foreword by the Chairman 5 Overview 7 Introduction Events in the annual reporting year ORR external relations Objective 1 13 Network Rail’s stewardship Train performance Local output commitments Cost efficiency Contents Network Rail monitor Asset management Land disposals Regulatory accounts Policy framework for investments Interim access charges reviews Assessment of Network Rail’s new financial structure Objective 2 19 Track access applications Passenger agreements Freight agreements Model clauses for track access contracts and related issues Network Code reform Stations Code Station access casework Depots Code Depot investment guidelines Depot access casework Licensing Rail Safety and Standards Board Standards Strategy Group 2 Office of Rail Regulation Annual Report 2004−05 Objective 3 25 Competition Act 1998 Competition casework EC Regulation
    [Show full text]
  • Newsletter 4
    South East Northumberland Rail User Group. Newsletter 4. 23/03/2005 GREAT NEWS. SENRUG wins its fight to save the 17.30 Kings Cross evening train . GNER promise to keep running this service to Morpeth, Alnmouth and Berwick. They are also keeping the 18.35 train from Edinburgh to Alnmouth, Morpeth and Newcastle, more great news. GNER has promised many useful improvements to stations and trains, better services for cyclists and for the disabled and better integration with other forms of transport. We promise to keep up the pressure for these and other improvements. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - SENRUG TALK 7.00pm 14th April. Methodist Church Hall. Howard Road. Morpeth. Colin Wheeler, an international rail consultant and an ex-British rail engineer will give a talk: “......” --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- 2 Dates for your diaries. Next meeting: 7.00pm Thursday 21st April, Storey Park Community Centre, Morpeth. AGM 7.00pm Thursday 7th July. Cornmarket, Town Hall, Morpeth. Guest Speaker, Ruth Annison, Wensleydale Railway. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- We should like to announce the late arrival of...... At last, we can announce the arrival of the much delayed (one month) Inter City East Coast main line franchise from the SRA to us. It’s a good job the SRA are not the people trying to run our railways! Oh, but of course they are! However under the new Railway Bill (see later) they, like some Train Operating Companies, will soon disappear, only to re-emerge in a new livery, the Ministry of Transport colours. GNER have been awarded the 10 year franchise , as leaks to the Journal last month predicted. It is good news, as GNER have the experience and there will be much greater continuity, and no need for expensive repainting.
    [Show full text]
  • This Is a Repository Copy of the Restructuring and Future of the British Rail System
    This is a repository copy of The restructuring and future of the British Rail system. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/2288/ Monograph: Merkert, Rico (2005) The restructuring and future of the British Rail system. Working Paper. Institute of Transport Studies, University of Leeds , Leeds, UK. Working Paper 586 Reuse See Attached Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ White Rose Research Online http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Institute of Transport Studies University of Leeds This is an ITS Working Paper produced and published by the University of Leeds. ITS Working Papers are intended to provide information and encourage discussion on a topic in advance of formal publication. They represent only the views of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views or approval of the sponsors. White Rose Repository URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/2288/ Published paper Rico Merkert (2005) The Restructuring and Future of the British Rail System. Institute of Transport Studies, University of Leeds, Working Paper 586 White Rose Research Online [email protected] INSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORT STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS ITS Working Paper 586 February 2005 The Restructuring and Future of the British Rail System Author Rico Merkert ITS Working Papers are intended to provide information and encourage discussion on a topic in advance of formal publication.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Information in the U.K. Passenger Rail Industry
    Journal of Public Transportation 19 The Role of Information in the U.K. Passenger Rail Industry Glenn Lyons and Graeme Mclay University ofSouthampton, United Kingdom Abstract In 1993, the UK. passenger rail industry was privatized with expectations of greater investment, increased efficiency, and improved network pe,formance. To date, progress has been mixed and the indushy has been subject to a critical national press and passenger complaints that have reached record levels. The industry is continuing to develop a service that can do justice to its privatization. Passenger information is an important aspect of these improvements and national rail journey planning services are now heavily used. However, relatively little consideration has been given to understand­ ing the role that information might play in assisting passengers who have already planned their journey but who encounter problems when they travel by train. Failure to execute a journey as planned can be severely disruptive to rail passengers in terms oflost time, expense, anxiety, and frustration. This article charts the development of the privatized rail industry and defines a set ofjourney breakdown situations that can be encountered by passengers. Insights are gained from passenger complaint letters. Such letters typically provide detailed accounts ofjourney breakdowns, attempts to recover the situations, and the use made ofavailable information. Inaccurate or misunderstood pre­ trip information is found to be a factor in many journey breakdowns. Accessible, timely, and appropriate provision ofen-route information can improve passengers 'satisfaction by enabling completion of their immediate journey and might also be decisive in ensuring they have the confidence to use the rail network again in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • The South Eastern Passenger Rail Franchise
    House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts The South Eastern Passenger Rail Franchise Forty–first Report of Session 2005–06 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 19 April 2006 HC 770 Published on 11 May 2006 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £10.00 The Committee of Public Accounts The Committee of Public Accounts is appointed by the House of Commons to examine “the accounts showing the appropriation of the sums granted by Parliament to meet the public expenditure, and of such other accounts laid before Parliament as the committee may think fit” (Standing Order No 148). Current membership Mr Richard Bacon MP (Conservative, South Norfolk) Annette Brooke MP (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and Poole North) Angela Browning MP (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton) Mr Alistair Carmichael MP (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland) Greg Clark MP (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells) Rt Hon David Curry MP (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon) Mr Ian Davidson MP (Labour, Glasgow South West) Helen Goodman MP (Labour, Bishop Auckland) Mr Sadiq Khan MP (Labour, Tooting) Mr Edward Leigh MP (Conservative, Gainsborough) Sarah McCarthy-Fry MP (Labour, Portsmouth North) Mr Austin Mitchell MP (Labour, Great Grimsby) Jon Trickett MP (Labour, Hemsworth) Kitty Ussher MP (Labour, Burnley) Rt Hon Alan Williams MP (Labour, Swansea West) The following was also a Member of the committee during the period of the enquiry: Stephen Williams MP (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West) Powers Powers of the Committee of Public Accounts are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 148.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulatory Reform in Rail Transport—The UK Experience Chris Nash*
    SWEDISH ECONOMIC POLICY REVIEW 9 (2002) 257-286 Regulatory reform in rail transport—the UK experience Chris Nash* Summary When it chose to privatise the British rail network, the British gov- ernment wished to follow the model of a regulated infrastructure mo- nopoly being used by a variety of competitive service operators. However, particular characteristics of railways, including indivisibili- ties, economies of scale and the need to allocate specific paths on the infrastructure, together with political constraints, led to substantial modifications of this model, with heavily controlled franchised pas- senger services. In 1997, the incoming Labour government wished to expand the role of rail in an integrated transport policy. At the same time, whilst the privatised railway had achieved expanding traffic, it faced a num- ber of problems relating to service quality, investment, profitability and safety. The government sought to overcome these problems and achieve its aims by setting up a new body, the Strategic Rail Authority, to be responsible for strategic planning and investment, and by tight- ening regulatory control. Infrastructure charges were revised to pro- vide more appropriate incentives, whilst Railtrack has been super- ceded by a “not for profit” company, Network Rail. This paper reviews and critically assesses these developments. It concludes that there remain considerable problems about providing appropriate incentives and ensuring value for money. The reforms do overcome the most serious weaknesses of the privatised rail
    [Show full text]
  • Competition in British Railways – What Have We Learned?
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Open Access Journals at Aalborg University COMPETITION IN BRITISH RAILWAYS – WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED? Author: Dr John Preston, Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford Keywords - dansk: Jernbane, reform, privatisering, udlicitering, liberalisering Keywords - engelsk: Rail way, reform, privatisation, liberalisation, tendering Session: Introduction session. Year: 1999. To be presented to the Danish Transport Conference. Aalborg, 30th August 1999. 1. INTRODUCTION In this paper I will try and draw some lessons for other countries from the experiences of railway reforms in Great Britain. In so doing, I will try and update the story in Changing Trains (Van de Velde, 1999, with a chapter on Great Britain by Root and Preston). I should start off with three important caveats. First, countries are different. In the project that led to the book Changing Trains, we tried to look at countries (or parts of countries) which were similar to The Netherlands. We concluded that there were no countries in the world similar to The Netherlands. We could equally have concluded that there are no countries similar to Great Britain. We could draw the same conclusion for Denmark. Secondly, what I am going to present is a personal, subjective view - some of which is backed up by empirical evidence, but some of which isn’t. What I want to do then is draw, somewhat randomly, 20 lessons from the British experience. I have been asked by the conference organisers to particularly try and present information on the degree of passenger satisfaction, the extent of ticket system co-ordination and the levels of investment.
    [Show full text]