Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorAlice Amsden.en_US
dc.contributor.authorTankha, Sunil, Ph. D. Massachusetts Institute of Technologyen_US
dc.contributor.otherMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Urban Studies and Planning.en_US
dc.coverage.spatials-bl---en_US
dc.date.accessioned2008-01-10T17:33:10Z
dc.date.available2008-01-10T17:33:10Z
dc.date.copyright2005en_US
dc.date.issued2006en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/36287en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/36287
dc.descriptionThesis (Ph. D.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Urban Studies and Planning, February 2006.en_US
dc.descriptionIncludes bibliographical references.en_US
dc.description.abstractIn 1996, when Brazil was well-underway to privatising and liberalising its electric power industry, few would have predicted that within five years the reforms would be a shambles. Like its neighbors Argentina and Chile, Brazil based its electricity reforms on the orthodox therapies of privatisation and liberalisation. The industry was well-positioned to benefit from the reforms: it was technically sophisticated, relatively efficient, and attractive to both domestic and foreign investors. Electricity rates had been suppressed for a long time, but they were not populist and it was the residential customer who cross-subsidised industry. As such, political backlash to increasing electricity prices was unlikely and, in fact, Brazil had successfully begun to raise electricity rates as early as 1993. Despite these fortuitous circumstances, the reforms did not induce sufficient investment and Brazil suffered a massive electricity rationing in 2001. For ten months all classes of consumers had to cut consumption by 20%. By 2002, the electricity reforms were politically dead and none of the candidates in Brazil's presidential elections that year, not even the incumbent administration's nominee, favoured continuing with them.en_US
dc.description.abstract(cont.) My dissertation explains why the reforms failed, approaching the issue from three different perspectives-the policy, the economic and the industrial. Collectively, these essays explain why sectoral neoliberal reforms had a short shelf-life.en_US
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityby Sunil Tankha.en_US
dc.format.extent128 p.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherMassachusetts Institute of Technologyen_US
dc.rightsM.I.T. theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission.en_US
dc.rights.urihttp://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/36287en_US
dc.rights.urihttp://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582
dc.subjectUrban Studies and Planning.en_US
dc.titleThe risk of reform : privatisation and liberalisation in the Brazilian electric power industryen_US
dc.title.alternativePrivatization and liberalization in the Brazilian electric power industryen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.description.degreePh.D.en_US
dc.contributor.departmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Urban Studies and Planning
dc.identifier.oclc77536476en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record