Suchergebnisse

AbstractAfter a brief period of liberalisation, the UK energy market is reverting towards its pre‐1980s state in which central government intervenes extensively, particularly in the fuel choices of electricity generators. Many powerful interest groups benefit from centralised energy planning, which may be why the market reverts to that situation as a norm. Of the two principal reasons given for government intervention, there is little substance in the argument that it improves security of supply. There may be a better case for action to offset prospective climate change, but the present centralised approach risks massive errors. Decentralised, market‐based action is more appropriate.

The article examines approaches to helping young homeless people in Britain and Australia, and concludes that the similarities far outweigh the differences.

Water privatisation has had some success in allowing capital to be raised without going to government, in improving efficiency and in depoliticising industry decisions. But there is little sign of the liberalisation that, in other privatised utilities (notably gas and electricity), has been so beneficial to customers. It is time to reconsider the view that 'water is different' and to examine how to liberalise the water market. Two necessary steps appear to be to separate the pipeline networks from other activities and to adopt a more light‐handed approach to environmental and quality regulation.

Government regulation in general has over‐expanded. However, in British energy markets, a new form of regulation, concentrating on promoting competition in gas and electricity, has emerged to the benefit of consumers. If the government pursues its policy of targeting favoured energy activities, these gains will disappear, the costs of achieving environmental targets will be unnecessarily heavy and energy markets will be re‐politicised.