Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Zonder onderwerpscode: wereldeconomie, ontwikkelingsproblematiek

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

This paper describes the role of public transport and the nature and incidence of transport subsidies in Mumbai, India. Mumbai has an extensive rail and bus network, and public transport is used for over 75 percent of all motorized trips in Greater Mumbai. Both rail and bus fares in Mumbai are subsidized: BEST, which operates public buses in Mumbai, is also an electric utility, and subsidizes bus fares from electricity revenues. We analyze the incidence of these subsidies, and their effect on mode choice, using data from a survey of households in Greater Mumbai. In Mumbai, as in many cities, the middle class is more likely to use public transport for travel than the poor. The poor, however, also use public transit, and their expenditure on public transit constitutes, on average, a larger share of their income than it does for the middle class. It is, therefore, the case that the poor benefit from transit subsidies in Mumbai, as well as the middle and upper-middle classes; however, the poorest 27 percent of the population receives only 19 percent of bus subsidies and 15.5 percent of rail subsidies. Indeed, 26 percent of the lowest income households surveyed do not use rail, while 10 percent do not use bus, implying that they receive no transit subsidies. Expenditure on transport accounts for 16 percent of income in the lowest income category (<5000 Rs./month), with 10 percent of income, on average, spent on bus and rail fares. This percentage, however, is not evenly distributed: it is much higher than 10 percent for households in which workers take the bus or train to work, and lower for households in which the main earner walks to work. Even in these households, however, 12.5 percent of income is spent on transportation. Expenditure on public transport would be even higher if bus fares in Mumbai were not subsidized. In 2005-2006, transport revenues of BEST fell below total costs by 30 percent and below operating costs by 20 percent. Rail fares, which are much lower than bus fares per km traveled, officially covered operating costs and almost covered depreciation expenses.

Bus --- Bus Fares --- Bus Network --- Buses --- Public Transit --- Public Transport --- Public Transport Subsidies --- Rail --- Transit Subsidies --- Transport --- Transport Economics, Policy and Planning --- Trips

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

August 1995 - Do funding priorities for health and safety policies reflect irrational fears? the disaster of the month - rather than address more fundamental problems? A thousand people were surveyed to gauge popular feelings about funding choices between environmental and public health programs. In developing and industrial countries alike, there is concern that health and safety policy may respond to irrational fears - to the disaster of the month - rather than address more fundamental problems. In the United States, for example, some policymakers say the public worries about trivial risks while ignoring larger ones and that funding priorities reflect this view. Many public health programs with a low cost per life saved are underfunded, for example, while many environmental regulations with a high cost per life saved are issued each year. Does the existing allocation of resources reflect people's preoccupation with the qualitative aspects of risks, to the exclusion of quantitative factors (lives saved)? Or can observed differences in the cost per life saved of environmental and public health programs be explained by the way the two sets of programs are funded? Cropper and Subramanian examine the preferences of U.S. citizens for health and safety programs. They confronted a random sample of 1,000 U.S. adults with choices between environmental health and public health programs, to see which they would choose. The authors then examined what factors (qualitative and quantitative) seem to influence these choices. Respondents were asked about pairs of programs, among them: smoking education or industrial pollution control programs, industrial pollution control or pneumonia vaccine programs, radon eradication or a program to ban smoking in the workplace, and radon eradication or programs to ban pesticides. The survey results, they feel, have implications beyond the United States. They find that, while qualitative aspects of the life-saving programs are statistically significant in explaining people's choices among them, lives saved matter, too. Indeed, for the median respondent in the survey, the rate of substitution between most qualitative risk characteristics and lives saved is inelastic. But for a sizable minority of respondents, choice among programs appears to be insensitive to lives saved. The interesting question for public policy is what role the latter group plays in the regulatory process. This paper - a joint product of the Environment, Infrastructure, and Agriculture Division, Policy Research Department, and the Environment and Natural Resources Division, Asia Technical Department - is part of a larger effort in the Bank to see what can be learned about efficient environmental policy by examining the U.S. experience with environmental regulation. The authors may be contacted at mcropper@worldbank.org or usubramanian@worldbank.org.

Air Quality and Clean Air --- Breast Cancer --- Brown Issues and Health --- Children --- Disease Control and Prevention --- Environment --- Environmental Economics and Policies --- Environmental Health --- Finance and Financial Sector Development --- Health --- Health Care --- Health Education --- Health Monitoring and Evaluation --- Health Services --- Health, Nutrition and Population --- Implementation --- Industrial Pollution --- Industry --- Insurance and Risk Mitigation --- Internet --- Knowledge --- Ozone --- Population Policies --- Public Health --- Risks --- Screening --- Smokers --- Smoking --- Strategy --- Water and Industry --- Water Pollution --- Water Resources --- Workplace