BIOMARCADORES DIAGNÓSTICOS EN ASFIXIA PERINATAL

A reformed approach for road maintenance funding defined in a ‘‘second generation’’

road fund has been initiated to ensure sustainable and effective funding for road

maintenance in developing countries with the assistance of the World Bank. The aim

is to recover the cost of road maintenance by bringing it to the marketplace on a ‘’fee-

for-service’’ basis, (World Bank, 1988). The idea is based on a more business-like

approach to road maintenance with strong financial management. The fund is justified

on the grounds that it allows for long term planning due to stable revenues, ensures

value for money, increased efficiency and creates an incentive structure for the

behaviour of road users and suppliers. It is set on the following four building blocks.

1. Creating ownership to commit the road user to funding road maintenance

2. Ensuring accountability by limiting spending to what is affordable

3. Securing adequate and stable flow of funds

4. Clarifying responsibilities by establishing who is responsible for what

The advantages of this approach over the ‘‘first generation’’ road funds includes the following.

1. The fund is set on a clear legal foundation with financial administration and technical autonomy.

2. Road user charging is applied with no earmarked taxes.

3. It is managed by a representative board with half or more members

representing road users and the business community.

4. Members are nominated by the represented constituencies with an independent

chairperson.

5. Financing arrangements are designed to ensure that money is not diverted

from other sectors. This is essential to ensure that budget constraints are hard

and that expenditure decisions are responsive to users with a strong legal

backing.

6. Funds are managed pro-actively by a small secretariat.

7. There are published financial regulations governing the way funds are

managed.

8. Charges are adjusted regularly to meet agreed expenditure targets; and

9. There are regular technical and financial audits to ensure efficiency.

10. They are administered under separate conditions from other government tax

systems on the basis of the following principles.

(i). Provision of incentives for the reduction in road user charge evasion by

keeping the rate as low as possible to avoid corruption and under declaration

(ii) Broadening the tax base by limiting exemptions

(iii) Avoiding large differences in tax rates of similar items

(iv) Simplifying the tax collection structure to reduce administrative costs and

effective enforcement.

The ‘second generation’ road fund is applied through direct and indirect user charges.

Direct charges include road tolling and road utilisation charges by vehicle category.

Indirect charges include proxy charges based on earmarking on taxation through fuel

levies. The major components of the system are discussed in the following

paragraphs.

2.7.1.1. Tariff Setting for Road User Charges (RUC)

A fair and equitable RUC is based on charging individual vehicles for the actual cost

of the road use. The tariff is set by the standard market model of demand and supply.

Different approaches have been advocated by different authors to allocate costs

between different vehicle categories. Some authors stress on the differential effects of

vehicles on road design and road deterioration while other author ignore this and

emphasised other aspects such as the ability to pay. Some of the mechanisms used for

calculating road user charging systems include the following methods by Alemayehu

et al, (1992).

1. Cost allocation on the basis of derived benefit from investing in a road type.

2. Cost allocation on the basis of ability to pay by the road user category such as

private and commercial road users.

3. Cost allocation by the total ton-miles travelled by each vehicle class.

4. Cost allocation based on the amount of highway space and time occupied by

each vehicle type.

5. Cost-function approach which involves costs allocated to vehicle size and

weight distributed on the gross-ton miles travelled.

6. Cost allocation based on Equivalent Standard Axle Load (ESAL) method.

7. The incremental costs incurred approach where costs are estimated to cover

variable maintenance costs.

8. Cost allocation where transport users with inelastic demand (i.e. their use

varies least with changes in perceived transport costs) are allocated the largest

proportionate increase in their transport costs in order to maximise the

generation of revenue. The justification for this method is outlined in Heggie

and Vickers, (1998). It is subject to a wide margin of error and varies widely

from case to case due to difficulties in estimating elasticities of demand.

2.7.1.2 Charging Instruments

The charging instruments for RUC include tolling, fuel levies and vehicle license fees.

1. Tolling: Each vehicle is charged individually according to its usage of any

particular road. The best approach is considered to be an electronic tolling

system covering the whole road network. Unfortunately, this system is not

readily available in most developing countries. Besides, the cost involved is

considered to be fairly high and it is dependant on the level of tolls and the

number of vehicles per day. The system is economically viable for a small

percentage of roads and cannot solve the road maintenance financing problem

for a country’s whole road network. The contribution of road tolls in Ghana to

the road fund is 2 percent.

2. Fuel Taxes: This is a service charge or road maintenance tariff levied and

collected together with the sale of motor fuels. The levy is derived from the

fuel price build up. Its main attraction is the ease with which they are collected

since tax payers are easily identified. The disadvantages are that differential

fuel price between contiguous countries and alternative fuel prices can cause

evasion. Others are adulterating fuel with cheaper substitutes and mis-

classifying their use under an exempt category. It is generates the highest

source of revenue to the road fund in Ghana at 88 percent.

3. Vehicle License Fees: It is deemed to be difficult to administer. This is

because compliance cost is high since in some countries the tax payer might

have to comply with numerous other regulations. It contributes 2 percent

revenue to the Ghana road fund.

2.7.1.3 Limitations of the Road Fund

The road fund is criticised for taking precedence over other sector programmes

financed through general taxation revenue. It can lead to a cut back in other

government programmes when there is a shortage of general government funding

whilst road maintenance continues, (Potter, 1997). It also limits macro-economic

budget flexibility so the Government’s ability to allocate funding to those areas in

most need is in effect reduced. This may generate inefficiency through ‘rent seeking’

behaviour whereby road agencies will try to protect their own dedicated source of

revenues without ensuring their accountability. These arguments are counter acted by

Gwilliam and Shazli, (1999) on the grounds that it cannot presume that ‘good

governance’ exists in the management and allocation of funds to other sectors.