**_Table 3: Measures of aggregate market-oriented power sector reforms in eight statistical studies_**

|**Reform**<br>**element**|**ESMAP**<br>**1999**|**Rufin 2003**|**Conway & Nicoletti 2006**|**Nagayama**<br>**2009**|**EBRD 2**|**010**|**Erdogdu 2011**|**Sen & others**<br>**2016**|**Foster & other**|**s 2017**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|1.**Legislation**|_Law allows_<br>_unbundling_<br>_or_<br>_privatization_|_-_|_-_|_-_|_Adequate legal_<br>_framework_|_12%_|_Law for sector_<br>_‘liberalization’_|_-_|_-_||
|2.**Independent**<br>**regulator**|_Separate_<br>_regulator has_<br>_started work_|_Independent regulator;_<br>_Judicial recourse_<br>_counted in ‘Ownership_<br>_Score’_|_-_|_-_|_Establishment_<br>_of independent_<br>_regulator_|_24%_|_Establishment_<br>_of regulator_|_Regulator_|_Regulator_<br>_with some_<br>_decision-making_<br>_autonomy_|<br>_25%_|
|3.**Separate**<br>**utilities**|_Core state_<br>_utility is_<br>_restructured_|_Vertical integration,_<br>_horizontal market_<br>_structure counted in_<br>_‘Competition Score’_|_Overall vertical_<br>_integration;_<br>_Separate G & T_<br>_33%_|_Separate G_<br>_& T counted_<br>_as single-_<br>_buyer model_|_Unbundling_<br>_(legal, financial,_<br>_operational)_|<br>_13.3%_|_Unbundling_|_Unbundling_|Unbundling<br>(four stages)|_25%_|
|4.**Corporate,**<br>**commercial**<br>**utilities**|_Corporate or_<br>_commercial_|_-_|_-_|_-_|_Corporatization_||_Corporatization_|_Corporatization_|_-_||
|5.a.**Private**<br>**generation**|_Private_<br>_greenfield_<br>_investment_|_-_|-|_IPP counted_<br>_as single-_<br>_buyer model_|(Not clear if in<br>private sector p<br>in G, bel|cluded in<br>articipation<br>ow)|_Any IPPs_|_Any IPPs_|_Private sector_<br>_articiation_||
|5.b.**Private**<br>**utilities**|_Any private_<br>_ownership_|_‘Ownership score’_<br>_aggregates 10_<br>_indicators including two_<br>_on regulation_|_Private ownership_<br>_33%_|-|_Private sector_<br>_participation in_<br>_G or D_|_13.3%_|_Any private_<br>_ownership_|_Privatization in_<br>_D_|_pp_<br>_(50% weighted_<br>_index for G & D)_|<br>_25%_|
|6.a**Market**<br>**access**||_Market access counted_<br>_in ‘Competition score’_|_3rd-party access_|_-_|_3rd-party_<br>_access_||_-_|_3rd-party_<br>_access._|||
|6.b.**Market**|_-_|_‘Competition score’_<br>_aggregates indicators_|_33%_<br>_Wholesale market_|_Wholesale or_<br>_til_|_G & D_<br>_competition_|_13.3%_|_Wholesale_<br>_market_|_-_|_Competition (five_<br>_stages)_|<br>_25%_|
|**competition**||_including G & retail_<br>_competition_|_Consumer choice_|_rea_<br>_competition_|_Consumer_<br>_choice:_||_Consumer_<br>_choice._|_-_|||
|7.**Efficient**<br>**pricing**|_-_|_‘Yardstick’ price_<br>_regulation counted in_<br>_‘Competition Score’_|_-_|_-_|_Tariff reform_|_24%_|_-_|_-_|_-_||
|**Degrees**<br>**measured for**<br>**each reform**<br>**element**|**Binary**|**Non-binary**|**Non-binary**|**Binary**|**Non-bin**|**ary**|**Binary**|**Binary**|**Non-bina**|**ry**|
|**Aggregate**<br>**measure**|**7 degrees**<br>**[0,6]**|**‘Competition’ and**<br>**‘ownership’ scores**-|**Continuous [0,6]**|**4 degrees**<br>**[1,4]**|**10 degre**<br>**[0,“4+”**|**es**<br>**]**|**9 degrees [0,8]**|**7 degrees [0,6]**|**Continuous [**|**0,100]**|

Note: Percentages indicate elements’ weights toward ‘total’ reform. Studies that measure total reform with no percentage shown give equal weight to each element measured. EBRD (2010) assesses each element on a continuous scale. G = generation. T = transmission. D = distribution.

Page 43