the aforementioned data base we use the available indicators for electricity (7), water & sanitation (4), and most of the broader group of indicators for information communication technology (13) and transport (10). For our purpose, the benchmarking is limited to _sector performance_ indicators. Detailed benchmarking is presented in Tables 1-4. We do not use nor discuss institutional reform indicators that are also available in the database, and are subject of a separate exercise.

As with any comparative indicators summarizing performance in a vast number of different countries, interpretation of comparisons must be made carefully and taken with caution. Some of the variations between the indicators may reflect other factors that may make single indicator comparison less revealing, or even misleading. The database itself has its limitations detailed in the cited World Bank analysis by Estache and Goicoechea.<sup>3</sup> In addition, where appropriate, we explain or qualify how specific circumstances in South Africa may affect a specific indicator comparison. Nevertheless, since the indicators presented here are widely accepted and fairly unambiguous representations of major dimensions of sector performance, we believe that the benchmarking and comparisons are sufficiently meaningful and could prove useful in both analytical and policymaking studies of South Africa’s infrastructure performance. Detailed benchmarking for each sector is provided in the Tables 1-6. In the following discussion, we focus on some of the most important conclusions.

# **Energy––electricity**

**Overall assessment.** Overall, South Africa’s performance in the electricity sector (measured by the seven indicators discussed below) compared to the upper-middle income country benchmark is relatively weak in terms of access, but favorable in terms of technical efficiency (i.e., percentage of losses), pricing, and perceptions of service. The relatively low access reflects in large part the legacy of Apartheid, that left large segments of the population—especially the poor––outside the network of basic service provision. Since 1994, a significant area of policy success has been to increase service access, but the level remains behind the average expectation for upper middle-income countries. Low aggregate losses reflect solid internal technical efficiency of the electricity network, but this hides the problem of occasional outages in specific areas, even in large cities such as Johannesburg. Low prices reflect the comparatively low cost of South Africa’s electricity (produced almost exclusively from coal) and the fact that a good part of the capital stock has already been depreciated as there has been little investment in the sector over the past two decades.<sup>4</sup> Finally, local perceptions of service have been rather favorable, but this may have reflected a selection bias in that only customers that do have service provision responded to this question. The overall picture, therefore, suggests that despite recent gains, the main weakness in South Africa’s electricity sector lies in access which remains limited, particularly in terms of service delivery to the poor (Table 1 and Figures 1-2).

**_Access_** .  Not surprisingly, South Africa’s access to the electricity network is superior to the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) with 66% of the _population_ having access, compared to 15% for region as a whole.<sup>5</sup> Access has also risen substantially in South Africa, from some 30% ten years ago reflecting the success to date of the policy of widening access to the electricity network. Nevertheless, South Africa’s level of overall access remains significantly behind—by about a

> 3 For example, the database reports the latest information available between 1997 and 2002, corresponding to arithmetic averages of available data.  In some cases, more recent within country information may be available that is not yet reflected in the database. Also, efforts to weight the raw data by population could help enhance the quality of the cross-country comparisons.

> 4 With significant new investments being planned by ESKOM over the coming years, prices are likely to increase.

> 5 The database observation for South Africa is from 2002. More recent country data suggests an access rate of 70% (UNDP/WorldBank 2005), but the overall conclusion remains the same.

4