metadata: authors: 0: author: Bogetic,Zeljko
count: Lesotho,South Africa
docna: 0: docna: International benchmarking of Lesotho's
            infrastructure performance
docty: Policy Research Working Paper
theme: Economic statistics, modeling and forecasting,State-owned enterprise restructuring and privatization,Regulation and competition policy,Infrastructure services for private sector development,Legal institutions for a market economy,Other accountability/anti-corruption
majtheme: Economic management,Public sector governance,Rule of law,Financial and private sector development
subtopic: Sanitation and Sewerage,Engineering,Electric Power,Energy Policies & Economics,Water and Human Health,Hydrology,Water Supply and Sanitation Economics,Sanitary Environmental Engineering,Small Private Water Supply Providers,Environmental Engineering,Health and Sanitation,Transport Services,Town Water Supply and Sanitation
teratopic: Communities and Human Settlements,Urban Development,Finance and Financial Sector Development,Transport,Infrastructure Economics and Finance
abstracts: cdata!: The author provides a preliminary
            benchmarking of infrastructure performance in Lesotho in
            four major sectors--electricity, water and sanitation,
            information and communication technology, and road
            transportation--against the relevant group of comparator
            countries using a new World Bank international data base
            with objective and perception-based indicators of
            infrastructure performance from over 200 countries. The
            results of the benchmarking are revealing of several major,
            comparative deficiencies in infrastructure performance in
            Lesotho: (1) extremely low access to electricity and its
            affordability; (2) poor coverage, quality, and the cost of
            local (non-cellular) telephony; and (3) poor quality of
            roads. Infrastructure service delivery in electricity,
            telephony, and roads is well below what would be expected,
            on average, for a country in Lesotho's income group. In
            these sectors, Lesotho also compares unfavorably with many
            other geographical country groups. Unless addressed, such
            infrastructure shortfalls are likely to adversely affect the
            welfare of Lesotho's poor, and the cost competitiveness
            and growth prospects of a range of economic sectors (such as
            tourism and trade) that depend critically on a stable and
            competitive supply of basic infrastructure service. They
            could also affect the speed and quality of Lesotho's
            regional economic integration within the South Africa
            Customs Union (SACU) sub-region with attendant consequences
            for the long-term growth of regional trade and real output.
            By contrast, Lesotho's performance is solid in the
            access to improved water and sanitation, in the aggregate
            and in both rural and urban areas. Finally, this
            benchmarking, combined with more in-depth, sector analyses,
            could provide policymakers in Lesotho a useful guide to the
            areas of infrastructure performance requiring attention.
geo_reg_key: 517195,517191
repnme: repnme: International benchmarking of
            Lesotho's infrastructure performance
display_title: International benchmarking of
            Lesotho's infrastructure performance
listing_relative_url: /research/2006/01/6534535/international-benchmarking-lesothos-infrastructure-performance
topicv3: Sanitation m1326453 2000,Water m1326522 137,Transport m1326661 135,Power and Electricity Sector m1327094 515,Electricity Access m1503452 3922
publishtoextweb_dt: 2010-07-01T00:00:00Z
historic_topic: Communities and Human Settlements,Urban Development,Finance and Financial Sector Development,Transport,Infrastructure Economics and Finance
no_of_pages: 12
author_keys: 0: author_key: 94115
model_extractions: WPS3825

# International Benchmarking of Lesotho’s Infrastructure Performance

## Željko Bogetić

Abstract: This note provides a preliminary benchmarking of infrastructure performance in Lesotho in four major sectors––electricity, water and sanitation, information and communication technology, and road transportation––against the relevant group of comparator countries using a new World Bank international data base with objective and perception-based indicators of infrastructure performance from over 200 countries. The results of the benchmarking are revealing of several major, comparative deficiencies in infrastructure performance in Lesotho: (i) extremely low access to electricity and its affordability; (ii) poor coverage, quality, and the cost of local (non-cellular) telephony; and (iii) poor quality of roads. Infrastructure service delivery in electricity, telephony, and roads is well below what would be expected, on average, for a country in Lesotho’s income group. In these sectors, Lesotho also compares unfavorably with many other geographical country groups. Unless addressed, such infrastructure shortfalls are likely to adversely affect the welfare of Lesotho’s poor, and the cost competitiveness and growth prospects of a range of economic sectors (e.g., tourism, trade) that depend critically on a stable and competitive supply of basic infrastructure service. They could also affect the speed and quality of Lesotho’s regional economic integration within the SACU sub-region with attendant consequences for the longterm growth of regional trade and real output. By contrast, Lesotho’s performance is solid in the access to improved water and sanitation, in the aggregate and in both rural and urban areas. Finally, this benchmarking, combined with more in-depth, sector analyses, could provide policymakers in Lesotho a useful guide to the areas of infrastructure performance requiring attention.

## JEL classification: H54, H, R, O, O57

World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3825, January 2006 _The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the view of the World Bank, its Executive Directors, or the countries they represent. Policy Research Working Papers are available online at http://econ.worldbank.org._ Authors: Bogetić is a lead economist at the World Bank, Africa Region (AFTP1), Washington D.C. (Email: zbogetic@worldbank.org). Atsede Aemro-Selassie provided excellent research assistance. Helpful comments from Jane Walker, Andrew Macoun and Gylfi Palsson are gratefully acknowledged.

1
# International Benchmarking of Infrastructure Performance in Lesotho

## By

## Željko Bogetić*

### **Introduction**

Infrastructure bottlenecks are known to constrain economic growth, competitiveness, and poverty reduction. In recent years, emerging bottlenecks in many countries have forced infrastructure back onto the priority development agenda, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa. The link between infrastructure and growth has of course been well recognized in the development literature (e.g., Aschauer 1989; World Development Report 1994). But during the 1990s, underinvestments in infrastructure in Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America have led to lower economic growth (Esfahani and Ramirez 2003; and Easterly and Servén 2002), raising questions about the adequacy of infrastructure investments and infrastructure performance. More broadly, infrastructure affects human welfare directly and indirectly via access to and quality of basic services such as water and sanitation, though the impact can differ widely across regions, communities or income groups. Last but not least, infrastructure is associated with child health, human capital accumulation, and the achievement of the Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) (Leipziger et al. 2003).

In Lesotho, poor infrastructure has been documented to constrain economic growth and social welfare. For example, poor roads network has constrained the development of tourism. The absence of good roads has prevented rural population from accessing markets, schools, and clinics. Even in the capital Maseru where roads are adequate, the neglect of the rail at Maseru Station, for example, has stifled the development of the sandstone quarrying and other manufacturing sectors (World Bank, 2005a). Also, in a recent survey, many firms report that infrastructure deficiencies in electricity, telecom, and transport have adversely affected the overall investment climate (World Bank 2005b). What is often lacking in this picture is a broader sense of comparative performance of Lesotho’s infrastructure that would help focus the attention of policymakers on those infrastructure sectors and performance dimensions requiring most urgent attention. This short paper aims to fill this gap. To this end, the paper builds in large part on the similar comparative exercises for South Africa and the SACU countries (Bogetić and Fedderke 2005 a,b).

The purpose of this note is, therefore, to systematically benchmark Lesotho’s infrastructure performance in four major sectors––electricity, water and sanitation, information and communication technology, and roads transportation––against the relevant group of comparator countries using a new international data base with objective and perception-based indicators of infrastructure performance from over 200 countries.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

> * Lead Economist (World Bank, Africa Region, AFTP1) (E-mail: zbogetic@worldbank.org). Helpful comments from and discussions with Emmanuel Akpa, Antonio Estache, Ritva Reinikka, Anton Eberhard, Preeti Arora, Ioannis Kessides, Luiz Maurer, Cecilia Briceno-Garmendia, Jane Walker, Andrew Macoun and Gylfi Palsson are gratefully acknowledged. Atsede Aemro-Selassie provided excellent research assistance.

2
How does Lesotho’s performance compare against its relevant country groups, especially low-income countries? What do outcome indicators tell us about the relative strengths and weaknesses of Lesotho’s infrastructure vis-à-vis various income and geographical comparator groups of countries? Where are the largest deviations—positive and negative––from the benchmark group and other comparators? What is Lesotho’s comparative performance in rural and urban areas? And how does one interpret some of these comparisons within Lesotho’s country-specific context in order for it to be useful for policy purposes? The answers to these questions are likely to provide important building blocks towards a more complete assessment of the state of infrastructure in Lesotho, its performance, and any need for reform.

The next section discusses the data, their caveats, and the choice of the comparator groups of countries. The following sections discuss preliminary assessments of infrastructure performance in electricity, water and sanitation, information and communications technology, and roads transportation. The concluding section contains summary remarks.

# **The benchmarking database**

The data used for comparing Lesotho’s infrastructure performance comes from the World Bank research data base that was recently developed with a specific objective to be used for this type of benchmarking exercise (Eustache and Goicoechea, 2005). The database pulls together the latest available observations from a number of well documented, specialized data sources that contain more detailed data with longitudinal information. The data base aims to measure _sector performance_ by focusing on sector _outcomes_ — **_access, affordability/pricing, and quality_** (technical or perceived). It also provides information on sector institutional reform. Data covers 207 countries (although coverage varies by sector and indicator)<sup>1</sup> with a limited number of variables<sup>2</sup> measuring sector outcomes.

For the purpose of benchmarking Lesotho, we compare its available indicators of infrastructure performance with all the world geographical comparator groups--Sub-Saharan Africa, OECD, South Asia, East Asia & Pacific, Middle East & North Africa, Latin America & the Caribbean, Europe and Central Asia, and the world—and four groups of countries clustered by the level of income per capita— low income, middle income, upper middle income, and OECD countries. Therefore, both region and income level are used as comparator criteria. The main benchmarking group on which much of the discussion is focused is low-income country group to which Lesotho belongs. Because of the strong association between infrastructure and income level, this is economically the most meaningful group comparator. This is supplemented by relevant comparisons with other income groups and major world regions to provide a wider geographical comparison of Lesotho’s infrastructure performance. Finally, where comparative rural/urban indicators are available, we benchmark Lesotho’s infrastructure performance for both rural and urban areas.

As with any comparative indicators summarizing performance in a vast number of different countries, interpretation must be made carefully and 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

> 1 The percentage of available country observations from the total number of countries (207) varies by indicators from close to 90% for measures of access to roads, 85-95% for ICT access and pricing measures, 75-85% for access to water, and 60% for access to electricity.  The quality indicators generally show lower degrees of completeness than those of access.

> 2 The numbers of indicators in each sector are as follows: 7 in energy, 4 in water & sanitation, 12 in ICT, and 12 in transport. 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

3
Lesotho 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 that could prove indicative in further analytical and policy-oriented studies of Lesotho’s infrastructure performance. Another caveat is that available data indicators for Lesotho are more limited than, for example, in the case of South Africa. As a result, the comparative exercise for Lesotho is inevitably more limited in scope, focusing more on _access_ . Indicator availability for Lesotho is as follows: two indicators for electricity (access and prices), two for water and sanitation (both on access), eight for ICT, and four on roads transport. Nevertheless, since access indicators that are critical for poverty reduction are available for all four sectors, some broad comparisons and conclusions can be reached with appropriate caveats.

# **Energy – electricity**

In the electricity sector, the database contains only two indicators: one on access to the electricity network and another on the average end-user prices. The overall picture is very unfavorable (Table 1). On access, Lesotho’s performance is among the worst in the world, even compared with its own income group of countries (low-income), the Sub-Saharan African region, or SACU countries. On affordability, it also ranks very low with some of the highest prices in the world. The two indicators combined suggest that the electricity services in Lesotho serve only a small, privileged segment of the population and the economy that can afford the high service prices. The scope for improvements in electrification, access to the poor, competition, and affordability is substantial.

**_Access:_** Lesotho’s access to electricity network is one of the lowest in the word with only 6% of the population having access (the latest data for Lesotho and other groups are for 2002). This is extremely low, even in comparison to low-income (Lesotho’s income group) countries (31%) and less than of the average access rate in Sub-Saharan Africa as a whole (15%). It is also lower than averages in other world regions. Most recent sector data for Lesotho suggest that access has doubled, reaching 11% in 2005 in part due to the World Bank financed Lesotho Utilities Sector Reform; nevertheless, the overall comparative picture has not changed, and  much more progress needs to be made to reach the 35% access targeted for 2015 (de Barros, 2005). Other studies also recognize that electricity is an important constraint on economic activity. This suggests that even for the segment of the economy that does enjoy access to electricity, the quality of service is low. For example, over a third of companies surveyed in a recent investment climate survey report electricity deficiencies as major constraint (World Bank 20005 b). Within SACU, Lesotho’s access to electricity is by far the lowest (Bogetić and Fedderke 2005 b). Unfortunately, no comparative data exist for access to electricity in rural and urban areas, which would probably show even more dramatic shortfalls in access in rural areas of Lesotho.

in the database. Also, efforts to weight the raw data by population could help enhance the quality of the cross-country comparisons.

4
|Energy|Lesotho|Pemelmark<br>Lowlicome|ggg|Middle<br>Fastand<br>Moth <br>Africa|South <br>= Asia|Fast<br> 5 <br>Pacific|Latin<br>.<br> America <br>&<br>Caribhea|Europe&<br> ontral <br>Asia|idle<br>Tncome|Lower <br>psddle<br> Income|— Upper<br>Middle<br>Income||World|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Access to ElectticityNetwork(% ofPopulation)|i|iI|15|88|31|id|9|59|8)|a2|a7|é0|
|AE NEES.End-User Prices (05cente/kWh)<br>-(ResidentialNon<br>Residentia|2/3|6/6|an|;|;|5/5|8|BIRO|R||I|T|

Nota: Data used isfrou ike latest observation available between 1997 and 2683, Source: A "Research" Database oflifrastructure Economic Performance, Anionio Estache and Ana Goicoechea, World Bank Infrastructure Network, Office ofthe Vice President, June 2005,
|Water|Lesotho|ee<br>owneamie|SSA|Middle<br> te <br>.<br>Africa|“<br>Pa|Kast<br>Asa <br>cific|Latin<br>America <br> = & = <br> Carithea <br>it|Europe&<br> Central <br> Asi||,<br> uae <br>a”|Lower<br> Middle<br>Income|Upper<br>Middle<br>Income|World|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Access toImprovedWaterSources(% ofpopulation)|76|65|64|ED]|72|13|90|ay|a|ED]|93|a0|
|Access tolmprovedSanitation(% ofpopulation)|ci)|4|ci)|TF|4|60|TF|78|19|Ta|86|64|
|Note:Datausedisfrouthelatestobservationavailablebetwe|en1997and2003.||||||||||||

Source: A "Research" Database ofInfrastructure Economic Performance, Antonio Estache and Ana Goicoechea, World Bank Infrastructure Network, Office ofthe Vice President, June 2005.
|ICT|Lesotho|tomes<br>“me|SSA|Middle<br> a <br>.<br>Africa|ae<br>“Pa|East<br>Asia <br>cific|Latin<br>America <br> =&<br> Carithea<br>Ht|Europe &<br>Central <br>As|uid <br>ia”|Lower<br> Middle<br>Income|Upper<br>Middle<br>Income|World|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Teledensity (totaltelephone subscribers/1000 people)|63|f4|99|292|72|172|433|54?|488|301|635|501|
|Mainlines Teledensity(mainlines subscribers/1000 people)|16|29|31|129|35|74|192|224|193|126|281|213|
|CellularTeledensity(cellularsubscribers‘1000 people)|4}|37|73|167|ct)|96|249|425|280)|179|381|296|
|Cost ofLocalPhone Call(U5 centa/3 minutes)|22|8|10|6|4|i|7|7|7|6|9|9|
|Cost ofPhone Callto theUs(U3 centa/3 minutes)|231|304|4|281|336|450|323|326|309|414|305|333|
|CostofCellularLocalCall(U3 cente’3 off peak minutes)|26|4|42|R|7|42|i|4|4|44|54|49|
|Phone Faults (reportedfaults/100 mainlines)|7h|64|i|23|oF|9|24|34|23|33|18|ct)|
|UninetDemand(6ofmaintelephonelinesinoperation)|73|4}|i|26|24|13|7|8|12|20|4|al|

Note: Data used isfrom the latest observation available between 1997 and 2663.

Source: A “Research” Datahase ofInfrastructure Economic Performance, Antonio Estache and Ana Goicoechea, World Bank Infrastructure Network, Office ofthe Vice President, June 2005.
# **Figures 1-4: Selected Comparisons of Infrastructure Performance in Lesotho**

<!-- Start of picture text --> Access to Electricity Network Access to Impoved Water Sources<br>(% of population) (% of population)<br>100 110<br>87<br>82<br>100<br>80<br>93<br>90<br>60 60 85<br>80<br>80<br>76<br>40<br>31 70<br>65<br>64<br>20<br>15 60<br>6<br>0 50<br>Lesotho Low Income SSA Lower Middle Upper Middle World Lesotho Low Income SSA Lower Middle Upper Middle World<br>Income Income Income Income<br>Teledensity Road Density in Terms of Population<br>(total telephone subscribers/1000 people) (road-km/1000 people)<br>800 10.0<br>9.2<br>635<br>6.7<br>501<br>4.9<br>400 5.0<br>301<br>3.4 3.3<br>3.0<br>99<br>63 64<br>0 0.0<br>Lesotho Low Income SSA Lower Middle Upper Middle World Lesotho Low Income SSA Lower Middle Upper Middle World<br>Income Income Income Income<br><!-- End of picture text -->

# **Roads transport**

On the surface, indicators of access to roads suggest average performance for a low-income country, but the indicators may suggest a somewhat rosier picture due to the small size of the country and its population. Moreover, the main comparative quality indicator––the percentage of paved roads––shows poor performance compared with all comparator groups of countries (Table 4).

8
|Transport|Lesotho|saneeinail<br>ow<br>mene|SSA|Middle<br> adi <br>“<br>Africa|__<br>"Pa|East<br>Asia <br>cific|Latin<br>America <br> = &<br> Caribhea<br>hn|Europe &<br>Central <br>Asia||.<br> Ihe<br>ome|Lower<br>Middle<br>Income|‘Upper<br>Middle <br>Income|+World|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|RoadDensityinTerme ofPopulationfroad-km/1000 people)|34|3.0|33|48|24|42|a7|$4|Td|49|92|67|
|RoadDensityinTerms ofLand(road-dew/1000 sq keer’)|195.7|181|155.7|6089|54460|276A|FBT|580.3|702|3277|10764|=840.8|
|TravelTime toWorkinMainCities (minutes/one-wayworktrip)|15|33|34|23|2|36|23|23|23|40|23|31|
|Paved Roads(%oftotalroads)|18|30|25|56|38|32|36|76|5a|Ei|it|50|

Note: Data used isfrow the latest observation available between 1997 and 2663, Source: A "Research" Database of Infrastructure Economic Performance, Anionio Estache and Ana Goicoechea, World Bank Infrasiructure Network, Office of the Vice President, June 2005.
|e|e<br>Lesotho|e<br>LowIncome|SSA|World||performancevs.<br>Benchmark|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Deviation of-10%o or more from Benchmark||||||
|Energy: Access to ElectricityNetwork(6 ofPopulation)|6|ar|15|60|Underperform|
|ElectricityAverage End-UserPrices (US cents/k¥'h) - (Residential‘Mon-Energy: Residential|ays|ore|6/3|of6|Underperform|
|ICT: Mainlines Teledensity (mainlines subscribers/1000 people)|16|29|31|213|Underperform|
|ICT: Cost of LocalPhone Call(US cents/S minutes)|22|&|10|3|Underperform|
|ICT:Phone Faults (reported faults/100 mainlines)|75|ef|37|a7|Underperform|
|Transport: Paved Roads(% of totalroads)|18|a¢|25|50|Underperform|
|Water: Access to ImprovedSanitation(% ofpopulation)|ay|4t|ay|64|Underperform|
|Deviation ofbetween -10%> and +10% from Benchimarl:||||||
|Deviation of +10%> or more from Benchmark||||||
|ICT: Cellular Teledensity (celhalar subscribers/1000 people)|47|a7|73|236|Cuatperform|
|ICT: Cost of Phone Call to the US CUS cents/3 minutes)|231|Bol<br>3|407|335|Outperform|
|ICT: Cost ofCellularLocalCall(US cents/3S offpeak minutes)|26|ae|42|49|Outperform|
|Water: Access toImproved Water Sources (% ofpopulation)|76|6s|64|20|Outperform|
|Transport: RoadDensity inTerms ofPopulation (road kn/‘1000 people)|3.4|a.|3.3|67|Outperform|
|Transport: RoadDensity<br>in Terms of Land (road-kmv/‘1000 sq kn)|196|rst|155.7|340.6|Outperform|
|Transport:TravelTimetoWorkinMainCities(minutes‘one-wayworktrip)|15|a3|34|31|Outperform|
Infrastructure service delivery in these areas is clearly well below what would be expected on average for a country in Lesotho’s income group. It is also lower than in many other world regions.

These infrastructure shortfalls are likely to adversely affect not only the welfare of the poor but also the cost competitiveness and growth prospects of a range of economic sectors (e.g., tourism, trade) that depend critically on a stable and competitive supply of basic infrastructure service. As such, they are indicative of the infrastructure sectors and performance dimensions that need improvement if Lesotho is to catch up with competitive performance of its peer group of countries. Within the SACU sub-region, Lesotho’s infrastructure shortfalls are also likely to constrain its regional economic integration in several areas (e.g., Southern Africa power pool, road network) that are important for long-term economic prosperity. Finally, this simple, international comparison of Lesotho’s infrastructure performance should, of course, be combined with more in-depth, sector analyses for a more complete picture of the overall infrastructure performance. Taken together, such analyses could provide policymakers in Lesotho a useful guide to the areas of infrastructure performance requiring urgent attention.

# **References**

Aschauer, David.A. (1989). “Is public expenditure productive?” _Journal of Monetary Economics_ , 23:177-200.

Bogetić, Željko and Johannes W. Fedderke (2005a). “Infrastructure Benchmarking of South Africa’s Infrastructure Performance,” _Journal of Development Perspectives_ (South Africa), Vol.1, No.2, 2005, forthcoming.

Bogetić, Željko and Johannes W. Fedderke (2005b). “International Benchmarking of Infrastructure Performance in the SACU countries,” The World Bank, AFTP1, draft paper, November 2005.

De Barros, Gillberto (2005). Sector note to the Lesotho CAS on telecom and electricity sectors. World Bank, AFTPS.

Easterly, W. and Servén, L. (2002). _The Limits of Stabilization: Infrastructure, Public Deficits and Growth in Latin America_ , Stanford University Press and the World Bank.

Esfahni, H.S., and Ramirez, M.T., 2003, “Institutions, Infrastructure and Economic growth,” _Journal of Development Economics_ , 70, 443-477.

Estache, Antonio and Ana Goicoechea (2005). “A ‘Research’ Database on Infrastructure Economic Performance,” _The World Bank Policy Research Paper No. 3643_ , The World Bank, Infrastructure Network, Office of the Vice President (June), Washington, D.C.

Leipziger, Danny (2001). “The Unfinished Agenda: Why is Latin America Lagging Behind?” _Finance & Development_ , International Monetary Fund, vol. 38, 38-41.

U.K. Department of Transport website: <u>http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_control/documents/homepage/dft_home_page.hcsp. In</u> particular, see TRACS surveys of the principal roads network.

World Bank (1994). _World Development Report 1994: Infrastructure for Development_ . New York: Oxford University Press.

11
World Bank (2001). _Kingdom of Lesotho: Utilities Sector Reform Project_ (Project Appraisal Document No. 21892-LSO), March 9, 2001.

World Bank (2002). “The National Sanitation Programme in Lesotho: How Political Leadership Achieved Long-Term Results,” The World Bank Africa Region Water and Sanitation Program, (August 2002).

World Bank (2005a). _Lesotho: Country Economic Memorandum: Growth and Employment Options Study_ , April 21, 2005, A World Bank report No.26130 LSO.

World Bank (2005b). _Lesotho: An Assessment of the Investment Climate_ , RPED, Africa Private Sector Group, June 7, 2005.

12