SCI英文論文消除貧困和發(fā)展的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施支持

　　本SCI英文論文主要內(nèi)容是討論發(fā)展一個可持續(xù)的資金架構(gòu)用來支持肯尼亞的道路運輸，并且闡述道路網(wǎng)絡(luò)直接影響到國家的經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展水平�！�現(xiàn)代管理論壇》是一本為企業(yè)管理及相關(guān)理論服務(wù)的社會學(xué)期刊。該刊不僅涵蓋了管理理念，還涉及對不同業(yè)務(wù)與企業(yè)管理發(fā)展趨勢的解讀、討論與評價�！冬F(xiàn)代管理論壇》致力于為企業(yè)與員工提供高質(zhì)量的獨特交流平臺，并通過將期刊傳遞的有價值信息應(yīng)用于現(xiàn)實工作環(huán)境、通過將管理理念與實際經(jīng)驗的有機(jī)結(jié)合來惠及企業(yè)及員工。

　　Infrastructure Support For Poverty Eradication And Development

　　發(fā)展一個可持續(xù)的資金架構(gòu)支持肯尼亞道路運輸sub-sector：公私合作有什么作用?

　　DEVELOPING A SUSTAINABLE FUNDING FRAME-WORK TO SUPPORT THE ROAD TRANSPORT SUB-SECTOR IN KENYA: WHAT ROLE FOR PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP?

　　道路網(wǎng)絡(luò)的惡劣條件在很大程度上是由于道路發(fā)展、康復(fù)和維修經(jīng)費的不足。一個更大的問題，是缺乏一個適當(dāng)?shù)幕蛉�面的資金框架，以支持子部門。直到最近，道路分部門擁有，管理和資助的政府，與公共部門經(jīng)常實施的大部分作品。私營部門的作用僅限于政府執(zhí)行的合同，政府建立的設(shè)計和標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。加班加點，私營部門在服務(wù)和基本管理方面繼續(xù)發(fā)揮越來越重要的作用。融資安排，雖然共享，但是，在很大程度上仍然在公共部門。

　　Abstract 摘要

　　Although it is just one of the many modes in Kenya, the road transport sub-sector accounts for 90% of passenger and freight surface transport. The latest available reports on road network condition show that it is characterized by very poor pavement surfaces of all types, with the attendant adverse effects on service levels, vehicle operating costs and ultimately, on growth and development of the national economy.

　　The poor condition of the road network is largely attributable to inadequacy in funding for road development, rehabilitation and maintenance. A much bigger problem however, is the lack of a proper or comprehensive funding framework to support the sub-sector. Until very recently, the roads sub-sector was owned, managed and financed by the government, with the public-sector often implementing much of the works. The role of the private sector was restricted to implementing contracts let by the government, to the designs and standards established by the government. Overtime, the private sector has continued to play an increasing role in the delivery of services and in the basic management. Financing arrangements, though shared have however, remained largely within the public sector.

　　This paper develops the building blocks for a sustainable funding framework and suggests a raft of road financing options for the country. More importantly, it proposes a new model for the sector, which widens and deepens the involvement of the private sector through a partnership framework with the public sector. It also discusses some of the possible elements in such a partnership.

　　1.0 INTRODUCTION 簡介

　　An efficiently functional roads transport sub-sector is critical to economic growth in Kenya. This realization has led to attempts over time by the government to set up funding mechanisms for the sub sector. In 1984 for instance, the government introduced road toll to assist it raise the needed revenue that could be used on road maintenance in addition to the already existing crop cess.

　　As the economy expanded however, the financial needs for road maintenance expanded more than proportionately. In an attempt to avoid the anticipated public outrage over increased road toll charges the government introduced Road Maintenance Levy Fund (RMLF) in1993, the proceeds of which were to be fully applied to road maintenance. The other more conventional sources of financing like the (Government of Kenya) GoK annual budgetary allocation, bilateral and multilateral loans and grants and other user charges however, continued to be used to develop new roads. All these sources combined generate just about 1.5% of the country's GDP, which is then allocated to maintenance, rehabilitation and development of the entire road network.

　　The prevailing poor state of the Kenyan roads today (40% of paved road and 14% of unpaved are in good condition, the balance being fair, poor, or very poor) can in large part be attributed to an array of factors including; inappropriate institutional framework, inadequate financing arrangement, poorly allocated funds and an inappropriate mix of development, rehabilitation and maintenance programs.

　　1.1 Inappropriate Institutional Framework

　　Part of the blame particularly for poor road maintenance policies comes from the institutional framework within which roads are managed in Kenya. Responsibility for the road transport infrastructure is fragmented among different government departments and levels of government, who are not optimally linked. These include;

　　Ministry of Transport (responsible for overall multimodal transport sector policy)

　　Ministry of Roads and Public Works (MoRPW) (responsible for formulation of and coordination of road sub-sector policy through the Roads Department)

　　The Ministry of Local Government (responsible for policy formulation for Local Authorities who in turn are implementing agencies for urban and unclassified rural roads)

　　Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife (responsible for roads in National Parks and Reserves through the Kenya Wildlife Service)

　　The Kenya Roads Board (KRB), a statutory body under the MORPW, which funds and coordinates all maintenance works through the Road Fund and finally

　　The Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (responsible for roads within designated forest, through the Forest Department).

　　The Kenya National Highways Authority (KNHA) (a statutory body under the MORPW, responsible for the management, development, rehabilitation and maintenance of national roads).

　　The Kenya Rural Roads Authority (KRRA) (responsible for the management, development, rehabilitation and maintenance of rural roads).

　　The Kenya Urban Roads Authority (KURA) (responsible for the management, development, rehabilitation and maintenance of all public roads in the cities and municipalities in Kenya, except where these roads are national roads)

　　Ownership, incomplete assignment of management and control of the road infrastructure is therefore predominantly vested in the government of Kenya and its agencies. This arrangement results into responsibilities for the entire road network. But more importantly, it cannot provide the necessary incentive to market roads as part of the market economy implying that the roads are managed like any other social service with multiple goals.

　　The consequence of this is that there is no clear price for roads, users do not pay for roads directly and road agencies are not subjected to any vigorous market discipline. Instead of being financed solely through user charges, the roads are therefore largely financed through budget allocations determined as part of the annual budgetary process. The problem with this is that;

　　Such allocations bear little relationship to underlying needs (i.e. to the cost-effectiveness of road expenditures at the margin) or to the user's willingness to pay.

轉(zhuǎn)載請注明來自發(fā)表學(xué)術(shù)論文網(wǎng)：http:///ywlw/12393.html