Models of Public Sector Information Provision via Trading Funds (2008)

Overview

This study has analysed the impact of adopting different models for the provision of public sector information by trading funds. Its basic task has been to examine the cost and benefits for society, and the effects on government revenue, of four different charging policies: profit-maximisation, average cost (cost-recovery), marginal cost and zero cost; both on their own and when interacted with various data distinctions such as raw versus value-added, and unrefined versus refined. The study focused on the six largest trading funds by data provision: The Met Office, Ordnance Survey, the UK Hydrographic Office, the Land Registry, Companies House, and the Driver Vehicle Licensing Agency.

Geographical scope

United Kingdom

Non-quantified impacts

This report has shown that the case for pricing no higher than marginal cost (which, for most digital data will be zero) on basic data products is very strong, for a number of complementary reasons. First, the distortionary costs of average rather than marginal cost pricing are likely to be high, for several reasons. The mark-up to cover fixed costs is high, as marginal costs are such a low fraction of average costs. The demand for digital data as with other information services is likely to be high and growing. There are likely to be large beneficial spill-overs in inducing users to innovate new services based on the data, as is evidently the case for other ICT services. Second, the case for hard budget constraints to ensure efficient provision and induce innovative product development is weak for public enterprises not subject to regulation and providing monopoly services without fear of competition.

It would be far better to address issues of incentives, regulation and commitment explicitly rather than indirectly through budget constraints. Finally, for several services, the Government is already providing effectively a large contribution to fixed costs, without allowing the public to enjoy the benefits of efficient pricing.

The report is biased against the (strong) presupposition that marginal cost pricing ought always to be preferable, allowing the benefit of the doubt to those who would argue for continuing the present regime unless the arguments against are almost irresistible.

Quantifiable impacts

Summaries for each trading fund are provided, detailing for which products a change in pricing regime would be welfare improving and the overall associated benefits and costs.

  • Companies House: the calculations showed that adopting a marginal cost pricing policy for these particular products would result in gross benefits of around GBP 2.6 million with government incurring net costs of around GBP 681 thousand. This figure is calculated on the basis that Government would make up the loss in revenue of GBP 946 thousand suffered by Companies House itself.
  • The Met Office: gross benefits would be around GBP 1.2 million with costs to government of only around GBP 260 thousand. The actual additional payment required to the Met Office from government would be equal to the loss in revenue which in this case is GBP 390 thousand. This would be on top of the existing GBP 68 million in direct subsidy and GBP 57 million in sales coming from government. Thus, the change in policy would require a 0.3% increase in current expenditure by government in this area. Finally, putting together the benefits and the costs implies an overall net benefit to society of GBP 1.03 million and a return on investment of approximately 500%.
  • Ordnance Survey: given the data available the analysis has focused down on two main product categories: ‘Large Scale Topographic’ and ‘Transport Network Products’, both of which consisted solely of unrefined products. Together the products considered account for around GBP 70 million of the Ordnance Survey’s GBP 114 million of revenue in 2006/2007. For these two product categories, the analysis suggested that a change from an average cost to a marginal cost regime would increase welfare. Specifically, gross benefits would be around GBP 168m a year while net costs to government would be around GBP 12 million. Overall this implies an overall net benefit to society of GBP 156 million.
  • The UK Hydrographic Office: the calculations showed that adopting a marginal cost pricing policy for Copyright Licensing (and maintaining average cost pricing for all other products) would result in gross benefits of around GBP 1.08 million with government incurring net costs of around GBP 744 thousand.
  • Land Registry: the calculations showed that lowering the price to marginal cost would result in gross benefits of around GBP 2.3 million with government incurring net costs of around GBP 1.1 million (GBP 1.2 million gross) if it were to finance the policy. This means that the net welfare gain to society would be around GBP 1.2 million. These figures assume that the fall in revenue of GBP 1.2 million at the Land Registry would be made up by government. This does not take into account the possibility of making up the deficit via charges for registrations.
  • The Driver Vehicle Licensing Agency: the calculations showed that adopting a marginal cost pricing policy for these particular products would result in gross benefits of around GBP 4.3 million with government incurring net costs of around GBP 582 thousand if it were to finance the policy (gross costs would be around GBP 1 million). Overall this means that the net welfare gain to society would be around GBP 3.7 million.

Reference

Region

Study type

Economic analysis

Economy sector

Public Sector Local Government, Public Sector Central Government