|
Uruguay Autonomous Entities
The performance of the autonomous entities
(
autonomous agencies or state enterprises; see Glossary), which played
a central role in Uruguay's economic development, was an
even
greater issue. Most of the autonomous entities were
industrial or
utility companies; others were service related (see
table 14,
Appendix). The two largest autonomous entities were also
the two
largest companies in Uruguay: the National Administration
of
Fuels, Alcohol, and Portland Cement (Administración
Nacional de
Combustibles, Alcohol, y Portland--ANCAP) and the National
Administration for the Generation and Transmission of
Electricity
(Administración Nacional de Usinas y Transmisiones
Eléctricas--
UTE). In 1988 ANCAP, whose primary activity was refining
and
distributing imported crude oil, grossed US$470 million,
had
profits of US$12 million, and employed 6,700 workers; UTE
grossed
US$285 million, had profits of US$12 million, and employed
almost
12,000 workers. (Based on their 1988 gross earnings, ANCAP
and
UTE were the 113th and 242d largest companies in Latin
America,
respectively.) Other important autonomous entities (and
monopolies) included the National Administration of Ports
(Administración Nacional de Puertos--ANP; another name for
the
Montevideo Port Authority), the National
Telecommunications
Administration (Administración Nacional de
Telecomunicaciones--
ANTEL), and the State Railways Administration
(Administración de
los Ferrocarriles del Estado--AFE).
The Sanguinetti government's policy toward the state
enterprises had two aspects. First, the government planned
to
invest US$1 billion in public-sector projects during the
1987-89
period, raising government investment from 2.9 percent of
GDP in
1986 to 5 percent of GDP in 1987-89. This target was not
met,
however. Public investment in 1987 and 1988 increased only
to 3.1
percent and 3.4 percent of GDP, respectively, because of
the need
to restrain spending. Second, the government planned to
improve
the fiscal health of the state enterprises, many of which
were
running deficits. A combination of utility rate increases
and
spending cuts (but no significant cuts in employment) made
most
state enterprises profitable by the late 1980s, easing the
public-sector deficit slightly.
Data as of December 1990
|
