Geographical concentration in the institutional market for office property in England and Wales

This paper examines the regional investment practices of institutional investors in the commercial real estate office market in 1998 and 2003 in England and Wales. Consistent with previous studies in the US the findings show that investors concentrate their holdings in a few (urban) areas and that this concentration has become more pronounced as investors have rationalised their portfolio holdings. The findings also indicate that office investment does not fully correlate with the UK urban hierarchy, as measured by population, but is focused on urban areas with high service sector employment. Finally, the pre-eminence of the City of London and and West End office markets as the key focus of institutional investment is confirmed.

Spatial concentration in institutional investment in the UK: some comparisons between the retail and office sectors

Geographic diversity is a fundamental tenet in portfolio management. Yet there is evidence from the US that institutional investors prefer to concentrate their real estate investments in favoured and specific areas as primary locations for the properties that occupy their portfolios. The little work done in the UK draws similar conclusions, but has so far focused only on the office sector; no work has examined this issue for the retail sector. This paper therefore examines the extent of real estate investment concentration in institutional Retail portfolios in the UK at two points in time; 1998 and 2003, and presents some comparisons with equivalent concentrations in the office sector. The findings indicate that retail investment correlates more closely with the UK urban hierarchy than that for offices when measured against employment, and is focused on urban areas with high populations and large population densities which have larger numbers of retail units in which to invest.

Winners and losers from industry reforms in the developing world: experiences from the electricity and mining sectors

The reform of previously state-owned and operated industries in many Less Developed Countries (LDCs) provide contrary experiences to those in the developed world, which have generally had more equitable distributional impacts. The economic reform policies proposed by the so-called 'Washington Consensus' state that privatisation provides governments with opportunities to raise revenues through the sale of under-performing and indebted state industries, thereby reducing significant fiscal burdens, and, at the same time, facilitating influxes of foreign capital, skills and technology, with the aim of improving operations and a "trickle-down" of benefits. However, experiences in many LDCs over the last 15-20 years suggest that reform has not solved the problem of chronic public-sector debt, and that poverty and socio-economic inequalities have increased during this period of 'neo-liberal' economics. This paper does not seek to challenge the policies themselves, but rather argues that the context in which reform has often taken place is of fundamental significance. The industry-centric policy advice provided by the IFIs typically causes a 'lock-in' of inequitably distributed 'efficiency gains', providing minimal, if any, benefits to impoverished groups. These arguments are made using case study analysis from the electricity and mining sectors.