Received: 2 May 2021 Revised: 19 August 2021 Accepted: 29 September 2021

DOI: 10.1111/rsp3.12483

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Impact of airport policies on regional

development. Evidence from the Colombian case

Oscar Díaz Olariaga1 | Carlos Alonso-Malaver2

1
Faculty of Civil Engineering (GIFIC Research Group), Universidad Santo Tomás. Bogotá, Colombia
2
Faculty of Statistics, Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Bogotá, Colombia

Correspondence
Oscar Díaz Olariaga, Faculty of Civil
Abstract
Engineering (GIFIC Research Group), Following the global and regional trend, Colombia liberalized
Universidad Santo Tomás, Bogotá, Colombia.
the air transport industry in the early 1990s. With this, an
Email: [email protected]
uninterrupted (ongoing to date) development of a set of
public policies for this sector started, accompanied by vari-
ous reforms at the institutional level. These transformations
took place following the notion that the Colombian State
considers air transport as an essential public service that
contributes to the national economic and regional develop-
ment. Within this package of public air transport policies,
airport policies have an essential role, through which a large
number of airports in the country were privatized (19 to
date), which are distributed, almost homogeneously,
throughout the Colombian geography. These privately
governed airports are located in large, medium, and small
cities, and in regions considered remote and isolated. There-
fore, this article analyzes the impact of public air transport
policies, with a special emphasis on airport policies, on the
country’s territorial connectivity and the socioeconomic
development of its regions. To analyze the socioeconomic
indicators, the methodology of difference-in-differences
was used, which is a quasi-experimental econometric and
impact evaluation method.

© 2021 The Authors. Regional Science Policy & Practice © 2021 Regional Science Association International.

Reg Sci Policy Pract. 2022;14:185–210. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/rsp3 185

186 DÍAZ OLARIAGA AND ALONSO-MALAVER

KEYWORDS
air transport policies, airport concessions, airport governance,
Colombia, regional development

JEL CLASSIFICATION
J18, L52, L93, L98, R42, R58

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N

Air transport plays an important role in today’s globalized society. There is a growing understanding among govern-
ments around the world that air connectivity is an asset that enhances the global competitiveness of cities, regions,
and countries. In this sense, the growth of connectivity reduces travel costs for consumers and companies, and facili-
tates contacts and global trade. There is increasing evidence that growth in air connectivity stimulates productivity,
foreign direct investment, tourism, etc., in different regions within a country (Burghouwt, 2017). In this context,
many governments formulate public policies in their (local) air transport industries to improve connectivity results at
regional and territorial levels, in order to achieve a connectivity portfolio that better meets the needs of society (van
de Vijver et al., 2014).
The improvement of territorial connectivity, in different regions and countries of the world, owes its positive
development in the last three decades to the motivation of the aviation industry. However, this industry has had to
undergo a significant evolution since its inception. A relevant event marks a milestone in the history of the civil avia-
tion industry, the Chicago Convention (December 1944), which signaled the beginning of the regulation of interna-
tional civil aviation (ICAO, 2006). But the regulation of the industry worldwide, by means of the development of very
strict and even restrictive regulatory policies, affected the competitor’s market, had a negative influence on the price
of tickets and the demand, and finally, on the flow and passenger movement (Forsyth, 2006). Despite this, the indus-
try underwent great change in 1978, when the commercial aviation sector was deregulated in the United States; this
event spread to Europe in the 1980s and 1990s, and then to the rest of the world at different speeds (Belobaba
et al., 2009). The deregulation of the aviation industry triggered a series of relevant events that, in short, led to the
elimination of protectionist barriers, fostered competition, caused the reduction of fares, and stimulated demand, tri-
pling global air traffic in the last three decades. (ACI, 2019).
At the national level, governments are interested in domestic air connectivity, that is, in how well their national
air transport systems connect the population among different inland destinations. Domestic air connectivity, on the
one hand, offers important economic benefits to users (all stakeholders) and, on the other hand, enhances regional
economies by facilitating tourism, internal foreign direct investment, and business development, and by supporting
trade in goods and services (OECD/ITF, 2018a). In addition to the economic benefits of local air connectivity, it also
plays a very important social role for communities in remote and isolated areas. These communities often do not
have direct access to essential services such as health care, education, or social services, and therefore depend on
connections to larger cities. In these cases, governments usually formulate public policies to guarantee air accessibil-
ity to these communities by means of the so-called essential air services (Fageda et al., 2019). The reasons govern-
ments consider facilitating minimum levels of connectivity can go beyond the social logic of providing communities
with what is perceived as essential connectivity to meet certain social needs. The rationale for supporting domestic
connectivity may be more strategic: the provision of adequate air connectivity to remote regions can make these
more attractive to current and potential inhabitants, and thus maintain the populations of those regions (or, in other
words, to avoid massive and staggered depopulation) (Tveter, 2017).
In the case of study of the present research, the air transport industry of Colombia was liberalized at the begin-
ning of the 1990s and it experienced all the related events that occurred worldwide, namely: opening of the market
to allow the entry of private air operators, privatization of flag carriers, progressive deregulation of fares, signing of
DÍAZ OLARIAGA AND ALONSO-MALAVER 187

bilateral air agreements with other countries, development of public investment programs in regional and remote,
peripheral, and isolated airports, etc. All this was done through a series of public policies designed exclusively for the
air sector, which are still ongoing (Díaz Olariaga, 2016a, 2016b). Concerning the management of airport infrastruc-
ture, Colombia has followed the regional tendency to outsource the administration of this infrastructure (under the
operation concession formula, and never privatizing the asset), through the change of governance, from public to pri-
vate (Bosch & García Montalvo, 2003; Díaz Olariaga, 2017; Serebrisky, 2012), as are the cases of Brazil (country in
the region that has the most recent related literature) (Bettini & Oliveira, 2016; Dias et al., 2018; Espirito
Santo, 2013; Fernandes & Pacheco, 2018; Franco & Moser, 2008; Neto et al., 2016; Prazeres et al., 2011; Rolim
et al., 2016), Peru (Mendiola et al., 2011), Chile (Carvallo, 2008), Argentina (Lipovich, 2008), and Mexico (Rico
Galeana, 2008), among others. The Colombian government handed over, under a limited temporary concession for-
mula (between 15 and 25 years, depending on the airport) the operation of the airports to a private operator; after
that period, the concessionaire returns the airport to the Colombian State. This model seeks to free the State from
the high expenditure required by the aeronautical infrastructure. On the other hand, with this formula, in addition to
the expansion and modernization of the concessioned airports, the government presented the following objectives
(with the economic resources generated from the concession contracts): (1) feeding the aeronautical compensation
fund to subsidize unprofitable airports, (2) financing new investments in airports, and (3) financing air traffic and
security services (Díaz Olariaga, 2017).
Then, although the relationship between air transport and socioeconomic development, both on a global, conti-
nental, and country level, has generated much academic literature in the last two decades, the same cannot be said
about the influence or impact of regional or small airports in regional/local development. In particular, there are prac-
tically no publications on the impact of a public policy of privatization of airports on the socioeconomic development
of the inland regions of the country where these airports are located. The only roughly related work that has been
found is that of Aguirre et al. (2019), which, using Peru as a case study, analyzes the influence of airport governance
(public or private) on the generation of regional employment in the tourism sector.
For all this, this article analyzes the impact of air transport and airport policies in the interior regions of
Colombia. To analyze the socioeconomic indicators, the methodology of ‘difference in differences’ was used, which
is a quasi-experimental econometric and impact evaluation method. The methodology consists of measuring the
effect that an intervention has on a treatment group, compared with a control group that has not received the inter-
vention over time (Abadie, 2005; Angrist & Krueger, 2000; Bertrand et al., 2004; Heckman & Robb, 1985).
Then, this article unfolds as follows: in the next step (section 2), the conceptual framework is developed with
four main components: the deregulation of aviation in the Latin American subcontinent, the role of air transport in
territorial connectivity, the role of regional airports in the cohesion and development of the territories, and the role
of essential air services. Subsequently (section 3), the case study of this research is presented, divided into three
parts: the airport privatization policy and investment in said infrastructures, commercial air policy, and air connectiv-
ity policies (especially to remote regions; isolated and peripheral). In the next section (section 4), the methodology
implemented in this work is developed. Subsequently, in the penultimate segment (section 5), the impact of air public
policies in the country case study is presented, at the results level. And finally, the work closes with the appropriate
conclusions.

2 | CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 | Deregulation of aviation in Latin America

The United States Government deregulated the aviation market in 1978 (Goetz & Vowles, 2009; Levine, 2006;
Winston & Peltzman, 2000; Transportation Research Board, 1999, 1991; Morrison & Winston, 1995). This liberaliza-
tion policy continued in Europe, more precisely in the European Union, where a gradual process in three phases was
188 DÍAZ OLARIAGA AND ALONSO-MALAVER

followed between 1988 and 1997 (Barrett, 2009; Belén Rey, 2003; Burghouwt & de Wit, 2015; Button, 2001;
Dobruszkes, 2009; Graham, 1998; Morrell, 1998; Reynolds-Feighan, 1995; Thompson, 2002; Wittmer et al., 2011).
Following this trend, the Latin American subcontinent began a process of deregulation of the aviation industry
in the early 1990s, which has developed at different speeds in the countries of the region, mainly through subre-
gional (or multilateral) agreements and, more in isolation, through bilateral agreements between countries
(ICAO, 2003).
Of the multilateral agreements, the first one that stands out is the Cartagena de Indias Agreement (in 1991). This
agreement applies to the countries of the Andean Community of Nations –Colombia is a member of this
community— and was modified in 1994 (Sarmiento García, 2000). The second agreement standing out is the Forta-
leza Agreement (1996), which served to create a common aviation market for MERCOSUR plus Bolivia and Chile,
characterized by the deregulation, privatization, and decentralization processes that were being experienced in those
countries at that time (Lipovich, 2009). Third, the Association of Caribbean States adopted in 2000 the ‘Principles
for a Common Commercial Air Transport Policy’ for the region (ACS, 2000). Finally, the Multilateral Agreement on
Open Skies for the Member States of the Latin American Civil Aviation Commission (which includes nine countries,
including Colombia), signed in 2010 in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic (CEPAL, 2015). In short, the common charac-
teristics of these agreements were freedom of access to markets, freedom of supply, and freedom of fares (Díaz
Olariaga, 2017).
Although the liberalization of the aviation industry has been in place in the subcontinent for more than two
decades and continues to develop, there is still much to improve, especially in terms of regulation. The current situa-
tion of the airline industry in Latin America and the Caribbean (L&C) regarding regulation generates, in many coun-
tries, cases of excessive and restrictive law, which forces the aviation industry to claim and demand governments to
adopt best practices for designing and implementing air transport policies. It is due to these restrictive regulatory pol-
icies that the air liberalization index prepared by the Secretariat of the World Trade Organization – which measures
the relevance of each provision in the process of liberalization of the air sector (whose indicator ranges from 0 to
50, in which 0 corresponds to the most restrictive level and 50 to the most liberal level) – is, on average, 10 for the
Latin American region (BID, 2016).
Therefore, some regional studies suggest that national governments should adopt IATA's Smarter Regulation ini-
tiative (IATA, 2015), adopted by ICAO (ICAO, 2016). In summary, this is a sound regulation that consists of delivering
clearly defined and measurable policy objectives, in the least burdensome way, and by means of a transparent, objec-
tive, and consultative process (CEPAL, 2017).
In another order, the liberalization of air transport allowed the entry of private capitals in the airport sector.
Between 1993 and 2008 the private sector invested more than USD 9.5 billion in L&C airports; Argentina, Colombia,
and Mexico together absorbed almost 80% of the total private investment in the region (Serebrisky, 2012). Between
2008 and 2015, the most private public investment in airport infrastructure was USD 20 billion, which is equivalent
to an annual investment rate of 0.05% of the regional gross domestic product (GDP) (CEPAL, 2017).

2.2 | The role of air transport in territorial connectivity

In general terms, connectivity can be understood as a quality that arises and develops from the existence of links
between objects and functions that are interrelated. In this way, the physical representation of the abstract concept
of connectivity is that of a structure made up of a network of corridors (land, air, sea, and river), which serve to move
goods and people between different parts of the territory.
The characteristics of this network will depend, first, on the physical or structural features of the territory where
it is located. That is, on how difficult or easy it is to deploy said network within that territory. Also, the characteristics
of the flows, in terms of mobility, volumes and type of resources mobilized, are also determining elements in the con-
figuration of the network (Figueroa & Rozas, 2005). Finally, connectivity serves multiple purposes in the different
DÍAZ OLARIAGA AND ALONSO-MALAVER 189

areas of economic and social activity in a country, the most typical are: (1) connectivity to facilitate economic and
productive activity; (2) connectivity for development and social integration; (3) geopolitical connectivity (practice of
sovereignty); and (4) strategic connectivity (connecting the regions and territories of a country to other countries)
(Rozas & Figueroa, 2006).
In the field of air connectivity, many governments formulate public air transport policies to, among others,
improve connectivity among their territories. The rationales used by governments to support their development are
diverse; the most important are (1) economic (productive development, generation of employment and wealth, etc.)
and (2) socio-political (territorial integration and cohesion) (Burghouwt, 2017; Burghouwt & Redondi, 2013). Regard-
ing the former, it is estimated that air transport is an enabling factor for a broader economic development in a region
(van de Vijver et al., 2016).
An analysis of the existing literature on the subject confirms that air passenger transport and employment
(in different industrial sectors) in urban regions are positively linked (Alkaabi & Debbage, 2007; Brueckner, 2003;
Button & Taylor, 2000; Goetz, 1992; Green, 2007; Ivy et al., 1995; Liu et al., 2006; Neal, 2012). The reason behind
this statement is that having better air transport services implies having better accessibility, which encourages com-
panies to locate in a region and stimulates the expansion of existing businesses (Cooper & Smith, 2005; Zak &
Getzner, 2014). This improved accessibility and connectivity appears to contribute to a positive economic perfor-
mance for the economy as a whole, by improving the overall level of productivity thanks to a greater access to other
markets and to better dynamics of movement of workers among regions (Button et al., 1999; Mukkala &
Tervo, 2013; Neal, 2012; Perovic, 2013).
Finally, other research states that employment in the service sector derives from the assumption that the service
industry is more sensitive to passenger air transport than to other sectors of the economy (Bel & Fageda, 2008;
Debbage, 1999; Denstadli, 2004; Faulconbridge et al., 2009; Percoco, 2010; van de Vijver et al., 2014).

2.3 | The role of regional airports in the cohesion and development of territories

There is an ongoing debate related to the definition of ‘regional airport.’ Some attempts to define a regional
airport link the notion of ‘regional’ (or ‘non-central’) with the fact that the area of influence of an airport is out-
side a capital city. In the European Union, at least to date, there is no formal definition of a regional airport for
the purpose of developing public policies. In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration subdivides
airports with commercial traffic into primary and non-primary airports, based on annual passenger boarding num-
bers (FAA, 2020). In a recent study (ACI Europe, 2017), it is considered that the catchment area or the annual
traffic of an airport are not valid indicators of whether an airport is regional. Therefore, it is stated that an airport
should be considered regional if: (1) it mainly serves short and medium-range routes, and (2) it mainly serves
point-to-point destinations.
Regional airports are essential transport nodes and facilitate the smooth functioning of a country’s internal mar-
ket by connecting people, products, and services. They also allow economic activity and growth, expand the horizon
of traditional trade routes, and provide a significant boost to the cities and regions they serve, thereby increasing
accessibility and enhancing social cohesion and development (Baker & Donnet, 2012).
In many interior regions in the countries, there are few efficient, or even viable, alternatives to air transport, due
to a combination of factors including distance, low population density, geographic restrictions, adverse weather, etc.
Many times, airports in these regions are the only means that facilitate access to essential services for these commu-
nities. They also support economic and social integration and allow businesses to connect and citizens to travel for
work. Therefore, the regional airports and the air services they facilitate are extremely relevant when studying local
development and containment of severe depopulation (avoiding massive and staggered emigration to large cities)
(Redondi et al., 2013).
190 DÍAZ OLARIAGA AND ALONSO-MALAVER

As a result, airports in the regions are now defining the economies of their communities. That is, they are drivers
of the socioeconomic development of the territories. Regional airports become catalysts for economic regeneration
and growth (OECD/ITF, 2018b).

2.4 | Essential air services

Given the link between connectivity and economic growth, public managers are interested in implementing appropri-
ate mechanisms to effectively promote air transport, not only in large economic centers but also in remote areas
that, under normal market conditions, would be excluded. Globally, it is easy to find routes to regions and territories
that are not economically profitable for local airlines, due mainly to the low, or almost zero, volume of scheduled pas-
sengers transported (in other words, very low demand), thus the development of adequate air transport connections
is not facilitated. However, due to the social, economic, and even geopolitical importance of remote/outermost/iso-
lated communities, many countries formulate public policies aimed at providing and guaranteeing air connectivity to
these regions. These policies lead to what is known as ‘essential air services’ or also ‘public service obligations’
(BID, 2018).
Worldwide, many countries develop public policies to provide air connectivity to remote regions, and these obey
the specific characteristics and situation of the country. In general, these public policies can be classified into four
large well-differentiated groups (Fageda et al., 2018):

1. Route-based policies: generally, contracts are established between the government and the airlines, which can
specify levels of service, frequencies, type of planes, programming, and fares offered per route.
2. Passenger-based policies: this type of policy focuses on discounts (with a fixed or variable parameter) for resi-
dents of these remote regions.
3. Airline-based policies: in some countries, essential air services are provided by a public air operator. These public
airlines guarantee air services on unprofitable routes.
4. Airport-based policies: this type of policy includes an incentive scheme for unprofitable air route operators
(e.g., discount on airport fees, certain bonuses, etc.) and, on the other hand, subsidies for related airports (from
which routes and frequencies are offered to remote regions).

Ultimately, these policies contribute to the well-being of citizens and communities living in remote regions. Although
the precise benefits are still difficult to quantify, it is possible to highlight different types of impacts of air connectiv-
ity in remote regions: (a) impacts on the communities due to the impact on passengers and goods, and incentives for
the long-term growth in the area; (b) impacts on airlines (construction of new profitable routes, or that benefit from
subsidies), and (c) impacts on the government, in terms of service provision. These different types of impacts can
influence which types of programs and public policies will be most appropriate in different circumstances (Fageda
et al., 2019).

3 | C A S E S TU D Y : P U B L I C A I R P O L I C Y I N CO L O M B I A

3.1 | Investment and airport privatization policies

Regarding the management of airport infrastructure, Colombia has followed the general trend in Latin America of
concessioning the administration and operation of airports (Díaz Olariaga, 2017) once the liberalization of air trans-
port in the country began (in 1992). This model seeks to release the State from the high expenditure required by the
aeronautical infrastructure and is regulated by a national law.
DÍAZ OLARIAGA AND ALONSO-MALAVER 191

On the other hand, the State, through another regulation (DNP, 1994), established the airport concession pro-
cess on an airport infrastructure management plan. The document, in addition to proposing a technological renova-
tion, authorized the process of concessioning airports to private companies and considered the economic
remuneration for the State as the only element to authorize the concession. This remuneration was defined as

F I G U R E 1 Airports under study. Blue circle: airport with private governance; red triangle: airport with public
governance; BOG is the IATA code of the country’s main airport in the capital city. Source: Aerocivil, 2021
192 DÍAZ OLARIAGA AND ALONSO-MALAVER

intended to: (1) feed the aeronautical compensation fund to subsidize unprofitable airports, (2) finance new invest-


ments in said airports, and (3) finance air traffic and security services (Díaz Olariaga & Avila, 2015).
Then, since the mid-1990s, and in temporary phases called ‘generations,’ the Colombian public sector has
awarded several airports in the country under concession, 19 (out of the 46 airports open to commercial traffic) to
date, in order to improve management, modernize and expand, enhance the operation, exploit commercially, and
maintain the air terminals (Figure 1) (Pulido & Diaz Olariaga, 2019). Keeping in mind the objective of the country’s
airport concessions, companies, societies, consortiums, or entities that have the airports under concession act solely
as administrators and operators.
At the same time, the airport concession policy was accompanied by an important public investment policy
(aimed at the airports managed by the State) that has not ceased for two decades. On the other hand, private invest-
ment in airports has evolved in accordance with the dynamics of concessions, going from non-existent in 1996, the
year in which the first concessions began, to 20% as a percentage of the GDP of air transport in 2010 (Díaz
Olariaga, 2016b). Between 1993 and 2018, the investment in airport infrastructure that was exclusively public was
approximately USD 1.7 billion (mainly for medium and small airports), while the exclusively private investment, pro-
duced in the four generations of airport given in concessions between 1996 and 2015, was USD 1.6 billion
(Fedesarrollo, 2016; MinTransporte, 2018).
Finally, and without addressing the economic evaluation of investment in airports, according to the line pro-
posed by Forsyth et al. (2021), which is beyond the scope of this research, it can be mentioned that a recent study
indicates that the economic evaluation of private investment in the main airports of Colombia (the largest in the

n, 2020).
country), registers an equivalent internal rate of return at 19.82% and a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.77 (Rinco

3.2 | Commercial air policy

Some of the greatest barriers to accessing the market are regulation and controls on routes, capacity, and fares.
Regarding the domestic market, Colombia has gone, in the last 25 years, from a protectionist scheme to a probation
scheme. However, although the policy of access to the national market has been the subject of gradual liberalization
in recent years, a maximum number of operators is still established for passenger routes. In addition, until 2012, a
control – which had been gradually made more flexible – was maintained on air ticket fares, but since that year air
fares have been totally deregulated (Díaz Olariaga & Zea, 2018). The immediate effect of fare liberalization was the
substantial decrease in the prices set by the companies for both national and international destinations and, with


this, an automatic increase in demand, especially for domestic destinations (Díaz Olariaga & Avila, 2015).
On the other hand, in Colombia, private air operators with a traditional business model, or full-service carrier
(FSC), entering the market occurred very soon after the liberalization of the sector (early 1990s). But opening the
market for airlines with a ‘low-cost’ business model, or low-cost carrier (LCC), happened many years after liberaliza-
tion, only after 2007. Essential air services, which operate so-called ‘social routes’ (to remote, peripheral, and iso-
lated regions), managed by a publicly owned airline. In 2018, the commercial aviation market was segmented as
follows: FCC operators 74%, LCC operators 21%, and public air operators 5% (Aerocivil, 2021).

3.3 | Air connectivity policies to remote and isolated regions

The Colombian geography is complex, making territorial connectivity difficult (regardless of the means of transporta-
tion) because: (1) the country is crossed from southwest to northeast by three mountain ranges of the Andes; (2) the
country has an insular region in the Caribbean Sea (archipelago of San Andrés, Providencia, and Santa Catalina)
775 km from the Colombian Atlantic Coast; and (3) 42.3% of the continental territory is Amazon rainforest (south-
eastern part of the country). In addition to this geographical situation, Colombia has a major deficiency (in coverage
DÍAZ OLARIAGA AND ALONSO-MALAVER 193

and capacity) in land, road, and rail communication systems (the latter being virtually non-existent) (Díaz Olariaga &
Carvajal, 2016). That is why, ultimately, air transport in Colombia is utterly essential and its role is extremely impor-
tant in territorial connectivity.
In Colombia, the public policy adopted for air access to remote and isolated regions is the so-called ‘airline-based
policy.’ For this reason, currently, essential air services in Colombia are provided by the public operator Satena,
whose objective is to provide air service transportation for passengers, mail, and cargo, primarily for the less devel-
oped regions of the country. Satena connects those regions that – due to geographical reasons, public order situation
and poverty – are not served by other operators, thus guaranteeing connectivity and territorial integration
(Aerocivil, 2016). It is worth mentioning that Satena also operates some commercially profitable (domestic) routes,
competing directly with the existing private airlines in the Colombian market.
On the other hand, the Colombian aeronautical authority must guarantee air connectivity, via the public air oper-
ator, to the areas that are most affected by the conflict (municipalities and remote/peripheral communities that suf-
fered a great social and humanitarian impact during the armed conflict that lasted five decades and ended with the
signing of the peace accord in 2016). Air connectivity services to these vulnerable municipalities – provided they
have an airport served by Satena from central and regional airports – are called ‘social routes.’ Besides that, the cov-
erage of social routes goes beyond the aforementioned areas, and the criteria to identify a community that might
become a beneficiary of a social route are the following (DNP, 2019): (1) geographical location, (2) infrastructure,
(3) public order situation, (4) poverty, (5) development environment, (6) vulnerable communities, (7) tourism potential,
and (8) regional connection.

3.4 | Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic

In relation to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, as of the closing date of this work (early 2021), no specific or
particular consolidated data are available for 2020, neither air traffic nor economic. Likewise, there are some general
provisional data (only at the country level), which we will comment on.
The resounding drops in air traffic verified in 2020 (85% for domestic Pax, 75% for international Pax, both with
respect to 2019) is due exclusively to the complete suspension of commercial passenger air traffic (throughout the
country’s airport network) between mid-March and early August 2020, owing to the health emergency situation
generated by the COVID-19 pandemic (Aerocivil, 2021). The reopening and reactivation of the commercial aviation
sector was very slow, in stages and by airports, and developed throughout the last 4 months of 2020.
Regarding the economic impact generated by the pandemic in the country, in 2020 national wealth (GDP) fell by
5% and the purchasing power of the inhabitants (GDP per capita) decreased by 6%, compared with 2019
(BRC, 2021). Regarding the labor market, the unemployment rate in Colombia reached 15.9% in 2020, which meant
an increase of 5.4% compared with 10.5% in 2019 (BCR, 2021).

4 | M E TH O DO LO GY

The analysis and calculation methodology presented below were used to evaluate the behavior of the indicators:
population development, GDP, and employment generation in those regions of the country where airports are
located, whose governance (operation and administration) was given in concession to the private sector. The analysis
presented belongs to the ‘before–after’ type, in which the airport concession date is the border parameter. This
analysis is intended to determine the influence of the change in airport governance, from public to private, on the
socioeconomic indicators of the related regions.
Then, the analysis of the relationship between the handover of the airports under concession and the socioeco-
nomic variables is done in two parts:
194 DÍAZ OLARIAGA AND ALONSO-MALAVER

1. The exploration of the before–after dynamics by regions is made from the annual average growth rates given by:

  1k
y
1 þ ln tþk 1 ð1Þ
yt

2. The adjustments presented are made using the difference-in-differences methodology (Abadie, 2005; Angrist &
Krueger, 2000; Athey & Imbens, 2006; Bertrand et al., 2004), in which the effect of giving each airport in conces-
sion is estimated from a linear model. The basic idea is to estimate the parameter δ in which two effects are inte-
grated: the first is the change observed in the group under treatment (T) (after–before), and the second is the
change observed in the untreated group (control, C), δ can be represented as:

δ ¼ μT2  μT1  μC2  μC1 ð2Þ

in which μT1 and μT2 are the means of the treated group before and after, respectively; analog μC1 and μC2 are the means
of the control group before and after; and μT2  μT1 and μC2  μC1 are the changes observed on the treated and control
groups, respectively, as a consequence of applying the treatment (the control group does not receive treatment).
Assuming that the effect of the treatment on the control group is proportional to its effect on the control group,
δ can be estimated using least squares, and values that are statistically different from zero indicate that the change in
the treated group is different from the change in the control group and that this change is related to the treatment.
(Cameron & Trivedi, 2005).
Following the logic behind Equation 2 when modeling the characteristic of interest, lnðyit Þ, in which the subscript
i indicates region, the behavior is given by Equation 3:

lnðyit Þ ¼ α0 þ αi þ f ðβ, X Þ þ εt ð3Þ

in which αi is the effect associated with the region—random effect—, and f ðβ, X Þ are the characteristics associated
with the situation and the region that changes its behavior. Assuming that the region effect (αi ) is constant during


the studied period, in Rit ¼ lnðyit Þ  ln yi,t1 , the individual effect does not appear and, therefore, the model to adjust
for panel data with some time-invariant covariates included in the vector xi (Chatelain & Ralf, 2021) and more than
two measurements in time, is given by:

Rit ¼ β0 þ β1 ICit þ δITit þ xTi γ þ εt ð4Þ

in which: Rit is the characteristic of interest observed in the i-th unit1 or region in time t,


1 If region i belongs to control group
ICit ¼ ð5Þ
0 in another case


1 If region i received treatment in moment t in another case
ITit ¼ ð6Þ
0

In parameter β1 likely differences are estimated that are given in the answer between the case regions and the
control regions. In Equation 4 the parameter of interest is δ, which measures deviations in growth rates, and
DÍAZ OLARIAGA AND ALONSO-MALAVER 195

indicates, when significant, that after the intervention (concession of the airport to a private operator) the treated
regions show a different behavior compared to before the intervention.
Other assumptions, the most important, related to the model proposed in Equation 4 are: (a) in the absence of
treatment the regions would have growth rates similar to those observed before the treatment, that is, they remain
constant, and (b) it is expected that when thinking about the counterfactual scenario, the behavior of the treated
regions in the post-treatment period, if the treatment had not been applied, would show a dynamic proportional to
the dynamic observed in the control regions.
The time-invariant variables (time-invariant covariates) used in the adjustment of each of the models are:

• Middle level education for people over 15 years of age.

• Poverty and extreme poverty due to unsatisfied basic needs.
• Monetary poverty.

Finally, complementary calculations were conducted, using more recent techniques (in which control covariates are
used) to make a better comparison between behaviors ‘before and after,’ but the results obtained were not satisfac-
tory. This is because, within the group of cities (or regions) included in this study, it is not possible to find a linear
combination that is close in its behavior to that of the region of interest for the pre-intervention period (before the
privatization of the airport in said region).

5 | I M P A C T O F P U B L I C A I R P O L I CI E S

5.1 | Structure of the airport network

The Colombian airport network has not changed in the last three decades, that is, no new airports have been built.
But, as mentioned previously, the related investment policies contributed to the expansion and technological mod-
ernization of almost all the airports in the network, a process that is still ongoing.
This research has a strong domestic-territorial focus, which is why a group of 38 regional
airports was chosen from three different types: medium (4–8 million Pax/year), small (1–3 million
Pax/year), and very small (<1 million Pax/year). Figure 2 shows the geographic location of all the airports under
study.
The country’s main airport (and hub airport), Bogotá-El Dorado (BOG), was included only as background
information. It does not participate in the study because it does not have the status of a regional airport. Quite
the contrary, it is considered as the third air terminal in Latin America due to its volume of passengers trans-
ported, 32.7 million Pax, and 723,000 tons air cargo, according to statistics of 2019 (Aerocivil, 2021). In addi-
tion, the city of Bogotá – the capital of Colombia where the El Dorado airport is located – has more
than 8 million inhabitants and holds the status of capital district (autonomous government). Altogether,
the group of airports represented in Figure 2 (including BOG) manages 99% of the domestic air
traffic in the country (Aerocivil, 2021), thus guaranteeing a significant number of airports for the present
research.
Colombia concentrates its population and its economic and productive development in the central, western, and
northern regions of the country. For this reason, the airport network, and especially its main airports, is also con-
densed in these regions. In short, the geography of the airport system and its development coincide and are consis-
tent with the socioeconomic geography of the country. However, as can be seen in Figure 2, there are airports in
remote, peripheral, and isolated regions where medium and small communities live, which is why the presence of air-
ports there, mostly small and very small, is justified.
196 DÍAZ OLARIAGA AND ALONSO-MALAVER

F I G U R E 2 Airports with traffic up to 2019. Red triangle: 4–8 million Pax; purple box: 1–3 million Pax; green
pentagon: 0.1–0.5 million Pax; blue circle: 0.03–0.1 million Pax. Source: Aerocivil, 2021

5.2 | Air traffic development

In Colombia, the growth of domestic air traffic as a whole (all airports) was relevant in the period 1992–2019 (see
Figure 3) (Aerocivil, 2021). As shown in Figure 3, air traffic began a relevant dynamic of sustained growth from the
DÍAZ OLARIAGA AND ALONSO-MALAVER 197

F I G U R E 3 Development of passenger air traffic in Colombia (complete airport network), period 1979–2019.
Source: Aerocivil (2021)

beginning of the 2000s, a period immediately after the start of the airport privatization policy, and in parallel with an
important and uninterrupted public investment policy in airport infrastructure (Díaz Olariaga, 2017).
Now, as can be seen in Figure 4, regional airports have had different growth rates (in many relevant cases), and
it should be noted that growth has been independent of the size of the airport, its geographical location, or its status
(central or remote, peripheral or isolated).
An indicator widely used in air transport is the revenue passenger kilometers (RPK), which considers the distance
that a passenger travels on his/her journey. In the case of Colombia, the domestic RPK of the airport system tripled
in the last decade (Figure 5) (Aerocivil, 2021). That said, as the national airport network has not changed (no new air-
ports in three decades), the growth of the RPK is due to the incorporation, by the airlines, of new destinations and a

n & Díaz Olariaga, 2020).
greater offer of seats and frequencies (Aerocivil, 2021; Tasco

5.3 | Network concentration, connectivity, and development of domestic routes

Recent research on the development of the air transport network in Colombia at the domestic level (for the last
25 years), which used a model derived from network theory, concluded that the Colombian airport network has a
weak degree of interconnection, as well as great heterogeneity (Zea et al., 2019). According to the authors, one of
the most important generators of such heterogeneity is the enormous influence of the capital’s airport (Bogotá-El
Dorado), which handles 40% of domestic traffic and 74% of international traffic in the whole network
(Aerocivil, 2021).
On the other hand, the level of concentration of (domestic) traffic in the Colombian airport network was deter-
mined by calculating the Gini index (GI). At the beginning of the study period (1992) GI = 0.7474 and at the end of
the period (2019) GI = 0.8004. The analysis of this indicator allows us to confirm two things: first, the level of con-
centration is the usual (very similar) to that of other regions and countries in the world in recent years (Berster
et al., 2015; Huber, 2009), and, second, as experienced in other regions of the world for their post-liberalization
periods of the aviation industry (with a migration from a point-to-point structure to a hub-and-spoke type) (Pacheco
et al., 2015; Papatheodorou & Arvanitis, 2009; Zhu et al., 2019), in Colombia post-liberalization was accompanied by
an increase in traffic concentration.
198 DÍAZ OLARIAGA AND ALONSO-MALAVER

F I G U R E 4 Traffic growth (period 1992–2019). Red triangle: 700–1,000%; purple box: 400–700%; green
pentagon: 200–400%; blue circle: 100–200%; brown hexagon: <100%. Source: Aerocivil, 2021

Now, it is interesting to learn how the increase in the concentration in the domestic network has influenced the
traffic flow in the different regional destinations under study, many of them remote, peripheral, and isolated. Then,
the trip rate indicator is calculated, which identifies the relationship between domestic passengers managed by the
airport and the population of the city-region where the airport is located. This indicator can also be considered as
DÍAZ OLARIAGA AND ALONSO-MALAVER 199

FIGURE 5 Colombian domestic RPK. Source: Aerocivil, 2021

T A B L E 1 Development of the trip rate indicator in the regional destinations under study. Destinations
considered remote, peripheral, and isolated have a different typeface. Description of the size of the airport (by
annual traffic volume): Medium (M) (4–8 million Pax); small (S) (1–3 million Pax); very small (VS) (<1 million Pax)

City (airport IATA code). Trip rate Trip rate City (airport IATA code). Trip rate Trip rate
Size (M, S, VS) 1992 2019 Size (M, S, VS) 1992 2019
RIONEGRO (MDE). M 15.6 52.0 RIOHACHA (RCH). S 0.5 1.3
CARTAGENA (CTG). M 0.9 4.6 MANIZALES (MZL). M 0.4 0.5
CALI (CLO). M 0.8 2.1 CAREPA (APO). VS 2.0 4.2
BARRANQUILLA (BAQ). M 0.5 2.0
(IBE). VS
IBAGUE 0.2 0.3

(ADZ). M
SAN ANDR ES 11.3 41.1 BARRANCABERMEJA (EJA). S 0.3 0.7
SANTA MARTA (SMR). M 0.7 4.3 TUMACO (TCO). VS 0.4 0.6
BUCARAMANGA (BGA). M 0.8 3.0
(PPN). VS
POPAYAN 0.1 0.4
PEREIRA (PEI). M 0.9 3.6 ARAUCA (AUC). VS 2.4 1.4
MEDELLÍN (EOH). M 0.3 0.4 FLORENCIA (FLA). VS 0.5 0.7
CÚCUTA (CUC). M 0.9 1.4 PUERTO ASÍS (PUU). VS 0.6 1.7
MONTERÍA (MTR). S 0.3 2.0 COROZAL (CZU). VS 0.3 1.3
VILLAVICENCIO (VVC). VS 0.4 0.9 BAHÍA SOLANO (BSC). VS 2.9 7.1
VALLEDUPAR (VUP). S 0.2 0.9 PROVIDENCIA (PVA). VS 14.3 10.9
ARMENIA (AXM). S 0.3 1.4 MITÚ (MVP). VS 0.5 1.6
QUIBDÓ (UIB). S 0.6 2.7 PUERTO CARREÑO (PCR). VS 0.8 2.5
PASTO (PSO). S 0.4 0.8 NUQUÍ (NQU). VS 1.3 2.5
LETICIA (LET). S 1.2 6.7 SAN JOS E
DEL G. (SJE). VS 0.5 0.7
NEIVA (NVA). S 0.4 0.8 IPIALES (IPI). VS 0.3 0.3
EL YOPAL (EYP). VS 3.3 1.7 GUAPI (GPI). VS 0.6 1.3

one of ‘accessibility’ to air transport services (according to ICAO, 2017). Table 1 presents the behavior of this indica-
tor for the study period (1992–2019) and for all airports/municipalities-regions being analyzed. At least two conclu-
sions are derived from the behavior of the indicator: firstly, except in three cases, the indicator grew in the airports
200 DÍAZ OLARIAGA AND ALONSO-MALAVER

analyzed, in some cases significantly, and, secondly, the indicator grew in almost all destinations considered remote,
peripheral, and isolated (in the table clearly identified with a different typeface).
Regarding the development of routes, the Civil Aviation Authority of Colombia, through its Air Navigation Plan,
structures homogeneous areas over the Colombian air space. These four areas are large air corridors that arrange the
entire flow of air traffic. All the national air traffic routes are grouped together in those areas. At the domestic level,

F I G U R E 6 Percentage growth of passenger traffic on the main national routes, period 1992–2017 (for IATA
airport code see Table 1). Source: Aerocivil, 2021
DÍAZ OLARIAGA AND ALONSO-MALAVER 201

the routes that handle a greater number of flights (and passenger traffic) are called ‘main national routes’ (each route
connects two airports and the traffic on that route is measured by adding the traffic in both directions). These main
routes make up an actual network over the Colombian geography, and the development and growth of this network
has been reinforced by the dynamics of national air transport in the last two decades. Figure 5 shows the growth of
the main national routes for the period 1992–2017.
The indicator shown in Figure 5 clearly evidences the growing dynamics of territorial connectivity by air in
Colombia, which is not only verifiable between the capital of the country – through its airport Bogotá-El Dorado –
and the different regions, but it can also be seen in the increasing connectivity among the same regions (who con-
nect without having to go through the capital of the country). The highest interregional air traffic growth occurs
between (1) the capital of the country and the central Andean region (BOG–EOH); (2) the capital of the country and
the Caribbean coast (BOG–SMR, BOG–CTG, BOG–MTR, BOG–VUP); (3) the central Andean region and the Carib-
bean coast (CTG–PEI, MDE–SMR, CTG–MDE); and (4) the capital of the country and the Amazon region (BOG–LET).
The destinations shown in Figure 6, through the airports that serve these cities and regions, represent almost all
the territories of Colombia. Thus, the growth of domestic air traffic has benefited and promoted, and continues to do
so, the territorial connectivity of the country in almost all its inhabited geography.
Finally, another recent study, in which the behavior of domestic passenger traffic in Colombia was analyzed
using a gravity model, concluded that due several factors – such as the complex geography of the country, the loca-
tion of airports, the economy (purchasing power), and lack of mobility alternatives (other means of transport) – air
transport is a crucial for internal connectivity and is turning into a very competitive means (compared to road or land
means of transport) for distances greater than 200 km (Díaz Olariaga et al., 2018).

5.4 | Traffic growth by type of airport governance

As can be seen in Figure 7, it cannot be said that the private governance of concessioned airports, just because of
this circumstance, promotes higher traffic growth than in airports with 100% public governance. This is because the
airports that have always been operated by the public sector, all of them medium-sized, small, and very small (mostly
regional, or in remote, isolated, and peripheral areas), have received a large volume of public investment. During the
last two decades (as a result of public policies investment in air transport infrastructure) (MinTransporte, 2018),
which allowed them to expand their capacity and achieve an acceptable technological modernization.
Without going into the analysis of operational efficiency or quality of service, which is totally beyond the scope
of this article, the traffic growth results do not provide conclusive evidence of the superiority of private governance
over public governance, as other studies have already confirmed (Graham, 2020). Likewise, and for the current case
study, the Colombian airport system, there is evidence of higher operational efficiency in airports with private rather
than public governance (Díaz Olariaga & Pulido, 2019).

5.5 | Influence of the change in airport governance on the economy of the regions

The influence of the change in governance of airports (the most important in the network and distributed almost
homogeneously in the inhabited geography of the country), from public to private, located in the regions under
study, with the socioeconomic indicators of population growth, wealth (GDP) and job creation, and for the study
period (1992–2019), is presented in Tables 2, 3, and 4 respectively. The results obtained from the models do not
allow us to state that the change in airport governance has an influence or impact on the economy of the regions. In
other words, it is not possible to see a direct cause–effect relationship. Tables 5, 6, and 7 present the adjustment of
the models used.
202 DÍAZ OLARIAGA AND ALONSO-MALAVER

F I G U R E 7 Percentage growth (%) of domestic passenger air traffic, period 1992–2019, segmented according to
public or private governance of the airport. Source: Aerocivil (2021)
DÍAZ OLARIAGA AND ALONSO-MALAVER 203

T A B L E 2 Average annual percentage growth rates of population development in regions with airports that
changed governance (public to private). Before–after comparison in relation to the airport governance change date.
Source: DANE (2020)

Administrative Year of concession of airports in the Growth rate Growth rate

region administrative region (before) % (after) %
Antioquia 2008 1.27 1.06
Atlántico 1996 1.49 1.11
Bolívar 1995 1.79 0.94
Cesar 2010 1.26 1.02

rdoba
Co 2008 1.32 1.29


Choco 2008 0.86 0.86
La Guajira 2010 2.62 2.34
Magdalena 2010 0.84 0.85
Norte Santander 2010 0.95 0.74
Risaralda 2017 0.75 0.27
Santander 2010 0.70 0.42
Sucre 2008 1.06 0.86
Valle del Cauca 2000 1.25 0.90
San Andrés, islas 2007 1.36 0.73

T A B L E 3 Average annual percentage growth rates of GDP in regions with airports that changed governance
(public to private). Before–after comparison in relation to the airport governance change date. Source: DANE (2020)

Administrative Year of concession of airports in the Growth rate Growth rate

region administrative region (before) % (after) %
Antioquia 2008 3.64 3.26
Atlántico 1996 N.D. 3.09
Bolívar 1995 N.D. 2.89
Cesar 2010 3.68 2.52

rdoba
Co 2008 1.70 2.02


Choco 2008 1.86 0.25
La Guajira 2010 3.05 1.37
Magdalena 2010 3.90 2.19
Norte Santander 2010 4.27 2.24
Risaralda 2017 2.47 N.D.
Santander 2010 3.70 2.33
Sucre 2008 4.59 2.78
Valle del Cauca 2000 N.D. 2.86
San Andrés, islas 2007 4.72 2.94

The values presented in Tables 5, 6, and 7 are the result of an adjustment of a model for panel data with random
effects2 that are reached by means of the Hausman Test (Baltagi, 2005). The adjusted models (Tables 5, 6, and 7)
indicate that the effect after the entry into operation of the airports under concession, that is, with private gover-
nance, has no effect on the growth rate of the number of jobs (p-value associated with δ = 0.2722) or in the GDP
204 DÍAZ OLARIAGA AND ALONSO-MALAVER

T A B L E 4 Average annual percentage growth rates of job creation in regions with airports that changed
governance (public to private). Before–after comparison in relation to the airport governance change date. Source:
DANE (2020)

Year of concession of airports in Growth rate Growth rate

Administrative region the administrative region (before) % (after) %
Antioquia 2008 1.58 1.64
Atlántico 1996 N.D. 2.13
Bolívar 1995 N.D. 1.90
Cesar 2010 1.39 1.10

rdoba
Co 2008 1.16 1.27


Choco 2008 2.92 0.06
La Guajira 2010 4.31 3.27
Magdalena 2010 1.31 1.43
Norte Santander 2010 0.87 0.17
Risaralda 2017 1.28 0.98
Santander 2010 1.41 0.37
Sucre 2008 0.09 2.18
Valle del Cauca 2000 N.D. 1.55
San Andrés, islas 2007 N.D. N.D.

TABLE 5 Model adjustment for population growth

Estimated value Std. error t-value Pr (>jtj)

b0 0.0017 0.0036 0.4690 0.6390
b1 0.0004 0.0007 0.6160 0.5381
δ 0.0030 0.0008 3.8610 0.0001
γ1 0.0017 0.0004 3.8440 0.0001
γ2 0.0004 0.0000 14.9710 <2  1016
Hausman test 0.5098 Breusch-pagan test 2.2  1016
2 0.2485
R - adjusted

TABLE 6 Model adjustment for GDP growth

Estimated value Std. error z-value Pr (>jzj)

b0 0.0494 0.0063 7.8550 0.0000
b1 0.0083 0.0064 1.3060 0.1923
δ 0.0123 0.0068 1.8180 0.0698
γ1 0.0002 0.0001 1.8660 0.0627
Hausman test 0.1863 Breusch-pagan test 0.0132
2 0.009
R - adjusted
DÍAZ OLARIAGA AND ALONSO-MALAVER 205

TABLE 7 Model adjustment for employment growth

Estimated value Std. error z-value Pr (>jzj)

b0 0.0200 0.0069 2.9020 0.0039
b1 0.0022 0.0067 0.3330 0.7395
δ 0.0069 0.0063 1.1000 0.2722
γ1 0.0012 0.0004 2.8890 0.0041
γ2 0.0029 0.0009 3.2310 0.0013
Hausman test 0.3873 Breusch-pagan test 0.03442
2 0.022
R - adjusted

growth rate (p-value associated with δ = 0.0698). The foregoing is mainly explained by the variability observed in the
variation of GDP, the total number of jobs generated, the high variability across regions (cross-sectional effect) and
over time, which is reflected in the low values observed in R2 .
Regarding population growth, the value of the parameter is significant (p-value associated with α = 1.15  109,
but the low R2 leads to the conclusion that the decrease in the population in the period after the implementation of
the concessions is due to other factors, whose detailed analysis is beyond the scope of this research.
The results presented were contrasted with the results of adjusting a model3 using generalized least squares, in
which heteroscedasticity and the autocorrelation structure are taken into account. The latter was modeled using an
ARIMA process, reaching similar estimated values (Brockwell & Davis, 1991; Green, 2003).

6 | C O N CL U S I O N S

The liberalization of the air transport sector in Colombia began in the early 1990s and, with this, the first (although
few and not very important) public policies for the sector began. It was not until 2006 when the Colombian govern-
ment, considering the relevant dynamics of the airline industry, understood the strategic importance of air transport
for the national economy. For this reason, although certain policies for the sector were already being implemented
by means of legislative instruments (ad hoc regulations and decrees) since the mid-1990s, it was in the second half
of the first decade of the twenty-first century when public policies for the sector of air transport became relevant or
important at the State level and were introduced (defining their planning and objectives) in the country’s national
development plans for the periods 2006–2010, 2010–2014, 2014–2018, and 2018–2022 (in progress). These poli-
cies were implemented, administered, and controlled, mainly by the Colombian civil aviation authority.
Industry indicators show that both the airport concession program to the private sector, conducted in four tem-
porary stages between 1996 and 2017, together with liberalization of the commercial aviation sector (airlines) and
the progressive deregulation of fares, as well as public investment policies in airport infrastructures, were fundamen-
tal for the growth, consolidation, and strengthening of the Colombian air transport industry.
In another order, the impact and effects of the public policy on domestic air transport are clearly illustrated
through all the indicators presented and analyzed here. These policies have catapulted the industry, and air transport
has contributed significantly to connectivity and territorial cohesion, and has supported and stimulated growth in
other strategic sectors of the country, for example, tourism and international trade. Likewise, there is no conclusive
evidence that the change in airport governance (from public to private) has influenced the growth of regional wealth
(GDP), since the indicators present different results between the different regions analyzed; although there is an
increase (not homogeneous) in the generation of employment in the regions. On the other hand, the results of public
air policies show that it cannot be affirmed that the private governance of concessioned airports, just because of this
circumstance, promotes greater traffic growth than in airports with 100% public governance.
206 DÍAZ OLARIAGA AND ALONSO-MALAVER

In relation to the methodology used, together with the econometric models presented, models were adjusted to
find synthetic estimators, models with random effects and a model with robust estimation of standard errors,
reaching the same conclusions presented. It is chosen to show the estimator of differences-in-differences because of
the easy interpretation of the results, results that show the great volatility of the effects after the delivery in conces-
sion of each of the airports in each of the regions of the country.
Finally, a future line of research could analyze and even measure the direct and indirect impact of air public poli-
cies (especially investment), mainly in airports in whose regions there is strong potential in certain industries, such as
tourism.

ORCID
Oscar Díaz Olariaga https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4858-3677

ENDNOTES
 
yit
1
Rit ¼ ln yi,t1 , in which yit is the GDP, the unemployment rate or the population in region i at time t.
2
In the population growth model, Table 5, the time-invariant variables that were significant were: secondary education of
people over 15 years of age and extreme poverty due to unsatisfied basic needs. In the GDP growth model, Table 6, the
only significant variable was poverty due to unsatisfied basic needs. In the model of growth of the number of jobs,
Table 7, the significant variables were poverty and extreme poverty due to unsatisfied basic needs.
3
And by robust estimation, in the cases in which the tests on the behavior of the variance indicated that there is
heteroscedasticity, reaching the same conclusions (Zeileis, 2004).

RE FE R ENC E S
Abadie, A. (2005). Semiparametric difference-in-differences estimators. The Review of Economic Studies, 72, 1–19. https://
doi.org/10.1111/0034-6527.00321
ACI-Airport Council International. (2019). Annual world airport traffic report. Montreal: Airport Council International. https://
store.aci.aero/product/annual-world-airport-traffic-report-2019/
ACS - Association of Caribbean States. (2000). Agreement N 5/00: Principles for common commercial air transport policy in the
Association of Caribbean States. San Pedro Sula (Honduras): Association of Caribbean States.
Aerocivil. (2016). Resoluci
on 3442 de 18 de noviembre de 2016 (Diario Oficial N 50.085 de 12 de diciembre de 2016). Bogotá
(Colombia): Aerocivil, Gobierno de Colombia.
Aerocivil. (2021). Estadísticas de transporte aéreo. http://www.aerocivil.gov.co
Aguirre, J., Mateu, P., & Pantoja, C. (2019). Granting airport concessions for regional development: Evidence from Peru.
Transport Policy, 74, 138–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.12.003
Alkaabi, K., & Debbage, K. (2007). Air passenger demand and skilled labor markets by US metropolitan area. Journal of Air
Transport Management, 13(3), 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2006.11.006
Angrist, J., & Krueger, A. (2000). Empirical strategies in labor economics. In O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (Eds.), Handbook of
labor economics (pp. 1277–1366). North Holland (Netherlands): Elsevier.
Athey, S., & Imbens, G. (2006). Identification and inference in nonlinear difference-in-differences models. Econometrica,
74(2), 431–497. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00668.x
Baker, D., & Donnet, T. (2012). Regional and remote airports under stress in Australia. Research in Transportation Business &
Management, 4, 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2012.06.011
Baltagi, B. (2005). Econometric analysis of panel data. New York: John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-
53953-5
Barrett, S. (2009). Deregulation and the airline business in Europe. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9780203879665
BCR – Banco de la República de Colombia. (2021). https://www.banrep.gov.co/es/-estadisticas
Bel, G., & Fageda, X. (2008). Getting there fast: Globalization, intercontinental flights and location of headquarters. Journal
of Economic Geography, 8(4), 471–495. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbn017
Belén Rey, M. (2003). Structural changes in the Spanish scheduled flights market as a result of air transport deregulation in
Europe. Journal of Air Transport Management, 9(3), 195–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-6997(02)00097-2
Belobaba, P., Odoni, A., & Barnhart, C. (2009). The global airline industry. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/
9780470744734
DÍAZ OLARIAGA AND ALONSO-MALAVER 207

Berster, P., Gelhausen, M. & Wilken, D. (2015). Constrained and underutilised airports: Two sides of a coin. 19th ATRS world
conference, Singapore, July 2-5, 2015.
Bertrand, M., Duflo, E., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates? Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 119(1), 249–275. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355304772839588
Bettini, H., & Oliveira, A. (2016). Two-sided platforms in airport privatization. Transportation Research Part E, 93, 262–278.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2016.06.003
BID. (2016). Transporte aéreo, regulacio
n y economía. Washington D. C.: Banco Inter-americano de Desarrollo. https://
publications.iadb.org/es/publicacion/17490/transporte-aereo-temas-actuales-para-america-latina-y-el-caribe-
regulacion-y
BID. (2018). Conectividad aérea en regiones remotas: Un análisis crítico de las políticas públicas de transporte aéreo esencial
existentes en el mundo. Washington D. C.: Banco Inter-americano de Desarrollo. https://doi.org/10.18235/0001016
Board, T. R. (1991). Special report 230: Winds of change: Domestic air transport since deregulation. Washington D. C.: The
National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11410
Board, T. R. (1999). Special report 255: Entry and competition in the US airline industry - issues and opportunities. Washington
D. C.: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11386
Bosch, A., & García Montalvo, J. (2003). Free and nondiscriminatory access to airports: A proposal for Latin America. Working
paper. Washington D. C.: inter–American development Bank. https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/
document/Free-and-Nondiscriminatory-Access-to-Airports-A-Proposal-for-Latin-America.pdf
Brockwell, P., & Davis, R. (1991). Time series: Theory and methods. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-
4419-0320-4
Brueckner, J. (2003). Air traffic and urban economic development. Urban Studies, 40(8), 1455–1469. https://doi.org/10.
1080/0042098032000094388
Burghouwt, G. (2017). Influencing air connectivity outcomes. Roundtable on capacity building through efficient use of exis-
ting airport infrastructure, 9-10 march 2017, Querétaro (Mexico).
Burghouwt, G., & de Wit, J. G. (2015). In the wake of liberalisation: Long-term developments in the EU air transport market.
Transport Policy, 43, 104–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.05.006
Burghouwt, G., & Redondi, R. (2013). Connectivity in air transport networks: An assessment of models and applications.
Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 47(1), 35–53. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24396351
Button, K. (2001). Deregulation and liberalization of European air transport markets. Innovation: The European Journal of
Social Science Research, 14(3), 255–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610120102619
Button, K., Lall, S., Stough, R., & Trice, M. (1999). High-technology employment and hub airports. Journal of Air Transport
Management, 5(1), 53–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-6997(98)00038-6
Button, K., & Taylor, S. (2000). International air transportation and economic development. Journal of Air Transport Manage-
ment, 6(4), 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-6997(00)00015-6
Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2005). Microeconometrics: Methods and applications. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811241
Carvallo, C. (2008). Experiencia chilena en concesiones aeroportuarias. Santiago de Chile: Departamento Coordinador de Con-
cesiones, Direccio
n Nacional de Aeropuertos, Ministerio de Obras Públicas.
CEPAL. (2015). Transporte y política aérea en América Latina y el Caribe en el contexto del desarrollo sostenible. Boletín
FAL, 341(5), 1–8. https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/38921/4/S1500816_es.pdf
CEPAL. (2017). Transporte aéreo Como motor del desarrollo sostenible en América Latina y el Caribe: Retos y propuestas
de política. Boletín FAL, 359(7), 1–11. https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/43411/1/S1800006_
es.pdf
Chatelain, J.-B., & Ralf, K. (2021). Inference on time-invariant variables using panel data: A pretest estimator. Economic
Modelling, 97, 157–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2021.01.014
Cooper, A., & Smith, P. (2005). The economic catalytic effects of air transport in Europe. In Final report EEC/SEE/2005/004.
Brussels: Eurocontrol. https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/library/025_Economic_Catalytic_Effects_of_Air_
Transport_Europe%20.pdf
DANE. (2020). Estadísticas. https://www.dane.gov.co/index.php/estadisticas-por-tema
Debbage, K. (1999). Air transportation and urban-economic restructuring: Competitive advantage in the US Carolinas. Jour-
nal of Air Transport Management, 5, 211–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-6997(99)00015-0
Denstadli, J. (2004). The impact of videoconferences on business travel: The Norwegian experience. Journal of Air Transport
Management, 10(6), 371–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2004.06.003
Dias, M., Teles, A., & Pilatti, K. (2018). The future of privatization in Brazil: Regulatory and political challenges. Global Journal
of Politics and Law Research, 6(2), 32–42. https://www.eajournals.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Future-of-Privatization-
in-Brazil-Regulatory-and-Political-Challenges.pdf
208 DÍAZ OLARIAGA AND ALONSO-MALAVER

Díaz Olariaga, O. (2016a). Análisis del desarrollo reciente del transporte aéreo en Colombia. Revista Transporte Y Territorio,
14, 122–143. https://doi.org/10.34096/rtt.i14.2432
Díaz Olariaga, O. (2016b). Análisis de la evolucio
n de las políticas públicas y de regulacio
n en la industria aeroportuaria en
Colombia. Documentos Y Aportes en Administracio
n Pública Y Gestio
n Estatal, 26, 7–42. https://doi.org/10.14409/da.
v16i26.5934

n de aeropuertos. El casa de Colombia. Documentos Y Aportes en Administra-
Díaz Olariaga, O. (2017). Políticas de privatizacio

n Pública Y Gestio
cio
n Estatal, 29, 7–35. https://doi.org/10.14409/da.v17i29.7093


Díaz Olariaga, O., & Avila, J. (2015). Evolution of the airport and air transport industry in Colombia and its impact on the
economy. Journal of Airline and Airport Management, 5(1), 39–66. https://doi.org/10.3926/jairm.43
Díaz Olariaga, O., Bolívar, N., Gutiérrez, R., & Rico Galeana, O. (2018). Gravitational analysis of the air transport network.
Application to the case of Colombia. Transportation Research Procedia, 33, 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2018.
10.075
Díaz Olariaga, O., & Carvajal, A. F. (2016). Efectos de la liberalizacio
n en la geografía del transporte aéreo en Colombia.
Cuadernos Geográficos, 55(2), 344–364. https://revistaseug.ugr.es/index.php/cuadgeo/article/view/3821/5141
Díaz Olariaga, O., & Pulido, L. (2019). Measurement of airport efficiency. The case of Colombia. Transport and Telecommuni-
cation, 20(1), 40–51. https://doi.org/10.2478/ttj-2019-0004
Díaz Olariaga, O., & Zea, J. F. (2018). Influence of the liberalization of the air transport industry on configuration of the traf-
fic in the airport network. Transportation Research Procedia, 33, 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2018.10.074
DNP. (1994). Reordenamiento institucional y plan de expansio
n del sistema aeroportuario – Documento CONPES 2727. Bogotá
(Colombia): Departamento Nacional de Planeacio
n. https://colaboracion.dnp.gov.co/CDT/Conpes/Econ%C3%B3micos/
2727.pdf
DNP. (2019). Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2018–2022. Bogotá (Colombia): Direccio
n Nacional de Planeacio
n. https://
colaboracion.dnp.gov.co/CDT/Prensa/PND-Pacto-por-Colombia-pacto-por-la-equidad-2018-2022.pdf
Dobruszkes, F. (2009). Does liberalization of air transport imply increasing competition? Lessons from the European case.
Transport Policy, 16(1), 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2009.02.007
Espirito Santo, R.A. (2013). Airport privatization and business models: What Brazil has and what Brazil needs. VI WALA con-
ference, Montreal.
Europe, A. C. I. (2017). European regional airports, connecting people, places & products. ACI Europe.
FAA. (2020). Airport categories. https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/passenger_allcargo_stats/categories/
Fageda, X., Suárez-Alemán, A., Serebrisky, T., & Fioravanti, R. (2018). Air connectivity in remote regions: A comprehensive
review of existing transport policies worldwide. Journal of Air Transport Management, 66, 65–75. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jairtraman.2017.10.008
Fageda, X., Suárez-Alemán, A., Serebrisky, T., & Fioravanti, R. (2019). Air transport connectivity of remote regions: The
impacts of public policies. Regional Studies, 53(8), 1161–1169. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2018.1556391
Faulconbridge, J., Beaverstock, J., Derudder, B., & Witlox, F. (2009). Corporate ecologies of business travel in professional
service firms: Working towards a research agenda. European Urban and Regional Studies, 16, 295–308. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0969776409104694
Fedesarrollo. (2016). Competitividad en el transporte aéreo en Colombia. Bogotá (Colombia): Fedesarrollo. https://www.
repository.fedesarrollo.org.co/handle/11445/3280
Fernandes, E., & Pacheco, R. (2018). Managerial performance of airports in Brazil before and after concessions. Transporta-
tion Research Part a, 118, 245–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.09.003
Figueroa, O., & Rozas, P. (2005). Conectividad, ámbitos de impacto y desarrollo territorial: el Caso de Chile. Santiago de Chile:
CEPAL. https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/6299/1/S05902_es.pdf
Forsyth, P. (2006). Martin Kunz memorial lecture. Tourism benefits and aviation policy. Journal of Air Transport Management,
12, 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2005.09.001
Forsyth, P., Niemeier, H. M., & Njoya, E. T. (2021). Economic evaluation of investments in airports: Recent developments.
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 12, 85–121. https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2020.31
Franco, V & Moser, R (2008). Airport privatization in Brazil: How could it be? 12th air transport research society (ATRS).
6-10 July, Athens.
Goetz, A. (1992). Air passenger transportation and growth in the U.S. urban system, 1950–1987. Growth and Change, 23,
218–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2257.1992.tb00580.x
Goetz, A., & Vowles, T. (2009). The good, the bad, and the ugly: 30 years of US airline deregulation. Journal of Transport
Geography, 17(4), 251–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2009.02.012
Graham, A. (2020). Airport privatisation: A successful journey? Journal of Air Ttransport Management, 89, 101930. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2020.101930
Graham, B. (1998). Liberalization, regional economic development and the geography of demand for air transport in the
European Union. Journal of Transport Geography, 6(2), 87–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0966-6923(98)00003-9
DÍAZ OLARIAGA AND ALONSO-MALAVER 209

Green, R. (2007). Airports and economic development. Real Estate Economics, 35(1), 91–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1540-6229.2007.00183.x
Green, W. (2003). Econometric analysis. Hoboken (Nueva Jersey): Prentice Hall.
Heckman, J., & Robb, R. (1985). Alternative methods for evaluating the impact of interventions. In J. Heckman & B. Singer
(Eds.), Longitudinal analysis of labour market (pp. 156–245). Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University press.
Huber, H. (2009). Comparing spatial concentration and assessing relative market structure in air traffic. Journal of Air Trans-
port Management, 15, 184–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2008.09.015
IATA. (2015). Annual review 2015. Geneva: IATA. https://www.iata.org/contentassets/c81222d96c9a4e0bb4ff6
ced0126f0bb/iata-annual-review-2015.pdf
ICAO. (2003). Background of liberalization and experiences in the Latin American region. Worldwide air transport conference
ATConf/5-WP/98, 24-29 march 2003, Montreal.
ICAO. (2006). Convention on international civil aviation (Ninth ed.). Montreal: ICAO. https://www.icao.int/publications/
Documents/7300_9ed.pdf
ICAO. (2016). Smarter regulation: Ensuring that no country is left behind. Working paper A39-WP/1401 EC/14.
ICAO. (2017). Conceptualizacio
n de conectividad y desarrollo de una métrica global sobre conectividad aérea.
AN&FS/4-NI/04.
Ivy, R., Fik, T., & Malecki, E. (1995). Changes in air service connectivity and employment. Environment and Planning, 27,
165–179. https://doi.org/10.1068/a270165
Levine, M. (2006). Why weren't the airlines reregulated? Yale Journal on Regulation, 23(2), 269–297. https://digitalcommons.
law.yale.edu/yjreg/vol23/iss2/5
Lipovich, G. (2008). The privatization of argentine airports. Journal of Air Transport Management, 14(1), 8–15. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2007.08.003
Lipovich, G. (2009). Mercado aerocomercial único en el MERCOSUR. XII Encuentro de Geo
grafos de América Latina (EGAL),
3-7 abril 2009, Montevideo.
Liu, Z., Debbage, K., & Blackburn, B. (2006). Locational determinants of major US air passenger markets by metropolitan
area. Journal of Air Transport Management, 12, 331–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2006.08.001
Mendiola, A., Arévalo, G., Maratuech, P., Pérez, J., & Valencia, J. C. (2011). Concesio
n del aeropuerto Jorge Chávez: evaluacio
n
del valor generado. Lima: ESAN Ediciones. https://repositorio.esan.edu.pe/bitstream/handle/20.500.12640/141/
Gerencia_para_el_desarrollo_19.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Mintransporte. (2018). Transporte en cifras. Bogotá (Colombia): Ministerio de Transporte. https://www.mintransporte.gov.
co/publicaciones/9443/transporte-en-cifras/
Morrell, P. (1998). Air transport liberalization in Europe: The progress so far. Journal of Air Transport Worldwide, 3(1), 42–61.
https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/33834
Morrison, S., & Winston, C. (1995). The evolution of the airline industry. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution. http://
worldcat.org/isbn/081575843X
Mukkala, K., & Tervo, H. (2013). Regional airports and regional growth in Europe: Which way does the causality run? Envi-
ronment and Planning, 45, 1508–1520. https://doi.org/10.1068/a45298
Neal, Z. (2012). Creative employment and jet set cities: Disentangling causal effects. Urban Studies, 49, 2693–2709. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0042098011431282
Neto, C., Casagrande, P., Lancuieri, F., & Moraes, J. (2016). Pro-competition rules in airport privatization: International expe-
rience and the Brazilian case. Journal of Air Transport Management, 54, 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2016.
03.011
OECD/ITF. (2018a). Defining, measuring and improving air connectivity. Paris: OECD/ITF. https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/
default/files/docs/defining-measuring-improving-air-connectivity.pdf
OECD/ITF. (2018b). Government support measures for domestic air connectivity. Paris: OECD/ITF. https://www.itf-oecd.org/
sites/default/files/docs/domestic-air-connectivity_0.pdf
Pacheco, R., Braga, M., & Fernandes, E. (2015). Spatial concentration and connectivity of international passenger traffic at
Brazilian airports. Journal of Air Transport Management, 46, 49–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2015.03.013
Papatheodorou, A., & Arvanitis, P. (2009). Spatial evolution of airport traffic and air transport liberalisation: The case of
Greece. Journal of Transport Geography, 17, 402–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2008.08.004
Percoco, M. (2010). Airport activity and local development: Evidence from Italy. Urban Studies, 47(11), 2427–2443. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0042098009357966
Perovic, J. (2013). The economic benefits of aviation and performance in the travel & tourism competitiveness index. In J.
Blanke & T. Chiesa (Eds.), The travel & tourism competitiveness report. Reducing barriers to economic growth and job crea-
tion (pp. 57–61). World Economic Forum.
Prazeres, D., Esteves, L., & Filho, R. (2011). Diagnosis of the Brazilian airport system and the alternatives for its privatization.
Revista de Literatura dos Transportes, 5(1), 229–244. https://www.oalib.com/paper/2427289#.YWmSPxrMLIU
210 DÍAZ OLARIAGA AND ALONSO-MALAVER

Pulido, L., & Diaz Olariaga, O. (2019). Evaluacio
n de la eficiencia en aeropuertos privatizados. URBE - Revista Brasileira de
Gestao~ Urbana, 11, e20180210. https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-3369.011.e20180210
Redondi, R., Malighetti, P., & Paleari, S. (2013). European connectivity: The role played by small airports. Journal of Transport
Geography, 29, 86–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.01.010
Reynolds-Feighan, A. (1995). European and American approaches to air transport liberalisation: Some implications for small
communities. Transportation Research Part a, 29(6), 467–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/0965-8564(95)00006-A
Rico Galeana, O. (2008). The privatization of Mexican airports. Journal of Air Transport Management, 14(6), 320–323.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2008.08.009
Rinco
n, C. (2020). Análisis costo beneficio de la profundizaci
on del sector aeroportuario en Colombia. Master thesis. Universidad
de Los Andes (Colombia). http://hdl.handle.net/1992/48496
Rolim, P., Bettini, H., & Oliveira, A. (2016). Estimating the impact of airport privatization on airline demand: A regression-
based event study. Journal of Air Transport Management, 54, 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2016.03.019
Rozas, P., & Figueroa, O. (2006). Conectividad, ámbitos de impacto y desarrollo territorial: análisis de experiencias inter-
nacionales. Santiago de Chile: CEPAL. https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/6314/1/S0600566_es.pdf
Sarmiento García, M. (2000). La política de transporte aéreo en la Comunidad Andina de Naciones. Revista de Derecho
Privado, 6, 35–58. https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derpri/article/view/654
Serebrisky, T. (2012). Airport economics in Latin America and the Caribbean. Washington D.C.: The World Bank. https://
documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/827241468299111697/pdf/662360PUB0EPI00merica09780821389775.pdf
Tasco
n, D., & Díaz Olariaga, O. (2020). Behavior of air passenger demand in a liberalized market. Transport and Telecommuni-
cation, 21(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.2478/ttj-2020-0001
Thompson, I. (2002). Air transport liberalization and the development of third level airports in France. Journal of Transport
Geography, 10(4), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0966-6923(02)00043-1
Tveter, E. (2017). The effect of airports on regional development: Evidence from the construction of regional airports in
Norway. Research in Transportation Economics, 63, 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2017.07.001
van de Vijver, E., Derudder, B., Bassens, D., & Witlox, F. (2014). Filling some black holes: Modeling the connection between
urbanization, infrastructure, and global service intensity. The Professional Geographer, 66(1), 82–91. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00330124.2013.781488
van de Vijver, E., Derudder, B., & Witlox, F. (2016). Air passenger transport and regional development: Cause and effect in
Europe. Promet – Traffic & Transportation, 28(2), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.7307/ptt.v28i2.1756
Winston, C., & Peltzman, S. (2000). Deregulation of network industries: What's next? Washington D.C.: AEI Brookings Joint
Center for Regulatory Studies. https://www.brookings.edu/book/deregulation-of-network-industries/
Wittmer, A., Bieger, T., & Müller, R. (2011). Aviation systems. Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-
20080-9
Zak, D., & Getzner, M. (2014). Economic effects of airports in Central Europe: A critical review of empirical studies and their
methodological assumptions. Advances in Economics and Business, 2(2), 100–111. https://www.hrpub.org/download/
20140105/AEB6-11802008.pdf
Zea, J. F., Díaz Olariaga, O., & Tasco
n, D. (2019). Mutual influence on air transport routes network in the context of a liberal-
ized aviation market. The case of Colombia. In VII international congress of the Iberoamerican air transportation research
society, 9–11 October 2019. Covilha (Portugal): RIDITA.
Zeileis, A. (2004). Econometric computing with HC and HAC covariance matrix estimators. Journal of Statistical Software,
11(10), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v011.i10
Zhu, Z., Zhang, A., Zhang, Y., Huang, Z., & Xu, S. (2019). Measuring air connectivity between China and Australia. Journal of
Transport Geography, 74, 359–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.12.017

How to cite this article: Díaz Olariaga, O., & Alonso-Malaver, C. (2022). Impact of airport policies on regional
development. Evidence from the Colombian case. Regional Science Policy & Practice, 14(6), 185–210. https://
doi.org/10.1111/rsp3.12483
DOI: 10.1111/rsp3.12483

Resumen. Siguiendo la tendencia mundial y regional, Colombia liberalizó el sector del transporte aéreo a principios
de la década de 1990. Con ello se inició un desarrollo ininterrumpido (hasta la fecha) de un conjunto de políticas
públicas para este sector, acompañado de diversas reformas a nivel institucional. Estas transformaciones se pro-
dujeron siguiendo la noción de que el Estado colombiano considera el transporte aéreo como un servicio público
esencial que contribuye al desarrollo económico nacional y regional. Dentro de este paquete de políticas públicas de
transporte aéreo, las políticas aeroportuarias tienen un papel esencial, a través de las cuales se privatizaron un gran
número de aeropuertos en el país (19 hasta la fecha), los cuales se distribuyen casi homogéneamente a lo largo de la
geografía colombiana. Estos aeropuertos de gestión privada están situados en ciudades grandes, medianas y
pequeñas, y en regiones consideradas remotas y aisladas. Por ello, este artículo analiza el impacto de las políticas
públicas de transporte aéreo, con especial énfasis en las políticas aeroportuarias, sobre la conectividad territorial del
país y el desarrollo socioeconómico de sus regiones. Para analizar los indicadores socioeconómicos, se utilizó la
metodología de diferencias en diferencias, que es un método econométrico cuasi‐experimental y de evaluación de
impacto.

抄録: 世界的及び地域的な流れに従い、コロンビアは1990年代の初頭に航空輸送産業の自由化を行った。これに
伴い、この産業における一連の公共政策の継続的な(現在も進行中)策定が開始され、制度レベルでの様々な改革
が行われた。これらの変革は、コロンビア政府が航空輸送を国家経済と地域の発展に寄与する、必要不可欠な公共
サービスと位置づけているという意識のもとで実施された。この公共航空輸送政策パッケージの中で、空港政策は
必要不可欠であり、コロンビア国内の多くの空港が民営化(現在までに19)され、コロンビア全土にほぼ均一に分布
している。これらの民営の空港は、大都市、中都市、小都市、および遠隔地に立地している。そこで本稿では、国
内の地域のコネクティビティ(連結性)や地域の社会経済発展に対する公共航空輸送政策の影響について、特に空港
政策に重きを置いて、分析する。社会経済指標の分析には、疑似実験的な計量経済学的方法かつインパクト評価法
である差分の差の方法を用いた。

© 2021 The Authors. Regional Science Policy & Practice © 2021 Regional Science Association International.