We analyse the Dutch waste-collection market for 1998–2005. We show that municipalities with unit-based pricing (UBP) or waste collection by private companies have lower costs. However, this cost advantage decreases over time as competition decreases, because of the introduction of the VAT-compensation fund, and because of contamination of waste streams. The cost advantage of private provision is shown to be much larger in the first years, while a longer duration of private production results in lower efficiency. An important conclusion from this study is that UBP, although its effectiveness deteriorates over time, is more effective in reducing cost than is contracting out. Moreover, we show that the effect of contracting out might have been overestimated in the previous literature because there is a correlation between the use of contracting out and UBP. Low incentive UBP systems, based on volume or frequency, are only effective when the municipality does not collect the waste itself.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BallardM JWarnerM E, 2000, “Taking the high road: Local government restructuring and the quest for quality”, working paper, Cornell University, Department of City and Regional Planning, Ithaca, NY
2.
BelGCostasA, 2006, “Do public sector reforms get rusty? An empicial analysis on privatization of solid waste collection”Journal of Policy Reform91–24
3.
BelGMirallesA, 2003, “Factors influencing privatization of urban solid waste collection in Spain”Urban Studies401323–1334
4.
BelGWarnerM E, 2006, “Local privatisation and costs: A review of the empirical evidence” working paper, Department of Economic Policy, University of Barcelona
5.
Binnenlandsbestuur, 2002, “Veel vuil in oud papier van diftargemeenten” [Much filth in old paper of UBP-municipalities]Binnenlandsbestuur7–617
6.
ChristoffersenHPaldamM, 2003, “Markets and municipalities: A study of the behaviour of Danish municipalities”Public Choice11479–102
7.
CreelMFarellM, 2001, “Economies of scale in the US airline industry after deregulation: A Fourier series approximation”Transportation Research Part E37321–336
8.
DashtiI, 2003, “Influence from concave stochastic frontiers and the covariance of firm efficiency measures across firms”Energy Economics25585–601
9.
DijkgraafEGradusR H J M, 2003, “Cost savings of contracting out refuse collection”Empirica30149–161
10.
DijkgraafEGradusR H J M, 2004, “Cost savings in unit-based pricing of household waste: The case of the Netherlands”Resource and Energy Economics26353–371
11.
DijkgraafEGradusR H J M, 2006a, “Fair competition in the refuse collection market”Applied Economic Letters forthcoming
12.
DijkgraafEGradusR H J M, 2006b, “Collusion in the Dutch waste market”Local Government Sudies forthcoming
13.
DijkgraafEGradusR H J MMelenbergB, 2003, “Contracting our refuse collection”Empirical Economics28553–570
14.
DijkgraafEWassenaarGradusR H J M, 2006, “Gemeenten oordelen negatief over BTW-compensatiefonds” (“Municipalities judge negative about VAT-compensation fund”)ESB91229–231
15.
DombergerSMeadowcroftSThompsonD, 1986, “Competitive tendering and efficiency: The case of refuse collection”Fiscal Studies769–87
16.
FullertonDKinnamanT C, 1996, “Household responses to pricing garbage by the bag”American Economic Review86971–984
17.
GallantA R, 1982, “Unbiased determination of production technologies”Journal of Econometrics50285–323
18.
Gómez-LoboASzymanskiS, 2001, “A law of large numbers: Bidding and compulsory competitive tendering for refuse collection contracts”Review of Industrial Organization18105–113
19.
HongJ, 1999, “The effect of unit pricing system upon household solid waste management: The Korean experience”Journal of Environmental Management571–10
20.
HumphreyD BValeB, 2004, “Scale economies, bank mergers and electronic payments: A spline function approach”Journal of Banking and Finance281671–1696
21.
IvaldiMLadouxNOssardHSimioniM, 1996, “Comparing Fourier and translog specification of multiproduct technology: Evidence from an incomplete panel of French farmers”Journal of Applied Econometrics11649–667
22.
KinnamanT C, 2005, “Why do municipalities recycle?”Topics in Economic Analysis and Policy51–23
23.
LinderhofVKooremanPAllersMWiersmaD, 2001, “Weight-based pricing in the collection of household waste: The Oostzaan case”Resource and Energy Economics23359–371
24.
López-de-SilanesFShleiferAVishnyR W, 1997, “Privatization in the United States”Rand Journal of Economics28447–471
25.
MitchellKOnvuralN M, 1996, “Economies of scale and scope at large commercial banks: Evidence from the Fourier flexible functional form”Journal of Money, Credit and Banking28178–199
26.
OhlssonH, 2003, “Ownership and production costs: Choosing between public production and contracting-out in the case of Swedish refuse collection”Fiscal Studies24451–476
27.
ReevesEBarrowM, 2000, “The impact of contracting out on the costs of refuse collection services: The case of Ireland”Economic and Social Review3129–150
28.
SzymanskiS, 1996, “The impact of compulsory competitive tendering on refuse collection services”Fiscal Studies171–19
29.
Van DijkHLubbersG, 2000, “The VAT Compensation Fun(d)?”International VAT-Monitor116–9
30.
WarnerM EHebdonR, 2001, “Local government restructuring: Privatisation and its alternatives”Journal of Policy Analysis and Management20315–336
31.
WassenaarM CGradusR H J M, 2004, “Contracting out: The importance of a level playing field”CESifo Economic Studies50377–396
