Intermunicipal cooperation, privatization and waste management costs: evidence from rural municipalities.

The aim of this paper is to analyze the effects of intermunicipal cooperation and privatization on the delivery costs of urban solid waste services in rural environments. The results of our empirical analysis, which we conducted among a sample of very small municipalities, indicate that small towns that cooperate incur lower costs for their waste collection service. Cooperation also raises collection frequency and improves the quality of the service in small towns. By contrast, the form of production, whether it is public or private, does not result in systematic differences in costs. Interestingly, the degree of population dispersion, that is, the number of population units within the municipal jurisdiction, has a significant positive relation with service costs. No evidence of scale economies is found because small municipalities have likely exploited them by means of intermunicipal cooperation.

[1]  M. Warner,et al.  Rural—Urban Differences in Privatization: Limits to the Competitive State , 2003 .

[2]  Henry Ohlsson,et al.  Ownership and Production Costs: Choosing between Public Production and Contracting-Out in the Case of Swedish Refuse Collection , 1998 .

[3]  S. Szymanski,et al.  The Impact of Compulsory Competitive Tendering on Refuse Collection Services , 1996 .

[4]  Barbara J Stevens,et al.  Scale, Market Structure, and the Cost of Refuse Collection , 1978 .

[5]  P. H. Abelson.  Waste management. , 1985, Science.

[6]  Simon Domberger,et al.  Competitive tendering and efficiency: the case of refuse collection , 1986 .

[7]  Peter Kemper,et al.  The economics of refuse collection , 1976 .

[8]  Elbert Dijkgraaf,et al.  Collusion in the Dutch waste collection market , 2005 .

[9]  Local Government Reform: Privatization and Its Alternatives , 2007 .

[10]  Jeffrey A. Dubin,et al.  How Markets for Impure Public Goods Organize: The Case of Household Refuse Collection , 1987 .

[11]  B. Frey,et al.  Public vs private production efficiency: A theoretical and empirical comparison , 1976 .

[12]  John N. Collins,et al.  The Effects of Size On the Provision of Public Services , 1977 .

[13]  Elbert Dijkgraaf,et al.  Cost Savings of Contracting Out Refuse Collection , 2005 .

[14]  Germà Bel,et al.  Do Public Sector Reforms Get Rusty? Local Privatization in Spain , 2006 .

[15]  Sean Wilkins,et al.  Cheap rubbish? Competitive tendering and contracting out in refuse collection, 1981-88 , 1993 .

[16]  Michael Barrow,et al.  The impact of contracting out on the costs of refuse collection services: the case of Ireland , 2000 .

[17]  Rune J. Sørensen,et al.  DOES DISPERSED PUBLIC OWNERSHIP IMPAIR EFFICIENCY? THE CASE OF REFUSE COLLECTION IN NORWAY , 2007 .

[18]  Mildred E. Warner,et al.  COMPETITION OR MONOPOLY? COMPARING PRIVATIZATION OF LOCAL PUBLIC SERVICES IN THE US AND SPAIN , 2008 .

[19]  Scott J. Callan,et al.  Economies of Scale and Scope: A Cost Analysis of Municipal Solid Waste Services , 2001, Land Economics.

[20]  Local government reform: Privatisation and its alternatives , 2007 .

[21]  Germà Bel,et al.  GASTO MUNICIPAL POR EL SERVICIO DE RESIDUOS SÓLIDOS URBANOS , 2006 .

[22]  H. Kitchen.  A Statistical Estimation of an Operating Cost Function for Municipal Refuse Collection , 1976 .

[23]  Mildred E. Warner,et al.  Does privatization of solid waste and water services reduce costs? A review of empirical studies , 2008 .

[24]  J. Mcdavid,et al.  Effects of Scale and Market Structure on the Costs of Residential Solid Waste Collection in Canadian Cities , 1986 .

[25]  Werner Z. Hirsch,et al.  Cost Functions of an Urban Government Service: Refuse Collection , 1965 .