Cost efficiency in municipal solid waste service delivery. Alternative management forms in relation to local population size

Considerable research has been devoted to the analysis of efficiency and of management forms for municipal waste collection, but widely varying results have been reported. In this paper, the metafrontier approach, by means of order-m frontiers, is used to analyse the efficiency of different ways of managing waste collection services, in order to determine which form is more appropriate. We compare the results obtained with this approach against those of previous theories. The advantage of applying this methodology is that unlike traditional nonparametric frontier analysis, we can compare the efficiency of different groups of municipalities according to their population size and to the management form adopted to supply the service. The results obtained suggest that, in general, cooperation formulas are the most suitable for the waste collection service. Thus, intermunicipal cooperation performs best in smaller municipalities (up to 20,000 inhabitants). However, we find that contracting out the service is associated with higher levels of efficiency in municipalities with more than 20,000 inhabitants.

[1]  Qi Li,et al.  Nonparametric testing of closeness between two unknown distribution functions , 2009 .

[2]  Manuel Antonio,et al.  Overcoming Cost-Inefficiencies within Small Municipalities: Improve Financial Condition or Reduce the Quality of Public Services? , 2010 .

[3]  Emili Tortosa‐Ausina,et al.  On the informativeness of persistence for evaluating mutual fund performance using partial frontiers , 2014 .

[4]  C. Thomas-Agnan,et al.  NONPARAMETRIC FRONTIER ESTIMATION: A CONDITIONAL QUANTILE-BASED APPROACH , 2005, Econometric Theory.

[5]  Juan C. Garrido-Rodríguez,et al.  Financial and Political Factors Motivating the Privatisation of Municipal Water Services , 2016 .

[6]  Antonio M. López Hernández,et al.  Alternative management structures for municipal waste collection services: The influence of economic and political factors , 2014 .

[7]  J. Solana‐Ibáñez,et al.  Determinants of efficiency in the provision of municipal street-cleaning and refuse collection services. , 2011, Waste management.

[8]  Rui Cunha Marques,et al.  Economies of size and density in municipal solid waste recycling in Portugal , 2014 .

[9]  M. Warner,et al.  Contracting or Public Delivery? The Importance of Service, Market and Management Characteristics , 2012 .

[10]  I. Gijbels,et al.  Robustness and inference in nonparametric partial frontier modeling , 2011 .

[11]  D. Prior,et al.  REDUCING COSTS IN TIMES OF CRISIS: DELIVERY FORMS IN SMALL AND MEDIUM SIZED LOCAL GOVERNMENTS' WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES , 2013 .

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

[13]  G. Battese,et al.  A Metafrontier Production Function for Estimation of Technical Efficiencies and Technology Gaps for Firms Operating Under Different Technologies , 2004 .

[14]  E. Dijkgraaf,et al.  Cost advantage cooperations larger than private waste collectors , 2013 .

[15]  Jorge Guardiola,et al.  WHY DO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS PRIVATIZE THE PROVISION OF WATER SERVICES? EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM SPAIN , 2011 .

[16]  Manuel Larrán-Jorge,et al.  Influyen los modelos de financiación autonómicos en la eficiencia de las universidades públicas españolas , 2015 .

[17]  George E. Battese,et al.  Technology Gap, Efficiency, and a Stochastic Metafrontier Function , 2002 .

[18]  Pedro Simões,et al.  Performance assessment of refuse collection services using robust efficiency measures , 2012 .

[19]  Factors explaining local privatization: a meta-regression analysis , 2009 .

[20]  P. W. Wilson,et al.  Estimation and Inference in Nonparametric Frontier Models: Recent Developments and Perspectives , 2013 .

[21]  Christopher J. O'Donnell,et al.  Metafrontier Functions for the Study of Inter-regional Productivity Differences , 2003 .

[22]  L. Simar,et al.  Nonparametric efficiency analysis: a multivariate conditional quantile approach , 2007 .

[23]  J. A. Gómez-Limón,et al.  A metafrontier directional distance function approach to assessing eco-efficiency , 2013, Journal of Productivity Analysis.

[24]  Contracting Out: Dutch Municipalities Reject the Solution for the VAT Distortion , 2010 .

[25]  M. Warner.  Market‐based Governance and the Challenge for Rural Governments: US Trends , 2006 .

[26]  Xavier Fageda,et al.  Does Cooperation Reduce Service Delivery Costs? Evidence from Residential Solid Waste Services , 2014 .

[27]  M. Warner.  Privatization and urban governance: The continuing challenges of efficiency, voice and integration , 2012 .

[28]  Pedro Simões,et al.  Regulatory structures and operational environment in the Portuguese waste sector. , 2010, Waste management.

[29]  Amanda M. Girth,et al.  Outsourcing Public Service Delivery: Management Responses in Noncompetitive Markets , 2012 .

[30]  Daniel Santín,et al.  Assessing European primary school performance through a conditional nonparametric model , 2017, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[31]  Nicky Rogge,et al.  Measuring and explaining the cost efficiency of municipal solid waste collection and processing services , 2013 .

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

[33]  Rui Cunha Marques,et al.  Determining the optimal size of local government: the case of Tasmanian councils , 2015 .

[34]  P. Simões,et al.  On the economic performance of the waste sector. A literature review. , 2012, Journal of environmental management.

[35]  Claudio Thieme,et al.  Value added, educational accountability approaches and their effects on schools' rankings: Evidence from Chile , 2016, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[36]  Bernardino Benito,et al.  Explaining efficiency in municipal services providers , 2014 .

[37]  X Gellynck,et al.  Cost comparison between private and public collection of residual household waste: multiple case studies in the Flemish region of Belgium. , 2013, Waste management.

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

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

[40]  Rui Cunha Marques,et al.  Influential observations in frontier models, a robust non-oriented approach to the water sector , 2010, Ann. Oper. Res..

[41]  Xavier Fageda,et al.  Similar problems, different solutions: comparing refuse collection in the Netherlands and Spain. , 2008, Public administration.

[42]  J. Donahue.  The Privatization Decision: Public Ends, Private Means , 1991 .

[43]  Nicky Rogge,et al.  Waste pricing policies and cost-efficiency in municipal waste services: the case of Flanders , 2013, Waste management & research : the journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association, ISWA.

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

[45]  G. Pérez-López,et al.  Understanding the Dynamic Effect of Contracting Out on the Delivery of Local Public Services , 2016 .

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

[47]  D. Prior,et al.  Decentralization and efficiency of local government , 2010 .

[48]  Pedro Simões,et al.  The Hurdles of Local Governments with Ppp Contracts in the Waste Sector , 2013 .

[49]  Xavier Fageda Sanjuan,et al.  Between privatization and intermunicipal cooperation: small municipalities, scale economics and transantion costs , 2006 .

[50]  R. Zullo.  Does Fiscal Stress Induce Privatization? Correlates of Private and Intermunicipal Contracting, 1992–2002 , 2009 .

[51]  Bel Germà,et al.  Is private production of public services cheaper than public production? A meta-regression analysis of solid waste and water services , 2014 .

[52]  Xavier Fageda,et al.  Reforming the local public sector: economics and politics in privatization of water and solid waste , 2008 .

[53]  G. Battese,et al.  Metafrontier frameworks for the study of firm-level efficiencies and technology ratios , 2008 .

[54]  S. Deller,et al.  Alternative Methods of Service Delivery in Small and Rural Municipalities , 2010 .

[55]  Xavier Fageda,et al.  Empirical analysis of solid management waste costs: Some evidence from Galicia, Spain , 2009 .

[56]  P. Simões,et al.  The performance of private partners in the waste sector , 2012 .

[57]  J. Florens,et al.  Nonparametric frontier estimation: a robust approach , 2002 .

[58]  Susana Jorge,et al.  Explanatory factors for the use of the financial report in decision-making: Evidence from Local Government in Portugal ☆ , 2016 .

[59]  Robert Hebdon,et al.  Local Government Restructuring: Privatization and Its Alternatives , 2001 .

[60]  Benny Geys,et al.  Exploring sources of local government technical inefficiency: evidence from Flemish municipalities [Ursachenforschung zur technischen Ineffizienz kommunaler Verwaltungen: Evidenz von flämischen Gemeindeverwaltungen] , 2008 .

[61]  D. Prior,et al.  Output complexity, environmental conditions, and the efficiency of municipalities , 2010 .

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

[63]  Kristof De Witte,et al.  Capturing the environment, a metafrontier approach to the drinking water sector , 2008, Int. Trans. Oper. Res..

[64]  Pedro Simões,et al.  Influence of regulation on the productivity of waste utilities. What can we learn with the Portuguese experience? , 2012, Waste management.