IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fth/uppaal/1998-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Ownership and Production Costs Choosing Between Public Production and Contracting Out

Author

Listed:
  • Ohlsson, H.

Abstract

Many comparisons of the performance of public and private producers use a public/private ownership dummy varaible to capture cost differences in cross section data. This is appropriate if the producer choice is random. The dummy variable model is, however, logically inconsistent if the producer choice depends on cost differences.

Suggested Citation

  • Ohlsson, H., 1998. "Ownership and Production Costs Choosing Between Public Production and Contracting Out," Papers 1998-6, Uppsala - Working Paper Series.
    • Handle: RePEc:fth:uppaal:1998-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes & Andrei Shleifer & Robert Vishny, 1997. "Privatization in the United States," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 28(3), pages 447-471, Autumn.
    2. AndréS GóMez-Lobo & Stefan Szymanski, 2001. "A Law of Large Numbers: Bidding and Compulsory Competitive Tendering for Refuse Collection Contracts," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 18(1), pages 105-113, February.
    3. Stefan Szymanski, 1993. "Cheap rubbish? Competitive tendering and contracting out in refuse collection, 1981-88," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 14(3), pages 109-130, August.
    4. Bos, Dieter, 1991. "Privatization: A Theoretical Treatment," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198283690, Decembrie.
    5. Eoin Reeves & Michael Barrow, 2000. "The Impact of Contracting Out on the Costs of Refuse Collection Services - The Case of Ireland," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 31(2), pages 129-150.
    6. Anton Marcinèin & Sweder van Wijnbergen, 1997. "The impact of Czech privatization methods on enterprise performance incorporating initial selection‐bias correction1," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 5(2), pages 289-304, November.
    7. Schmidt, Klaus M., 2000. "The political economy of mass privatization and the risk of expropriation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 393-421, February.
    8. Dubin, Jeffrey A & Navarro, Peter, 1988. "How Markets for Impure Public Goods Organize: The Case of Household Refuse Collection," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(2), pages 217-241, Fall.
    9. Nelson, Michael A, 1997. "Municipal Government Approaches to Service Delivery: An Analysis from a Transactions Cost Perspective," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 35(1), pages 82-96, January.
    10. Heckman, James J, 1978. "Dummy Endogenous Variables in a Simultaneous Equation System," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(4), pages 931-959, July.
    11. Stevens, Barbara J, 1978. "Scale, Market Structure, and the Cost of Refuse Collection," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 60(3), pages 438-448, August.
    12. James Bennett & Manuel Johnson, 1979. "Public versus private provision of collective goods and services: garbage collection revisited," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 55-63, March.
    13. E. Dijkgraaf & R. Gradus, 2003. "Cost Savings of Contracting Out Refuse Collection," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 30(2), pages 149-161, June.
    14. John Cubbin & Simon Domberger & Shirley Meadowcroft, 1987. "Competitive tendering and refuse collection: identifying the sources of efficiency gains," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 8(3), pages 49-58, August.
    15. Bivand, Roger & Szymanski, Stefan, 2000. "Modelling the spatial impact of the introduction of Compulsory Competitive Tendering," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 203-219, March.
    16. Bruno Biais & Enrico Perotti, 2002. "Machiavellian Privatization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(1), pages 240-258, March.
    17. Wittman, Donald, 1989. "Why Democracies Produce Efficient Results," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 97(6), pages 1395-1424, December.
    18. Domberger, S & Meadowcroft, S & Thompson, D J, 1986. "Competitive tendering and efficiency: the case of refuse collection," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 7(4), pages 69-87, November.
    19. Domberger, Simon & Jensen, Paul, 1997. "Contracting Out by the Public Sector: Theory, Evidence, Prospects," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 13(4), pages 67-78, Winter.
    20. J.E. Haskel & S. Szymanski, 1992. "Privatisation, Liberalisation, Wages and Employment: Theory and Evidence for the UK," Working Papers 253, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    21. Edwards, Franklin R & Stevens, Barbara J, 1978. "The Provision of Municipal Sanitation Services by Private Firms: An Empirical Analysis of the Efficiency of Alternative Market Structures and Regulatory Arrangements," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(2), pages 133-147, December.
    22. Davidson, Russell & MacKinnon, James G., 1993. "Estimation and Inference in Econometrics," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195060119, Decembrie.
    23. Ohlsson, Henry, 1996. "Ownership and input prices: A comparison of public and private enterprises," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 33-38, October.
    24. A. Marcincin & S. van Wijnbergen, 1997. "The Impact of Czech Privatisation Methods on Enterprise Performance Incorporating Initial Selection Bias Correction," CERT Discussion Papers 9704, Centre for Economic Reform and Transformation, Heriot Watt University.
    25. Vining, Aidan R & Boardman, Anthony E, 1992. "Ownership versus Competition: Efficiency in Public Enterprise," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 73(2), pages 205-239, March.
    26. Stefan Szymanski, 1996. "The impact of compulsory competitive tendering on refuse collection services," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 17(3), pages 1-19, August.
    27. Gary A. Hoover & James Peoples, 2003. "Privatization of Refuse Removal and Labor Costs ," Journal of Labor Research, Transaction Publishers, vol. 24(2), pages 294-305, April.
    28. John Vickers & George Yarrow, 1988. "Privatization: An Economic Analysis," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262720116, December.
    29. Nuria Bosch Roca & Francisco Pedraja & Javier Suarez Pandiello, 1999. "Measuring the efficiency in spanish municipal refuse collection services," Working Papers in Economics 46, Universitat de Barcelona. Espai de Recerca en Economia.
    30. E. Dijkgraaf & R. H. J. M. Gradus & B. Melenberg, 2003. "Contracting out refuse collection," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 553-570, July.
    31. G. S. Maddala & Lung-Fei Lee, 1976. "Recursive Models with Qualitative Endogenous Variables," NBER Chapters, in: Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, Volume 5, number 4, pages 525-545, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Germa Bel & Anton Costas, 2006. "Do Public Sector Reforms Get Rusty? Local Privatization in Spain," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 1-24.
    2. Germà Bel & Xavier Fageda, 2008. "Privatization and competition in the delivery of local services: An empirical examination of the dual market hypothesis," Working Papers XREAP2008-04, Xarxa de Referència en Economia Aplicada (XREAP), revised Apr 2008.
    3. Germa Bel & Anton Costas, 2004. "Do public sector reforms get rusty? An empirical analysis on privatization of solid waste collection," Public Economics 0409014, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Bel, Germà & Warner, Mildred, 2008. "Does privatization of solid waste and water services reduce costs? A review of empirical studies," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 52(12), pages 1337-1348.
    5. Andersson, Fredrik & Jordahl, Henrik, 2011. "Outsourcing Public Services: Ownership, Competition, Quality and Contracting," Working Paper Series 874, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    6. Bel, Germà & Fageda, Xavier, 2010. "Empirical analysis of solid management waste costs: Some evidence from Galicia, Spain," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 187-193.
    7. Norimichi Matsueda & Jun’Ichi Miki, 2017. "Contracting-Out Of Household Waste Collection Services In Japan," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 65(02), pages 443-455, May.
    8. Paul H. Jensen & Robin E. Stonecash, 2004. "The Efficiency of Public Sector Outsourcing Contracts: A Literature Review," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2004n29, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    9. Bel Germà & Fageda Xavier & E. Mildred, 2014. "Is private production of public services cheaper than public production? A meta-regression analysis of solid waste and water services," Public administration issues, Higher School of Economics, issue 3, pages 103-140.
    10. Soukopová, Jana & Vaceková, Gabriela & Klimovský, Daniel, 2017. "Local waste management in the Czech Republic: Limits and merits of public-private partnership and contracting out," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 201-209.
    11. Jana Soukopová & Vojtìch Ficek, 2014. "Factors Influencing the Selection of Waste Collection Companies by Municipalities – Are Municipal Decision Effective?," MUNI ECON Working Papers 15, Masaryk University, revised Dec 2014.
    12. Antonio Massarutto, 2019. "Italian waste in the circular economy: A agenda for industry regulators in Italy," ECONOMIA PUBBLICA, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2019(1), pages 9-48.
    13. Lombrano, Alessandro, 2009. "Cost efficiency in the management of solid urban waste," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 53(11), pages 601-611.
    14. Germà Bel & Xavier Fageda, 2009. "Factors explaining local privatization: a meta-regression analysis," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 139(1), pages 105-119, April.
    15. Fusco, Elisa & Allegrini, Veronica, 2020. "The role of spatial interdependence in local government cost efficiency: An application to waste Italian sector," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    16. Simões, Pedro & Marques, Rui Cunha, 2011. "How does the operational environment affect utility performance? A parametric study on the waste sector," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 55(7), pages 695-702.
    17. E. Dijkgraaf & R. Gradus, 2003. "Cost Savings of Contracting Out Refuse Collection," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 30(2), pages 149-161, June.
    18. Suho Bae, 2010. "Public Versus Private Delivery Of Municipal Solid Waste Services: The Case Of North Carolina," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 28(3), pages 414-428, July.
    19. Simões, Pedro & Carvalho, Pedro & Marques, Rui Cunha, 2012. "Performance assessment of refuse collection services using robust efficiency measures," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 56-66.
    20. Paul H. Jensen & Robin E. Stonecash, 2005. "Incentives and the Efficiency of Public Sector‐outsourcing Contracts," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(5), pages 767-787, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    OWNERSHIP ; COMPETITION ; COSTS ; PRIVATIZATION;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D24 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Production; Cost; Capital; Capital, Total Factor, and Multifactor Productivity; Capacity
    • E22 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Consumption, Saving, Production, Employment, and Investment - - - Investment; Capital; Intangible Capital; Capacity
    • L32 - Industrial Organization - - Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise - - - Public Enterprises; Public-Private Enterprises
    • L33 - Industrial Organization - - Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise - - - Comparison of Public and Private Enterprise and Nonprofit Institutions; Privatization; Contracting Out

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fth:uppaal:1998-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Thomas Krichel (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nekuuse.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.