The Impact of Contracting Out on the Costs of Refuse Collection Services - The Case of Ireland
This paper examines the impact of contracting out on the costs incurred by local authorities in providing refuse collection services. Using original survey data for the Republic of Ireland, three methods of estimating the impact of tendering are adopted. Crude comparisons of costs before and after tendering and the costs of local authorities versus private contractors indicate that tendering can yield savings of between 34 and 45 per cent. Using multivariate regression analysis to enable us to control for service characteristics confirms cost savings of around 45 per cent. The bulk of these cost savings are attributed to real efficiency gains as a result of contracting out.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- 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.
- 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.
- Barrett, Alan & Lawlor, John, 1995. "The Economics of Solid Waste Management in Ireland," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number PRS26.
- 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.
- Domberger, Simon & Jensen, Paul, 1997. "Contracting Out by the Public Sector: Theory, Evidence, Prospects," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(4), pages 67-78, Winter.
- Schmidt, Peter & Sickles, Robin C, 1984. "Production Frontiers and Panel Data," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 2(4), pages 367-374, October.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eso:journl:v:31:y:2000:i:2:p:129-150. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Martina Lawless)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.