IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Municipal Waste Production, Economic Drivers, and ‘New’ Waste Policies: EKC Evidence from Italian Regional and Provincial Panel Data

  • Massimiliano Mazzanti

    (University of Ferrara)

  • Anna Montini

    (University of Bologna & National Research Council, CERIS-CNR)

  • Roberto Zoboli

    (National Research Council, CERIS-CNR Milan & Catholic University of Milan)

This paper provides empirical evidence on delinking and Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) for municipal waste production in Italy. First, methodological issues and literature on delinking and EKC for waste are critically re-examined. Secondly, we analyse two very disaggregated panel datasets on Italian Regions and Provinces (1996-2004 data for the 20 regions, 2000-2004 data for the 103 provinces) to estimate the extent to which delinking between waste production and economic drivers is taking place. The empirical analysis of different specifications shows mixed evidence in favour of an EKC relationship. Evidence supporting an EKC hypothesis significantly arises at a provincial level, which presents a very high data heterogeneity. Nevertheless, the turning point is at very high levels of added value per capita (around 23,000-26,000€), which characterise a very limited number of wealthy (Northern) Italian provinces. The analysis does not reveal a similar evidence for the regional dataset: only a relative delinking dynamic emerges at the provincial level, we also note a positive relationship between waste production and the share of separated waste collection, which can be explained by the sharp difference in income and waste-policy performance between Northern and Southern Italy. Population density is not significant. Finally, the test on some policy proxies, i.e. the diffusion of the new waste tariff regime at the local-level and the ability of utilities to recover waste service cost, leads to the conclusion that they are not (yet) impacting waste production. To lower the turning points and to avoid an increasing gap between geographical areas, innovative (market based) and more effective policy instruments should be implemented. In particular, the weight of waste policies should be rebalanced towards waste prevention targets and instruments, in line with the priorities stated by the EU and Member Countries. In fact, the indirect feedback effect of good post-production waste management policies/practices on reducing waste production at a source can be weak and slow. In general, the results confirm that more geographically-disaggregated data may offer more insights with respect to cross-country datasets, also from the policy perspective.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei in its series Working Papers with number 2006.155.

in new window

Date of creation: Dec 2006
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:fem:femwpa:2006.155
Contact details of provider: Postal: Corso Magenta, 63 - 20123 Milan
Phone: 0039-2-52036934
Fax: 0039-2-52036946
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

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.:

as in new window
  1. Anil Markandya & Alexander Golub & Suzette Pedroso-Galinato, 2006. "Empirical Analysis of National Income and SO 2 Emissions in Selected European Countries," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 35(3), pages 221-257, November.
  2. Vollebergh, Herman R.J. & Kemfert, Claudia, 2005. "The role of technological change for a sustainable development," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 133-147, August.
  3. Khanna, Neha & Plassmann, Florenz, 2004. "The demand for environmental quality and the environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(3-4), pages 225-236, December.
  4. Cole, Matthew A., 2003. "Development, trade, and the environment: how robust is the Environmental Kuznets Curve?," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(04), pages 557-580, October.
  5. Stern, David I., 2004. "The Rise and Fall of the Environmental Kuznets Curve," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1419-1439, August.
  6. Christoph Lieb, 2004. "The Environmental Kuznets Curve and Flow versus Stock Pollution: The Neglect of Future Damages," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 29(4), pages 483-506, December.
  7. Rothman, Dale S., 1998. "Environmental Kuznets curves--real progress or passing the buck?: A case for consumption-based approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 177-194, May.
  8. Selden Thomas M. & Song Daqing, 1994. "Environmental Quality and Development: Is There a Kuznets Curve for Air Pollution Emissions?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 147-162, September.
  9. Berrens, Robert P. & Bohara, Alok K. & Gawande, Kishore & Pingo Wang, 1997. "Testing the inverted-U hypothesis for US hazardous waste: An application of the generalized gamma model," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 435-440, September.
  10. Susmita Dasgupta & Benoit Laplante & Hua Wang & David Wheeler, 2002. "Confronting the Environmental Kuznets Curve," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(1), pages 147-168, Winter.
  11. Annegrete Bruvoll & Hege Medin, 2000. "Factoring the environmental Kuznets curve Evidence from Norway," Discussion Papers 275, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
  12. Andreoni, James & Levinson, Arik, 2001. "The simple analytics of the environmental Kuznets curve," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 269-286, May.
  13. Frondel, Manuel & Schmidt, Christoph M., 2001. "Evaluating Environmental Programs: The Perspective of Modern Evaluation Research," IZA Discussion Papers 397, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  14. William Harbaugh & Arik Levinson & David Wilson, 2000. "Reexamining the Empirical Evidence for an Environmental Kuznets Curve," NBER Working Papers 7711, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  15. Mazzanti, Massimiliano & Zoboli, Roberto, 2006. "Economic instruments and induced innovation: The European policies on end-of-life vehicles," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 318-337, June.
  16. Stern , David I., 1998. "Progress on the environmental Kuznets curve?," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(02), pages 173-196, May.
  17. Nick Johnstone & Julien Labonne, 2004. "Generation of Household Solid Waste in OECD Countries: An Empirical Analysis Using Macroeconomic Data," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 80(4).
  18. Dinda, Soumyananda, 2004. "Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: A Survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(4), pages 431-455, August.
  19. Grubler, Arnulf & Nakicenovic, Nebojsa & Victor, David G., 1999. "Dynamics of energy technologies and global change," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 247-280, May.
  20. Managi, Shunsuke, 2006. "Are there increasing returns to pollution abatement? Empirical analytics of the Environmental Kuznets Curve in pesticides," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 617-636, June.
  21. Chimeli, Ariaster B. & Braden, John B., 2005. "Total factor productivity and the environmental Kuznets curve," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 366-380, March.
  22. Sanjeev Sobhee, 2004. "The environmental Kuznets curve (EKC): a logistic curve?," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(7), pages 449-452.
  23. Shafik, Nemat, 1994. "Economic Development and Environmental Quality: An Econometric Analysis," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(0), pages 757-73, Supplemen.
  24. Baltagi, Badi H. & Bresson, Georges & Pirotte, Alain, 2002. "Comparison of forecast performance for homogeneous, heterogeneous and shrinkage estimators: Some empirical evidence from US electricity and natural-gas consumption," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 375-382, August.
  25. Douglas Holtz-Eakin & Thomas M. Selden, 1992. "Stoking the Fires? Co2 Emissions and Economic Growth," NBER Working Papers 4248, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  26. David Pearce, 2004. "Does European Union Environmental Policy Pass a Cost–Benefit Test?," World Economics, World Economics, Economic & Financial Publishing, 1 Ivory Square, Plantation Wharf, London, United Kingdom, SW11 3UE, vol. 5(3), pages 115-137, July.
  27. Katrin Millock & Céline Nauges, 2006. "Ex Post Evaluation of an Earmarked Tax on Air Pollution," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(1), pages 68-84.
  28. Roca, Jordi, 2003. "Do individual preferences explain the Environmental Kuznets curve?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 3-10, April.
  29. Pingo Wang & Alok Bohara & Robert Berrens & Kishore Gawande, 1998. "A risk-based environmental Kuznets curve for US hazardous waste sites," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(12), pages 761-763.
  30. P Ekins, 1997. "The Kuznets Curve for the Environment and Economic Growth: Examining the Evidence," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 29(5), pages 805-830, May.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fem:femwpa:2006.155. 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: (barbara racah)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.