Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:43:19.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Applying the Miceli Model to Explain Cooperation in Municipal Solid Waste Management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Kelly J. Tiller  and
Paul M. Jakus
Kelly J. Tiller
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics at the University of Tennessee
Paul M. Jakus
Affiliation:
Department of Economics at Utah State University in Logan, Utah
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As traditional methods of municipal solid waste management (MSWM) become increasingly expensive due to increased regulation, many local governments are considering cooperation as a waste management strategy. A theoretical model is used to specify a partial observability probability model to analyze the decision Tennessee counties made to form either a single-county solid waste region or a multi-county region. We find that, while economies of scale may be a factor in the consolidation decision, similarities and differences between counties in current individual provision levels of solid waste services, ability to pay for services, and expectations for future solid waste service demands are statistically more important.

Keywords

regional cooperationmunicipal solid wastewaste managementregionalization
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , October 2005 , pp. 217 - 225
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barkenbus, J. (Project Director), Bohm, R., Copeland, R., Douglas, P., Dunsmore, M., Edwards, M., Farris, G., Gangaware, T., Hailey, G., Holt, J., Kelsay, M., Park, W., Peretz, J., Sexton, G., Siegel, B., Shoopman, C., and Wilt, C. 1991. “Managing Our Waste: Solid Waste Planning for Tennessee.” Report prepared for the Tennessee State Planning Office, Waste Management Research and Education Institute, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.Google Scholar
Brasington, D.M. 1999. “Joint Provision of Public Goods: The Consolidation of School Districts.” Journal of Public Economics 73(3): 373–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brasington, D.M. 2003. “Snobbery, Racism, or Mutual Distaste: What Promotes and Hinders Cooperation in Local Public Good Provision?” Review of Economics and Statistics 85(4): 874–883.Google Scholar
Callan, S.J., and Thomas, J.M. 2001. “Economies of Scale and Scope: A Cost Analysis of Municipal Solid Waste Services.” Land Economics 77(4): 548–560.Google Scholar
County Technical Assistance Service. 1991. “Guidelines for Decision Makers: Solid Waste Management.” Institute of Public Service, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Google Scholar
DeBoer, L. 1995. “Why Do Local Governments Cooperate to Deliver Services?” Working paper, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.Google Scholar
Deller, S.C., and Nelson, C.H. 1991. “Measuring the Economic Efficiency of Producing Rural Road Services.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73(1): 194–201.Google Scholar
Dinar, A., and Wolf, A. 1997. “Economic and Political Considerations in Regional Cooperation Models.” Agricultural and Resources Economics Review 26(1): 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, T.A. 2001. “Economies of Scale and Inefficiency in County Extension Councils: A Case for Consolidation?” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83(4): 811–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, T.A., and Dodson, M.E. III. 2004. “Inefficient Education Spending in Public School Districts: A Case for Consolidation.” Contemporary Economic Policy 22(2): 270–280.Google Scholar
Gyimah-Brempong, K. 1987. “Economies of Scale in Municipal Police Departments: The Case of Florida.” Review of Economics and Statistics 69(2): 352–356.Google Scholar
Jacques, C., Brorsen, B.W., and Richter, F.G.C. 2000. “Consolidating Rural School Districts: Potential Savings and Effects on Student Achievement.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 32(3): 573–583.Google Scholar
Kaufman, S.M., Goldstein, N., Millrath, K., and Themelis, N.J. 2004. “The State of Garbage in America.” Biocycle 45(1): 31.Google Scholar
Miceli, T.J. 1993. “The Decision to Regionalize in the Provision of Education: An Application of the Tiebout Model.” Journal of Urban Economics 33(3): 344–360.Google Scholar
Poirier, D. 1980. “Partial Observability in Bivariate Probit Models.” Journal of Econometrics 12(2): 209–217.Google Scholar
Steuteville, R. 1995. “The State of Garbage in America: Part II.” Biocycle 36(5): 54–63.Google Scholar
Tiller, K.J. 1996. “Multijurisdictional Cooperation in Municipal Solid Waste Management.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.Google Scholar
Tiller, K.J., and Park, W.M. 2001. “Regional Cooperation in the Provision of Public Services: Lessons from Municipal Solid Waste Management.” Working Paper No. 01-03, Agricultural Policy Analysis Center, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. “Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2001 Facts and Figures.” EPA 530-R-03-011, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar