How to Get Increasing Competition in the Dutch Refuse Collection Market?

  • E. Dijkgraaf
  • R.H.J.M. Gradus


For the refuse collection market, it is well-known that concentration increases prices and offsets the advantage of contracting out. The presence of competing public firms might be essential to ensure fair competition. In this chapter we show that increasing competition by public firms decreases prices and can be essential for low prices.


Collection dynamics concentration prices Netherlands 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References List

  1. Bel, G., & Costas, A. (2006). Do public sector reforms get rusty? Local privatization in Spain. Journal of Policy Reform, 9, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bel, G., & Miralles, A. (2003). Factors influencing privatization of urban solid waste collection in Spain. Urban Studies, 40, 1323–1334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bel, G., & Warner, M. (2006). Local privatisation and costs: a review of the empirical evidence, working paper Universitat de Barcelona.Google Scholar
  4. Christoffersen, H., & Paldam, M. (2003). Markets and municipalities: A study of the behaviour of Danish municipalities. Public Choice, 114, 79–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Domberger, S., & Jensen, P. (1997) Contracting out by the public sector: theory, evidence and prospects. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 4, 67–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dijkgraaf, E., & Gradus, R. H. J. M. (2008). Institutional developments in the Dutch waste market. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26, 110–126.Google Scholar
  7. Dijkgraaf, E., & Gradus, R. H. J. M. (2007). Collusion in the Dutch waste collection market. Local Government Studies, 33, 573–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dijkgraaf, E., Gradus, R. H. J. M., & Melenberg, B. (2003). Contracting out refuse collection. Empirical Economics, 28, 553–570 (reproduced as chapter 3).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hefetz, A., & Warner, M. (2004). Privatization and its reverse: explaining the dynamics of the government contracting process. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, 171–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. López-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1997). Privatization in the United States. Rand Journal of Economics, 28, 447–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ohlsson, H. (2003). Ownership and production costs. Choosing between public production and contracting-out in the case of Swedish refuse collection. Fiscal Studies, 24, 451–476 (reproduced in chapter 4).Google Scholar
  12. Savas, E. S. (1987). The key to better government. New York: Chatham.Google Scholar
  13. Szymanski, S. (1996). The impact of compulsory competitive tendering on refuse collection services. Fiscal Studies, 17, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Wassenaar, M. C., & Gradus, R. H. J. M. (2004). Contracting out: The importance of a solution for the VAT distortion, CESifo Economic Studies, 50, 377–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Dijkgraaf
    • 1
  • R.H.J.M. Gradus
    • 2
  1. 1.SEOR-ECRiErasmus University Rotterdam3000 DR RotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Faculty of Economics and Business AdministrationVU University Amsterdam3000 DR RotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations