Factors Affecting Tender Prices

  • Arne Beck
Part of the Contributions to Economics book series (CE)


Local public transport in Germany is already a costly enterprise. Although European regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 appeared to mitigate the need for restructuring through the possibility of direct awards, the unexpected global recession has been a major factor affecting the public budgetary crisis. Moreover, the nation’s constitutional goal to achieve balanced budgets in the period 2011–2020 adds urgency to the need for fiscal reform of public transport.


Data Envelopment Analysis Contract Term Stochastic Frontier Analysis Seemingly Unrelated Regression Full Price 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Agrell, P.J., Bogetoft, P., Cullmann, A., Hirschhausen, C.v., Neumann, A. and Walter, M. (2008a) ‘Projekt GERNER IV Ergebnisdokumentation: Bestimmung der Effizienzwerte Verteilernetzbetreiber Gas’, URL: http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/media/archive/14563.pdf, retrieved July 10, 2009.
  2. Agrell, P.J., Bogetoft, P., Cullmann, A., Hirschhausen, C.v., Neumann, A. and Walter, M. (2008b) ‘Projekt GERNER IV Ergebnisdokumentation: Bestimmung der Effizienzwerte Verteilernetzbetreiber Strom’, URL: http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/media/archive/14693.pdf, retrieved July 10, 2009.
  3. Aigner D, Lovell CAK, Schmidt P (1977) Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models. Journal of Econometrics 6(1):21–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alexandersson G, Hultén S, Fölster S (1998) The effects of competition in Swedish local bus services. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 32(2):203–219Google Scholar
  5. Beck, A. and Walter, M. (2010) ‘Tender prices in German local bus transport – An application of alternative regression techniques’, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology – Faculty for Economics (ed.), KIT Working Paper, no. 13, Karlsruhe, URL: http://econpapers.wiwi.kit.edu/, retrieved March 20, 2011, Paper submitted to Journal of Transport Economics and Policy.
  6. Brons M, Nijkamp EP, Rietveld P (2005) Efficiency of urban public transit: A meta analysis. Transportation 32(1):1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. BSL – BSL Management Consultants GmbH & Co. KG (2008) ‘Private Busunternehmen im Wettbewerb – Anforderungen, Chancen und Handlungsalternativen’, study for Landesverband Hessischer Omnibusunternehmer (LHO) (ed.), Hamburg, August 2008.Google Scholar
  8. Coelli TJ, Rao DSP, O’Donnell CJ, Battese GE (2005) An introduction to efficiency and productivity analysis, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Dalen DM, Gómez-Lobo A (2003) Yardsticks on the road: Regulatory contracts and cost efficiency in the Norwegian bus industry. Transportation 30(4):371–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Farsi M, Filippini M, Kuenzle M (2006) Cost efficiency in regional bus companies: An application of alternative stochastic frontier models. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 40(1):95–118Google Scholar
  11. Hensher DA, Wallis IP (2005) Competitive tendering as a contracting mechanism for subsidising transport: The bus experience. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 39(3):295–321Google Scholar
  12. Jamasb T, Pollitt MG, Triebs T (2008) Productivity and efficiency of US gas transmission companies: A European regulatory perspective. Energy Policy 36(9):3398–3412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jondrow J, Lovell CAK, Materov IS, Schmidt P (1982) On the estimation of technical inefficiency in the stochastic frontier production model. Journal of Econometrics 19(2–3):233–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McDowell A (2004) From the help desk: Seemingly unrelated regression with unbalanced equations. The Stata Journal 4(4):442–448Google Scholar
  15. Meeusen W, van den Broeck J (1977) Efficiency estimation from Cobb-Douglas production functions with composed error. International Economic Review 18(2):435–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Miller D (1970) Differences among cities, differences among firms, and costs of urban bus transport. The Journal of Industrial Economics 1:22–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. OVN and ver.di – Omnibus Verband Nord (OVN) e.v. and ver.di – Vereinte Dienstleistungsgewerkschaft (ver.di) Landesbezirk Nord (2007) ‘Lohntarifvertrag für die gewerblichen Arbeitnehmer/innen des privaten Omnibusgewerbes in Schleswig-Holstein’, Kiel/Lübeck, valid from 1.09.2007 (unpublished document).Google Scholar
  18. Sharaby, N. and Shiftan, Y. (2008) ‘The economic benefits from competition in bus public transport – The Israeli case’, International Journal of Transport Economics, 2/2008, pp. 391–413.Google Scholar
  19. ver.di hessen – Vereinte Dienstleistungsgewerkschaft Landesbezirk Hessen (2007) ‘Tarifverträge: Entgelte und Ausbildungsvergütungen für die Arbeitnehmerinnen und Arbeitnehmer des privaten Personenverkehrs mit Omnibussen in Hessen (LHO)’, Frankfurt on the Main, valid from 1.10.2007 (unpublished document).Google Scholar
  20. Walter M (2011) Some determinants of cost efficiency in German local public transport. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 45(1):1–20Google Scholar
  21. Wolanski M (2009) How much do we save on competitive tendering? Quantitative study of Polish cities’ experience. In: Nash C, Wolanski M, Veeneman W, van de Velde D (eds) Benchmarking the Competitive Tendering Outcome – Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Competition and Ownership in Land Passenger Transport. Next Generation Infrastructures Foundation, Delft, pp 233–248Google Scholar
  22. Wooldridge JM (2002) Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  23. Zellner A (1962) An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions and tests for aggregation bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association LVII(June, 1962):348–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arne Beck
    • 1
  1. 1.BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations