Effects of unit-based garbage pricing: A differences-in-differences approach

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 45, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 405-428

  Allers, Maarten A ^a   Hoeben, Corine ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Endogenous policy; Household waste; Policy interaction; Recycling; Unit based pricing

Indexed keywords

RECYCLING;

DIFFERENCES-IN-DIFFERENCES; FIXED EFFECTS; HOUSEHOLD WASTE; ILLEGAL DUMPING; INSTRUMENTAL VARIABLES; POLICY INTERACTION; PRICING SYSTEMS; UNIT-BASED PRICING;

COSTS;

COMMUNITY CARE; DATA SET; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; HOUSEHOLD ENERGY; MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE; PRICING POLICY; RECYCLING; WASTE MANAGEMENT;

NETHERLANDS;

EID: 77950690770     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-009-9320-6     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Allers MA, Elhorst JP (2005) Tax mimicking and yardstick competition among local governments in the Netherlands. Int Tax Public Finan 12: 493-513.
2. Altonji JG, Elder TE, Taber CR (2005) An evaluation of instrumental variable strategies for estimating the effects of catholic schooling. J Human Resour XL: 791-821.
3. Ashworth J, Geys B, Heyndels B (2006) Determinants of tax innovation: the case of environmental taxes in Flemish municipalities. Eur J Polit Econ 22: 223-247.
4. Baltagi BH (2005) Econometric analysis of panel data. John Wiley, Chichester.
5. Berry FS, Berry WD (1992) Tax innovation in the states: capitalizing on political opportunity. Am J Polit Sci 36: 715-742.
6. Bertrand M, Duflo E, Mullainathan S (2004) How much should we trust differences in differences estimates?. Q J Econ 119: 249-275.
7. Besley T, Case A (2000) Unnatural experiments? Estimating the incidence of endogenous policies. Econ J 110: F672-F694.
8. Brueckner JK (2003) Strategic interaction among governments: an overview of empirical studies. Int Reg Sci Rev 26: 175-188.
9. Callan SJ, Thomas JM (1999) Adopting a unit pricing system for municipal solid waste: policy and socio-economic determinants. Environ Resour Econ 14: 503-518.
10. Callan SJ, Thomas JM (2006) Analyzing demand for disposal and recycling services: a systems approach. East Econ J 32: 221-240.
11. Davidson R, MacKinnon J (1993) Estimation and inference in econometrics. Oxford University Press, New York.
12. Davis GC, Kim ST (2002) Measuring instrument relevance in the single endogenous regressor-multiple instrument case: a simplifying procedure. Econ Lett 74: 321-325.
13. Dijkgraaf E, Gradus RHJM (2004) Cost savings in unit-based pricing of household waste: the case of The Netherlands. Resour Energy Econ 26: 353-371.
14. Dijkgraaf E, Gradus R (2008) Per-unit garbage charges. J Econ Perspect 22: 243-244.
15. Dijkgraaf E, Gradus R (2009) Environmental activism and dynamics of unit-based pricing systems. Resour Energy Econ 31: 13-23.
16. Dijkgraaf E, Vollebergh HRJ (2004) Burn of bury? A social cost comparison of final waste disposal methods. Ecol Econ 50: 233-247.
17. Ferrara I, Missios P (2005) Recycling and waste diversion effectiveness: evidence from Canada. Environ Resour Econ 30: 221-238.
18. Fullerton D, Kinnaman TC (1996) Household responses To pricing garbage by The bag. Am Econ Rev 86: 971-984.
19. Gellynck X, Verhelst P (2007) Assessing instruments for mixed household solid waste collection services in the Flemish region of Belgium. Conserv Recycling 49: 372-387.
20. Greene W (2003) Fixed effects and bias due to the incidental parameters problem in the Tobit model. Econom Rev 23: 125-147.
21. Hall AR, Rudebusch GD, Wilcox DW (1996) Judging instrument relevance in instrumental variables estimation. Int Econ Rev 37: 283-298.
22. Heijnen P (2007) Strategic interactions in environmental economics. Labyrint, Ridderkerk.
23. Hong S (1999) The effects of unit pricing system upon household solid waste management: The Korean experience. J Environ Manage 57: 1-10.
24. Hong SH, Adams RM (1999) Household responses to price incentives for recycling: some further evidence. Land Econ 75: 505-514.
25. Jenkins RR (1993) The economics of solid waste reduction. Edward Elgar, Aldershot.
26. Jenkins RR, Martinez SA, Palmer K, Podolsky MJ (2003) The determinants of household recycling: a material-specific analysis of recycling program features and unit pricing. J Environ Econ Manage 45: 294-318.
27. Kinnaman TC (2006) Policy watch: examining the justification for residential recycling. J Econ Perspect 20: 219-232.
28. Kinnaman TC, Fullerton D (2000) Garbage and recycling with endogenous local policy. J Urban Econ 48: 419-442.
29. Kinnaman T (2008) Response from Thomas Kinnaman. J Econ Perspect 22: 244-245.
30. Kipperberg G (2007) A comparison of household recycling behaviors in Norway and the United States. Environ Resour Econ 36: 215-235.
31. KPMG Bureau voor Economische Argumentatie (1997) Ervaringen met tariefdifferentiatie en huishoudelijk afval. Hoofddorp.
32. Linderhof V, Kooreman P, Allers M, Wiersma D (2001) Weight-based pricing in the collection of household waste: the Oostzaan case. Resour Energy Econ 23: 359-371.
33. Podolsky MJ, Spiegel M (1998) Municipal waste disposal: unit-pricing and recycling opportunities. Public Works Manage Policy 3: 27-39.
34. Rincke J (2007) Policy diffusion in space and time: the case of charter schools in California school districts. Reg Sci Urban Econ 37: 526-541.
35. Salmon P (1987) Decentralisation as an incentive scheme. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 3: 24-43.
36. Senternovem (2006) De afvalmarkt 2006: overheidsondernemingen en huishoudelijk restafval. Utrecht.
37. Usui T (2008) Estimating the effect of unit-based pricing in the presence of sample selection bias under Japanese recycling law. Ecol Econ 66: 282-288.
38. van Houtven GL, Morris GE (1999) Household behavior under alternative pay-as-you-throw systems for solid waste disposal. Land Econ 75: 515-537.