Advertisement

Journal of Labor Research

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 293–305 | Cite as

Privatization of refuse removal and labor costs

  • Gary A. Hoover
  • James Peoples
Articles

Abstract

We examine the labor-cost savings associated with privatization by comparing earnings and employment trends of public and private sector refuse workers. Findings suggest that high union earnings for workers in the public sector are a source of labor-cost savings in the refuse industry. Evidence on job changers does not indicate that earnings for this group of workers are a compensating differential. Metropolitan area employment findings suggest that municipalities are less likely to use union refuse workers in the public sector when a relatively small percentage of area residents belong to a union.

Keywords

Public Sector Refuse Collection Employment Share Union Worker Nonunion Worker 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bennett, James T. and Manuel H. Johnson. “Public versus Private Provisions of Collective Goods and Services: Garbage Collection Revisited.”Public Choice 34 (1979): 55–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dubin, Jeffrey and Peter Navarro. “How Markets for Impure Public Goods Organize: The Case of Household Refuse Collection.”Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 4 (Fall 1988): 217–41.Google Scholar
  3. Edwards, Franklin R. and Barbara J. Stevens. “The Provision of Municipal Sanitation Services by Private Firms: An Empirical Analysis of the Efficiency of Alternative Market Structures and Regulatory Arrangements.”Journal of Industrial Economics 37 (December 1978): 133–47.Google Scholar
  4. Gibbons, Robert and Lawrence Katz. “Does Unmeasured Ability Explain Inter-Industry Wage Differentials?”Review of Economic Studies 59 (July 1992): 515–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hirsch, Barry T. and David Macpherson. “Earnings, Rents, and Competition in the Airline Labor Market.”Journal of Labor Economics 18 (January 2000): 125–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kemper, Peter and John M. Quigley.The Economics of Refuse Collection. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger Publishing, 1976.Google Scholar
  7. Krueger, Alan B. and Lawrence H. Summers. “Efficiency Wages and the Inter-Industry Wage Structure.”Econometrica 56 (March 1988): 259–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kodrzycki, Yolanda K. “Privatization of Local Services: Lessons for New England.”New England Economic Review (May-June 1994): 31-46.Google Scholar
  9. Lopez-de-Salines, Florencio, Andrei Shleifer, and Robert Vishney. “Privatization in the United States.”Rand Journal of Economics 28 (Autumn 1997): 447–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Peltzman, Sam. “Toward a More General Theory of Regulation.”Journal of Law and Economics 19 (August 1976): 211–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Stevens, Barbara J. “Scale, Market Structure, and the Cost of Refuse Collection.”Review of Economics and Statistics 60 (August 1978): 438–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. —. “Comparing Public and Private Sector Productive Efficiency: An Analysis of Eight Activities.”National Productivity Review 2 (Autumn 1984): 43–72.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gary A. Hoover
    • 1
  • James Peoples
    • 2
  1. 1.University of AlabamaTuscaloosa
  2. 2.University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Personalised recommendations