Challenges of Regulating Quality of Service in the Postal Industry

  • Henrik Ballebye Okholm
  • Bruno BasaliscoEmail author
  • Anna Möller Boivie
  • Jimmy Gårdebrink
Part of the Topics in Regulatory Economics and Policy book series (TREP)


Quality of service (QoS) is one of several regulatory objectives that authorities oversee. The EU Postal Directive, on the issue states: “Member States shall ensure that quality of service standards are set and published in relation to universal service in order to guarantee a postal service of good quality”. Subsidiarity is key, since the specification of domestic QoS regulation is left to individual countries.


  1. ANACOM. (2018). Parãmetros de Qualidade de ServiÓo e Objetivos de 474 Desempenho Associados Á PrestaÓÐo do ServiÓo Postal Universal. Consultation document of 11 January 2018, published at:
  2. Besanko, D., Donnenfeld, S., & White, L. (1987). Monopoly and quality distortion: Effects and remedies. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 52(4), 743–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Besanko, D., Donnenfeld, S., & White, L. (1988). The multiproduct firm, quality choice, and regulation. Journal of Industrial Economics, 36(4), 411–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Calzada, J. (2008). Universal service obligations in the postal sector: The relationship between quality and coverage. Information Economics and Policy, 21, 10–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cremer, H., De Rycke, M., & Grimaud, A. (1997). Service quality, competition and regulatory policies in the postal service. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 11(1), 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Delibera, N. (n.d.). 396/15/CONS.Google Scholar
  7. Dieke et al. (2012). Quality Factors in Postal Price Regulation. Paper submitted for the 20th Conference on Postal and Delivery Economics in Brighton, U.K., 30 May – 2 June 2012.Google Scholar
  8. ERGP. (2016a). ERGP report Universal Services in light of changing postal end users’ needs. ERGP (16)36.Google Scholar
  9. ERGP. (2016b). Report on the quality of service, consumer protection and complaint handling – an analysis of trends. ERGP (16)37.Google Scholar
  10. Gazzetta Ufficiale. (2010). Contratto di programma 2009-2011 tra il ministero dello sviluppo 488 economico e poste italiane. Contract between the Italian government and Poste Italiane.Google Scholar
  11. House of commons. (2006). Postcomm and the quality of mail service - Fifth report of session 2006–07.Google Scholar
  12. Sveriges Radio. (2017). Postnord fär tvä dagar pä sig att dela ut inrikes brev. Article published on 12 October 2017, retrieved at:
  13. Regeringskansliet. (2017). Regeringen moderniserar postlagstiftningen. Press release of 12 October 2017, retrieved at:
  14. Kluger, B. (1989). Implications of quality standard regulation for multiproduct monopoly pricing. Managerial and Decision Economics, 10(1), 61–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Laffont, J. J., & Tirole, J. (1993). A theory of incentives in procurement and regulation (p. 213). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  16. Laffont, J. J., & Tirole, J. (2001). Competition in telecommunications (p. 88). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  17. Leland, H. (1979). Quacks, lemons, and licensing: A theory of minimum quality standards. Journal of Political Economy, 87(6), 1328–1346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Postcomm. (2004). Memorandum by Postcomm.Google Scholar
  19. Postcomm. (2006). Condition 19 of Royal Mail’s licence.Google Scholar
  20. Spence, A. M. (1975). Monopoly, quality and regulation. The Bell Journal of Economics, 6(2), 417–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Swinand, G., & Scully, D. (2006). Incorporating quality of service measures into price-caps for post. New York, NY: Mimeo, London Economics.Google Scholar
  22. Valletti, T. (2000). Minimum quality standards under Cournot competition. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 18, 235–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Valletti, T., Hoernig, S., & Barros, P. (2002). Universal service and entry: The role of uniform pricing and coverage constraints. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 21(2), 169–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. WIK. (2013). Main developments in the postal sector (2010–2013). Study for the European Commission, Directorate General for Internal Market and Services.Google Scholar
  25. Zurel, O. (2016). A systematic review of postal consumers’ needs within the USO framework. Paper presented at the 24th Conference on Postal Delivery Economics, Florence.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henrik Ballebye Okholm
    • 1
  • Bruno Basalisco
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anna Möller Boivie
    • 1
  • Jimmy Gårdebrink
    • 1
  1. 1.Copenhagen EconomicsCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations