Creating Last-Mile Incentives from Inside-Out. A Template Drawn from Rural Telecom

  • Victor GlassEmail author
Part of the Topics in Regulatory Economics and Policy book series (TREP)


On December 1, 2017, the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in which it concluded that the rate-making system had not maintained the financial health of the Postal Service and that service quality had deteriorated. The aim of this article is to offer a novel supplement to the PRC’s incentive program that grew out of the author’s experiences in the telecommunications industry. In the absence of external pressure, internal incentives are an important starting point for developing a framework to attract private capital and management at reasonable prices. The basic strategy offered here is to organize competing service territories within the Postal Service into subsidiaries and award bonuses tied to superior performance that go beyond service delivery standards now in place. A further recommendation is to develop a “best practices” simulation model that can be used to fine-tune internal benchmarks and to set minimum bid prices for operating service territories in case the Postal Service decides to subcontract with the private sector or spin off service territories to the private sector.


  1. Ballou, J. P., & Weisbrod, B. A. (2003). Managerial rewards and the behavior of for-profit, governmental, and nonprofit organizations: Evidence from the hospital industry. Journal of Public Economics, 87(9-10), 1895–1920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Before the Postal Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20268-0001 Statutory Review of the System for Regulating Rates And Classes For Market Dominant Products, Docket No. RM2017-3 Comments of Alliance of Nonprofit Mailers, American Catalog Mailers Association, Inc., Association for Postal Commerce, Idealliance And MPA—The Association Of Magazine Media, March 1, 2018, p. 34.Google Scholar
  3. Bozzo, A. T., & Before the Postal Regulatory Commission. (2000). Econometric estimation of ‘volume-variability’ factors for postal…. Retrieved from, p. 132.
  4. Bradley, M., Colvin, J., & Perkins, M. (2006). Measuring scale and scope economies with a structural model of postal delivery. Retrieved from
  5. CAF2 Model Overview. costQuest. Retrieved from
  6. Crew, M., & Brennan, T. (2017). The postal accountability and enhancement act after 10 years – Some proposals for reform. In M. Crew, P. L. Parcu, & T. Brennan (Eds.), The changing postal and delivery sector (p. 9). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crew, M., & Kleindorfer, P. (2003). Postal privatization in the United States. In D. Parker & D. Saal (Eds.), International handbook of privatization (p. 189). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  8. Federal Communications Commission, In the Matter of Connect America Fund A National Broadband Plan for Our Future Establishing Just and Reasonable Rates for Local Exchange Carriers High-Cost Universal Service Support Developing an Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service Lifeline and Link-Up Universal Service Reform – Mobility Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90 GN Docket No. 09-51 WC Docket No. 07-135 WC Docket No. 05-337 CC Docket No. 01-92 CC Docket No. 96-45 WC Docket No. 03-109 WT Docket No. 10-208, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Released Nov. 18, 2011.Google Scholar
  9. Federal Communications Commission, Comments Sought on Competitive Bidding Procedures and Certain Program Requirements for the Connect America Fund Phase II Auction, AU Docket No. 17-182 and WC Docket No. 10-90, Public Notice, August 4, 2017 (“2017 Public Notice”). Retrieved from
  10. Federal Manager’s Daily Report. (2017, August 7). Pay for performance at USPS gets mixed assessment. FEDweek. Retrieved from
  11. Glass, V., Stefanova, S., & Sysuyev, R. (2013). Pooling, a missing element in the rate of return and price cap regulation debate: A comparison of alternative regulatory regimes. Information Economics and Policy, 25(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. H.R. 6407 (109th) Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. (2006, December 19). H.R. 6407 (109th). Retrieved from “PAEA.”
  13. Hogendorn, C. (2012, December 27). Peer review of connect America phase II cost model. Retrieved from
  14. Hogendorn, C. (2013, February 18). Wireline competition bureau federal communications commission subject: Peer review of connect America Phase II cost model.Google Scholar
  15. Shaley, M. E., & Asbjornsen, S. (2010). Electronic reverse auctions and the public sector: Factors of success. Journal of Public Procurement, 10(3), 428–452.Google Scholar
  16. United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Performance management reference materials, OPM.Gov. Retrieved from
  17. United States Postal Regulatory Commission, Statutory Review of the System for Regulating Rates and Classes for Market Dominant Products, Docket No. RM2017-3, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the System for Regulating Rates and Classes for Market Dominant Products, Order No. 4257, Issued December 1, 2017a. 4257, p. 3. Retrieved from “PRC Order 4257.”
  18. United States Postal Regulatory Commission, Statutory Review of the System for Regulating Rates and Classes for Market Dominant Products, Docket No. RM2017-3, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the System for Regulating Rates and Classes for Market Dominant Products, Order No. 4258, Issued December 1, 2017b. Retrieved from “PRC Order 4258.”
  19. United States Postal Service. Quarterly performance for USPS marketing mail. Retrieved from
  20. United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General (OIG). (2010). Can the postal service further consolidate the area and district administrative office structure? Retrieved from

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rutgers Business SchoolNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations