Özelleştirmenin Çöp Toplama Üzerine Etkisi: Teorik ve Ampirik Çalişmalarin Değerlendirilmesi

Yıl 2019, Sayı: 19, 545 - 562, 01.07.2019

İbrahim Yılmaz

Öz

Geride kalan son yıllar içerisinde, özelleştirmenin, maliyetlerin düşürülmesi ve kalitenin artırılması olarak ifade edilebilecek olan amaçlarını gerçekleştirip gerçekleştiremediği üzerinde dikkate değer bir tartışma söz konusudur. Bu makalenin amacı, özelleştirmeyi destekleyen teorileri sunmaktır. Akabinde, çöp toplama ile ilgili ampirik literatürü, teorilerin gerçeği yansıtıp yansıtmadğını anlamak için analiz eder. Makale, her ne kadar teorik açıklamalar özelleştirmeden yana olsa da, ampirik çalışmalar özelleştirmenin belediyelerin çöp toplama maliyetini düşürüp düşürmediği hususunda belirsiz olduğu sonucunu ortaya koyar.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Özelleştirme, tam sözleşme, rekabet, çöp toplama.

Impact of Privatisation on Refuse Collection: Review of Theoretical and Empirical Studies

Öz

Over the last few decades, there has been a considerable discussion on the issue of whether privatization achieves its main aims which might be stated as cost-saving and quality improvement. This paper aims to present the theoretical approaches that are in favor of privatization. Then analyze the existing empirical studies from refuse collection literature to acknowledge to what extense these theories are consistent. Paper concludes that although theoretical explanations are in favor of privatization, empirical evidence is ambiguous whether privatization enables municipalities to decrease cost.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Privatisation, complete contract, competition, refuse collection.

Kaynakça

• Ascher, K. (1987), The Politics of Privatisation: Contracting out Public Services, Basingstoke, Hamp., Macmillan.
• Bel, G., and Mur, M. (2009) “Intermunicipal Cooperation, Privatization and Waste Management Costs: Evidence from Rural Municipali- ties” Waste Management, 29(10) 2772-2778.
• Bel, G., and Warner, M. (2008) “Does Privatization of Solid Waste and Water Services Reduce Costs? A Review of Empirical Studies” Re- sources, Conservation and Recycling 52(12) 1337-1348.
• Bello, H., and Szymanski, S. (1996) “Compulsory Competitive Tende- ring for Public Servicess in the UK: The Refuse Collection” Journal of Business Finance 23(3) 881-903.
• Callan, S. J., and Thomas, J.M. (2001) “Economies of Scale and Scope: A cost Analysis of Municipal Solid Waste Services” Land Economics, 77(4) 548-560
• Dijkgraaf, E. and Gradus, R.H., (2008). “Cost savings of contracting out refuse collection in the Netherlands.” (Ed.) E. Dijkgraaf and R.H.J.M. Gradus, The Waste Market (Institutional Developments in Europe) (pp. 9-21). Dordrecht, Springer.
• Domberger, S. Meadowcroft, S. Thompson, D. (1986), “Competitive tendering and efficiency: The case of refuse collection” Fiscal Stu- dies 7(4), 69–87.
• Domberger, S. and P. Jensen (1997), “Contracting Out by the Public Sector: Theory, Evidence, Prospects”, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 13(4), 67-78.
• Hart, O. (1995), Firms, Contracts and Financial Structure, Oxford, Oxford University Press, Clarendon Lectures.
• Gomez-Lobo, A., and Szymanski, S. (2001), “A law of Large Numbers: Bidding and Compulsory Competitive Tendering for Refuse Col- lection Contracts”, Review of Industrial Organizations, 18(1), 105- 113.
• Hart, O., A. Shleifer and R. W. Vishny (1997), “The Proper Scope of Government: Theory and an Application to Prisons”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(4), 1127-1161.
• Hirsch, W. Z. (1965), “Cost Function of an Urban Government Service: Refuse Collection”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 47(1), 87- 92.
• Kitchen, H. M. (1976), “A Statistical Estimation of an Operating Cost Function for Municipal Refuse Collection”, Public Finance Quar- terly, 4(1) 56-76.
• Levin, J. and S. Tadelis (2010), “Contracting for Government Services: Theory and Evidence from U.S. Cities”, Journal of Industrial Eco- nomics, 58(3), 507-541.
• Lopez-de-Silanes, F. A. Shleifer and R. W. Vishny (1997), “Privatization in the United States”, RAND Journal of Economics, 28(3), 447-47.
• McDavid, C. J. (1985), “The Canadian Experience with Priatizing Resi- dential Solid Waste Services”, Public Administration Review, 602- 608
• Ohlsson H. (2003) “Ownership and production costs. Choosing between public production and contracting-out in the case of Swedish refuse collection”. Fiscal Studies 24(4), 451–76.
• Shleifer, A. (1998), “State versus Private Ownership”, Journal of Econo- mic Perspectives, 12(4), 133-150.
• Simões, P., Cruz, N.F. and Marques, R.C., 2012. The performance of private partners in the waste sector. Journal of cleaner produc- tion, 29, pp.214-221.
• Soukopová, J., Vaceková, G. and Klimovský, D., (2017). “Local waste management in the Czech Republic: Limits and merits of public- private partnership and contracting out”. Utilities Policy, 48, 201- 209.
• Szymanski, S. (1996), “The impact of compulsory competitive tende- ring on refuse collection services”. Fiscal Studies, 17(3), 1-19.
• Szymanski, S. Wilkins, S. (1993), “Cheap rubbish? Competitive tende- ring and contracting out in refuse collection – 1981–88”, Fiscal Studies 14(3), 109–130.
• TfL (2017). London's Bus Contracting and Tendering Process. London, Transport for London: 26.