Click here to download

Wasted in waste? The benefits of switching from taxes to Pay-As-You-Throw fees: The Italian case
Journal Title: ECONOMIA PUBBLICA  
Author/s: Antonella Tomasi, Giovanna Messina 
Year:  2021 Issue: Language: English 
Pages:  32 Pg. 7-38 FullText PDF:  484 KB
DOI:  10.3280/EP2021-002001
(DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation:  clicca qui   and here 


Solid waste management is one of the most important functions performed by Italian municipalities, accounting for almost a quarter of their current expenses (nearly €10 billion). In most cases, the service is financed through local property taxes, which charge households according to the size of the family and of the house. Alternative financing schemes, known as ‘pay-as-you throw’ (PAYT) or ‘unit pricing’, are designed to clearly price each additional unit of waste disposed of by the user and are becoming increasingly frequent at international level. Their advantages in terms of efficiency and equity, as well as of care for the environment, have been extensively investigated both theoretically and empirically. Despite some recent progress in the legislative framework, the transition to PAYT is still limited to less than 10 per cent of municipalities in Italy. This paper estimates the impact of PAYT schemes on the amount of waste produced and the costs of its disposal. Our analysis draws on a unique data set with more than 6,100 observations, covering a wide range of information on the supply as well as on the demand side of local waste management services, together with institutional and political variables. We evaluate the effectiveness of PAYT fees by applying different estimation strategies, from standard OLS regressions to propensity score matching techniques. Our results show that PAYT schemes deeply affect user behaviour: total waste decreases and, more specifically, unsorted waste almost halves. Overall, the costs incurred by municipalities adopting PAYT financing schemes fall by roughly 10 per cent in per capita terms, reflecting a reduction of 20 to 40 per cent in the cost of managing undifferentiated waste. Taken at face value, our results imply Italian municipalities would save €0.6 billion per year on solid waste management if they all adopt PAYT schemes.
Keywords: pay-as-you-throw, municipal solid waste management, policy evaluation. First submission: 21 January 2021, accepted: 28 May 2021
Jel Code: D78, H23, H71, Q53

  1. Allers M., Hoeben C. (2010). Effects Of Unit-Based Garbage Pricing: A Differences-In-Differences Approach. Environmental and Resource Economics, 45(3): 405-428.
  2. ARERA – Autorità di regolazione per Energia Reti e Ambiente – Relazione Annuale Stato dei Servizi – 31 March 2019, Cap. 6.
  3. Bartelings H., Sterner T. (1999). Household Waste Management in a Swedish Municipality: Determinants of Waste Disposal, Recycling and Composting. Environmental and Resource Economics, 13: 473-491.
  4. Bel G., Gradus R. (2016). Effects of Unit-Based Pricing on Household Waste Collection Demand: a Meta-Regression Analysis. Resource and Energy Economics, 44: 169-182.
  5. Carattini S., Baranzini A., Lalive R. (2018). Is Taxing Waste a Waste of Time? Evidence from a Supreme Court Decision. Ecological Economics, 148: 131-151.
  6. Card D., Schweitzer J.P. (2016). Pay-As-You Throw schemes in the Benelux Countries. In Capacity Building, Programmatic Development and Communication in the Field of Environmental Taxation and Budgetary Reform. European Commission DG Environment.
  7. Dijkgraaf E., Gradus R.H.J.M. (2004). Cost Savings in Unit-Based Pricing of Household Waste: the case of The Netherlands. Resource and Energy Economics, 26: 353-371.
  8. Imbens G.W., Woolridge J.M. (2009). Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(1): 5-86.
  9. Invitalia (2019). Rapporto nazionale sugli assetti organizzativi e gestionali del servizio rifiuti -- https://reopenspl.invitalia.it/banche-dati/monitor-spl/monitor-rifiuti.
  10. Kinnaman T.C., Fullerton D. (1996). Household Responses to Pricing Garbage by the Bag. The American Economic Review, 86(4) (Sep., 1996): 971-984.
  11. Kinnaman T.C., Fullerton D. (1999). The Economics of Residential Solid Waste Management. NBER Working papers series, n. 7326.
  12. Kinnaman T.C., Fullerton D. (2000). Garbage and Recycling with Endogenous Policy. Journal of Urban Economics, 48: 419-442.
  13. Kinnaman T.C. (2006). Policy watch: Examining the Justification for Residential Recycling. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(4): 219-32.
  14. Li M. (2013). Using the Propensity Score Method to Estimate Causal Effects: a Review and Practical Guide. Organisational Research Methods, 16(2): 188-226., DOI: 10.1177/1094428112447816
  15. Linderhof V., Kooreman P., Allers M., Wiersma D. (2001). Weight Based Pricing in the Collection of Household Waste: the Ostzaan case. University of Groningen., DOI: 10.1016/S0928-7655(01)00044-6
  16. Manestra S., Messina G., Peta A. (2018). L’Unione (non) fa la forza? Alcune evidenze preliminari sull’associazionismo comunale in Italia. Banca d’Italia, Occasional Papers, n. 48.
  17. Messina G., Savegnago M., Tomasi A. (2018). Ma la tassa sui rifiuti è una vera patrimoniale. LaVoce.info -- https://www.lavoce.info/archives/56499/tassa-o-tariffa-sui-rifiuti-non-e-solo-un-problema-di-etichetta/.
  18. Messina G., Savegnago M., Sechi A. (2018). Il prelievo locale sui rifiuti in Italia: benefit tax o imposta patrimoniale (occulta)? Banca d’Italia, Occasional Papers, n. 474.
  19. Morris G.E., Byrd D. (1990) The Effect of Weight or Volume-Based Pricing on Solid Waste Management. Research Triangle Institute prepared for Environmental Protection Agency.
  20. Morris G.E., Holthausen D.M. (1994). The Economics of Household Solid Waste Generation and Disposal. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26: 215-234.
  21. Morlok J., Schoenberger H., Styles D., Galvez-Martos J.-L. (2017). The Impact of Pay-As-You-Throw Schemes on Municipal Solid Waste Management: The Exemplar Case of the County of Aschaffenburg, Germany. Resources, 6(8).
  22. Oates W. E. (1999). An Essay on Fiscal Federalism. Journal of Economic Literature, 32: 1120-1149.
  23. Reichenbach J. (2008). Status and prospects of pay-as-you-throw in Europe - A review of pilot research and implementation studies. Waste Management, 28: 2809-2814.
  24. Richardson R.A., Havlicek J. (1978). Economic analysis of the Composition of Household Solid Wastes. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 5: 103-111., DOI: 10.1016/0095-0696(78)90007-4
  25. Rosenbaum P.R., Rubin D.B. (1983). The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects. Biometrika, 70: 41-55.
  26. Sakai A., Ikematsu T., Hirai Y., Yoshida H. (2008). Unit-Charging Programs for Municipal Solid Waste in Japan. Waste Management, 28: 2815-2825
  27. Skumatz L., Breckinridge C. (1990). Variable Rates in Solid Waste. Handbook for Solid Waste Officials, vol. 2. Washington DC: Environmental Protection Agency.
  28. Skumatz L. (2008). Pay as You Throw in the US: Implementation, Impacts, and Experience. Waste Management, 28: 2778-2785.
  29. Smith V.L. (1972). Dynamics of Waste Accumulation: Disposal Versus Recycling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 86: 600-16., DOI: 10.2307/1882044
  30. Van Houtven G.L., Morris E.G. (1999). Household Behavior under Alternative Pay-as-You-Throw Systems for Solid Waste Disposal. Land Economics, 75(4): 515-537., DOI: 10.2307/3147063
  31. Wertz K. L. (1976). Economic Factors Influencing Households’ Production of Refuse. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2: 263-272.
  32. Wright C., Halstead J., Huang J.C. (2018). Estimating Treatment Effects of Unit-Based Pricing of Household Solid Waste Disposal. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 1-23.

Antonella Tomasi, Giovanna Messina, in "ECONOMIA PUBBLICA " 2/2021, pp. 7-38, DOI:10.3280/EP2021-002001

   

FrancoAngeli is a member of Publishers International Linking Association a not for profit orgasnization wich runs the CrossRef service, enabing links to and from online scholarly content