IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_11327.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Economics of Recycling Heterogeneity

Author

Listed:
  • Don Fullerton
  • Thomas Kinnaman

Abstract

This paper summarizes the economics perspective on recycling of municipal solid waste. The first section reviews recent data on recycling rates in the United States and across all OECD countries. The OECD data suggest the average aggregate recycling rate across member countries appears to have plateaued over the past several decades. Data from the United States on recycling rates for some common recyclable materials remain low, even after several decades of learning and participation. These data collectively suggest that major new policies may be required to reach increased recycling rate targets. But basing policies on reaching a single aggregate recycling goal, a common practice in past decades and enacted recently in both the Unites States and European Union, may no longer be effective. We discuss many sources of heterogeneity within the recycling industry that have been largely ignored in existing economics literature. Heterogeneity emerges because recyclable materials are very different from each other. Economies and natural environments also differ across both space and time. Recycling policies that ignore these differences are likely to be set inappropriately. If transactions costs are low enough to set a unique recycling policy for each material, in each locality, then a surgical recycling strategy may better serve society. Most jurisdictions have implemented specific recycling policies for products such as automobile batteries that differ greatly from policies enacted for yard waste, because these two materials are very different from each other. A surgical recycling policy would extend this practice, so that the recycling policy for aluminum cans could differ from that of plastic jugs or glass bottles. Reaching future recycling goals could be frustrated by ignoring the sources of heterogeneity across materials, locations, and time.

Suggested Citation

  • Don Fullerton & Thomas Kinnaman, 2024. "The Economics of Recycling Heterogeneity," CESifo Working Paper Series 11327, CESifo.
  • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_11327
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/cesifo1_wp11327.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Forlin, Valeria & Scholz, Eva-Maria, 2020. "Strategic take-back programs when consumers have heterogeneous environmental preferences," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    2. Palmer, Karen & Sigman, Hilary & Walls, Margaret, 1997. "The Cost of Reducing Municipal Solid Waste," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 128-150, June.
    3. Yamamoto, Masashi & Kinnaman, Thomas C., 2022. "Is incineration repressing recycling?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    4. Eichner, Thomas & Pethig, Rudiger, 2001. "Product Design and Efficient Management of Recycling and Waste Treatment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 109-134, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Walls, Margaret, 2003. "The Role of Economics in Extended Producer Responsibility: Making Policy Choices and Setting Policy Goals," Discussion Papers 10855, Resources for the Future.
    2. Richard Benjamin & Jeffrey Wagner, 2006. "Reconsidering the law and economics of low-level radioactive waste management," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 8(1), pages 33-53, December.
    3. Richard Benjamin & Jeffrey Wagner, 2006. "Reconsidering the law and economics of low-level radioactive waste management," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 8(1), pages 33-53, December.
    4. Yasuyuki Sugiyama & Patcharin Koonsed, 2019. "International recycling firm joint ventures and optimal recycling standards," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 21(3), pages 427-449, July.
    5. Matthew Gunter, 2007. "Do Economists Reach a Conclusion on Household and Municipal Recycling?," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 4(1), pages 83-111, January.
    6. Don Fullerton, 2024. "The Circular Economy," CESifo Working Paper Series 11109, CESifo.
    7. Reyer Gerlagh & Etienne Lorang, 2024. "Material Source and Waste Taxes in Competitive Equilibrium," CESifo Working Paper Series 11091, CESifo.
    8. Xi Sun & Karsten Neuhoff, 2024. "Realizing the Value of Recycling – Assessing the Elements of a Policy Package," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 2069, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    9. Wagner, Jeffrey, 2011. "Incentivizing sustainable waste management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 585-594, February.
    10. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:11:y:2005:i:1:p:1-11 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Francisco J. André & Emilio Cerdá, 2005. "Gestión de residuos sólidos urbanos: Análisis económico y políticas públicas," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2005/23, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
    12. Xi Sun, 2023. "The Role of Carbon Pricing in Promoting Material Recycling: A Model of Multi-Market Interactions," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 2034, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    13. Nadezhda Kvasha & Olga Bolotnikova & Ekaterina Malevskaia-Malevich, 2023. "Biotechnological Basis of the Pulp and Paper Industry Circular Economic System," Economies, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-13, December.
    14. Eduardo Ley & Molly K. Macauley & Stephen W. Salant, "undated". "Spatially and intertemporally efficient waste management: The costs of interstate flow control," Working Papers 97-07, FEDEA.
    15. Etienne Lorang & Antonello Lobianco & Philippe Delacote, 2023. "Increasing Paper and Cardboard Recycling: Impacts on the Forest Sector and Carbon Emissions," Post-Print hal-04690101, HAL.
    16. Asuncion Arner Guerre, 2022. "The Extended Producer Responsibility for Waste Oils," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 12(2), pages 210-217, March.
    17. Acuff, Kaylee & Kaffine, Daniel T., 2013. "Greenhouse gas emissions, waste and recycling policy," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 74-86.
    18. Giuseppe Di Liddo & Annalisa Vinella, 2021. "Centralized standards and local taxation in municipal waste management," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 92(4), pages 603-619, December.
    19. Cecere, Grazia & Mancinelli, Susanna & Mazzanti, Massimiliano, 2014. "Waste prevention and social preferences: the role of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 163-176.
    20. Numata, Daisuke, 2009. "Economic analysis of deposit–refund systems with measures for mitigating negative impacts on suppliers," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 199-207.
    21. Cui, Hailong & Sošić, Greys, 2019. "Recycling common materials: Effectiveness, optimal decisions, and coordination mechanisms," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(3), pages 1055-1068.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    recycling; solid waste; landfill; disposal; dumping; environment; litter; policy; product design;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H23 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Externalities; Redistributive Effects; Environmental Taxes and Subsidies
    • Q38 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Nonrenewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy (includes OPEC Policy)
    • Q52 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Pollution Control Adoption and Costs; Distributional Effects; Employment Effects
    • Q53 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_11327. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.