The Baltic Region

2021 Vol. 13 №1

Back to the list Download an article

Institutional approach to assessing the transition to a circular economy: the case of the Kaliningrad region

DOI
10.5922/2079-8555-2021-1-2
Pages
23-47

Abstract

The article discusses possible reasons for the failure of Russia’s waste management industry reform and highlights the ownership blurring as a factor that may hinder the transition to a circular economy, which has been proposed as one of the outcomes of the reform. This study aims to address possible obstacles to transitioning to a circular economy in the Kaliningrad region. Methodologically, the study uses instruments of new institutional economics: by comparing discrete institutional alternatives for municipal solid waste (MSW) management, the authors propose incentive schemes that will likely stimulate the transition to a circular economy in the region. It is shown that, in Russia, the identification of the holder of the property right to waste is complicated. This can be a hindrance to effective MSW management. Moreover, objects handled by MSW management services may fall into different types, but at the same time, it is possible to transfer objects from one type to another. One of the ways to improve the exclusion of services of MSW utilization is the introduction of incentive tariffs. Low-rise housing in the Kaliningrad region makes it an ideal region for the introduction of such a scheme. When calculating the unsorted waste transport fee, a multiplier can be used to reduce the payment for waste-separating households. This can serve as an additional incentive for overcoming collective action problem in MSW collecting and sorting. To prevent social resistance to such a policy, incentive schemes should be implemented on a voluntary basis.

Reference

1. Kaza, S., Yao, L., Bhada-Tata, P., Woerden, F. Van. 2018, What a waste 2.0: a global snapshot of solid waste management to 2050, The World Bank, 295 p.

2. Volcheckaya, T. S., Holopova, E. N., Grigorev, A. G. 2018, A functional description of the model for the protection of the environmental interests of the Russian Federation in the Baltic Sea region, Balt. Reg., vol. 10, no. 4, p. 39—59. doi: 10.5922/2079-8555-2018-4-3.

3. Cheyne, I., Purdue, M. 1995, Fitting definition to purpose: The search for a satisfactory definition of waste, Journal of Environmental Law, vol. 7, no 2. p. 149—168.

4. Shastitko, A. E., Meleshkina, A. I., Shastitko, A. A. 2015, Cost allocation, regulation and incentives in joint production of goods, Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta [Moscow University Economics Bulletin], no. 1, p. 18—40 (in Rus.).

5. Pongrácz, E. 2002, Re-defining the concepts of waste and waste management: Evolving the Theory of Waste Management, University of Oulu Oulu, 166 p.

6. Gourlay, K. A. 1992, World of Waste: Dilemmas of industrial development, Zed books, 256 p.

7. North, D. C., Wallis, J. J. 1994, Integrating institutional change and technical change in economic history a transaction cost approach. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), vol. 150, no. 4, p. 609—624.

8. Lacy, P., Rutqvist, J. 2016, Waste to wealth: The circular economy advantage, Springer, 263 p.

9. Cointreau-Levine, S. 1994, Private sector participation in municipal solid waste services in developing countries. Vol. 1, The formal sector, The World Bank, 67 p.

10. Cavé, J. 2014, Who owns urban waste? Appropriation conflicts in emerging countries, Waste Management & Research, vol. 32, no. 9, p. 813—821.

11. Dolgushin, A. B., Hmel’chenko, E. G., Pribylov, P. A. 2019, Analysis of the development of the legislative base for the reformation of the system of handling urban municipal waste in Russia, Munitsipal’naya akademiya [Municipal Academy], no.1, p. 9—19 (in Rus.).

12. Putinceva, N. A. 2019, Organization of separate collection of solidmunicipal waste in Russia, Peterburgskii ekonomicheskii zhurnal [Saint-Petersburg Economic Journal], no. 1, p. 81—88 (in Rus.).

13. Orlov, M. Sh., Serdjukov, A. V., Shapovalov, A. V. 2019, Handling with solid municipal waste: problems of regulation and the ways of their solution, Innovatsionnoe razvitie [Innovative development], no.2, p. 32—35 (in Rus.).

14. Kaplina, S. P., Semenova, M. V., Dzjuba, K.S., Andronov, S. V., Kamanina, I. Z., Starostina, I. A. 2018, Municipal solid waste as secondary raw material (exemplified by Dubna, Moscow region), Uspekhi sovremennogo estestvoznaniya [Advances in current natural sciences], no.2, p. 93—98 (in Rus.).

15. Plastinina, Ju. V., Tesljuk, L. M., Dukmasova, N. V. 2018, Implementation of the principles of a circular economy in the regional management of municipal solid waste (MSW) in the Russian Federation, Innovatsionnoe razvitie ekonomiki [Innovative development of economy], no.5, p. 129—139 (in Rus.).

16. Gaev, F. F., Jakushina, A. M., Chovrebov, Je. S., Velichko, E. G., Rahmanov, M. L., Shkanov, S. I. 2019, Economic and organizational aspects of separate collection of solid communal and large-sized waste, Zhilishchnoe khozyaistvo i kommunal’naya infrastruktura [Housing and utilities infrastructure], no. 1, p. 96—108 (in Rus.).

17. Alksnis, E. D. 2019, Improvement of state policy in the field of disposal of solid household (municipal) waste in the Leningrad region, Vestnik sovremennykh issledovanii [Bulletin of Contemporary Research], vol.3, no. 6, p. 16—24 (in Rus.).

18. Reichenbach, J. 2008, Status and prospects of pay-as-you-throw in Europe-A review of pilot research and implementation studies, Waste Management, vol. 28, no. 12, p. 2809—2814.

19. Morlok, J., Schoenberger, H., Styles, D., Galvez-Martos, J. L., Zeschmar-Lahl, B. 2017, The impact of pay-as-you-throw schemes on municipal solid waste management: The exemplar case of the county of Aschaffenburg, Germany, Resources, vol. 6, no. 8, p. 1—16.

20. Brown, Z. S., Johnstone, N. 2014, Better the devil you throw: Experience and support for pay-as-you-throw waste charges, Environmental Science & Policy, no. 38 p. 132—142.

21. Ayalon, O., Brody, S., Shechter, M. 2013, Household waste generation, recycling and prevention, OECD Studies on Environmental Policy and Household Behaviour, OECD Publishing, p. 219—245.

22. Dahlén, L., Lagerkvist, A. 2010, Pay as you throw: strengths and weaknesses of weight-based billing in household waste collection systems in Sweden, Waste management, vol. 30, no. 1, p. 23—31.

23. Andretta, A., D’addato, F., Serrano-Bernardo, F., Zamorano, M., Bonoli, A. 2018, Environmental taxes to promote the eu circular economy’s strategy: Spain vs. Italy, Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, vol. 17, no. 10, p. 2307—2311.

24. Bilitewski, B. 2008, From traditional to modern fee systems, Waste management, vol. 28, no. 12, p. 2760—2766.

25. Olson, M. 1965, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.

26. Fullerton, D., Kinnaman, T. C. 1996, Household responses for pricing garbage by the bag, American Economic Review, no. 86, p. 971—984.

27. Holmstrom, B. 1982, Moral Hazard in Teams, The Bell Journal of Economics, vol. 13, no. 2, p. 324—340.

28. Hölmstrom, B. 1979, Moral hazard and observability, Bell Journal of Economics, vol. 10, repr., no. 1, p. 74—91.

29. Shastitko, A. E., Novaya institucional’naya ekonomicheskaya teoriya [New institutional economic theory], M, TEIS. (in Rus.).

30. Esteban, J., Ray, D. 2001, Collective action and the group size paradox, American political science review, p. 663—672.

31. Oliver, P. E., Marwell, G. 1988, The paradox of group size in collective action: A theory of the critical mass. II., American Sociological Review, p. 1—8.