Solid Waste Management Case

By using Model of Government Intervention, we state the following:

1. Problem: What to do with managing garbage in Toronto.

2. Goal: To reduce the household solid waste in Toronto.

3. Identify the Intervention: to encourage recycling and implement a fine of $100 every time one is caught throwing away something that can be recycled. This offense may be caught through random inspection.

4. Dimensions:

i) This intervention is direct: At the intervention is a fine of $100 for every time one is caught throwing away a recyclable. The goal is satisfied because $100 is a large amount of money for the simple mistake/laziness/etc. and therefore people will be highly motivated to recycle, cutting down on household solid waste. The intended result of this intervention is to cut down on household solid waste, by encouraging recycling. The new state of equilibrium is that there is more materials being recycled and reused and less solid waste being disposed of, AND the increased awareness of the general public regarding recycling. Therefore the intervention is direct.

ii) This intervention is coercive: This intervention is direct. The intent of this intervention is to demand compliance of the citizens in respect to cutting down on waste management by recycling all that is possible to recycle. There is a punitive element to this intervention which is a fine

iii) it is reactive. The problems that these policy makers sought to remedy were the problems associated with having large amounts of household solid waste. These problems include pollution, poor air quality, limited resources in regards to dumping waste, and the costs associated with waste management, especially costs to the public. Possible implications resulting from this intervention are discontent by the people with having to pay a large fine because inspection is random. Many cases of throwing away recyclables will go unnoticed, what happens in regards to public places.

5. Quality determinants:

i) ACCURACY - Because this intervention is both coercive and direct, accuracy is greater. The intended goals have been satisfied and a new state of equilibrium has been achieved.

ii) PRECISION - Because this intervention is coercive and direct, precision is greater. Precision is the degree to which the effect of the intervention is limited to only the intended goals. In regards to this intervention precision is greater because there is a fine involved that is directly related to the desired result of intervention. No fine will be given to someone who does not throw away recyclables.

iii) EFFICIENCY: Because this intervention is both coercive and direct, efficiency is greater.

Efficiency is the ratio between resources created (benefits) and those expended (costs). In regards to this intervention the possible benefits outweigh the possible costs. The possible benefit in this case is that household solid waste is drastically reduced and recycling/reusing increases. Therefore the cost of disposing of solid waste is reduced - less cost to the people, and there is fewer harms being done to the environment. The costs that may be incurred because of this