Managerial Functions of an Independent Coordinating Body in the Governance of Waste Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Policies adopted to improve the competitiveness of public services include those designed to reform governance. Good governance of the waste management industry is becoming one of the most thought-provoking themes in heading toward a more circular economy. Given the complexity of this industry, the starting point for improving waste management performance must be at the industry structure and governance level. Although the economic literature on waste management has deeply investigated economic efficiency, business models, environmental performances, and citizens' behavior, governance's role in supporting the market's healthy functioning has received little attention. In such an evolving industry, securing a competitive market while ensuring the universality of waste management services and reaching circular economy targets is challenging. Based on both a theoretical approach and empirical analysis, we provide insights into the managerial functions of an independent body aimed at performing tasks that help policymakers to implement policies, waste management operators make decisions, and stakeholders, get information. We identify the economic and managerial functions that shall be entrusted to an independent coordinating body to coordinate and support the operators and institutions involved in the waste management industry. Focusing on municipal solid waste, we justify our proposal since it is a public service with environmental and economic implications at the center of the transition toward a more circular economy. Given its complexity, it needs to be properly governed to avoid policy and strategic drifts that may hinder the transition path.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".