Privatization of Solid Waste Management Among the major environmental policies that have triggered heated debates among stakeholders and the general public is that of privatization of solid waste management in various cities in the United States. Private companies have been operating the waste collection and management business for many years not only in the United States but also in the United Kingdom and other countries. It has been discussed whether by privatizing the management of municipal solid waste (MSW) it is possible to achieve a reduction in costs and a better quality of service. Those who oppose the idea of ​​privatizing municipal solid waste management have come up with all sorts of explanations to paint the idea as counterproductive. However, most of these opposing arguments have overlooked the many benefits that would accrue from privatizing municipal solid waste management. The benefits come not only in terms of reduced costs and improved quality of service, but also in terms of creating a competitive market in which contractors must bid for opportunities to serve the community in the solid waste collection sector (Jacobsohn , 2001). When municipalities are struggling with severe budget shortfalls and declining revenues, solid waste collection, disposal, and recycling are among the most viable services for privatization (Solid Waste Study Shows Privatization Lowers Costs, Increases Efficiency and Boosts Safety, 2011). Privatization of solid waste management makes sense based on five key benefits. First, because private companies are able to spread investment, procurement and environmental protection costs across multiple facilities and contracts, they can achieve cost savings. Their economies of scale allow them to achieve these cost savings as well as… half the paper… in light of economies of scale. Therefore, the idea is to ensure that the amount of MSW in all subregions is as close as possible (Lin & Kao, 2008). In a scenario where two sub-regions have the same amount of MSW, contractors will consider the road length and opt for the one whose road length is shorter. This creates another parameter called Route Density Index (RDI) which you get from the formula; RDI=W/L where L is the total road length and W is the amount of municipal solid waste in a subregion. Therefore, a high RDI would imply a subregion with a small total road length and a large amount of municipal solid waste. As a result, municipal solid waste collection would cost less than in a subregion with a low RDI. Differences in CSR should be compensated by applying different pricing structures. Overall, district municipal solid waste collection promotes a competitive market in communities (Lin & Kao, 2008).