Empirical Economics

, Volume 54, Issue 3, pp 1061–1086 | Cite as

Internalization of externalities and local government consolidation: empirical evidence from Japan

  • Takeshi Miyazaki


The fact that jurisdictional consolidation overcomes externality problems in the provision of local public goods is one of the best-known benefits of consolidation in the theoretical literature. Nevertheless, previous studies provide little evidence of how public service spillover effects influence consolidation decisions. This study empirically tests the hypothesis that spillovers induce consolidation, using voting data on the consolidation of Japanese municipalities. The extent of spillovers is measured by estimating the demand function for public goods with externalities. It is found that residents of the municipalities that can internalize a large amount of public goods spillovers through municipal consolidation tend to favor consolidation. This result supports the theoretical inference that spillovers in local public goods affect utility gains from jurisdiction integration, thus serving as one of the key impetuses for boundary reform. Moreover, after controlling for the spillover effects, economies of scale, population share, differences in median income, and unconditional grants can help explain consolidation preference.


Externalities Internalization Local public good Municipal consolidation Spillovers 

JEL Classification

H11 H76 H77 



I would like to thank Nobuo Akai, Haruaki Hirota, Kazuko Nakata, and the participants at the seminar at Doshisha University, Kyoto (February, 2012), the 68th Congress of the International Institute of Public Finance at Technische Universitat, Dresden (August, 2012), and the 2012 Autumn Japanese Economic Association Meeting at Kyushu Sangyo University, Fukuoka (October, 2012) for their helpful comments. This work was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) 22730256.

Supplementary material

181_2017_1242_MOESM1_ESM.docx (49 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (docx 48 KB)


  1. Akizuki K (2001) Partnership in controlled decentralization: local governments and the Ministry of Home Affairs. In: Muramatsu M, Iqbal F, Kume I (eds) Local government development in post-war Japan. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 63–84Google Scholar
  2. Alesina A, Spolaore E (1997) On the size and number of nations. Q J Econ 112:1027–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alesina A, Spolaore E (2003) The size of nations. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Alesina A, Baqir R, Hoxby C (2004) Political jurisdictions in heterogeneous communities. J Polit Econ 112:348–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andrews M, Duncombe W, Yinger J (2002) Revising economies of size in American education: Are we any closer to a consensus? Econ Educ Rev 21(3):245–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anselin L (1988) Spatial econometrics: methods and models. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Austin DA (1999) Politics vs. economics: evidence from municipal annexation. J Urban Econ 45:501–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Banzhaf SH, Walsh RP (2008) Do people vote with their feet? An empirical test of Tiebout’s mechanism. Am Econ Rev 98:843–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bergstrom TC, Goodman RP (1973) Private demand for public goods. Am Econ Rev 63:280–296Google Scholar
  10. Besley T, Coate S (2003) Centralized vs. decentralized provision of local public goods: a political economy approach. J Public Econ 87:2611–2637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bolton P, Roland G (1997) The breakup of nations: a political economy analysis. Q J Econ 112:1057–1089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Borcherding TE, Deacon RT (1972) The demand for the services of non-federal governments. Am Econ Rev 62:891–901Google Scholar
  13. Bradford DF, Oates WE (1974) Suburban exploitation of central cities and governmental structure. In: Hochman HM, Peterson GE (eds) Redistributions through public choice. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 44–90Google Scholar
  14. Brasington D (1999) Joint provision of public goods: the consolidation of school districts. J Public Econ 73:373–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brasington D (2003a) Size and school district consolidation: Do opposites attract? Economica 70:673–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brasington D (2003b) Snobbery, racism, or mutual distaste: What promotes and hinders cooperation in local public good provision? Rev Econ Stat 85:874–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brink A (2004) The breakup of municipalities: voting behavior in local referenda. Econ Gov 5:119–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brueckner JK (2003) Strategic interaction among governments: an overview of empirical studies. Int Reg Sci Rev 26:175–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Case A, Hines J, Rosen H (1993) Budget spillovers and fiscal policy interdependence: evidence from the States. J Public Econ 52:285–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. CLAIR (2009) Municipal mergers in Japan. CLAIR Fact Sheet, CLAIR, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  21. Duncombe W, Yinger J (1993) An analysis of returns to scale in public production, with an application to fire protection. J Public Econ 52:49–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dur R, Staal K (2008) Local public good provision, municipal consolidation, and national transfers. Reg Sci Urban Econ 38:160–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Edwards JHY (1990) Congestion function specification and the ’publicness’ of local public goods. J Urban Econ 27:80–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ellingsen T (1998) Externalities vs. internalities: a model of political integration. J Public Econ 68:251–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Foucault M, Madies T, Paty S (2008) Public spending interactions and local politics. Empirical evidence from French municipalities. Public Choice 137:57–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gordon N, Knight B (2009) A spatial merger estimator with an application to school district consolidation. J Public Econ 93:752–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hinnerich BT (2009) Do merging local governments free ride on their counterparts when facing boundary reform? J Public Econ 93:721–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Japan Research Institute for Local Government (2002–2005) Zenkoku Kubicho Meibo (List of mayors over all municipalities in Japan)Google Scholar
  29. Kelejian H, Prucha I (1998) A generalized spatial two stage least squares procedure for estimating a spatial autoregressive model with autoregressive disturbances. J Real Estate Financ Econ 17:99–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kelejian HH, Robinson DP (1993) A suggested method of estimation for spatial interdependent models with autocorrelated errors, and an application to a county expenditure model. Pap Reg Sci 72:297–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Konishi S (2003) Shi-cho-son Gappei to Chiho Zaisei Seido, Shi-cho-son no Zaisei Unei (Municipal amalgamations, local public finance and municipalities’ management of public finance). Jichi Kenkyu 79:22–46Google Scholar
  32. Lesage J, Pace R (2009) Introduction to spatial econometrics. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lockwood B (2002) Distributive politics and the costs of centralization. Rev Econ Stud 69:313–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lorz O, Willmann G (2005) On the endogenous allocation of decision powers in federal structures. J Urban Econ 57:242–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. MIC (2002a-2005a) Shichoson Kessan Jokyo Shirabe (Settlement of Municipality Finances)Google Scholar
  36. MIC (2002b-2005b) Shichoson Zei Kazei Jokyo Tou no Shirabe (Taxation of Municipal Taxes)Google Scholar
  37. MIC (2006) White Paper on Local Public FinanceGoogle Scholar
  38. MIC (2010) Heisei no Gappei ni Tsuite (On Heisei Municipality Consolidation), ReportGoogle Scholar
  39. MIC (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications) (2000) Kokusei Chosa (Population Census of Japan)Google Scholar
  40. Miyazaki T (2014) Municipal consolidation and local government behavior: evidence from Japanese voting data on merger referenda. Econ Gov 15:387–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Murphy KM, Topel RH (1985) Estimation and inference in two-step econometric models. J Bus Econ Stat 3:370–379Google Scholar
  42. Nelson M (1990) Decentralization of the subnational public sector: an empirical analysis of the determinants of local government structure in metropolitan areas in the US. South Econ J 57:443–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Oates W (1972) Fiscal federalism. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Reiter M, Weichenrieder A (1997) Are public goods public? A critical survey of the demand estimates for local public services. FinanzArchiv 54:374–408Google Scholar
  45. Reiter M, Weichenrieder A (1999) Public goods, club goods and the measurement of crowding. J Urban Econ 46:69–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Revelli F (2003) Reaction or interaction? Spatial process identification in multi-tiered government structures. J Urban Econ 53:29–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Revelli F (2005) On spatial public finance empirics. Int Tax Public Financ 12:475–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Solé-Ollé A (2006) Expenditure spillovers and fiscal interactions: empirical evidence from local governments in Spain. J Urban Econ 59:32–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sorensen R (2006) Local government consolidations: the impact of political transaction costs. Public Choice 127:75–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Todd S, Tschirhart JT (1980) The economic theory of clubs: an evaluation survey. J Econ Lit 18:1481–1519Google Scholar
  51. Weese E (2015) Political mergers as coalition formation: an analysis of the Heisei municipal amalgamations. Quant Econ 6:257–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wooldridge JM (2002) Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  53. Yokomichi K (2007) The development of municipal mergers in Japan—COSLOG up-to-date documents on local autonomy in Japan. No. 1, CLAIR, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  54. Zax JS (1989) Is there a leviathan in your neighborhood. Am Econ Rev 79:560–567Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan

Personalised recommendations