Advertisement

Intermunicipal Cooperation

Chapter
  • 141 Downloads

Abstract

Intermunicipal cooperation represents a crucial alternative to municipal mergers in the structural reorganization of local government service provision. This chapter begins by considering the multifarious nature of intermunicipal cooperation and the great variety of different institutional forms which it has taken in different national contexts. The major theoretical foundations of intermunicipal cooperation, comprising Oakerson’s (1999) distinction between local service production and local service provision, elements of Oates’ (Fiscal Federalism. New York: Harcourt, Brace Janonovich, 1972) theory of fiscal federalism and the theory of competitive federalism pioneered by Tiebout (A Pure Theory of Local Government Expenditure. Journal of Political Economy 64 (5): 416–424, 1956), are considered. The chapter then examines the limited empirical literature on intermunicipal cooperation, including the new methodological approach developed by Drew et al. (Good to Share? The Pecuniary Implications of Moving to Shared Service Production for Local Government Services. Public Administration 97 (1): 132–146, 2019). It has concentrated on the pecuniary impact of cooperation, neglecting many other reasons why municipalities engage in cooperation.

References

  1. Agranoff, R., and M. McGuire. 2003. Collaborative Public Management: New Strategies for Local Governments. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Allan, P. 2001. Secession: A Manifesto for an Independent Balmain. Balmain: Balmain Secession Movement.Google Scholar
  3. ———. 2003. Why Smaller Councils Make Sense. Australian Journal of Public Administration 62 (3): 74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ———. 2006. “What Drives Councils” Efficiency: Population Size or Density. In Independent Inquiry into Local Government. Sydney: NSW Local Government and Shires Association.Google Scholar
  5. Allers, M.A., and J.A. de Greef. 2018. Intermunicipal Cooperation, Public Spending and Service Levels. Local Government Studies 44 (1): 127–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Allers, M.A., and B. van Ommeren. 2016. Intermunicipal Cooperation, Municipal Amalgamation and the Price of Credit. Local Government Studies 42 (5): 717–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bailey, S.J. 1999. Local Government Economics. Basingstoke: Macmillian.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baker, A., D. Hudson, and R. Woodward. 2005. Governing Financial Globalization: International Political Economy and Multi-Level Governance. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bel, G., and X. Fageda. 2007. Why Do Local Governments Privatise Local Services? A Survey of Empirical Studies. Local Government Studies 33 (4): 517–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bel, G., and M. Mur. 2009. Intermunicipal Cooperation, Privatization and Waste Management Costs: Evidence from Rural Municipalities. Waste Management 29 (10): 2772–2778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bel, G., and M.E. Warner. 2015. Inter-Municipal Cooperation and Costs: Expectations and Evidence. Public Administration 93 (1): 52–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ———. 2016. Factors Explaining Inter-Municipal Cooperation in Service Delivery: AMeta-Regression Analysis. Journal of Economic Policy Reform 19 (2): 91–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bel, G., X. Fageda, and M. Mur. 2013. Why Do Municipalities Cooperate to Provide Local Public Services? An Empirical Analysis. Local Government Studies 39 (3): 435–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Boyne, G.A. 1998. Public Choice Theory and Local Government. Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Breton, A. 1995. Competitive Governments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Brown, T.L., and M. Potoski. 2005. Transaction Costs and Contracting: The Practitioner Perspective. Public Performance & Management Review 28: 326–351.Google Scholar
  17. Carr, J., and C. Hawkins. 2013. The Costs of Cooperation: What the Research Tells Us About Managing the Risks of 2013 Service Collaborations in the U.S. State and Local Government Review 45 (4): 224–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Coleman, J.S. 1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Dollery, B.E., and A. Akimov. 2009. Are Shared Services a Panacea for Australian Local Government: A Critical Note on Australian and International Empirical Evidence. International Review of Public Administration 12 (2): 1–11.Google Scholar
  20. Dollery, B.E., G. Hallam, and J.L. Wallis. 2008. Shared Services in Australian Local Government: A Case Study of the Queensland Local Government Association Model. Economic Papers 27 (4): 343–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dollery, B.E., B. Grant, and A. Akimov. 2010. A Typology of Shared Service Provision in Australian Local Government. Australian Geographer 41 (2): 217–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dollery, B.E., B. Grant, and L. Crase. 2011. Love Thy Neighbour: A Social Capital Approach to Local Government Partnerships. Australian Journal of Public Administration 70 (2): 156–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dollery, B.E., B. Grant, and M. Kortt. 2012. Councils in Cooperation: Shared Services and Australian Local Government. Sydney: Federation Press.Google Scholar
  24. Dollery, B.E., M.A. Kortt, and J. Drew. 2016. Fostering Shared Services in Local Government: A Common Service Model. Australasian Journal of Regional Science 22: 225–242.Google Scholar
  25. Domberger, S., and P. Jensen. 1997. Contracting Out by the Public Sector: Theory, Evidence, Prospects. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 13 (4): 67–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Domberger, S., and S. Rimmer. 1994. Competitive Tendering and Contracting in the Public Sector: A Survey. International Journal of the Economics of Business 1 (3): 439–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Drew, J., D. McQuestin, and B.E. Dollery. 2019. Good to Share? The Pecuniary Implications of Moving to Shared Service Production for Local Government Services. Public Administration 97 (1), 132–146.Google Scholar
  28. Feiock, R.C., A. Steinacker, and H.J. Park. 2009. Institutional Collective Action and Economic Development Joint Ventures. Public Administration Review 69: 256–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Frey, B.S., and R. Eichenberger. 1999. The New Democratic Federalism for Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  30. Fukuyama, F. 1995. Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  31. Hawkins, C.V. 2009. Prospects for and Barriers to Local Government Joint Ventures. State and Local Government Review 41 (2): 108–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hefetz, A., and M. Warner. 2007. Beyond the Market Versus Planning Dichotomy: Understanding Privatisation and its Reverse in US Cities. Local Government Studies 33 (4): 555–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hefetz, A., and M.E. Warner. 2012. Contracting or Public Delivery? The Importance of Service, Market, and Management Characteristics. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22: 289–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Henderson, A.C., ed. 2015. Municipal Shared Services and Consolidation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Hirschman, A.O. 1970. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Holzer, M., and J. Fry. 2011. Shared Services and Municipal Consolidation: A Critical Analysis. Alexandria: Public Technology Institute.Google Scholar
  37. Homsy, G.C., and M.E. Warner. 2014. Intermunicipal Cooperation: The Growing Reform. In Municipal Yearbook, 55. Washington, DC: International CityCounty Management Association.Google Scholar
  38. Hooghe, L., and G. Marks. 2001. Multi-Level Governance and European Integration. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  39. ———. 2003. Unravelling the Central State, But How? Types of Multi-Level Governance. American Political Science Review 97 (2): 233–243.Google Scholar
  40. ———. 2009. Efficiency and the Territorial Structure of Government. Annual Review of Political Science 12: 225–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hoon, Y., and D. Hyun. 2014. Comparative Study on the Collaborative Governance Type for the Metropolitan Economic Regions in Case of Korea and Japan. GRI 16 (1): 141–168.Google Scholar
  42. Hulst, R., and A. van Montfort, eds. 2007. Inter-Municipal Cooperation in Europe. Vol. 238. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  43. Hulst, J.R., and A. van Montfort. 2012. Institutional Features of Inter-Municipal Cooperation: Cooperative Arrangements and their National Contexts. Public Policy and Administration 27 (2): 121–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. KPMG. 2015. Shared Service Analysis: Final Report 27 May 2015. Sydney: KPMG.Google Scholar
  45. Kwon, S., and R. Feiock. 2010. Overcoming Barriers to Cooperation: Intergovernmental Service Agreements. Public Administration Review 70: 876–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Latsis, S. 1972. Situational Determinism in Economics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 23 (1): 207–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lidstrom, A. 2017. Public Authorities and Intermunicipal Cooperation in a European Context. Urban Affairs Review 53 (2): 403–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McGinnis, M.D. 1999. Polycentric Governance and Development: Readings from the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nahapiet, J., and G. Ghoshal. 1998. Social Capital, Intellectual Capital and the Organizational Advantage. Academy of Management Review 23 (2): 242–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Oakerson, R. J. 1999. Governing Local Public Economies. Oakland: ICS Press.Google Scholar
  51. Oates, W.E. 1972. Fiscal Federalism. New York: Harcourt, Brace Janonovich.Google Scholar
  52. Oates, W.E. 1999. An Essay on Fiscal Federalism. Journal of Economic Literature 37 (3): 1120–1149.Google Scholar
  53. Ostrom, V., and E. Ostrom. 1999. Public Goods and Public Choices. In Polycentricity and Local Public Economies. In Readings From the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, 75–105. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  54. Pérez-López, G., D. Prior, and J.L. Zafra-Gómez. 2015. Rethinking New Public Management Delivery Forms and Efficiency: Long-Term Effects in Spanish Local Government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 25 (4): 1157–1183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Putnam, R.D. 1995. Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital. Journal of Democracy 6 (1): 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rodrigues, M., A.F. Tavares, and J.F. Araújo. 2012. Municipal Service Delivery: The Role of Transaction Costs in the Choice between Alternative Governance Mechanisms. Local Government Studies 38: 615–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rosenau, J.N. 2003. Distant Proximities: Dynamics Beyond Globalization. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Savitch, H.V., and S. Adhikari. 2017. Fragmented Regionalism: Why Metropolitan America Continues to Splinter. Urban Affairs Review 53 (2): 381–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Silvestre, H.C., R.C. Marques, and R.C. Gomes. 2018. Joined-Up Government of Utilities: A Meta-Review on a Public–Public Partnership and Inter-Municipal Cooperation in the Water and Wastewater Industries. Public Management Review 20 (4): 607–631.Google Scholar
  60. Silvestre, H., Correira, A. M., Marques, R. and Dollery, B. E. (2019). Shared Services in Brazilian Local Government: Urban Development in Small Counties. Public Administration 19 (3): 686–702.Google Scholar
  61. Steinacker, A. 2004. Game Theoretic Models of Metropolitan Cooperation. In Metropolitan Governance: Conflict, Competition, and Cooperation, ed. R. Feiock, 46–66. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  62. ———. 2010. The Institutional Collective Action Perspective on Self-Organizing Mechanisms: Market Failures and Transaction Cost Problems. In Self-Organizing Federalism: Collaborative Mechanisms to Mitigate Institutional Collective Action, ed. R. Feiock and J. Scholz, 51–72. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Steiner, R. 2003. The Causes, Spread and Effects of Intermunicipal Cooperation and Municipal Mergers in Switzerland. Public Management Review 5 (4): 551–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tavares, A.F., and P.J. Camões. 2010. New Forms of Local Governance: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of Municipal Corporations in Portugal. Public Management Review 12 (5): 587–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tavares, A.F., and R.C. Feiock. 2014. Intermunicipal Cooperation and Regional Governance in Europe: An Institutional Collective Action Framework. Glasgow: European Consortium for Political Research.Google Scholar
  66. Teles, F. 2016. Local Governance and Intermunicipal Cooperation. Amsterdam: Springer.Google Scholar
  67. Tiebout, C.M. 1956. A Pure Theory of Local Government Expenditure. Journal of Political Economy 64 (5): 416–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tomkinson, R. 2007. Shared Services in Local Government. Aldershot: Gower Publishing.Google Scholar
  69. Voorn, B., M.L. van Genugten, and S. Van Thiel. 2017. The Efficiency and Effectiveness of Municipally Owned Corporations: A Systematic Review. Local Government Studies 43 (5): 820–841.Google Scholar
  70. Warner, M.E. 2006. Inter-Municipal Cooperation in the US: ARegional Governance Solution? Urban Public Economics Review 6: 221–239.Google Scholar
  71. ———. 2011. Competition or Cooperation in Urban Service Delivery. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 82 (4): 421–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Weber, C., and B. Weber. 2010. Social Capital and Knowledge Relatedness as Promoters of Organizational Performance: An Explorative Study of Corporate Venture Capital Activity. International Studies of Management and Organization 40 (3): 23–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wollmann, H. 2011. Reorganising Local Governments: Between Territorial Consolidation and Intermunicipal Cooperation. The Croatian Public administration 11: 681.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of BusinessUniversity of New EnglandArmidaleAustralia
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsTrent UniversityPeterboroughCanada
  3. 3.University of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  4. 4.Governance StudiesBrookings InstitutionWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations