Politics of Municipal Consolidation

  • Kohei SuzukiEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_2454-1

Synonyms

Definition

Municipal consolidation refers to reducing the number of municipalities and increasing their scale in terms of geography and population by combining two or more municipalities.

Introduction

This section explains municipal consolidation (In this paper, the words “municipal consolidation”, “merger”, and “amalgamation” are used interchangeably). Municipal consolidations have been widely used as a tool for administrative reform at the municipal level in developed countries. Consolidation means “[t]he action or process of combining a number of things into a single more effective or coherent whole” (Oxford University Press 2016). Municipal consolidation refers to reducing the number of municipalities and increasing their scale in terms of geography and population by combining two or more municipalities. Municipal consolidations have been planned or implemented with the hope of increasing...

Keywords

Municipal Government Political Trust Municipal Service Small Municipality Large Municipality 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Allers MA, Geertsema JB (2014) The effects of local government amalgamation on public spending and service levels: evidence from 15 years of municipal boundary reform. University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and BusinessGoogle Scholar
  2. André C, García C (2014) Local public finances and municipal reform in FinlandGoogle Scholar
  3. Avellaneda CN (2009) Municipal performance: does mayoral quality matter? J Public Adm Res Theory 19(2):285–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blom-Hansen J (2010) Municipal amalgamations and common pool problems: the Danish local government reform in 2007. Scand Polit Stud 33(1):51–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blom-Hansen J, Houlberg K, Serritzlew S (2014) Size, democracy, and the economic costs of running the political system. Am J Polit Sci 58(4):790–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dahl RA, Tufte ER (1973) Size and democracy (Vol. 2). Stanford University PressGoogle Scholar
  7. Denhardt RB, Denhardt JV, Aristigueta MP (2015) Managing human behavior in public and nonprofit organizations. Sage PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  8. Dollery B, Byrnes J, Crase L (2007) Is bigger better? Local government amalgamation and the South Australian rising to the challenge inquiry. Econ Anal Policy 37(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Edwards MM (2008).Understanding the complexities of annexation. J Plan LitGoogle Scholar
  10. Feiock RC, Carr JB (2000) Private incentives and academic entrepreneurship: the promotion of city-county consolidation. Publ Adm Q 223–245Google Scholar
  11. Fox WF, Gurley-Calvez T (2006) Will consolidation improve sub-national governments? World Bank policy research working paper (3913)Google Scholar
  12. Geoffrey B, Buchanan JM (1980) The power to tax: analytical foundations of a fiscal constitution. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Goodman CB (2015) Local government fragmentation and the local public sector a panel data analysis. Publ Finance Rev 43(1):82–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hanes N (2015) Amalgamation impacts on local public expenditures in Sweden. Local Gov Stud 41(1):63–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hanes N, Wikström M (2010) Amalgamation impacts on local growth: are voluntary municipal amalgamations more efficient than compulsory amalgamations. Can J Reg Sci (online) 33(1):57–70Google Scholar
  16. Hansen SW (2015) The democratic costs of size: how increasing size affects citizen satisfaction with local government. Polit Stud 63(2):373–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kjaer U, Hjelmar U, Leth Olsen A (2010) Municipal amalgamations and the democratic functioning of local councils: the case of the Danish 2007 structural reform. Local Gov Stud 36(4):569–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Larsen CA (2002) Municipal size and democracy: a critical analysis of the argument of proximity based on the case of Denmark. Scand Polit Stud 25(4):317–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leland S, Thurmaier K (2005) When efficiency is unbelievable: normative lessons from 30 years of city-county consolidations. Publ Adm Rev 475–489Google Scholar
  20. Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (2014) Numbers of local governments and Meiji and Showa Great Merger [Shichouson Suu no Hensen to Meiji Showa no Daigappei no Rokucho]. Retrieved from http://www.soumu.go.jp/gapei/gapei2.html
  21. New Zealand Parliament (2014) Local government amalgamation. Retrieved from https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-NZ/00PLLawC51141/b0d1ac49e8cb7b90f3d7d063c3bf9afd461e4722
  22. OECD (2014) OECD regional outlook 2014 regions and cities: where policies and people meet. OECD Publishing, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Oxford University Press (2016) Oxford dictionaries. Retrieved from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
  24. Reingewertz Y (2012) Do municipal amalgamations work? Evidence from municipalities in Israel. J Urban Econ 72(2):240–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Steiner R, Kaiser C (2016) Effects of amalgamations: evidence from Swiss municipalities. Publ Manag Rev 1–21Google Scholar
  26. Vojnovic I (2000) The transitional impacts of municipal consolidations. J Urban Aff 22(4):385–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Yokomichi K (2007) The development of municipal mergers in Japan. National Graduate Institute for Policy StudiesGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Quality of Government Institute, Department of Political ScienceUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden