Proponents of the vertical consolidation of lower-tier units into a smaller number of single-tier local governments suggest that it improves the financial sustainability of governments by generating economies of scale and scope. However, critics suggest that such structural change is beset with disruptive and unanticipated costs that outweigh any potential efficiency savings. I investigate the validity of these contrasting arguments by analysing the expenditure and fiscal health of English county councils before and after the consolidation of the lower-tier units within several counties that took place in 2009. Levels of financial sustainability are modelled using a difference-in-difference estimator for the years 2003–2012. The results suggest that in the short run the consolidated governments have been able to realize administrative economies, but their fiscal health has weakened. These findings appear to be robust to the possibility of selection effects. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
AndersonW (1925) American City Government, New York: Henry Holt
2.
AndrewsRBoyneG A (2009) “Size, structure and administrative overheads: an empirical analysis of English local authorities”. Urban Studies46: 739–759
3.
AndrewsRBoyneG A (2012) “Structural change and public service performance: the impact of the reorganization process in English local government”. Public Administration90: 297–312
4.
Audit Commission (2012) Striking a Balance: Improving Councils' Decision-making on Reserves, London: Audit Commission
5.
Bish R, 2001, “Local government amalgamation: discredited Nineteenth century ideals alive in the twenty-first” CD Howe Institute, Commentary No.150
6.
BoyneG A (1996) “Scale, performance and the new public management: an empirical analysis of local authority services”. Journal of Management Studies33: 809–826
7.
BoyneG AColeM (1996) “Fragmentation, concentration and local government structure: top tier authorities in England and Wales, 1831-1991”. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy14: 501–514
8.
BreunigRRocaboyY (2008) “Per-capita public expenditures and population size: a non-parametric analysis using French data”. Public Choice136: 429–445
9.
CarmeliA (2002) “A conceptual and practical framework of measuring performance of local authorities in financial terms: analysing the case of Israel”. Local Government Studies28: 21–36
10.
ChisholmM (2002) “The cost of local government structural reorganisation in Great Britain during the 1990s”. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy20: 251–262
11.
CopusCCroweAClarkA (2005) Council Size: A Literature Review and Analysis: Report to the Electoral Commission, London: Electoral Commission
12.
CowellRJMartinSJ (2003) “The joys of “joining up”: modes of integrating the local government modernisation agenda”. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy21: 159–179
13.
CramptonG (1996) “Local government structure and urban residential location”. Urban Studies33: 1061–1076
14.
DafflonB (1992) “The assignment of functions to decentralized government: from theory to practice”. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy10: 283–298
15.
DeBoerL (1992) “Economies of scale and input substitution in public libraries”. Journal of Urban Economics32: 31–47
16.
Department for Communities and Local Government (2006a) Population Size and Local Authority Performance, London: HMSO
17.
Department for Communities and Local Government (2006b) Invitations to Councils in England to Make Proposals for Future Unitary structures to Pioneer as Pathfinders New Two-Tier Models, London: HMSO
18.
DerksonW (1988) “Municipal amalgamation and the doubtful relation between size and performance”. Local Government Studies14: 31–47
19.
DolleryBByrnesJCraseL (2007) “Too tough a nut to crack: determining fiscal sustainability in Australian local government”. Australasian Journal of Regional Studies13: 110–132
20.
DolleryBGrantBKorttM (2012) Councils in Cooperation: Shared Services and Australian Local Government, Sydney: Federation Press
21.
DolleryBRobottiL (2008) The Theory and Practice of Local Government Reform, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
22.
DrewJKorttMDolleryB (2014) “Economies of scale and local government expenditure: evidence from Australia”. Administration and Society46: 632–653
23.
DuncombeWYingerJ (1993) “An analysis of returns to scale in public production, with an application to fire protection”. Journal of Public Economics52: 49–72
24.
FaulkDSchaalPTaylorCD (2013) “How does local government amalgamation affect spending? Evidence from Louisville, Kentucky”. Public Finance and Management13: 80–98
25.
FeinermanEFinkelsteinITchetchikADelgoM (2011) “Impact of counter-urbanization on size, population mix, and welfare of an agricultural region”. American Journal of Agricultural Economics93: 1032–1047
26.
Fox W, Gurley, T, 2006, “Will consolidation improve sub-national governments?” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 3913
27.
GordonNKnightB (2008) “The effects of school district consolidation on educational cost and quality”. Public Finance Review36: 408–430
28.
GrosskopfSYaisawamgS (1990) “Economies of scope in the provision of local public services”. National Tax Journal43: 61–74
29.
HalabyC N (2004) “Panel models in sociological research: theory into practice”. Annual Review of Sociology30: 507–544
30.
HannanMFreemanJ (1984) “Structural inertia and organizational change”. American Sociological Review49: 149–164
31.
HinnerichBT (2009) “Do merging local governments free ride on their counterparts when facing boundary reform?”. Journal of Public Economics93: 721–728
32.
JacobBHendrickR (2013) “Assessing the financial condition of local governments: what is financial condition and how is measured”. In: LevineHJusticeJ BScorsconeE (eds) Handbook of Local Government Fiscal Health, Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett, pp. 11–41
33.
JohnP (1991) “The restructuring of local government in England and Wales”. In: BatleyRStokerG (eds) Local Government in Europe; Trends and Development, London: Macmillan, pp. 58–72
34.
JohnP (2010) “Larger and larger? The endless search for efficiency in the UK”. In: BaldersheimHRoseL E (eds) Territorial Choice: The Politics of Boundaries and Borders, Houndmills: Palgrave, pp. 101–117
35.
JordahlHLiangC Y (2010) “Merged municipalities, higher debt: on free-riding and the common pool problem in politics”. Public Choice143: 157–172
36.
KingD NMaY (2000) “Local authority size in theory and practice”. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy18: 255–270
37.
McGinnisM (1999) Polycentricity and Local Public Economics, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press
38.
MeierK JO'TooleL J (2009) “The proverbs of new public management: lessons from an evidence-based research agenda”. American Review of Public Administration39: 4–22
39.
National Centre for Social Research (2000) Revisiting Public Perceptions of Local Government: A Decade of Change, London: Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions
40.
NiskanenW (1971) Bureaucracy and Representative Government, Chicago: Aldine Atherton
41.
Prud'hommeR (1995) “The dangers of decentralization”. The World Bank Research Observer10: 201–220
42.
ReinegewertzY (2012) “Do municipal amalgamations work? Evidence from municipalities in Israel”. Journal of Urban Economics72: 240–251
43.
RoddenJ (2002) “The dilemma of fiscal federalism: grants and fiscal performance around the world”. American Journal of Political Science46: 670–687
44.
Rodríguez-PoseAGillN (2003) “The global trend towards devolution and its implications”. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy21: 333–351
45.
Rodríguez-PoseAGillN (2005) “On the ‘economic dividend’ of devolution”. Regional Studies39: 405–420
46.
Rodríguez-PoseATijmstraS A RBwireA (2009) “Fiscal decentralisation, efficiency, and growth”. Environment and Planning A41: 2041–2062
47.
SalmonP (1987) “Decentralization as an incentive scheme”. Oxford Review of Economic Policy3: 24–43
48.
SanctonA (1996) “Reducing costs by consolidating municipalities: New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Ontario”. Canadian Public Administration39: 267–289
49.
SchofieldJ (1978) “Determinants of urban service expenditures – fire and social services”. Local Government Studies4: 65–79
50.
SlackEBirdR (2013) “Does municipal amalgamation strengthen the financial viability of local government? A Canadian example”. Public Finance and Management13: 99–123
TullockG (1965) The Politics of Bureaucracy, Washington DC: Public Affairs Press
53.
VojnovicI (2000) “The transitional impacts of municipal consolidations”. Journal of Urban Affairs22: 385–417
54.
WestAAllmendingerJNikolaiRBarhamE (2010) “Decentralisation and educational achievement in Germany and the UK”. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy28: 450–468
55.
WilliamsC (2003) “Harnessing social capital: some lessons from rural England”. Local Government Studies29: 75–90
56.
WilliamsP (2014) Commission on Public Service Governance and Delivery. Full Report, Cardiff: Crown Copyright
57.
WilliamsonO (1967) “Hierarchical control and optimum firm size”. Journal of Political Economy75: 123–138
58.
Zafra-GomezJLAntonioMPerezM (2010) “Overcoming cost-inefficiencies within small municipalities: improve financial condition or reduce the quality of public services?”. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy28: 609–629
