Municipal amalgamation has become a key policy tool globally, drawing significant academic attention for its effects on local governance, efficiency, and equity. This study reviews international empirical literature on municipal amalgamations, incorporating new evidence from transitional economies and introducing a spatial-scale perspective to differentiate impacts at unit-wide and subunit levels. Key findings include: (1) Most literature focuses on overall postmerger unit, with limited attention to subordinate units. Studies on overall impacts emphasize efficiency, whereas those on subordinate units focus on resource allocation and political representation. (2) Amalgamation often fails to achieve economies of scale, with subunits engaging in fiscal free-riding, increasing financial burdens. Its effects on public services are limited, and political representation in smaller areas declines. (3) Emerging research in transitional economies indicates that amalgamation improve environmental governance but has mixed economic outcomes. This review provides insights for scholars and guidance for policymakers making informed decisions on municipal amalgamation.
AcuffC.2022. “An Empirical Examination of Representational Equity in Consolidated Governments, 1965–2002.” Urban Affairs Review58(6): 1523–53.
2.
AllersM.de NatrisJ.RienksH.de GreefT.. 2021. “Is Small Beautiful? Transitional and Structural Effects of Municipal Amalgamation on Voter Turnout in Local and National Elections.” Electoral Studies70: 102284.
3.
AllersM. A.GeertsemaJ. B.. 2016. “The Effects of Local Government Amalgamation on Public Spending, Taxation, and Service Levels: Evidence from 15 Years of Municipal Consolidation.” Journal of Regional Science56(4): 659–82.
4.
AskimJ.HoulbergK.KlausenJ. E.. 2022. “Fiscal Easing in Local Governments Facing Potential Merger: Visible in Budgets or Hidden in Overruns?” Public Administration100(4): 999–1018.
5.
AskimJ.HoulbergK.KlausenJ. E.. 2025. “Local Government Amalgamations and Pre-Merger Overspending: Central Naivety Meets Local Opportunism.” Journal of Urban Affairs: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2023.2187302
6.
AulichC.SansomG.McKinlayP.. 2014. “A Fresh Look at Municipal Consolidation in Australia.” Local Government Studies40(1): 1–20.
7.
BeeriI.SaadM.. 2014. “Political Participation Unconditioned by Inequality and Discrimination: The Case of Minorities-Within-Minorities in Israeli-Arab Mixed Municipalities.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies40(10): 1526–49.
8.
BesleyT. J.CaseA.. 1995. “Incumbent Behavior: Vote-Seeking, Tax-Setting, and Yardstick Competition.” The American Economic Review85: 25–45.
9.
BirdR. M.SlackN. E.. 1993. Urban Public Finance in Canada, 2nd ed, pp.15–39. Toronto: John Wiley and Sons.
10.
BlesseS.BaskaranT.. 2016. “Do Municipal Mergers Reduce Costs? Evidence from a German Federal State.” Regional Science and Urban Economics59: 54–74.
11.
BlesseS.RoeselF.. 2019. “Merging County Administrations–Cross-National Evidence of Fiscal and Political Effects.” Local Government Studies45(5): 611–31.
12.
Blom-HansenJ.HoulbergK.SerritzlewS.TreismanD.. 2016. “Jurisdiction Size and Local Government Policy Expenditure: Assessing the Effect of Municipal Amalgamation.” American Political Science Review110(4): 812–31.
13.
Blom-HansenJ.SerritzlewS.HoulbergK.. 2014. “Size, Democracy, and the Economic Costs of Running the Political System.” American Journal of Political Science58(4): 790–803.
14.
Blom-HansenJ. E. N. S.HoulbergK.SerritzlewS.. 2021. “Jurisdiction Size and Local Government Effectiveness: Assessing the Effects of Municipal Amalgamations on Performance.” European Journal of Political Research60(1): 153–74.
15.
BolgheriniS.PaparoA.. 2023. “Process Matters: The Variegated Effects of Municipal Amalgamation Features on Voter Turnout Revealed in a 10-Country Comparative Investigation.” European Political Science Review15(3): 313–31.
16.
BuchananJ.TullockG.. 1962. The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
17.
CallananM.MurphyR.QuinlivanA.. 2014. “The Risks of Intuition: Size, Costs and Economies of Scale in Local Government.” The Economic and Social Review45(3, Autumn): 371–403.
18.
CaoZ.WangL.ZhangY.. 2022. “Environmental Effects of City–County Mergers in China: Strengthening Governance or Aggravating Pollution?” Sustainability14(9): 5522.
19.
ChenS.YouC.WuJ.. 2024. “The Value of Transition Periods: Do City-County Mergers Promote Economic Development?.” Journal of Urban Affairs: 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2024.2302471
20.
CobbanT. W.2019. “Bigger is Better: Reducing the Cost of Local Administration by Increasing Jurisdiction Size in Ontario, Canada, 1995–2010.” Urban Affairs Review55(2): 462–500.
21.
DahlR. A.TufteE. R.. 1973. Size and Democracy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
22.
De MaesschalckF.2011. “The Suburbanization of Political Representation in a Context of Proportional Representation: The Case of Belgium.” Tijdschrift Voor Economische en Sociale Geografie102(1): 72–87.
23.
DrewJ.DolleryB.. 2014. “Would Bigger Councils Yield Scale Economies in the Greater Perth Metropolitan Region? A Critique of the Metropolitan Local Government Review for Perth Local Government.” Australian Journal of Public Administration73(1): 128–37.
24.
DrewJ.KorttM. A.DolleryB.. 2016. “Did the Big Stick Work? An Empirical Assessment of Scale Economies and the Queensland Forced Amalgamation Program.” Local Government Studies42(1): 1–14.
25.
DrewJ.McQuestinD.DolleryB.. 2024. “Fiscal Outcomes Arising from Amalgamation: More complex Than Merely Economies of Scale.” Public Management Review26(5): 1341–59.
26.
DurR.StaalK.. 2008. “Local Public Good Provision, Municipal Consolidation, and National Transfers.” Regional Science and Urban Economics38(2): 160–73.
27.
EdwardsM. M.XiaoY.. 2009. “Annexation, Local Government Spending, and the Complicating Role of Density.” Urban Affairs Review45(2): 147–65.
28.
EggerP. H.KoethenbuergerM.LoumeauG.. 2022. “Local Border Reforms and Economic Activity.” Journal of Economic Geography22(1): 81–102.
29.
EhrenhaltA.1995. “The Mystique of Government “Close to the People”.” GoverningAugust: 6–7.
30.
FritzB.FeldL. P.. 2020. “Common Pool Effects and Local Public Debt in Amalgamated Municipalities.” Public Choice183: 69–99.
31.
GalizziG.RotaS.SiciliaM.. 2023. “Local Government Amalgamations: State of the Art and New Ways Forward.” Public Management Review25(12): 2428–50.
32.
GendźwiłłA.KurniewiczA.SwianiewiczP.. 2021. “The Impact of Municipal Territorial Reforms on the Economic Performance of Local Governments. A Systematic Review of Quasi-Experimental Studies.” Space and Polity25(1): 37–56.
33.
GoreC. D.GopakumarG.. 2015. “Infrastructure and Metropolitan Reorganization: An Exploration of the Relationship in Africa and India.” Journal of Urban Affairs37(5): 548–67.
34.
GotoT.SekgetleS.KuramotoT.. 2021. “Municipal Merger and Debt Issuance in South African Municipalities.” Applied Economics Letters28(5): 343–8.
35.
HallJ. C.MattiJ.ZhouY.. 2020. “The Economic Impact of City–County Consolidations: A Synthetic Control Approach.” Public Choice184(1): 43–77.
36.
HanedaS.HashimotoA.TsuneyoshiT.. 2012. “Evaluating Administrative Efficiency Change in the Post-Merger Period: A Study on Ibaraki Prefecture (1979–2004).” International Regional Science Review35(2): 237–62.
37.
HanesN. 2015. “Amalgamation Impacts on Local Public Expenditures in Sweden.” Local Government Studies41 (1): 63–77.
38.
HansenS. W.2015. “The Democratic Costs of Size: How Increasing Size Affects Citizen Satisfaction with Local Government.” Political Studies63(2): 373–89.
39.
HansenS. W.. 2019. “Exploiting the Common Pool or Looking to the Future? A Study of Free-Riding Leading up to the 2007 Municipal Amalgamations in Denmark.” Local Government Studies45(5): 676–96.
40.
HansenS. W.KjaerU.. 2020. “Local Territorial Attachment in Times of Jurisdictional Consolidation.” Political Geography83: 102268.
41.
HanesN.2015. “Amalgamation impacts on local public expenditures in Sweden.” Local Government Studies41(1): 63–77.
42.
HarjunenO.SaarimaaT.TukiainenJ.. 2021. “Political Representation and Effects of Municipal Mergers.” Political Science Research and Methods9(1): 72–88.
43.
HeJ.2024. “The Price of Losing Autonomy: Assessing the Economic Impact of County-to-District Mergers in China.” Urban Affairs Review60 (6): 1839–1870.
44.
HeinischR.LehnerT.MühlböckA.SchimpfC. H.. 2018. “How do Municipal Amalgamations Affect Turnout in Local Elections? Insights from the 2015 Municipal Reform in the Austrian State of Styria.” Local Government Studies44(4): 465–91.
45.
HinnerichB. T.2009. “Do Merging Local Governments Free Ride on Their Counterparts When Facing Boundary Reform?” Journal of Public Economics93(5–6): 721–8.
46.
HirotaH.2023. “The Fiscal Effects of Cross-Prefectural Border Municipal Mergers: Evidence from Japan Using the Synthetic Control Method.” Applied Economics Letters: 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2023.2290580
47.
HirotaH.YunoueH.. 2017. “Evaluation of the Fiscal Effect on Municipal Mergers: Quasi-Experimental Evidence from Japanese Municipal Data.” Regional Science and Urban Economics66: 132–49.
48.
HirotaH.YunoueH.. 2020. “Public Investment and the Fiscal Common Pool Problem on Municipal Mergers in Japan.” Economic Analysis and Policy67: 124–35.
49.
HoriuchiY.SaitoJ.YamadaK.. 2015. “Removing Boundaries, Losing Connections: Electoral Consequences of Local Government Reform in Japan.” Journal of East Asian Studies15(1): 99–125.
50.
JakobsenM.KjaerU.. 2016. “Political Representation and Geographical Bias in Amalgamated Local Governments.” Local Government Studies42(2): 208–27.
51.
JinH.LiuW.ChenS.. 2023. “Centralization and Firm Pollution Emissions: Evidence from City–County Merger in China.” Journal of Cleaner Production416: 137964.
52.
JordahlH.LiangC. Y.. 2010. “Merged Municipalities, Higher Debt: On Free-Riding and the Common Pool Problem in Politics.” Public Choice143: 157–72.
53.
JungH.2023. “Municipal Mergers Under Local Autonomy: Electoral Consequences of City-County Consolidation in South Korea.” Journal of Urban Affairs: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2023.2203399
54.
KellyJ. M.AdhikariS.. 2013. “Indicators of Financial Condition in Pre- nd Post-Merger Louisville.” Journal of Urban Affairs35(5): 553–67.
55.
KjærU.HjelmarU.Leth OlsenA.. 2010. “Municipal Amalgamations and the Democratic Functioning of Local Councils: The Case of the Danish 2007 Structural Reform.” Local Government Studies36(4): 569–85.
56.
KochP.RochatP. E.. 2017. “The Effects of Local Government Consolidation on Turnout: Evidence from a Quasi-Experiment in Switzerland.” Swiss Political Science Review23(3): 215–30.
57.
KrøtelS. M.VilladsenA. R.HansenM. B.. 2017. “What to do Here? What to do There? The Effect of Change in Organization Size on Public Management.” International Public Management Journal20(4): 675–700.
58.
LaddH. F.1992. “Population Growth, Density and the Costs of Providing Public Services.” Urban Studies29(2): 273–95.
59.
LapointeS.SaarimaaT.TukiainenJ.. 2018. “Effects of Municipal Mergers on Voter Turnout.” Local Government Studies44(4): 512–30.
60.
LevinsenK.ThøgersenM.IbsenB.. 2012. “Institutional Reforms and Voluntary Associations.” Scandinavian Political Studies35(4): 295–318.
61.
LiH.GuoH.ZhangP.. 2023. “The Fiscal Impact of County-to-Urban District Conversion in China.” Urban Affairs Review59(3): 892–917.
62.
LiJ.TakeuchiK.. 2023. “Do Municipal Mergers Reduce the Cost of Waste Management? Evidence from Japan.” Regional Science and Urban Economics103: 103939.
63.
MaH.ZouJ.CaiH.ZhangL.. 2024. “Administrative Division Adjustment and Environmental Pollution: Evidence from City-County Mergers in China.” China Economic Review84: 102141.
64.
MartinL. L.SchiffJ. H.. 2011. “City–County Consolidations: Promise Versus Performance.” State and Local Government Review43(2): 167–77.
65.
McDonnellJ.2020. “Municipality Size, Political Efficacy and Political Participation: A Systematic Review.” Local Government Studies46(3): 331–50.
66.
McDonnellJ.. 2023. “Municipality Size and Political Participation: Evidence from Australia.” Australian Journal of Political Science58(1): 70–87.
67.
McQuestinD.DrewJ.IiboshiH.. 2023. “The Temporal Dependence of Public Policy Evaluation: The Case of Local Government Amalgamation.” Local Government Studies49(5): 953–74.
68.
MiyazakiT.2018. “Examining the Relationship Between Municipal Consolidation and Cost Reduction: An Instrumental Variable Approach.” Applied Economics50(10): 1108–21.
69.
MouritzenP. E.1989. “City Size and Citizens’ Satisfaction: Two Competing Theories Revisited.” European Journal of Political Research17(6): 661–88.
70.
OlsonM.1965. The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
71.
OstromV.TieboutC. M.WarrenR.. 1961. “The Organization of Government in Metropolitan Areas: A Theoretical Inquiry.” American Political Science Review55(4): 831–42.
72.
PickeringS.TanakaS.YamadaK.. 2020. “The Impact of Municipal Mergers on Local Public Spending: Evidence from Remote-Sensing Data.” Journal of East Asian Studies202): 243–66.
73.
PratchettL.2004. “Local Autonomy, Local Democracy and the “New Localism”.” Political Studies52(2): 358–75.
74.
ReingewertzY.2012. “Do Municipal Amalgamations Work? Evidence from Municipalities in Israel.” Journal of Urban Economics72(2–3): 240–51.
75.
ReingewertzY.SerritzlewS.. 2019. “Special Issue on Municipal Amalgamations: Guest Editors’ introduction.” Local Government Studies45(5): 603–10.
76.
RoeselF.2017. “Do Mergers of Large Local Governments Reduce Expenditures? Evidence from Germany Using the Synthetic Control Method.” European Journal of Political Economy50: 22–36.
77.
SaitoH.HirotaH.YunoueH.MiyakiM.. 2023. “Do Municipal Mergers Internalize Spatial Spillover Effects? Empirical Evidence from Japanese Municipalities.” The Annals of Regional Science70(2): 379–406.
78.
ShimizuK.2012. “Electoral Consequences of Municipal Mergers.” Journal of East Asian Studies12(3): 381–408.
79.
SoguelN.SilbersteinJ.. 2015. “Welfare Loss with Municipal Amalgamations and the Willingness-to-Pay for the Municipality Name.” Local Government Studies41(6): 977–96.
80.
SolvangØSaglieJ.WinsvoldM.. 2023. “Does Municipal Amalgamation Affect Trust in Local Politicians? The Case of Norway.” International Political Science Review01925121231216426. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251212312164
81.
SteinerR.2003. “The Causes, Spread and Effects of Inter-Municipal Cooperation and Municipal Mergers in Switzerland.” Public Management Review5(4): 551–71.
82.
SteinerR.KaiserC.. 2017. “Effects of Amalgamations: Evidence from Swiss Municipalities.” Public Management Review19(2): 232–52.
83.
StenbergC. W.2011. Coping with Crisis: How are Local Governments Reinventing Themselves in the Wake of the Great Recession, pp.1–13. Washington, D.C.: International City/County Management Association.
84.
SubramanyamN.MaraisL.. 2022. “Making Mangaung Metro: The Politics of Metropolitan Reform in a South African Secondary City.” Urban Studies59(14): 2893–911.
85.
SuzukiK.HaH.. 2018. “Municipal Merger and Local Democracy: An Assessment of the Merger of Japanese Municipalities.” Lex Localis16(4): 759–84.
86.
SwianiewiczP.2018. “If Territorial Fragmentation is a Problem, is Amalgamation a Solution? Ten Years Later.” Local Government Studies44(1): 1–10.
87.
SwianiewiczP.Szmigiel-RawskaK.. 2021. “Why Some Local Governments Choose Not to Free-Ride When Undergoing Boundary Reform: A Study of Two Merger Cases in Poland.” Local Government Studies47(4): 546–67.
88.
TangW.HewingsG. J.. 2017. “Do City–County Mergers in China Promote Local Economic Development?” Economics of Transition25(3): 439–69.
89.
TavaresA. F.2018. “Municipal Amalgamations and Their Effects: A Literature Review.” Miscellanea Geographica. Regional Studies on Development22(1): 5–15.
90.
ThomassenJ.AndewegR. B.. 2004. “Beyond Collective Representation: Individual Members of Parliament and Interest Representation in the Netherlands.” The Journal of Legislative Studies10(4): 47–69.
91.
TieboutC. M.1956. “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures.” Journal of Political Economy64(5): 416–24.
92.
TullockG.1959. “Problems of Majority Voting.” Journal of Political Economy67: 571–9.
93.
TurleyG.McDonaghJ.McNenaS.GrzedzinskiA.. 2018. “Optimum Territorial Reforms in Local Government: An Empirical Analysis of Scale Economies in Ireland.” The Economic and Social Review49(4, Winter): 463–88.
94.
ValenH.NarudH. M.HardarsonÓT. 2000. “Geography and Political Representation.” In In Beyond Westminster and Congress: The Nordic Experience, 107–31. Cleveland, OH: Ohio State University Press.
95.
VerbaS.NieN. H.. 1972. Participation in America. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
96.
VodaP.SvačinováP.. 2020. “To be Central or Peripheral? What Matters for Political Representation in Amalgamated Municipalities?” Urban Affairs Review56(4): 1206–36.
97.
WeingastB. R.ShepsleK. A.JohnsenC.. 1981. “The Political Economy of Benefits and Costs: A Neoclassical Approach to Distributive Politics.” The Journal of Political Economy89: 642–64.
98.
Welling HansenS.2014. “Common Pool Size and Project Size: An Empirical Test on Expenditures Using Danish Municipal Mergers.” Public Choice159(1): 3–21.
99.
XuY.GeY.BaoH.. 2022. “The Influence of Administrative Division Adjustment on Enterprise Earnings Management: A Quasi-Natural Experiment on City–County Consolidation.” Buildings12(7): 951.
100.
YamadaK.2018. “From a Majority to a Minority: How Municipal Mergers in Japan Changed the Distribution of Political Powers and the Allocation of Public Services Within a Merged Municipality.” Urban Affairs Review54(3): 560–92.
101.
YamadaK.AraiK.. 2021. “Do Boundary Consolidations alter the Relationship Between Politicians and Voters? The Case of Municipal Mergers in Japan.” Local Government Studies47(4): 519–45.
102.
YinK.MiaoQ.. 2024. “Urbanization and Low-Carbon Cities: Evidence from City-County Merger in China.” Economic Analysis and Policy81: 724–37.
103.
YouC.Cifuentes-FauraJ.LiuX.WuJ.. 2024. “Can the Government's Environmental Vertical Reform Reduce air Pollution? A Quasi-Natural Experiment in China.” Economic Analysis and Policy81: 947–63.
104.
ZeedanR.2017. “Bigger but Not Always Better: Size and Democracy in Israeli Amalgamated Local Governments.” Journal of Urban Affairs39(5): 711–28.
105.
ZhangS.ZhangM. A.SunW.. 2022. “Administrative Division Adjustment and Housing Price Comovement: Evidence from City-County Mergers in China.” China & World Economy30(4): 149–73.
