The rationale for the amalgamation of Toronto, Canada in 1998 was to save costs but, as this paper shows, it did not achieve its objective. An analysis of per household expenditures in constant dollars for four services (fire, garbage, libraries, and parks and recreation) from 1988 to 2008 shows that expenditures increased after amalgamation for all services but libraries. At the same time, the amalgamation seems to have resulted in reduced access and participation by residents in local decision-making. On a positive note, the amalgamation increased the financial ability of the smaller and poorer municipalities in the newly created city by increasing their access to the tax base of the amalgamated city as a whole. It also equalized local services so that all city residents receive a similar level of services.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BirdR. M. and SlackE. (2008) “Fiscal Aspects of Metropolitan Governance”, in RojasE.Cuadrado-RouraJ. and GuellJ. M. (eds) Governing the Metropolis: Principles and Case Studies, pp. 77–134), Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.
2.
BirdR. M.SlackE. and TassonyiA. (2012) A Tale of Two Taxes: Property Tax Reform in Ontario, Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
3.
BoyneG. (1992) “Local Government Structure and Performance: Lessons from America?” Public Administration, 70: 333–57.
4.
ByrnesJ. and DolleryB. (2002) “Do economies of scale exist in Australian local government? A review of the research and evidence,” Urban Policy and Research, 20 (4): 391–414.
5.
City of Toronto (2000) Building the NEW City of Toronto. Status Report on Amalgamation, January 1998–December 2000.
6.
CôtéA. (2009) The Maturing Metropolis: Governance in Toronto a Decade on from Amalgamation, Toronto: University of Toronto, Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance.
7.
Deloitte Consulting (2001) Getting started: A review of the Greater Toronto Services Board. Toronto.
8.
FlyvbjergB. (2008) “Curbing optimism bias and strategic misrepresentation in planning: Reference class forecasting in practice”, European Planning Studies, 16 (1): 3–21.
9.
FoundA. (2012) Scale Economies in Fire and Police Services. IMFG Paper No. 12, Toronto: Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance, University of Toronto.
10.
FriskenF. (1993) “Planning and servicing the Greater Toronto Area: The interplay of provincial and municipal interests”, in RothblattD. N. and SanctonA. (eds), Metropolitan Governance: American/Canadian Intergovernmental Perspectives, Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies Press, University of California; and Kingston, Ontario: Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, Queen's University.
11.
GoldenA. and SlackE. (2006) “Urban governance reform in Toronto: A preliminary assessment”, in RazinE. and SmithP. (eds), Metropolitan Governing: Canadian Cases, Comparative Lessons, pp. 29–74. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Magnes Press.
12.
GTA Task Force (1996) Greater Toronto, Toronto: The Queen's Printer.
13.
HirschW. Z. (1959) “Expenditure implications of metropolitan growth and consolidation,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 41: 232–41.
14.
KMPG (1996) Fresh Start: An Estimate of Potential Savings and Costs from the Creation of a Single-Tier Local Government for Toronto. Report prepared for the Province of Ontario, Toronto.
15.
KulisekL. and PriceT. (1988) “Ontario municipal policy affecting local autonomy: A case study involving Windsor and Toronto,” Urban History Review16 (3): 255–70.
16.
KushnerJ. and SiegelD. (2005) “Are services delivered more efficiently after municipal amalgamations?” Canadian Public Administration, 48(2)251–67.
SanctonA. (1994) Governing Canada's City-Regions: Adapting Form to Function, Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy.
19.
SanctonA. (2004) “Beyond the municipal: Governance for Canadian cities”, Policy Options (Feb): 26–31.
20.
SchwartzH. (2004) “The relevance of Toronto's new governmental structure for the 21st century”, Canadian Journal of Regional Science27(1)99–117.
21.
SlackE. (2000) “A preliminary assessment of the new City of Toronto”, Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 18(1)13–29.
22.
SlackE. (2005) “Assessing municipal amalgamation in Toronto, Canada: What has it achieved?” National Security and Defence11, Kyiv: Ukrainian Centre for Economic and Political Studies (Razumkov Centre).
23.
SlackE. and BirdM.R. (2013) “Merging Municipalities: Is Bigger Better?” IMFG Paper No. 14.Toronto: Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance, University of Toronto.
24.
StevensonD. and GilbertR. (1999) “Restructuring municipal government in Greater Toronto: Amalgamation to form the new City of Toronto and creation of the Greater Toronto Services Board, 1996–1999. Paper prepared for the City of Montréal.
25.
StrenR. and CameronR. (2005) “Metropolitan governance reform: An introduction”, Public Administration and Development25(4): 274–84.
26.
TindalC.R. and TindalS.N. (2009) Local Government in Canada, Seventh Edition, Toronto: Nelson Education Ltd.
27.
Toronto Transition Team (1997) New City, New Opportunities—Interim Report. Toronto.
28.
VojnovicI. (1998) “Municipal consolidation in the 1990s: An analysis of British Columbia, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia”, Canadian Public Administration, 41(2)239–83.
