Amalgamation Reforms and Scalar Policymaking II

Abstract

Attempts at merging local governments often prove controversial, for several reasons. Long-standing, territorially defined jurisdictions can instill powerful place-based identities. Mergers can be seen as sharp discontinuities in institutional trajectories going back many decades or even centuries. But the prospect of merger can also trigger distributional conflicts between potential partners. Smaller units run the risk of becoming outskirts in the new, enlarged unit. Because amalgamations are often justified by prospective increases in efficiency, some users of public services may fear that various service facilities are terminated in favor of fewer and larger units located in the new municipal center. Finally, enlargement may be seen as impeding on the quality of “closeness” between citizens and the political system. As a consequence of mergers, the total number of elected representatives is often reduced, thereby narrowing the interface between voters and representatives. Larger units may be seen as more intimidating and consequentially impede on citizen’s perceived political efficacy. The constitutional set-up of many states precludes national governments from carrying out comprehensive territorial reforms. But even in countries where the state has a legal mandate for making amalgamation decisions, political contingencies have foiled governmental reform ambitions on more than one occasion. Governments may as a result of this resort to the use of various reform inducements – carrots instead of sticks, arguments instead of coercion. But although voluntary, locally initiated mergers (more or less actively encouraged by the national government) has in many cases led to significant changes in the number of local government units over time, other countries exemplify near stasis in structural terms, even over long periods of time. This panel invites paper presentations that elucidate on local government amalgamations and amalgamation reforms, from the perspective of lay citizens as well as elected and non-elected officials at all levels of government.