Content uploaded by Daniel Klimovský
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Daniel Klimovský
Content may be subject to copyright.
TERRITORIAL
CONSOLIDATION
REFORMS
IN EUROPE
Edited by Pawel Swianiewicz
Territorial Consolidation
Reforms in Europe
Local Government
and Public Service
Reform Initiative
edited by
P S
L G P S R I
O S I–B
Address
Október 6 utca 12
H–1051 Budapest, Hungary
Mailing address
P.O. Box 519
H–1357 Budapest, Hungary
Telephone
(36-1) 882-3104
Fax
(36-1) 882-3105
E-mail
lgprog@osi.hu
Web Site
http://lgi.osi.hu/
First published in 2010
by the Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative, Open Society Institute–Budapest
© OSI/LGI, 2010
ISBN: 978 963 9719 16 3
e publication of these country reports has been funded by the
Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative of the Open Society Institute–Budapest.
e judgments expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of LGI.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or
by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and
recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Copies of the book can be ordered by e-mail or post from LGI.
Managing Editor: Tom Bass
Cover photo: © Panos l Martin Roemers
Printed in Budapest, Hungary, 2010
Design & Layout: Judit Kovács • Createch Ltd.
OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE
TM and Copyright © 2010 Open Society Institute
All rights reserved.
iii
Table of Contents
Foreword ............................................................................................................ v
List of Contributors ........................................................................................... vii
List of Figures and Tables ................................................................................... xi
Chapter 1
Territorial Fragmentation As a Problem, Consolidation As a Solution? ......... 1
Paweł Swianiewicz
Territorial Consolidation Reforms in ‘Old’ EU Member States .................. 25
Chapter 2
Structural Reform in Denmark:
Central Reform Processes in a Decentralized Environment in 2007 ............. 27
Karsten Vrangsbaek
Chapter 3
Uncompleted Greek Territorial Consolidation: Two Waves of Reforms ........ 45
Nikos Hlepas
Chapter 4
Territorial Local Level Reforms in East German Länder:
Phases, Patterns, and Dynamics ................................................................... 75
Hellmut Wollmann
Chapter 5
English Local Government: Neither Local Nor Government ........................ 95
Colin Copus
Territorial Consolidation Reforms in Central and Eastern Europe ............ 127
Chapter 6
Conceptualizing Territorial Reorganization Policy Interventions
in the Republic of Macedonia ...................................................................... 129
Veli Kreci and Bekim Ymeri
Chapter 7
Local Government Reform in Georgia ......................................................... 159
David Melua
iv
Chapter 8
Shadows in a Cave: Georgian Consolidation Reform Seen from a Distance .... 189
Students’ Research Club Spatium
Less Than Consolidation Reform, More Than the Status Quo ................... 217
Chapter 9
e Voluntary Union of Municipalites:
Bottom-up Territorial Consolidation in the Czech Republic? ....................... 219
Michal Illner
Chapter 10
Territorial Consolidation and Intercommunal Cooperation
at the Local Level in the Slovak Republic ..................................................... 237
Daniel Klimovský
Chapter 11
Hungarian Public Service Reform:
Multipurpose Microregional Associations ..................................................... 255
Edit Somlyodyne Pfeil
Chapter 12
e Evolution of Ukraine’s Administrative and Territorial Structure:
Trends, Issues, and Risks .............................................................................. 265
Kateryna Maynzyuk and Yuriy Dzhygyr
Chapter 13
Territorial Consolidation of Municipalities in Armenia ................................ 279
David Tumanyan
Territorial Consolidation—Related Issues ..................................................... 283
Chapter 14
Intermunicipal Cooperation:
A Viable Alternative to Territorial Amalgamation? ........................................ 285
Robert Hertzog
Chapter 15
Municipal Size, Economy, and Democracy .................................................. 309
Kurt Houlberg
Index .................................................................................................................. 333
v
Foreword
In November 2008, the Local Government and Public Services Reform Initiative (LGI)
a program of the Open Society Institute in Budapest supported a major international
conference on “Lessons from Territorial Consolidation Reforms—e European Experi-
ence.” e conference addressed the issue of territorial organization and local governance.
More specifically, it covered how the dynamics of fragmentation and consolidation in
Europe shaped different models of governance. e topic is of crucial importance as
territorial and subsequent administrative reforms greatly impact relations between central
and local level governance, service provision, efficiency and effective use of resources,
and local democracy.
e present publication is a selection of the best studies presented at the confer-
ence in 2008. e logic of the conference was to first address and assess reforms in the
“old” EU member states (Denmark, Greece, East Germany, and the United Kingdom)
and to then look into the reforms in Eastern Europe. In the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s,
old Europe’s reforms were driven by the premise of economic, fiscal, and management
efficiency—meaning that larger local government units were better providers of local
services.
With the launch of the transitional period in Eastern Europe, a tendency of frag-
mentation occurred in many countries, perhaps a natural outcome of the stronger need
for democracy and more specifically local democracy. However, in many countries such
as Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Czech Republic, Hungary, Macedonia, Montenegro,
Slovakia, and Ukraine, issues of costs and efficiency of services have risen to the surface
and pushed the consolidation debate to a new level. e issue remains a very conten-
tious one as consolidation impacts the access of citizens in the smallest units to their
basic rights and services. us, as the title in the introductory chapter rightly points out,
consolidation may not always be the right solution to fragmentation. e solutions are
country-specific and recipes from outside may be hard to implement, but the lessons
from some implemented reforms may be well-assessed and the mistakes avoided. is,
we thought, was our goal.
In particular, part three of this volume, Less than Consolidation Reform, More an
Status Quo, looks at Armenia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, and Ukraine where
a variety of intermunicipal structures and associations of small municipalities were de-
bated. ese cases are a response to the need to provide efficient services and yet keep
local democracy intact. e success or failures of these may still remain to be seen.
e final two chapters discuss intermunicipal cooperation and the issue of municipal
size, economy, and democracy in a more general, theoretical way.
vi
We hope that the current publication will be one of the few systemic views on the
consolidation versus fragmentation issues and that it will be a timely contribution to
the field. We hope the book will be useful to academics, policymakers, students, and
development practitioners from Europe and beyond.
LGI and OSI would like to extend its warmest thanks to the major engine behind
this tremendous endeavor, Pawel Swianiewicz, Professor and Head of the Department of
Local Development and Policy, University of Warsaw and Chair of the European Urban
Research Association. Pawel, your energy, dedication, and commitment have fed the
inspiration that moved the process going—many thanks! We would also like to thank
the University of Warsaw Students’ Research Club “Spatium”—a group of enthusiastic
students who have all the energy to tackle many local governance issues and who have
made the conference a logistical success and a pleasant event. Special acknowledgment
to Paweł Dąbrowski, Anna Górska, Paulina Jurgiel, Aleksandra Kępczyńska, Joanna Kru-
kowska, Adam Mielczarek, Ewa Myśliwiec, Marcin Olejnik, Ilona Pohlmann, Weronika
Skomorowska, Kinga Stańczuk, Joanna Stryjewska, and Karol Trammer for their excel-
lent research on Georgian territorial reforms, and for the persistence and courage and
continue the research in the Caucasus despite the recent conflict in Georgia. Numerous
thanks to all our contributors who had the will to attend the conference, the courage
to think aloud and their patience with the editorial process. Last but not least, thanks
to Gabriela Matei and Roberto Fasino at the Council of Europe who made everything
possible for our cooperation to manifest itself in this event and publication. Last but
not least, we would like to thank the University of Warsaw for offering their hospitality
to host us on the beautiful premises of their campus.
Irina Faion
Senior Program Manager
Local Government and Public Services Reform Initiative
Open Society Institute
Budapest, Hungary
vii
List of Contributors
C C is a Professor at the Local Governance Research Unit at De Montfort
University, Leicester and chief editor of Local Government Studies. His academic spe-
cialisms are local party politics, local political decision-making and leadership, and the
changing role of the English councilor.
A D is a Ph.D at the Faculty of Geography and Regional Studies, Uni-
versity of Warsaw, Poland, Students’ Research Club “Spatium.”
P D is a M.A. student at Faculty of Management, University of Warsaw,
Poland, Students’ Research Club “Spatium.”
M D P.D., is an Assistant Professor at Faculty of Geography and Regional
Studies, University of Warsaw, Poland.
Y D is a public sector economist, consultant in public policy, and a Director
at FISCO Inform LLC, Ukraine.
R H is a Professor at the Institute of Political Studies (IEP), University of
Strasbourg, France. He was also deputy mayor in a city belonging to Strasbourg Urban
Community (1989–2008) and councilor of that Community (2001–2008).
N K. H is an Associate Professor of Local and Regional Government,
Department of Political Science and Public Administration, National University of
Athens, Greece. His research topics include local and regional government, public law,
as well as environment law and policies.
K H is a project manager at NIRAS Consultants and an external Associate
Professor at the University of Southern Denmark.
M I is a Senior Researcher at the Institute of Sociology of the Academy of
Sciences of the Czech Republic in Prague.
P J is a M.A. student at the Faculty of Geography and Regional Studies,
University of Warsaw, Poland, Students’ Research Club “Spatium.”
viii
TERRITORIAL CONSOLIDATION REFORMS IN EUROPE
A K is a M.A. student at the Faculty of Geography and Regional
Studies, University of Warsaw, Poland, Students’ Research Club “Spatium.”
D K is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Regional Sciences
and Management of the Faculty of Economics at the Technical University in Košice,
Slovakia. He specializes in public administration and good governance issues.
V K is an assistant and Ph.D. candidate at the Public Administration and Politi-
cal Science Department, South-East European University at Tetovo, Macedonia. His
research interests include public policy analysis, public administration reforms in CEE
countries, European policy’s impact on Macedonia’s reform activities, and strategic
management in the public sector.
J K is a Ph.D at the Faculty of Geography and Regional Studies,
University of Warsaw, Poland, Students’ Research Club “Spatium.”
D M is director of an office of the National Association of Local Governments
in Georgia.
K M is a development economist, public policy consultant, and
Development Director at FISCO Inform LLC, Ukraine.
A M, Ph.D. in Sociology, is a methodological consultant for the Students’
Research Club “Spatium,” Poland.
E M is a B.A. student at the Faculty of Geography and Regional Studies,
University of Warsaw, Poland, Students’ Research Club “Spatium.”
M O is a M.A. student at University of Warsaw, Poland, Students’ Research
Club “Spatium.”
E S P, Ph.D. in State and Law Sciences, is a Senior Research Fellow
of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences Center for Regional Studies, Associate Professor
of the Faculty of Economics, University of Kaposvár, Hungary.
I P is a B.A. student at the Faculty of Geography and Regional Studies,
University of Warsaw, Poland, Students’ Research Club “Spatium.”
W S is an M.A. student at the Faculty of Geography and Regional
Studies, University of Warsaw, Poland, Students’ Research Club “Spatium.”
ix
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
K S is a M.A. student at the Faculty of Geography and Regional Studies,
University of Warsaw, Poland, Students’ Research Club “Spatium.”
J S is a B.A. student at the Faculty of Geography and Regional Stud-
ies, University of Warsaw, Poland, Students’ Research Club “Spatium.”
P S, Professor, Head of Department of Local Development and Policy,
University of Warsaw, Poland and Chair of the European Urban Research Association.
His main research fields are local politics and decentralization reforms in Poland as well
as other countries of Central and Eastern Europe.
K T is a M.A. student at the Faculty of Geography and Regional Studies,
University of Warsaw, Poland, Students’ Research Club “Spatium.”
D T, Ph.D., Deputy Chair of the Communities’ Finance Officers
Association, Armenia.
K V is an Associate Professor in Public Policy at the Institute of Politi-
cal Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
H W is an (Emeritus) Professor of public administration at Humboldt-
Universität zu Berlin, Germany. His main research fields are comparative government
focusing on the subnational/local space.
B Y is a local government expert involved in decentralization reform in
Macedonia.
xi
List of Figures and Tables
Territorial Fragmentation As a Problem, Consolidation As a Solution?
Figure 1. Distribution of Municipal Governments According
to eir Population Size for the Countries of Central,
Eastern, and South Eastern Europe ................................................ 2
Figure 2. Relationship between Territorial Consolidation
and Functional Decentralization .................................................... 4
Figure 3. Relationship between Territorial Consolidation and Functional
Decentralization in Central and Eastern European Countries ........ 5
Figure 4. Relationship between the Overall Satisfaction with Local
Governments’ Index (0–100 Scale) and Size of the
Local Government ......................................................................... 6
Figure 5. e Trade-off between System Capacity and Citizens’
Effectiveness .................................................................................. 7
Figure 6. Index of Performance and Size of Local Government in Poland ..... 9
Structural Reform in Denmark:
Central Reform Processes in a Decentralized Environment in 2007
Figure 1. e Policy Process of the Structural Reform in Overview ............ 37
Figure A1. e Percentage of Municipalities by Number of Inhabitants ........ 41
Figure A2. e Five New Regions (Population in 2005) ............................... 41
Table 1. e Danish Structural Reform in Overview ................................. 29
Table 2. Changes in Financing after the 2007 Reform .............................. 30
Incomplete Greek Territorial Consolidation: Two Waves of Reforms
Table 1. Distribution of Second Tier Local Governments by Population ..... 52
Table 2. e Decline of Rural Municipalities from 1940 until 1991 ......... 53
Table 3. Employees in Urban and Rural Municipalities (1996) ................. 55
xii
TERRITORIAL CONSOLIDATION REFORMS IN EUROPE
Table 4. Distribution of Municipalities by Order of Magnitude
before (1996) and after (1999) the Implementation
of the ‘Capodistrias’ Plan of Amalgamations ................................ 57
Table 5. Public Opinion and Politicians Approving Territorial
Consolidation (‘Capodistrias’ Plan of Amalgamations) ................ 60
Table 6. Views of European Mayors Concerning Some Reform Options ..... 60
Table 7. Competencies of Local Government in Greece ............................ 61
Table 8 Revenues and Expenditures of Local Government
(in EUR-millions, 2004). ............................................................ 63
Table 9. Elected Persons in Municipalities and Local Districts (2006) ....... 65
Table 10. Size and Numbers of Basic Municipal Organs ............................. 66
Territorial Local Level Reforms in East German Regional States (Länder):
Phases, Patterns, and Dynamics
Table 1. Municipalities Territorial/Organizational Reforms
in East German Länder ................................................................ 80
Table 2. Counties in East German Länder ................................................. 84
English Local Government: Neither Local nor Government
Figure 1. Technocracy and Democracy in English Local Government ...... 101
Figure 2. e Structure of Local Government in England ........................ 106
Table 1. e Legislative Journey of English Local Government ............... 104
Table 2. Largest and Smallest English Council Populations,
by Council Type, 2009 .............................................................. 105
Table 3. New English Unitary Councils Created in 2007 ........................ 112
Conceptualizing Territorial Reorganization Policy Interventions
in the Republic of Macedonia
Figure 1. Median Population Size of Cities with Majority Ethnic
Macedonian and Majority Ethnic Albanian Population
(Before and after the Second 2004 Territorial Reform
Organization) ............................................................................ 140
Figure 2. Median Size of Municipalities with Majority Ethnic
Macedonians and Ethnic Albanians ........................................... 144
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 3. Percent of Ethnic Macedonians and Albanians as a Majority
in Respective Municipalities to the Population Represented
at the National Level ................................................................. 144
Figure 4. Percentage of Macedonians and Albanians Living as Minorities ... 146
Figure 5. Proportion of Salaries of Total Municipal Expenditures
(by Percent) (2006) ................................................................... 148
Figure A1. Change of Municipal Size Parameters (1990–2004) .................. 153
Figure A2. Median Population Size of Cities with Majority of
Ethnic Macedonian and Majority of Ethnic Albanian
Population (Before and after the First 1995 Territorial Reform
Organization) ............................................................................ 154
Table A1. Local Government Expenditures in Percent ............................... 150
Table A2. Structure of Revenues in Percent ............................................... 150
Table A3. 123 Local Governments Census 1994 (After First Intervention) ... 150
Table A4. 123 Local Governments Census 2002
(After First Intervention) ............................................................ 151
Table A5. 84 Local Governments Census 2002
(After Second Intervention) ....................................................... 151
Table A6. Consolidated Table with Statistical Measures of Population ....... 152
Table A7. Number of Local Governments with Population Size Groups
before and after the Second (2004) Territorial Organization
Reform ...................................................................................... 153
Local Government Reform in Georgia
Table 1. e Structure of Territorial Division of Georgia in 1998 ........... 164
Table 2. Distribution of Population by Number of Self-government
before 2006 ............................................................................... 165
Table 3. Exclusive and Delegated Competencies of Local Governments
According to the 2002 Law ....................................................... 166
Table 4. e Role of State Transfers in Local Budget Revenues ................ 167
Table 5. Share of Central and Local Budget Revenues in GDP ............... 168
Table 6. Subnational Levels of Public Administration in Georgia
after 2006 .................................................................................. 180
xiv
TERRITORIAL CONSOLIDATION REFORMS IN EUROPE
Table 7. Distribution of Population by Number of Self-government
after 2006 .................................................................................. 180
Table 8. Exclusive Competencies of Local Governments
after the 2006 Reform ............................................................... 182
Shadows in a Cave: Georgian Consolidation Reform Seen from a Distance
Figure 1. Local Government Revenues in Georgia
(GEL per Capita, 2007 Budget Plan) ........................................ 199
Figure 2. Knowledge about the Location of Local Government
Institutions ................................................................................ 203
Figure 3. Do You ink the Views of Your Village Are Sufficiently
Represented in the Local Council? ............................................. 206
Figure 4. Whose Interests Are Foremost Represented by Mayors
in Local Government? ............................................................... 207
Figure 5. Have You Heard about Local Government Reform in Georgia? ... 208
Figure 6. Acceptance of the Reform and Trust towards the Government
(Pertaining to Respondents Aware of the Reform) ..................... 210
Figure 7. Opinions about the Ease of Obtaining Administrative
Permits, Licenses, Etc., Currently and before the Reform .......... 210
Table 1. Distribution of Size of Local Governments in Georgia
before and after the 2006 Reform .............................................. 197
Table 2. Income Disparities in Local Government Systems
in Georgia and Poland ............................................................... 200
Table 3. Councilor’s Name in Poland (2005) and in Georgia (2008) ....... 204
e Voluntary Union of Municipalites:
Bottom-up Territorial Consolidation in the Czech Republic?
Table 1. Number of Municipalities in the Czech Republic 1950–2007 ..... 223
Table 2. Size Structure of Municipalities in the Czech Republic (2007) ..... 224
xv
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Territorial Consolidation and Intercommunal Cooperation at the Local Level
in the Slovak Republic
Figure 1. Size Structure of the Communities in the Slovak Republic
(2004) ....................................................................................... 246
Figure 2. Communities Involved in Some Form of Joint Municipal
Office (2008) ............................................................................. 247
Table 1. Number of the Communities and eir Inhabitants
in the Slovak Republic ................................................................ 243
Table 2. Proposal for Amalgamation of Area ............................................. 244
Table 3. Joint Municipal Offices in the Slovak Republic (2006) .............. 248
Hungarian Public Service Reform: Multipurpose Microregional Associations
Table 1. Size and Fragmentation of Municipalities in Hungary, 2005 ..... 257
e Evolution of Ukraine’s Administrative and Territorial Structure:
Trends, Issues, and Risks
Figure 1. Appointments within the Executive Authority
on Central and Local Levels (as of August 2008) ....................... 268
Intermunicipal Cooperation: A Viable Alternative to Territorial Amalgamation?
Figure 1. Timeline of Relevant Laws Regarding Communes ..................... 288
Figure 2. Single- and Multipurpose IMC Unions ..................................... 290
Figure 3. Communes and Communities ................................................... 293
Municipal Size, Economy, and Democracy
Figure 1. Regression Coefficients for Municipal Size in Five Service
Areas, 1996 ................................................................................ 319
Figure 2. Indices for Non-electoral Participation in Denmark, 2001 ........ 327
1
Territorial Fragmentation As a Problem,
Consolidation As a Solution?1
Paweł Swianiewicz
INTRODUCTION
Local territorial organization at the lowest level of towns, municipalities, and villages
has changed in many countries in Central, Eastern, and South Eastern Europe since
1990. Territorial fragmentation has been a recent trend in the Czech Republic, Slovakia,
Hungary, Macedonia, and several other countries. is was often a reaction to earlier
territorial consolidations introduced by the communist government in an undemo-
cratic manner, without any public consultation (like in the former Czechoslovakia and
Hungary).2 After 1990, decentralization and a paradigm of local autonomy were often
understood in a way that gave the right to become a separate local government to almost
each settlement unit, even if that unit was a tiny village. Attempts to create or maintain
larger territorial jurisdictions were seen as a violation of local autonomy. As a result, in
several countries, there was a significant proportion of very small authorities, many of
which had much less than 1,000 residents. Extreme examples of villages like Bidovce
in the Czech Republic or Prikry in Slovakia, had fewer than 10 citizens.3 Conversely,
there were examples of territorially consolidated countries (such as Yugoslavia/Serbia,
Montenegro, Lithuania, Bulgaria, and Poland) where the median size of the local gov-
ernment unit was much larger, though none of them had less than 1,000 residents. But
the phenomenon of territorial fragmentation at the lowest tier has been widespread.
Figure 1 provides a graphic illustration of this phenomenon in the individual countries
of the region.
It quickly became apparent that territorial fragmentation was one of the major bar-
riers for the decentralization and effective functioning of the local government system.
With different degrees of intensity, such voices could be heard in Albania, Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Latvia, Macedonia, Moldova,
Slovakia, Ukraine, and other countries. In a different context, a similar discussion was
conducted in Poland, where the size of the upper tiers of subnational government—
powiat and województwo—was discussed, or in Bulgaria, Montenegro, or again Poland,
where bottom-up pressure to split existing large municipalities was occasionally pushing
towards a larger degree of territorial fragmentation.
2
TERRITORIAL CONSOLIDATION REFORMS IN EUROPE
Despite the fact that territorial consolidation reform was often presented as a
prescription for problems, actual territorial reforms rarely have been introduced. e
difficulty of implementation is not only a feature of Central and Eastern Europe.
Baldersheim and Rose (forthcoming) quote the example of Norway, where territorial
consolidation has been continuously discussed for over 15 years, though no action has
been taken so far.
Figure 1.
Distribution of Municipal Governments According to eir Population Size
for the Countries of Central, Eastern, and South Eastern Europe
Note: Data in Figure 1 concerns the situation at the beginning of current decade, before the reforms
described later in this volume.
WHY IS TERRITORIAL FRAGMENTATION A PROBLEM?
Perhaps this question might be reformulated: is territorial fragmentation a problem at
all? e debate on this issue is not a unique Central and Eastern European phenomenon.
It is also widespread in the United States and Western Europe, especially in relation to
the organization of local governments in metropolitan areas.4 Also, in a wider context,
the optimal size of local government is a commonly discussed issue. Baldersheim and
Rose (forthcoming) quote publications of Dowding (1994) and Boyne (2003), both
including an overview of an empirical search for the optimal local government size. e
former includes 65 references, while the latter as many as 190, and—as Baldersheim
and Rose note—it is probably just the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps the most comprehensive
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
Lithuania
Serbia
Bulgaria
Poland
Albania
Moldova
Romania
Croatia
Slovenia
Macedonia
Estonia
Georgia
Latvia
Hungary
Azerbaijan
Armenia
Slovakia
Czech Republic
over 10,000 5,000–10,000 1,000–5,000 up to1,000
TERRITORIAL FRAGMENTATION AS A PROBLEM, CONSOLIDATION AS A SOLUTION?
3
summary of this theoretical discussion may be found in Keating (1995), while an econo-
metric interpretation can also be found in King (1984). An overview of the theoretical
discussion, as well as some of the empirical studies presented in the context of Central
and Eastern Europe, can be found in Swianiewicz (2002). ere is no need to present the
entire discussion again, so this chapter will briefly restate their most basic arguments.
e arguments in favor of territorial consolidation (leading to creation of large
subnational jurisdictions) can be summarized in the following points:
• Larger local governments have more capacity to provide a wider range of func-
tions, so territorial consolidation allows an allocation of more services to the
local level.
• ere is an economy of scale that allows for a less expensive, more effective provi-
sion of services in the larger local government units. e most straightforward
evidence of this rule has been presented on the issue of spending on municipal
administration (Swianiewicz 2002).
• Since large local governments can provide more functions, it is more likely that
citizens will be interested in participation in local politics (Dahl and Tufte 1973).
In this interpretation, consolidation helps to promote local democracy.