Share This Article:

Does the Method of Amalgamation Affect Cost Inefficiency of the New Municipalities?

Abstract Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:695KB) PP. 143-154
DOI: 10.4236/ojapps.2014.44015    3,646 Downloads   6,131 Views   Citations

ABSTRACT

Municipal amalgamation has been done in many countries in recent years as the result of a push to enlarge the size and coverage of local government units, which in turn is driven mainly by the prospect of economies of scale. However, while municipality amalgamation or boundary reform raises population size, it introduces organizational changes in the local government that might increase administrative inefficiency. The choice for the method of integration of administrative functions before amalgamation might affect to public expenditure after amalgamation. This study uses Japanese municipal-level data and argues for a relation between the choice for the method of integration of administrative functions and cost inefficiency after amalgamation. The results show that the fully distributed facility method is more likely to be adopted in a larger administrative jurisdiction and in one with large differences in finances or political structures between amalgamated sub-regions. Moreover, the results of stochastic frontier regression show that new municipality adopting fully distributed facility method can possibly increase inefficiency by expanding organizational slack because the new administration system will be insufficient integration of administrative functions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

Nakazawa, K. (2014) Does the Method of Amalgamation Affect Cost Inefficiency of the New Municipalities?. Open Journal of Applied Sciences, 4, 143-154. doi: 10.4236/ojapps.2014.44015.

References

[1] Kumbhakar, S.C. and Lovell, C.A.K. (2000) Stochastic Frontier Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174411
[2] Deller, S.C. and Rudnicki, E. (1992) Managerial Efficiency in Local Government: Implications on Jurisdictional Consolidation. Public Choice, 74, 221-231.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00140769
[3] Couch, J.F., William, F., Shughart, I. and Williams, A.L. (1993) Private School Enrollment and Public School Performance. Public Choice, 76, 301-312.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01053301
[4] Battese, G.E. and Coelli, T.J. (1995) A Model for Technical Inefficiency Effects in a Stochastic Frontier Production Function for Panel Data. Empirical Economics, 20, 325-332.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01205442
[5] Duncombe, W., Miner, J. and Ruggiero, J. (1997) Empirical Evaluation of Bureaucratic Models of Inefficiency. Public Choice, 93, 1-18.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1017910714756
[6] Kan, B. and Greene, K.V. (2002) The Effects of Monitoring and Competition on Public Education Outputs: A Stochastic Frontier Approach. Public Finance Review, 30, 3-26.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109114210203000101
[7] Davis, M.L. and Hayes, K. (1993) The Demand for Good Government. Review of Economics and Statistics, 75, 148-152.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2109639
[8] Grosskopf, S. and Yaisawarng, S. (1990) Economies of Scope in the Provision of Local Public Services. National Tax Journal, 43, 61-74.
[9] Grossman, P.J., Mavros, P. and Wassmer, R.W. (1999) Public Sector Technical Inefficiency in Large U.S. Cities. Journal of Urban Economics, 46, 278-299.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/juec.1998.2122
[10] Kalseth, J. and Rattø, J. (1995) Spending and Overspending in Local Government Administration: A Minimum Requirement Approach Applied to Norway. European Journal of Political Economy, 11, 239-251.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0176-2680(94)00063-P
[11] Loikkanen, H.A. and Susiluoto, L. (2005) Cost Efficiency of Finnish Municipalities in Basic Service Provision 1994-2002. Urban Public Economics Review, 4, 39-63.
[12] Yamashita, K., Akai, N. and Sato, M. (2002) Effects of Incentives Lurking in the Local Allocation Tax Grant System: Analysis of the Soft Budget Constraint Problem Based on the Frontier Cost Function (Chihou Kouhu Zei Seido ni Hisomu Incentive Kouka: Frontier Hiyou Kansuu ni yoru Soft na Yosa Seiyaku no Kensyou). Financial Review (Ministry of Finance, Policy Research Institute), 61, 120-145. (In Japanese)
[13] Hayashi, M. (2002) Local Characteristics and Inefficiencies in Local Public Expenditure (Jititai Tokusei to Hikouritusei). The Bulletin of Institute for Research in Business and Economics Meiji Gakuin University, 19, 15-21. (In Japanese)
[14] Miyazaki, T. (2006) Installation of Legal Conference and Efficiency of Municipality: In Association with Special Mergers Law in 1999 (Kourituteki Jititai ni yoru Houtei Kyougikai no setti: 1999 nen Gappei Tokurei Hou to Kannrenn site). Japan Economic Studies (Nihon Keizai Kenkyuu), 54, 20-38. (In Japanese)
[15] Nakazawa, K. (2013) Cost Inefficiency of Municipalities after Amalgamation. Procedia Economics and Finance, 5, 581-588.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(13)00068-3
[16] Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication (2010) Publication about the Great Amalgamation. (In Japanese)
http://www.soumu.go.jp/gapei/pdf/100311_1.pdf
[17] Japan City Center (2008) Questionnaire Survey for Amalgamation Municipality. (In Japanese)
http://www.toshi.or.jp/gappei/syukeikekka.pdf
[18] Brueckner, J. (1981) Congested Public Goods: The Case of Fire Protection. Journal of Public Economics, 15, 45-58.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0047-2727(81)90052-9

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2018 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.