IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/clh/resear/v16y2023i3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Local Governance in Alberta: Principles, Options and Recommendations

Author

Listed:
  • Sandeep Agrawal

    (University of Alberta)

  • Cody Gretzinger

    (University of Alberta)

Abstract

Municipalities in Alberta have faced challenges for some time. Many of these challenges have emerged at both local and regional scales, and include slower growth and aging populations, constrained finances, a shifting economic base and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic (AUMA 2020). In response, Alberta Municipalities, an organization that advocates on behalf of more than 250 urban municipalities in the province, has commissioned several reports to address these concerns. We were tasked to assess the current state of Alberta’s local governance model and investigate if changes to government structure might offer some remedy to the deficiencies uncovered in our assessment. Accordingly, the report aims to do the following: 1) provide conceptual tools to understand local government structure; 2) impart a set of principles to guide strategic efforts; 3) evaluate existing regional governance in Alberta; and 4) offer several restructuring suggestions for Alberta Municipalities to consider in consultation with municipalities and to advocate for the province to act on those they wish to pursue. The key governance concepts of viability and legitimacy underlie this report. A government becomes viable when a critical mass of population and other antecedents are present to catalyze development. Local governments become legitimate when they can take justifiable actions in a legal manner and have active support from their citizens. To improve the viability and legitimacy of local governance, structural reforms must be guided by a set of principles. This report proposes five such principles: efficiency, capacity, accountability, accessibility and responsiveness. To supplement viability and legitimacy, we also invoked the additional concepts of fragmentation and its counterpart, consolidation. Together, these latter two concepts support a tiered, spatial and authority structure, which can work as an analytical tool to discuss and evaluate the local government models in Alberta and elsewhere in Canada. Collectively, these concepts enable us to identify and compare the number of local government units within regions to better understand how the spatial distribution of governance may uphold the five principles of good governance. The tiered structure of a municipal government, whether it is horizontal or vertical, reveals the extent of spatial geography it serves and the distribution of authority and service responsibility between and among tiered units. We find that Alberta’s primarily horizontally fragmented governance arrangement, which includes over three hundred urban and rural municipalities, provides an accountable, accessible and responsive system. Such a system, however, lacks efficiency and capacity. Our analysis suggests that no one-size-fits-all model will work for Alberta. However, strengthening the current fragmented governance model in Alberta through intermunicipal collaboration frameworks, growth management boards and regional service commissions can bring about meaningful improvements. More disruptive options — such as amalgamation, regional districts or a two-tiered governance structure — also offer some benefits, but they should be scrutinized against the particular context of the area for which they are considered. The report presents a series of recommendations that Alberta Municipalities can pursue with the Government of Alberta. The overarching suggestion is that the province mandate dispute-resolution mechanisms to resolve all intermunicipal challenges, including annexations. This would minimize intermunicipal frictions and foster cooperation to improve municipal viability, while also improving the fairness and the legitimacy of the governance system. To achieve this, the current dispute resolution mechanisms must be strengthened and expanded. The other recommendations are divided into three categories, as they pertain to three distinct geographies of the province: metropolitan regions, regions outside of census metropolitan areas and small and remote urban municipalities.

Suggested Citation

  • Sandeep Agrawal & Cody Gretzinger, 2023. "Local Governance in Alberta: Principles, Options and Recommendations," SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 16(3), January.
  • Handle: RePEc:clh:resear:v:16:y:2023:i:3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/AUMA-UP41-Local-GovinAB.Agrawal-Gretzinger.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles M. Tiebout, 1956. "A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 64, pages 416-416.
    2. David Bartolini, 2015. "Municipal fragmentation and economic performance in OECD TL2 regions," ERSA conference papers ersa15p607, European Regional Science Association.
    3. Arto Haveri, 2006. "Complexity in local government change," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 31-46, March.
    4. Zack Taylor & Marcy Burchfield & Anna Kramer, 2014. "Alberta Cities at the Crossroads: Urban Development Challenges and Opportunities in Historical and Comparative Perspective," SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 7(12), May.
    5. Zack Taylor, 2016. "Good Governance at the Local Level: Meaning and Measurement," IMFG Papers 26, University of Toronto, Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance.
    6. Katarina Roos & Anders Lidström, 2014. "Local policies and local government legitimacy. The Swedish case," Urban Research & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 137-152, July.
    7. Enid Slack & Richard M. Bird, 2013. "Does Municipal Amalgamation Strengthen the Financial Viability of Local Government? A Canadian Example," International Center for Public Policy Working Paper Series, at AYSPS, GSU paper1305, International Center for Public Policy, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    8. Seabright, Paul, 1996. "Accountability and decentralisation in government: An incomplete contracts model," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 61-89, January.
    9. Zachary Spicer, 2022. "Organizing Canadian Local Government," SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 1(Future of), May.
    10. Roger Keil, 2000. "Governance Restructuring in Los Angeles and Toronto: Amalgamation or Secession?," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(4), pages 758-781, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yasuyuki Nishigaki & Hideya Kato, 2016. "Yardstick Competition and Tax Competition -Intergovernmental Relations and Efficiency of Public Goods-," Proceedings of Economics and Finance Conferences 3205732, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.
    2. Mandel Philipp & Süssmuth Bernd, 2015. "Public Education, Accountability, and Yardstick Competition in a Federal System," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 15(4), pages 1679-1703, October.
    3. Benjamin Larin & Bernd Süssmuth, 2014. "Fiscal Autonomy and Fiscal Sustainability: Subnational Taxation and Public Indebtedness in Contemporary Spain," CESifo Working Paper Series 4726, CESifo.
    4. Wallace E. Oates, 2006. "On the Theory and Practice of Fiscal Decentralization," Working Papers 2006-05, University of Kentucky, Institute for Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations.
    5. Tavares Antonio F., 2018. "Municipal amalgamations and their effects: a literature review," Miscellanea Geographica. Regional Studies on Development, Sciendo, vol. 22(1), pages 5-15, March.
    6. Pranab Bardhan & Dilip Mookherjee, 1998. "Expenditure Decentralization and the Delivery of Public Services in Developing Countries," Boston University - Institute for Economic Development 90, Boston University, Institute for Economic Development.
    7. Bruno Emmanuel ONGO NKOA & Derick Ulrich YOUNDA, 2022. "L’urbanisation accroît-elle l’assiette fiscale locale dans un contexte de décentralisation en Afrique subsaharienne ?," Region et Developpement, Region et Developpement, LEAD, Universite du Sud - Toulon Var, vol. 55, pages 93-111.
    8. Keith Blackburn & Gareth Downing, 2015. "Deconcentration, Corruption and Economic Growth," Centre for Growth and Business Cycle Research Discussion Paper Series 209, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    9. Prakash Chandra Jha, 2015. "Theory of fiscal federalism: an analysis," Journal of Social and Economic Development, Springer;Institute for Social and Economic Change, vol. 17(2), pages 241-259, October.
    10. Geys, Benny & Konrad, Kai A., . "Federalism and optimal allocation across levels of governance," Chapters in Economics,, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    11. Anton Granik & Francesco Saraceno, 2012. "Institutions and growth: A simplied theory of decentralization and corruption," Documents de Travail de l'OFCE 2012-21, Observatoire Francais des Conjonctures Economiques (OFCE).
    12. Andreas P. Kyriacou & Oriol Roca-Sagalés, 2019. "Local Decentralization and the Quality of Public Services in Europe," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 145(2), pages 755-776, September.
    13. Pranab Bardhan, 2015. "State and Economic Development: The Need for a Reappraisal of the Current Literature," Working Papers id:7060, eSocialSciences.
    14. Stuti Khemani, 2010. "Decentralization by Politicians: Creation of Grants-financed Local Jurisdictions," Chapters, in: Núria Bosch & Marta Espasa & Albert Solé Ollé (ed.), The Political Economy of Inter-Regional Fiscal Flows, chapter 9, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Kis-Katos, Krisztina & Sjahrir, Bambang Suharnoko, 2017. "The impact of fiscal and political decentralization on local public investment in Indonesia," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 344-365.
    16. Stefan Voigt, 2011. "Positive constitutional economics II—a survey of recent developments," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 146(1), pages 205-256, January.
    17. Fan, C. Simon & Lin, Chen & Treisman, Daniel, 2009. "Political decentralization and corruption: Evidence from around the world," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(1-2), pages 14-34, February.
    18. Miriam Hortas-Rico & Vicente Rios, 2020. "Is there an optimal size for local governments? A spatial panel data model approach," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(7), pages 958-973, July.
    19. Thomaz M. F. Gemignani & Ricardo de Abreu Madeira, 2013. "Political Learning and Officials’ Motivations: An Empirical Analysis of the Education Reform in the State of São Paulo," Working Papers, Department of Economics 2013_16, University of São Paulo (FEA-USP).
    20. Enikolopov, Ruben & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2007. "Decentralization and political institutions," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(11-12), pages 2261-2290, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:clh:resear:v:16:y:2023:i:3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Bev Dahlby (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/spcalca.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.