IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/psl/moneta/202212.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Le unioni di comuni in Italia: modelli di gestione associata a confronto (The Italian "unioni di comuni": A comparison among different management models of intermunicipal cooperation)

Author

Listed:
  • Giovanna Di Ielsi

    (SOSE, Soluzioni per il Sistema Economico S.p.a.)

  • Fabio Fiorillo

    (Universita' Politecnica delle Marche)

  • Francesco Porcelli

    (Universita' degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro)

Abstract

In Italia si assiste, negli ultimi anni, a un sensibile sviluppo delle forme associative comunali. Nel 2016 il 33,36% degli oltre 6000 comuni delle regioni a statuto ordinario ha svolto almeno una funzione/servizio fondamentale attraverso l’unione di comuni. Le regioni con la piu' alta percentuale di comuni aderenti a forme associative sono: l’Emilia-Romagna con circa il 70% di comuni in unione, il Piemonte con il 46,5%. In questo articolo ci domandiamo se all’interno della forma associativa i modelli di gestione siano gli stessi o se siano differenti in termini strutturali e di performance. A nostro avviso, emergono almeno due modelli differenti: un modello che per semplicita' definiamo piemontese, nel quale le unioni sono un fenomeno che coinvolge quasi esclusivamente i piccoli comuni, e un modello emiliano-romagnolo in cui le unioni si costituiscono attorno a un comune capofila di media dimensione. La nostra analisi mira a identificare le caratteristiche che distinguono i due modelli e a capirne le differenze in termini di obiettivi perseguiti e di performance. Si analizzano in dettaglio le performance realizzate nelle seguenti funzioni: il settore sociale, la polizia locale, il servizio smaltimento rifiuti e gli asili nido. Le analisi si basano sui dati raccolti per il calcolo dei fabbisogni standard pubblicati online nel portale OpenCivitas. Recently, there has been a significant development of intermunicipal cooperation in Italy. In 2016, about the 33.36% of 6,000 municipalities in the regions with ordinary statute carried out at least one fundamental function/service through the "unioni di comuni". The regions with the highest percentage of municipalities cooperating in an "unione di comuni" are: Emilia-Romagna with about 70% of municipalities, Piedmont with 46.5%. In this paper, we wonder whether the management models within the cooperation are the same or whether they are different in terms of structure and performance. In our opinion, at least two different models emerge: a model that, for simplicity, we define "Piemontese", in which unions are a phenomenon that almost exclusively involves small municipalities, and an Emilia-Romagna model in which unions are formed around a municipality medium-sized leader. Our analysis aims to identify the characteristics that distinguish the two models and to understand the differences in terms of objectives pursued and performance. The performances achieved in the following functions are analysed in detail: the social sector, the local police, the waste disposal service and the nursery. The analyses are based on the data collected for the calculation of standard needs published online in the OpenCivitas portal.

Suggested Citation

  • Giovanna Di Ielsi & Fabio Fiorillo & Francesco Porcelli, 2022. "Le unioni di comuni in Italia: modelli di gestione associata a confronto (The Italian "unioni di comuni": A comparison among different management models of intermunicipal cooperation)," Moneta e Credito, Economia civile, vol. 75(297), pages 11-40.
    • Handle: RePEc:psl:moneta:2022:12
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://rosa.uniroma1.it/rosa04/moneta_e_credito/article/view/17740/16835
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Reingewertz, Yaniv, 2012. "Do municipal amalgamations work? Evidence from municipalities in Israel," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 240-251.
    2. Olson, Mancur, Jr, 1969. "The Principle of "Fiscal Equivalence": The Division of Responsibilities among Different Levels of Government," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 59(2), pages 479-487, May.
    3. Sabrina Iommi & Donatella Marinari, 2016. "Frammentazione comunale e spesa pubblica: una proposta di aggregazione sui sistemi locali del lavoro," ECONOMIA PUBBLICA, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2016(1), pages 107-136.
    4. Massimiliano Ferraresi & Giuseppe Migali & Leonzio Rizzo, 2018. "Does intermunicipal cooperation promote efficiency gains? Evidence from Italian municipal unions," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(5), pages 1017-1044, November.
    5. Blom-Hansen, Jens & Houlberg, Kurt & Serritzlew, Sã˜Ren & Treisman, Daniel, 2016. "Jurisdiction Size and Local Government Policy Expenditure: Assessing the Effect of Municipal Amalgamation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 110(4), pages 812-831, November.
    6. Tyrefors Hinnerich, Björn, 2009. "Do merging local governments free ride on their counterparts when facing boundary reform?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(5-6), pages 721-728, June.
    7. Brian E. Dollery & Joseph Garcea & Edward C. LeSage Jr (ed.), 2008. "Local Government Reform," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 12592.
    8. Katsuyoshi Nakazawa & Tomohisa Miyashita, 2014. "Municipality amalgamation in Japan: an examination using event history analysis," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 34(2), pages 627-633.
    9. David Bartolini, 2015. "Municipal Fragmentation and Economic Performance of OECD TL2 Regions," OECD Regional Development Working Papers 2015/2, OECD Publishing.
    10. Albert Solé-Ollé & Núria Bosch, 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, , vol. 33(3), pages 343-384, May.
    11. Blesse, Sebastian & Baskaran, Thushyanthan, 2016. "Do municipal mergers reduce costs? Evidence from a German federal state," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 54-74.
    12. Giuseppe Liddo & Michele G. Giuranno, 2020. "The political economy of municipal consortia and municipal mergers," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 37(1), pages 105-135, April.
    13. Brian E. Dollery & Lorenzo Robotti (ed.), 2008. "The Theory and Practice of Local Government Reform," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 12719.
    14. Giovanna Di Ielsi & Francesco Porcelli & Alberto Zanardi, 2016. "La valutazione dell?efficienza nelle forme associate dei Comuni italiani: la lezione dei fabbisogni standard," ECONOMIA PUBBLICA, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2016(1), pages 37-58.
    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. Juan Luis Gómez-Reino & Santiago Lago-Peñas & Jorge Martinez-Vazquez, 2021. "Evidence on economies of scale in local public service provision: a meta-analysis," Working Papers. Collection A: Public economics, governance and decentralization 2103, Universidade de Vigo, GEN - Governance and Economics research Network.
    2. Francesca Bartolacci & Rosanna Salvia & Giovanni Quaranta & Luca Salvati, 2022. "Seeking the Optimal Dimension of Local Administrative Units: A Reflection on Urban Concentration and Changes in Municipal Size," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-17, November.
    3. Roesel, Felix, 2017. "Do mergers of large local governments reduce expenditures? – Evidence from Germany using the synthetic control method," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 22-36.
    4. Luca, Davide & Modrego, Felix, 2020. "Stronger together? Assessing the causal effect of inter-municipal cooperation on the efficiency of small Italian municipalities," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 108193, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Banaszewska, Monika & Bischoff, Ivo & Bode, Eva & Chodakowska, Aneta, 2022. "Does inter-municipal cooperation help improve local economic performance? – Evidence from Poland," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    6. Clémence Tricaud, 2021. "Better Alone? Evidence on the Costs of Intermunicipal Cooperation," CESifo Working Paper Series 9000, CESifo.
    7. Harjunen, Oskari & Saarimaa, Tuukka & Tukiainen, Janne, 2021. "Political representation and effects of municipal mergers," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 72-88, January.
    8. repec:hal:journl:hal-03380333 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Clémence Tricaud, 2021. "Better Alone? Evidence on the Costs of Intermunicipal Cooperation," Working Papers hal-03380333, HAL.
    10. Davide Luca & Felix Modrego, 2021. "Stronger together? Assessing the causal effect of inter‐municipal cooperation on the efficiency of small Italian municipalities," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 261-293, January.
    11. Hitoshi Saito & Haruaki Hirota & Hideo Yunoue & Miki Miyaki, 2023. "Do municipal mergers internalise spatial spillover effects? empirical evidence from Japanese municipalities," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 70(2), pages 379-406, April.
    12. Masayoshi Hayashi & Takafumi Suzuki, 2018. "Municipal Mergers and Capitalization: Evaluating the Heisei Territorial Reform in Japan," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-1105, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    13. Blesse Sebastian & Rösel Felix, 2017. "Was bringen kommunale Gebietsreformen?: Kausale Evidenz zu Hoffnungen, Risiken und alternativen Instrumenten," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 18(4), pages 307-324, November.
    14. Hirota, Haruaki & Iwata, Kazuyuki & Tanaka, Kenta, 2022. "Is public official training effective at reducing costs? Evidence from survey data on Japanese municipal mergers," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 145-158.
    15. Hirota, Haruaki & Yunoue, Hideo, 2017. "Evaluation of the fiscal effect on municipal mergers: Quasi-experimental evidence from Japanese municipal data," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 132-149.
    16. Wei Tang & Geoffrey J.D. Hewings, 2017. "Do city–county mergers in China promote local economic development?," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 25(3), pages 439-469, July.
    17. 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.
    18. Feld, Lars P. & Fritz, Benedikt, 2015. "The political economy of municipal amalgamation: Evidence of common pool effects and local public debt," Freiburg Discussion Papers on Constitutional Economics 15/10, Walter Eucken Institut e.V..
    19. 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.
    20. Hirota, Haruaki & Yunoue, Hideo, 2020. "Public investment and the fiscal common pool problem on municipal mergers in Japan," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 124-135.
    21. Peter H Egger & Marko Koethenbuerger & Gabriel Loumeau, 2022. "Local border reforms and economic activity," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 81-102.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    cooperation among municipalities; management models;

    JEL classification:

    • H77 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - Intergovernmental Relations; Federalism
    • R50 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - General

    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:psl:moneta:2022:12. 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: Carlo D'Ippoliti (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.economiacivile.it .

    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.