IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/oec/govaab/2015-2-en.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Municipal Fragmentation and Economic Performance of OECD TL2 Regions

Author

Listed:
  • David Bartolini

    (OECD)

Abstract

The present work investigates the relationship between municipal fragmentation and regional per capita GDP growth rate, using a panel of OECD TL2 regions in the period 1996-2011. According to the fiscal decentralisation literature, fragmentation should enhance growth as local government closer to citizens can implement policies that better match their needs, thus providing services and public goods in a more efficient way. The presence of many local governments, however, may create problems in terms of overlapping functions, (dis)economies of scale, and policy fragmentation. The results of the empirical analysis show that municipal fragmentation has a negative impact on per capita GDP growth, thus supporting the view that costs prevail on benefits. The introduction of regional territorial characteristic – namely, the share of population living in rural areas – provides a different picture, however. The negative impact of fragmentation decreases with the share of population living in rural areas. Indeed, in extremely “rural” regions the effect turns mildly positive. This is because the costs and benefits of fragmentation have a different weight in urban and rural regions. The key insight is the different distribution of the population over the territory: more concentrated in urban than in rural regions. This implies that, for a given level of municipal fragmentation overlapping of function is more severe in urban regions (where people are likely to commute over municipal boundaries) than in rural area. In the same vein, for the same level of municipal fragmentation access to the local government is more difficult in rural areas (where people is sparsely located within municipal boundaries) than in urban areas. The policy implications of the analysis are twofold. Firstly, reducing municipal fragmentation may have a heterogeneous impact within the country, thus raising concern for one-size-fits-all policies of municipal agglomeration in favour of a place-based approach to institutional reform. For instance, the principle guiding municipal amalgamation should not be the average municipal size at the country level, but it should be weighted for the rural/urban characteristics of each region. Secondly, the analysis suggests that processes of agglomeration of people should be accompanied by a consistent amalgamation of the local administration, otherwise representing an obstacle to the full realisation of agglomeration economies.

Suggested Citation

  • David Bartolini, 2015. "Municipal Fragmentation and Economic Performance of OECD TL2 Regions," OECD Regional Development Working Papers 2015/2, OECD Publishing.
  • Handle: RePEc:oec:govaab:2015/2-en
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jrxqs60st5h-en
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Iimi, Atsushi, 2005. "Decentralization and economic growth revisited: an empirical note," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 449-461, May.
    2. Williamson, Oliver E., 2010. "Transaction Cost Economics: The Natural Progression," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 86(3), pages 215-226.
    3. Ben R. Craig & William E. Jackson & James B. Thomson, 2004. "On SBA-guaranteed lending and economic growth," Working Papers (Old Series) 0403, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.
    4. repec:kap:iaecre:v:10:y:2004:i:4:p:257-264 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Zhang, Tao & Zou, Heng-fu, 1998. "Fiscal decentralization, public spending, and economic growth in China," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 221-240, February.
    6. Daniel Treisman, 2006. "Fiscal Decentralization, Governance, And Economic Performance: A Reconsideration," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(2), pages 219-235, July.
    7. Akai, Nobuo & Sakata, Masayo, 2002. "Fiscal decentralization contributes to economic growth: evidence from state-level cross-section data for the United States," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 93-108, July.
    8. Rudiger Ahrend & Emily Farchy & Ioannis Kaplanis & Alexander Lembcke, 2014. "What Makes Cities More Productive? Evidence on the Role of Urban Governance from Five OECD Countries," OECD Regional Development Working Papers 2014/5, OECD Publishing.
    9. Koichi Futagami & Junko Doi, 2004. "Commodity Taxation and Economic Growth," The Japanese Economic Review, Japanese Economic Association, vol. 55(1), pages 46-55.
    10. Acemoglu,Daron & Robinson,James A., 2009. "Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521671422, June.
    11. Thornton, John, 2007. "Fiscal decentralization and economic growth reconsidered," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 64-70, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ahrend, Rudiger & Farchy, Emily & Kaplanis, Ioannis & Lembcke, Alexander C., 2016. "What Makes Cities More Productive? Evidence from 5 OECD Countries on the Role of Urban Governance," Beiträge zur Jahrestagung 2016 (Witten/Herdecke) 175187, Verein für Socialpolitik, Ausschuss für Wirtschaftssysteme und Institutionenökonomik.
    2. Bartolini, David & Santolini, Raffaella, 2017. "Political institutions behind good governance," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 68-85.
    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. repec:bla:jregsc:v:57:y:2017:i:3:p:385-410 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    Keywords

    institutions; local governments; regional growth;

    JEL classification:

    • R11 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Regional Economic Activity: Growth, Development, Environmental Issues, and Changes
    • R50 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:oec:govaab:2015/2-en. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/teoecfr.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.