Inter-municipal Cooperation and Austerity Policies: Obstacles or Opportunities?

  • Ringa Raudla
  • António F. Tavares
Chapter
Part of the Governance and Public Management book series (GPM)

Abstract

The profound challenges experienced by European countries as a consequence of the fiscal crisis, combined with the increase in the scope, size, and diversity of inter-municipal cooperation (IMC), justify a closer look at whether and how austerity policies have shaped the developments of IMC across different countries. Has IMC become more prevalent in countries affected by the fiscal crisis? Have austerity policies presented obstacles or opportunities for IMC initiatives? We conducted a survey of experts in 11 selected countries, including both countries that were hit hard by the fiscal crisis and implemented extensive austerity policies and countries where IMC is known to be or becoming prevalent. The results of this exploratory analysis indicate that in five of the countries included in our sample (Italy, Portugal, Iceland, the Netherlands, and the UK), IMC has emerged as a solution to deal better with fiscal stress.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the country experts for answering the survey questions and Pawel Swianiewicz and Filipe Teles for the careful review and suggestions. This research received funding from the project “SmartEGOV: Harnessing EGOV for Smart Governance (Foundations, methods, Tools) /NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000037”, supported by Norte Portugal Regional Operational Programme (NORTE 2020), under the PORTUGAL 2020 Partnership Agreement, through the European Regional Development Fund, from the Portuguese Science and Technology Foundation (Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia) [Grant n.° PEst-OE/CJP/UI0758/2014], and from the Estonian Research Council Grant PUT-1142.

References

  1. Allers, M. A., & van Ommeren, B. (2016). Inter-municipal cooperation, municipal amalgamation and the price of credit. Local Government Studies, 42(5), 717–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Behn, R. D. (1985). Cutback budgeting. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 4(2), 155–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bel, G., Dijkgraaf, E., Fageda, X., & Gradus, R. (2010). Similar problems, different solutions: Comparing refuse collection in The Netherlands and Spain. Public Administration, 88(2), 479–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bel, G., & Fageda, X. (2010). Empirical analysis of solid management waste costs: Some evidence from Galicia, Spain. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54, 187–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bel, G., Fageda, X., & Mur, M. (2013). Why do municipalities cooperate to provide local public services? An empirical analysis. Local Government Studies, 39(3), 435–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bel, G., & Warner, M. E. (2015a). Factors explaining inter-municipal cooperation in service delivery: A meta-regression analysis. Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 2015, 1–25.Google Scholar
  7. Bel, G., & Warner, M. E. (2015b). Inter-municipal cooperation and costs: Expectations and evidence. Public Administration, 93(1), 52–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bolgherini, S. (2014). Can austerity lead to recentralisation? Italian government during the economic crisis. Southern European Society and Politics, 19(2), 193–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bolgherini, S. (2016). Crisis-driven reforms and local discretion: An assessment of Italy and Spain. Italian Political Science Review, 46(1), 71–91.Google Scholar
  10. Caiden, N. (1981). Public budgeting amidst uncertainty and instability. Public Budgeting & Finance, 1(1), 6–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cepiku, D., Mussari, R., & Giordano, F. (2016). Local governments managing austerity: Approaches, determinants, and impact. Public Administration, 94(1), 223–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark, T. N., & Ferguson, L. C. (1983). City money: Political processes, fiscal strain and retrenchment. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Council of Europe. (2010). Inter-municipal cooperation tool kit. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe/UNDP and LGI.Google Scholar
  14. de Sousa, L. (2013). Understanding European cross-border cooperation: A framework for analysis. Journal of European Integration, 35(6), 669–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dijkgraaf, E., & Gradus, R. H. J. M. (2013). Cost advantage cooperations larger than private waste collectors. Applied Economics Letters, 20, 702–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dunsire, A., & Hood, C. (1989). Cutback management in public bureaucracies: Popular theories and observed outcomes in whitehall. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Feiock, R. C. (2013). The institutional collective action framework. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 397–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hallerberg, M., Strauch, R., & von Hagen, J. (2009). Fiscal governance in Europe. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heinelt, H., & Hlepas, N.-K. (2006). Typologies of local government systems. In H. Bäck, H. Heinelt, & A. Magnier (Eds.), The European mayor: Political leaders in the changing context of local democracy. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  20. Homsy, G. C., & Warner, M. E. 2014. Inter-municipal cooperation: The growing reform. In The municipal yearbook 2014 (pp. 53–65). Washington, DC: International City County Management Association.Google Scholar
  21. Hood, C. (2011). The blame game: Spin, bureaucracy, and self-preservation in government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Jimenez, B. S. (2009). Fiscal stress and the allocation of expenditure responsibilities between state and local governments: An exploratory study. State and Local Government Review, 41(2), 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Keeler, J. T. S. (1993). Opening the window for reform: Mandates, crises and extraordinary policymaking. Comparative Political Studies, 25(4), 433–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kingdon, J. (1984). Agendas, alternatives and public policy. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  25. Kristinsson, G. H., & Matthíasson, P. B. (2016). Managing the financial crisis. In C. Greve, P. Laegreid, & L. H. Rykkja (Eds.), Nordic administrative reforms: Lessons from public management (pp. 169–188). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ladner, A., & Soguel, N. (2015). Managing the crises—How did local governments react to the financial crisis in 2008 and what explains the differences? The case of Swiss municipalities. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 81(4), 752–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lee, Y., Lee, I. W., & Feiock, R. C. (2012). Interorganizational collaboration networks in economic development policy: An exponential random graph model analysis. Policy Studies Journal, 40(3), 547–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Levine, C. H. (1979). More on cutback management: Hard questions for hard times. Public Administration Review, 39(2), 179–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Levine, C. H., & Posner, P. L. (1981). The centralizing effects of austerity on the intergovernmental system. Political Science Quarterly, 96(1), 67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Magre, J., & Bertrana, X. (2007). Exploring the limits of institutional change: The direct election of mayors in Western Europe. Local Government Studies, 33(2), 181–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Morgan, D. R., & Pammer, W. J. (1988). Coping with fiscal stress predicting the use of financial management practices among US cities. Urban Affairs Review, 24(1), 69–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mouritzen, P. E. (1992). Managing cities in austerity: Urban fiscal stress in ten western countries. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Overmans, T., & Timm-Arnold, K.-P. (2016). Managing austerity: Comparing municipal austerity plans in the Netherlands and North Rhine-Westphalia. Public Management Review, 18(7), 1043–1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peters, B. G., Pierre, J., & Randma-Liiv, T. (2011). Global financial crisis, public administration and governance: Do new problems require new solutions? Public Organization Review, 11(1), 13–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pollitt, C. (2010). Cuts and reforms. Public services as we move into a new era. Society and Economy, 32(1), 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Raudla, R. (2010). Governing budgetary commons: What can we learn from Elinor Ostrom? European Journal of Law and Economics, 30(3), 201–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Raudla, R., Douglas, J. W., Randma-Liiv, T., & Savi, R. (2015a). The impact of fiscal crisis on decision-making processes in European governments: Dynamics of a centralization cascade. Public Administration Review, 75(6), 842–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Raudla, R., Douglas, J. W., Savi, R., & Randma-Liiv, T. (2016). Fiscal crisis and expenditure cuts the influence of public management practices on cutback strategies in Europe. The American Review of Public Administration. doi: 10.1177/0275074016661029.
  40. Raudla, R., & Savi, R. (2015). The use of performance information in cutback budgeting. Public Money & Management, 35(6), 409–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Raudla, R., Savi, R., & Randma-Liiv, T. (2015b). Cutback management literature in the 1970s and 1980s: Taking stock. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 81(3), 433–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shrestha, M. K., & Feiock, R. C. (2009). Governing U.S. metropolitan areas: Self-organizing and multiplex service networks. American Politics Research, 37(5), 801–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Soifer, H. D. (2012). The causal logic of critical junctures. Comparative Political Studies, 45(12), 1572–1597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sørensen, R. J., & Underdal, A. (1993). Coping with poverty: The impact of fiscal austerity on the local budgetary process in Norway. Scandinavian Political Studies, 16(1), 49–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Swianiewicz, P. (2010). Territorial fragmentation as a problem, consolidation as a solution? In P. Swianiewicz (Ed.), Territorial consolidation reforms in Europe. Budapest: OSI/LGI.Google Scholar
  46. Swianiewicz, P., Gendźwiłł, A., Krukowska, J., Lackowska, M., & Picej, A. (2016). Współpraca międzygminna w Polsce. Związek z rozsądku. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.Google Scholar
  47. Tang, S.-Y., Callahan, R. F., & Pisano, M. (2014). Using common-pool resources principles to design local government fiscal sustainability. Public Administration Review, 74(6), 791–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tarschys, D. (1983). The scissors crisis in public finance. Policy Sciences, 15(3), 205–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tavares, A. F. (2015). Reformas Territoriais: Fusões de Municípios e Cooperação Inter-municipal. In L. de Sousa, A. F. Tavares, N. F. da Cruz, & S. Jorge (Eds.), A Reforma do Poder Local em Debate (pp. 129–135). Lisboa: Imprensa de Ciências Sociais.Google Scholar
  50. Teles, F. (2016). Local governance and inter-municipal cooperation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wolman, H. (1986). Innovation in local government and fiscal austerity. Journal of Public Policy, 6(2), 159–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zafra-Gómez, J. L., Prior, D., Díaz, A. M. P., & López-Hernández, A. M. (2013). Reducing costs in times of crisis: Delivery forms in small and medium sized local governments’ waste management services. Public Administration, 91(1), 51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ringa Raudla
    • 1
  • António F. Tavares
    • 2
  1. 1.Ragnar Nurkse School of Innovation and GovernanceTallinn University of TechnologyTallinnEstonia
  2. 2.Research Center in Political Science, School of Economics and ManagementUniversity of MinhoBragaPortugal

Personalised recommendations