Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T08:48:13.162Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Jurisdiction Size and Local Government Policy Expenditure: Assessing the Effect of Municipal Amalgamation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2016

JENS BLOM-HANSEN ,
KURT HOULBERG ,
SØREN SERRITZLEW  and
DANIEL TREISMAN
JENS BLOM-HANSEN*
Affiliation:
Aarhus University
KURT HOULBERG*
Affiliation:
KORA, Danish Institute for Local and Regional Government Research
SØREN SERRITZLEW*
Affiliation:
Aarhus University
DANIEL TREISMAN*
Affiliation:
University of California
*
Jens Blom-Hansen is Professor, Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Bartholins Alle 7, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark (jbh@ps.au.dk).
Kurt Houlberg is Director of Research, KORA, Danish Institute for Local and Regional Government Research, Købmagergade 22, 1150 Copenhagen K, Denmark (kuho@kora.dk).
Søren Serritzlew is Professor, Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Bartholins Alle 7, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark (soren@ps.au.dk).
Daniel Treisman is Professor, Department of Political Science, University of California, 4289 Bunche Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1472, USA (treisman@polisci.ucla.edu).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Across the developed world, the last 50 years have seen a dramatic wave of municipal mergers, often motivated by a quest for economies of scale. Re-examining the theoretical arguments invoked to justify these reforms, we find that, in fact, there is no compelling reason to expect them to yield net gains. Potential savings in, for example, administrative costs are likely to be offset by opposite effects for other domains. Past attempts at empirical assessment have been bedeviled by endogeneity—which municipalities amalgamate is typically nonrandom—creating a danger of bias. We exploit the particular characteristics of a recent Danish reform to provide more credible difference-in-differences estimates of the effect of mergers. The result turns out to be null: cost savings in some areas were offset by deterioration in others, while for most public services jurisdiction size did not matter at all. Given significant transition costs, the finding raises questions about the rationale behind a global movement that has already restructured local government on almost all continents.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 110 , Issue 4 , November 2016 , pp. 812 - 831
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alba, Carlos, and Navarro, Carmen. 2003. “Twenty-five Years of Democratic Local Government in Spain.” In Reforming Local Government in Europe, eds. Kersting, Norbert and Vetter, Angelika. Opladen: Leske & Budrich, 197–221.Google Scholar
Alesina, Alberto, and Spolaore, Enrico. 2003. The Size of Nations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allers, Maarten A. 2012. “Yardstick Competition, Fiscal Disparities, and Equalization.” Economics Letters 117: 4–6.Google Scholar
Allers, Maarten A., and Geertsema, J. Bieuwe. 2014. “The Effects of Local Government Amalgamation on Public Spending and Service Levels. Evidence from 15 Years of Municipal Boundary Reform.” University of Groningen, unpublished paper (http://irs.ub.rug.nl/dbi/53ad249381b25).Google Scholar
Anderson, Michelle Wilde. 2012. “Dissolving Cities.” Yale Law Journal 121: 1364–446.Google Scholar
Andrews, Rhys, Boyne, George A., Law, Jennifer, and Walker, Richard M.. 2005. “External Constraints on Local Service Standards: The Case of Comprehensive Performance Assessment in English Local Government.” Public Administration 83: 639–56.Google Scholar
Arter, David. 2012. Scandinavian Politics Today. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Baldersheim, Harald, and Rose, Lawrence E.. 2010a. “Territorial Choice: Rescaling Governance in European States.” In Territorial Choice. The Politics of Boundaries and Borders, eds. Baldersheim, Harald and Rose, Lawrence E.. Houndsmills: Palgrave, 1–20.Google Scholar
Baldersheim, Harald, and Rose, Lawrence E.. 2010b. “A Comparative Analysis of Territorial Choice in Europe – Conclusions.” In Territorial Choice. The Politics of Boundaries and Borders, eds. Baldersheim, Harald and Rose, Lawrence E.. Houndsmills: Palgrave, 234–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldersheim, Harald, and Rose, Lawrence E.. 2010c. “The Staying Power of the Norwegian Periphery.” In Territorial Choice. The Politics of Boundaries and Borders, eds. Baldersheim, Harald and Rose, Lawrence E.. Houndsmills: Palgrave, 80–101.Google Scholar
Bergstrom, Theodore C., and Goodman, Robert P.. 1973. “Private Demands for Public Goods.” The American Economic Review 63 (3): 280–96.Google Scholar
Berry, Christopher R. 2009. Imperfect Union. Representation and Taxation in Multilevel Governments. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Berry, Christopher R., and West, Martin R.. 2010. “Growing Pains: The School Consolidation Movement and Student Outcomes.” Journal of Law, Economics & Organization 26: 1–29.Google Scholar
Bhatti, Yosef, and Hansen, Kasper Møller. 2011. ”Who Marries Whom? The Influence of Societal Connectedness, Economic and Political Homogeneity, and Population Size on Jurisdictional Consolidations.” European Journal of Political Research 50 (2): 212–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bish, Robert L. 2001. Local Government Amalgamations. Discredited Nineteenth-Century Ideals Alive in the Twenty-First. C. D. Howe Institute Commentary No. 150. Toronto: C. D. Howe Institute.Google Scholar
Blom-Hansen, Jens. 2003. “Is Private Delivery of Public Services Really Cheaper? Evidence from Public Road Maintenance in Denmark.” Public Choice 115: 419–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blom-Hansen, Jens. 2010. “Municipal Amalgamations and Common Pool Problems: The Danish Local Government Reform in 2007.” Scandinavian Political Studies 33: 51–73.Google Scholar
Blom-Hansen, Jens, and Heeager, Anne. 2011. “Denmark: Between Local Democracy and Implementing Agency of the Welfare State.” In The Oxford Handbook of Local and Regional Democracy in Europe, eds. Loughlin, John, Hendriks, Frank, and Lidström, Anders. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 221–41.Google Scholar
Blom-Hansen, Jens, Houlberg, Kurt, and Serritzlew, Søren. 2014. “Size, Democracy, and the Economic Costs of Running the Political System.” American Journal of Political Science 58 (4): 790–803.Google Scholar
Boadway, Robin, and Shah, Anwar. 2009. Fiscal Federalism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bodkin, Ronald J., and Conklin, David W.. 1971. “Scale and Other Determinants of Municipal Expenditures in Ontario: A Quantitative Analysis.” International Economic Review 12: 465–81.Google Scholar
Boedeltje, Mijke, and Denters, Bas. 2010. “Step-by-Step: Territorial Choice in the Netherlands.” In Territorial Choice. The Politics of Boundaries and Borders, eds. Baldersheim, Harald and Rose, Lawrence E.. Houndsmills: Palgrave, 118–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borcherding, Thomas E., and Deacon, Robert T.. 1972. “The Demand for the Services of Non-Federal Governments.” The American Economic Review 62 (5): 891–901.Google Scholar
Boston, Jonathan, Martin, John, Pallot, June, and Walsh, Pat. 1996. Public Management: The New Zealand Model. Auckland: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boyne, George A. 1995. “Population Size and Economies of Scale in Local Government.” Policy and Politics 23 (3): 213–22.Google Scholar
Boyne, George A. 1996. Constraints, Choices and Public Policies. London: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Boyne, George A. 1998. Public Choice Theory and Local Government. A Comparative Analysis of the UK and the USA. Houndsmills: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Boyne, George A. 2002. “Concepts and Indicators of Local Authority Performance: An Evaluation of the Statutory Frameworks in England and Wales.” Public Money & Management 22: 2.Google Scholar
Boyne, George A. 2003. “Sources of Public Service Improvement: A Critical Review and Research Agenda.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13: 367–94.Google Scholar
Brennan, Geoffrey and Buchanan, James B.. 1980. The Power to Tax. Analytical Foundations of a Fiscal Constitution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Breunig, Robert, and Rocaboy, Yvon. 2008. “Per-capita Public Expenditures and Population Size: A Non-parametric Analysis using French Data,” Public Choice 136 (3-4): 429–45.Google Scholar
Brunazzo, Marco. 2010. “Italian Regionalism: A Semi-Federation is Taking Shape – Or is it?” In Territorial Choice. The Politics of Boundaries and Borders, eds. Baldersheim, Harald and Rose, Lawrence E.. Houndsmills: Palgrave, 180–98.Google Scholar
Bundgaard, Ulrik, and Vrangbæk, Karsten. 2007. “Reform by Coincidence? Explaining the Policy Process of Structural Reform in Denmark.” Scandinavian Political Studies 30: 491–520.Google Scholar
Byrnes, Joel, and Dollery, Brian. 2002. “Do Economies of Scale Exist in Australian Local Government? A Review of Research Evidence.” Urban Policy and Research 20: 391–414.Google Scholar
Cheney, Peter. 2014. “Reforming Local Government.” Eolas Magazine (http://www.eolasmagazine.ie/reforming-local-government/).Google Scholar
Christiansen, Peter Munk, and Klitgaard, Michael Baggesen. 2010. “Behind the Veil of Vagueness: Success and Failure in Institutional Reforms.” Journal of Public Policy 30: 183–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colino, Cesar, and Del Pino, Eloisa. 2011. “Spain: The Consolidation of Strong Regional Governments and the Limits of Local Decentralization.” In The Oxford Handbook of Local and Regional Democracy in Europe, eds. Loughlin, John, Hendriks, Frank, and Lidström, Anders. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 356–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, Thomas D., and Campbell, Donald T.. 1979. Quasi-Experimentation. Design & Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Dafflon, Bernard. 2013. “Voluntary Amalgamation of Local Governments: The Swiss Debate in the European Context.” In The Challenge of Local Government Size: Theoretical Perspectives, International Experience and Policy Reform, eds. Lago-Penas, S. and Martinez-Vazquez, J.. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 189–220.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A., and Tufte, Edward R.. 1973. Size and Democracy. Stanford: Standford University Press.Google Scholar
Denters, Bas, Goldsmith, Michael, Ladner, Andreas, Mouritzen, Poul Erik, and Rose, Lawrence E.. 2014. Size and Local Democracy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derksen, Wim. 1988. “Municipal Amalgamation and the Doubtful Relation between Size and Performance.” Local Government Studies 14: 31−47.Google Scholar
Dollery, Brian, and Wallis, Joe L. 2001. The Political Economy of Local Government. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Dollery, Brian, and Fleming, Euan. 2006. “A Conceptual Note on Scale Economies, Size Economies and Scope Economies in Australian Local Government.” Urban Policy and Research 24 (2): 271–82.Google Scholar
Dollery, Brian, Byrnes, Joel, and Crase, Lin. 2008. “Structural Reform in Australian Local Government.” Australian Journal of Political Science 43: 333–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunning, Thad. 2012. Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences. A Design-Based Approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fallend, Franz. 2011. “Austria: From Consensus to Competition and Participation?” In The Oxford Handbook of Local and Regional Democracy in Europe, eds. Loughlin, John, Hendriks, Frank, and Lidström, Anders. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 173–96.Google Scholar
Forde, Catherine. 2005. “Participatory Democracy or Pseudo-Participation? Local Government Reform in Ireland.” Local Government Studies 31: 137–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, Kathryn A. 1997. The Political Economy of Special-Purpose Government. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, William F., and Gurley, Tami. 2006. Will Consolidation Improve Sub-national Governments? World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3913.Google Scholar
Grossman, Guy, and Lewis, Janet I.. 2014. “Administrative Unit Proliferation.” American Political Science Review 108 (1): 196–217.Google Scholar
Hansen, Sune Welling. 2014. “Common Pool Size and Project Size: an Empirical Test on Expenditures Using Danish Municipal Mergers.” Public Choice 159: 3–21.Google Scholar
Hinnerich, Björn Tyrefors. 2009. “Do Merging Local Governments Free Ride on their Counterparts when Facing Boundary Reform?” Journal of Public Economics 93: 721–8.Google Scholar
Hirsch, Werner Z. 1959. “Expenditure Implications of Metropolitan Growth and Consolidation.” Review of Economics and Statistics 41 (3): 232–41.Google Scholar
Hlepas, Nikolaos-Komnenos. 2003. “Local Government Reform in Greece.” In. Reforming Local Government in Europe, eds. Kersting, Norbert and Vetter, Angelika. Opladen: Leske & Budrich, 221–41.Google Scholar
Hlepas, Nikos, and Getimis, Panagiotis. 2011. “Greece: A Case of Fragmented Centralism and ‘Behind the Scenes’ Localism.” In The Oxford Handbook of Local and Regional Democracy in Europe, eds. Loughlin, John, Hendriks, Frank, and Lidström, Anders. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 410–34.Google Scholar
Holzer, Marc, Fry, John, Charbonneau, Etienne, Van Ryzin, Gregg, Wang, Tiankai, and Burnash, Eileen. 2009. Literature Review and Analysis Related to Optimal Municipal Size and Efficiency. Report prepared for the Local Unit Alignment, Reorganization, and Consolidation Commission. http://www.nj.gov/dca/affiliates/luarcc/pdf/final_optimal_municipal_size_&_efficiency.pdf.Google Scholar
Hooghe, Liesbet, and Marks, Gary. 2009. “Does Efficiency Shape the Territorial Structure of Government?” Annual Review of Political Science 12: 225–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, Peter. 2010. “Larger and Larger? The Endless Search for Efficiency in the UK.” In. Territorial Choice. The Politics of Boundaries and Borders, eds. Baldersheim, Harald and Rose, Lawrence E.. Houndsmills: Palgrave, 101–18.Google Scholar
Jonsson, Ernst. 1983. “Measures Taken by Municipalities Undergoing Amalgamation.” Scandinavian Political Studies 6: 231–4.Google Scholar
Jordahl, Henrik, and Liang, Che-Yuan. 2010. “Merged Municipalities, Higher Debt: on Free-Riding and the Common Pool Problem in Politics.” Public Choice 143: 157–72.Google Scholar
Keating, Michael. 1995. “Size, Efficiency and Democracy: Consolidation, Fragmentation and Public Choice.” In Theories of Urban Politics, eds. Judge, David, Stoker, Gerry, and Wolman, Harold. London: Sage, 117–35.Google Scholar
Kerrouche, Eric. 2010. “France and Its 36,000 Communes: An Impossible Reform?” In Territorial Choice. The Politics of Boundaries and Borders, eds. Baldersheim, Harald and Rose, Lawrence E.. Houndsmills: Palgrave, 160–80.Google Scholar
Kübler, Daniel, and Ladner, Andreas. 2003. “Local Government Reform in Switzerland. More For than By – But What about Of?” In Reforming Local Government in Europe, eds. Kersting, Norbert and Vetter, Angelika. Opladen: Leske & Budrich, 137–57.Google Scholar
Ladner, Andreas. 2011. “Switzerland: Subsidiarity, Power-sharing, and Direct Democracy.” In The Oxford Handbook of Local and Regional Democracy in Europe, eds. Loughlin, John, Hendriks, Frank, and Lidström, Anders. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 196–221.Google Scholar
Lassen, David Dreyer, and Serritzlew, Søren. 2011. “Jurisdiction Size and Local Democracy: Evidence on Internal Political Efficacy from Large-scale Municipal Reform.” American Political Science Review 105 (2): 238–58.Google Scholar
Lidström, Anders 2010. “The Swedish Model under Stress: The Waning of the Egalitarian, Unitary State?” In Territorial Choice. The Politics of Boundaries and Borders, eds. Baldersheim, Harald and Rose, Lawrence E.. Houndsmills: Palgrave, 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loughlin, John. 2011. “Ireland: Halting Steps Towards Local Democracy.” In The Oxford Handbook of Local and Regional Democracy in Europe, eds. Loughlin, John, Hendriks, Frank, and Lidström, Anders. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 48–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowi, Thodore J. 1972. “Four Systems of Policy, Politics, and Choice.” Public Administration Review 32 (4): 298–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martins, M. R. 1995. “Size of Municipalities, Efficiency, and Citizen Participation: A Cross-European Perspective.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 13 (4): 441–58.Google Scholar
Mouritzen, Poul Erik, ed. 2006. Stort er Godt. Otte Fortællinger om Tilblivelsen af de nye Kommuner. Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
Mouritzen, Poul Erik. 2010. “The Danish Revolution in Local Government: How and Why?” In Territorial Choice. The Politics of Boundaries and Borders, eds. Baldersheim, Harald and Rose, Lawrence E.. Houndsmills: Palgrave, 21–41.Google Scholar
Newton, Kenneth. 1982. “Is Small Really so Beautiful? Is Big Really so Ugly? Size, Effectiveness, and Democracy in Local Government.” Political Studies 30: 190–206.Google Scholar
Oates, Wallace E. 1972. Fiscal Federalism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Oberfield, Zachary W. 2014. “Accounting for Time: Comparing Temporal and Atemporal Analyses of the Business Case for Diversity Management.” Public Administration Review, 74: 777–89.Google Scholar
OECD. 2005. OECD Territorial Reviews: Busan, Korea 2005. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
OECD. 2010. OECD Territorial Reviews: Sweden 2010. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
OECD. 2014a. OECD Territorial Reviews: Netherlands 2014. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
OECD. 2014b. OECD Regional Outlook 2014: Regions and Cities: Where Policies and People Meet. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Olson, Mancur. 1986. “Towards a More General Theory of Governmental Structure.” American Economic Review 76 (2): 120–5.Google Scholar
Ostrom, Elinor. 1972. “Metropolitan Reform: Propositions Derived from Two Traditions.” Social Science Quarterly 53 (3): 474–93.Google Scholar
O'Toole, Larry J., and Meier, Kenneth J.. 1999. “Modeling the Impact of Public Management: Implications of Structural Context.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 9: 505–26.Google Scholar
Piattoni, Simona, and Brunazzo, Marco. 2011. “Italy: The Subnational Dimension to Strengthening Democracy since the 1990s.” In The Oxford Handbook of Local and Regional Democracy in Europe, eds. Loughlin, John, Hendriks, Frank, and Lidström, Anders. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 331–56.Google Scholar
Pleschberger, Werner. 2003. “Cities and Municipalities in the Austrian Political System since the 1990s. New Developments between ‘Efficiency’ and ‘Democracy’.” In Reforming Local Government in Europe, eds. Kersting, Norbert and Vetter, Angelika. Opladen: Leske & Budrich. 113–57.Google Scholar
Sancton, A. 1996. “Reducing Costs by Consolidating Municipalities: New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Ontario.” Canadian Public Administration, 39 (3): 267–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sancton, Andrew. 2000. Merger Mania. The Assault on Local Government. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
Sandberg, Siv. 2010. “Finnish Power-Shift: The Defeat of the Periphery?” In Territorial Choice. The Politics of Boundaries and Borders, eds. Baldersheim, Harald and Rose, Lawrence E.. Houndsmills: Palgrave, 42–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santerre, Rexford E. 2009. “Jurisdiction Size and Local Public Health Spending.” Health Services Research 44 (6): 2148–66.Google Scholar
Sawyer, Malcolm C. 1991. The Economics of Industries and Firms: Theories, Evidence and Policy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Scherer, F. M. and Ross, David. 1990. Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Serritzlew, Søren. 2005. “Breaking Budgets: An Empirical Examination of Danish Municipalities.” Financial Accountability & Management 21 (4), 413–35.Google Scholar
Slack, Enid, and Bird, Richard. 2013. “Merging Municipalities: Is Bigger Better?” IMFG Papers on Municipal Finance and Governance. Toronto: University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Solé-Ollé, Albert, and Bosch, Núria. 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 33 (3): 343–84.Google Scholar
Strang, David. 1987. “The Administrative Transformation of American Education: School District Consolidation, 1938-1980.” Administrative Science Quarterly 32: 352–66.Google Scholar
Sverrisson, Sigurdur, and Hannesson, Magnús Karel. 2014. Local Governments in Iceland. Reykyavik: Association of Local Authorities in Iceland.Google Scholar
Swianiewicz, Pawel. 2010. “If Territorial Fragmentation is a Problem, is Amalgamation a Solution? An East European Perspective.” Local Government Studies 36: 183–203.Google Scholar
Tiebout, Charles M. 1956. “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditure.” Journal of Political Economy 64: 416–24.Google Scholar
Treisman, Daniel. 2007. The Architecture of Government. Rethinking Political Decentralization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tullock, Gordon. 1969. “Federalism: Problems of Scale.” Public Choice 6 (1): 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velasco, A. 2000. “Debts and Deficits with Fragmented Fiscal Policymaking.” Journal of Public Economics 76: 105–25.Google Scholar
Vetter, Angelika, and Kersting, Norbert. 2003. “Democracy versus Efficiency? Comparing Local Government Reforms across Europe.” In Reforming Local Government in Europe, eds. Kersting, Norbert and Vetter, Angelika. Opladen: Leske & Budrich, 11–29.Google Scholar
Walker, Richard M., and Andrews, Ryes. 2015. “Local Government Management and Performance: A Review of Evidence.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 25: 101–33.Google Scholar
Walter-Rogg, Melanie 2010. “Multiple Choice: The Persistence of Territorial Pluralism in the German Federation.” In Territorial Choice. The Politics of Boundaries and Borders, eds. Baldersheim, Harald and Rose, Lawrence E.. Houndsmills: Palgrave, 138–60.Google Scholar
Wayenberg, Ellen, De Rynck, Filip, Steyvers, Kristof, and Pilet, Jean-Benoit. 2011. “Belgium: A Tale of Regional Divergence?” In The Oxford Handbook of Local and Regional Democracy in Europe, eds. Loughlin, John, Hendriks, Frank, and Lidström, Anders. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 71–96.Google Scholar
Williamson, Oliver E. 1967. “Hierarchical Control and Optimum Firm Size.” Journal of Political Economy 75: 123–38.Google Scholar
Wollmann, Hellmut. 2003. “German Local Government under the Double Impact of Democratic and Administrative Reforms.” In Reforming Local Government in Europe, eds. Kersting, Norbert and Vetter, Angelika. Opladen: Leske & Budrich, 85–113.Google Scholar
Wooldridge, Jeffrey M. 2009. Introductory Econometrics. A Modern Approach. Canada: South-Western Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Zellner, Arnold. 1962. “An Efficient Method of Estimating Seemingly Unrelated Regressions and Tests for Aggregation Bias.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 57 (298): 348–68.Google Scholar
Økonomi- og Indenrigsministeriet. 2012. Kommunale Udgiftsbehov og andre Udligningsspørgsmål. Betænkning nr. 1533, Økonomi- og Indenrigsministeriet marts.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Blom-Hansen supplementary material

Appendix Tables A1-A4

Download Blom-Hansen supplementary material(File)
File 80 KB