Studia i Prace WNEiZ US

Previously: Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego. Studia i Prace WNEiZ

ISSN: 2450-7733     eISSN: 2300-4096    OAI    DOI: 10.18276/sip.2016.46/2-04
CC BY-SA   Open Access   CEEOL

Issue archive / nr 46/2 2016
(City-county consolidation – international expiriences review)

Authors: Marian Kachniarz
Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny we Wrocławiu
Keywords: local government territorial structure reform city-county consolidation
Data publikacji całości:2016
Page range:12 (45-56)
Klasyfikacja JEL: H11 H21 H72
Cited-by (Crossref) ?:


The reforms of local government are part of a trend to increase the efficiency of the public sector. In addition to functional changes, concerning eg. Increasing the flexibility and organizational independence, these reforms often apply to changes in the territorial structure. In the last 30-year wave of units consolidation swept through the world. As a result, motivated by economies of scale trend of increasing the size of local government units, it is the most common method of structural reforms. The article has two goals – the first is the characteristics of a specific category of such actions, involving the merger of the two levels of local government – municipalities (city) and county (county). The second objective is to try to assess such actions through the prism of the results. Article is based on the analysis of research ex-post reports impact of such reforms in many countries of the world. Results of the analysis do not give a definite answer, that consolidation efforts, bring established by reformers effects.
Download file

Article file


1.Bel, G. (2013). Local government size and efficiency in capital – intensive services: what evidence is there of economies of scale, density and scope? W: S. Lago-Peńas & J. Martinez-Vazquez (red.), The Challenge of Local Government Size. Edward Elgar Publishing.
2.Brierly, A.B. (2004). Issues of Scale and Transaction Costs in City-County Consolidation. W: J.B. Carr, R.C. Feiock (red.), City County Consolidation and Its Alternatives. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.
3.Byoungik, M. (2013). The Effect of City-County Consolidation in South Korea. Aurburn: The Aurburn University.
4.Cain, B. (2009). The Impact of City-County Consolidation on Local Government Finances. Capstone Paper, Spring.
5.Callanan, M., Murphy, R., Quinlivan, A. (2014). The Risk of Intuition: Size, Cost and Economies of Scale in Local Government. The Economic and Social Review, 3 (45).
6.Caprio, R., Pfeiffer, M. (2014). Size May Not be the Issue: An Analysis of Cost of Local Government and Municipal Size in New Jersey. Local Government Research Center, Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Research Paper No. 1, Rutgers University.
7.Carr, J.B. (2004). Perspectives of City-County Government Consolidation and Its Alternatives. W: J.B. Carr, R.C. Feiock (red.), City County Consolidation and Its Alternatives. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.
8.Dollery, B., Crase, L., Johnson, A. (2006). Australian Local Government Economics. Sydney: UNSW Press.
9.Durning, D., Nobbie, P. (2000). Post-Transition Employeee Perspectives of City-County Unification: the Case of Athens-Clark County. Public Administration Quarterly.
10.Gamrat, F., Jake, H. (2005). Merging Governments: Lessons from Louisville, Indianapolis and Philadelphia. Allegheny Institute for Public Policy.
11.Hardy, P. (2012). The Consolidation of City and County Governments: A Look at the History and Outcome-Based Research of These Efforts. The University of Tennessee.
12.Holzer, M., Fry, J. (2009). Lirterature Review and Analysisi Related to Optimal Service Delivery Arrangements and Local Government Efficiency. Newark: Rutgers.
13.Jung-Ho, K., Smith, P. (2006). Consolidating Local Governments and Metropolitan Governance in Korea. W: E. Razin, P.J. Smith, Metropolitan Governing, Canadian Cases, Comparative Lessons. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press.
14.Kachniarz, M. (2012). Konsolidacja struktur administracyjnych – teoria i praktyka. Zeszyty Naukowe Wyższej Szkoły Bankowej w Poznaniu, 41.
15.Kachniarz, M. (2004). Kooperatywność samorządów lokalnych, Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, 339.
16.Kieżun, W. (2004). Struktury i kierunki zarządzania państwem. W: W. Kieżun, J. Kubin (red.), Dobre państwo. Warszawa: WSPiZ.
17.Koudelka, Z. (2003). Průvodce územní samosprávou po 1.1.2003. Praha: Linde.
18.Leland, S., Thurmaier, K. (2000). Metropolitan Consolidation Success: Returning to the Roots of Local Government Reform. Public Administration Quarterly.
19.North D.C. (1994). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20.Parr, J. i in. (2006). Guide to Successful Local Government Collaboration in America’s Regions: A Report from NLC’s CityFuture’s Program, National League of Cities. Washington.
21.Pineda, Ch. (2005). City County Consolidation and Diseconomies of Scale: Summary of Selected Literature. Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation. Harvard.
22.Selden, S., Campbell, R. (2000). The Expediture Impacts of Unification in a Small Georgia County: A Contigency Perspective of City-County Consolidation. Public Administration Quarterly, 24 (2), 169–201.
23.Stanley, S. (1992). Bigger Is Not Better: The Virtues of Decentralized Local Government. Cato Policy Analysis No. 166. Washington: Cato Institute.
24.Stanley, S. (2008). Consolidation is No Way to Streamline Government. Fishers: Indiana Township Association.
25.Swianiewicz, P. (2015). Reformy terytorialne – europejskie doświadczenia ostatniej dekady, Samorząd Terytorialny, 6.
26.White, S. (2002). Cooperation Not Consolidation: The Answer for Milwaukee Governance. Milwaukee: Wisconsin Policy Research Institute Report 15.
27.Wollmann, K., (2011). Reorganizing Local Government: Between Territorial Consolidation and Two-tier Intermunicipality. Croatian and Comparative Public Administration, 11 (3).