A common finding of studies evaluating cost-efficiency in the provision of local public services is the existence of economies of scale in the production of such services. How can smaller, less efficient local authorities overcome this position of disadvantage? According to economic theory, they should either obtain supplementary funding or otherwise reduce the quality levels of the services provided. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the relations among different dimensions of municipal performance. The above concepts are analysed in a sample composed of 923 local authorities in Spain, each with fewer than 20 000 in habitants, using a data envelopment analysis model adapted for the particular characteristics of the local environment and repeating the analysis for two different periods, 2000 and 2005, in order to increase the consistency of the results obtained. Empirical analysis shows that the financial management and the productive efficiency of small local authorities are not interrelated, with the more cost-efficient bodies (especially for quality-related costs) being the least efficient as regards their financial condition. Moreover, our analysis of cost-efficiency for the smaller municipalities shows that revenues must be increased in order to obtain a similar level of quality to that of larger authorities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AfonsoAFernandesS, 2006, “Measuring local government spending efficiency: Evidence for the Lisbon region”Regional Studies4039–53.
2.
Audit Commission, 2007Use of Resources: Guidance for Councils (Audit Commission, London).
3.
AyalaLPedrajaFSalinas-JiménezJ, 2008, “Performance measurement of local welfare programmes: Evidence from Madrid's regional government”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy26906–923.
4.
Balaguer-CollM, 2004, “La eficiencia en las administraciones locales ante diferentes medidas de output”Hacienda Pública Española17037–58.
5.
Balaguer-CollMPriorD, 2009, “Short- and long-term evaluation of efficiency and quality: An application to Spanish municipalities”Applied Economics412991–3002.
6.
Balaguer-CollMPriorDTortosa-AusinaE, 2007, “On the determinants of local government performance: A two-stage nonparametric approach”European Economic Review51425–451.
7.
Balaguer-CollMPriorDTortosa-AusinaE, 2009, “Decentralization and efficiency of local government”The Annals of Regional Studies doi:10.1007/s00168-009-0286-7.
8.
BenitoBBastidaFGarciaJ, 2010, “Explaining differences in efficiency: An application to Spanish municipalities”Applied Economics42515–528.
9.
BergstromTGoodmanR, 1973, “Private demand for public goods”American Economic Review63280–296.
10.
BorcherdingTDeaconR, 1972, “The demand for services of non-federal governments”American Economic Review62891–901.
11.
BoschNSuarez-PandielloJ, 2008, “Structural reform in Spain”, in The Theory and Practice of Local Government Reform Eds DolleryBRobottiL, (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos) chapter 13.
12.
BoschNPedrajaFSuárez-PandielloJ, 2000, “Measuring the efficiency of Spanish municipal refuse collection services”Local Government Studies2671–90.
13.
BoyneG, 1995, “Population size and economies of scale in local government”Policy and Politics23213–222.
14.
BoyneG, 1996, “Scale, performance and new public management: An empirical analysis of local authorities services”Journal of Management Studies33809–826.
15.
BoyneG, 2002, “Public and private management: What's the difference?”Journal of Management Studies3997–122.
16.
CharnesACooperWRhodesE, 1978, “Measuring the efficiency of decision-making units”European Journal of Operational Research429–444.
17.
ChristoffersenHBo LarsenK, 2007, “Economies of scale in Danish municipalities: Expenditure effects versus quality effects”Local Government Studies3377–95.
18.
CICA, 1997Indicators of Government Financial ConditionCanadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, Toronto.
DavisMHayesK, 1993, “The demand for good government”Review of Economics and Statistics75148–152.
21.
De BorgerBKerstensK, 1996a, “Cost efficiency of Belgian local governments: A comparative analysis of FDH, DEA and econometric approaches”Regional Science and Urban Economics26145–160.
22.
De BorgerBKerstensK, 1996b, “Radial and non-radial measurement of technical efficiency: An empirical illustration for Belgian local governments using an FDH reference technology”Journal of Productivity Analysis641–62.
23.
De BorgerBKerstensKMoesenWVannesteJ, 1994, “Explaining differences in productive efficiency: An application to Belgian municipalities”Public Choice80339–358.
24.
DijkgraafEGradusRMelenbergB, 2003, “Contracting out refuse collection”Empirical Economics28553–570.
25.
DolleryBCraseLByrnesJ, 2006, “Local government failure: Why does Australian local government experience permanent financial austerity?”Australian Journal of Political Science41339–353.
26.
DysonRThanassoulisE, 1988, “Reducing weight flexibility in data envelopment analysis”Journal of the Operational Research Society39563–576.
27.
EveringhamJ-ACheshireLLawrenceG, 2006, “Regional renaissance? New forms of governance in nonmetropolitan Australia”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy24139–155.
28.
Fernández-CastroASmithP, 1994, “Towards a general non-parametric model of corporate performance”OMEGA, International Journal of Management Science24229–244.
29.
FluviàMRigall-I-TorrentRGarrigaA, 2008, “Deficit en la provisión local de servicios públicos y tipología municipal”Revista de Economía Aplicada48111–132.
30.
ValiñasM GarcíaMuñizM A, 2007, “Is DEA useful in the regulation of water utilities? A dynamic efficiency evaluation”Applied Economics39245–252.
31.
Gil-RuizC LIglesiasJ, 2007, “El gasto público en España en un contexto descentralizado”Presupuesto y Gasto Público47185–206.
32.
GiménezVPriorD, 2003, “Evaluación frontera de la eficiencia en costes: Aplicación a los municipios de Cataluña”Papeles de Economía Española95113–124.
33.
GiménezVPriorD, 2007, “Long and short-term cost efficiency frontier evaluation: Evidence from Spanish local governments”Fiscal Studies26121–139.
34.
GlassJ CMcCallionGMcKillipD GRasaratnamS, 2009, “Best-practice benchmarking in UK higher education: New nonparametric approaches using financial ratios and profit efficiency methodologies”Applied Economics doi:0.1080/00036840600994278.
35.
GreenbergJHillierD, 1995, “Indicators of financial condition for governments”, paper presented at the 5th Conference of Comparative International Governmental Accounting Research Paris-Amy.
36.
GrovesMGodseyWShulmanM, 2003Evaluating Financial Condition: A Handbook of Local Government (The International City/County Management Association, Washington, DC).
37.
HebdonRJaletteP, 2008, “The restructuring of municipal services: A Canada - United States comparison”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy26144–158.
38.
HonadleB W, 2003, “The states' role in US local government fiscal crisis: A theoretical model and results of a national survey”International Journal of Public Administration261431–1472.
39.
KlohaPWeissertC SKleineR, 2005a, “Developing and testing a composite model to predict local fiscal distress”Public Administration Review65313–323.
40.
KlohaPWeissertC SKleineR, 2005b, “Someone to watch over me: State monitoring of local fiscal conditions”The American Review of Public Administration35313–323.
41.
LiQ, 1996, “Nonparametric testing of closeness between two unknown distribution functions”Econometric Reviews15261–274.
42.
LovellCAKPastorJ T, 1999, “Radial DEA models without inputs or without outputs”European Journal of Operational Research11846–51.
43.
MirallesA, 2008, “The link between service privatization and price distribution among consumer types: Municipal water services in the region of Catalonia”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy26159–172.
44.
MoisioAUusitaloR, 2002The Impact of Municipality Mergers on Local Public Expenditures in Finland (Government Institute for Economic Research, Helsinki).
45.
MooreANolanJSepalG F, 2005, “Putting out the trash: Measuring municipal services efficiency in US cities”Urban Affairs Review41237–259.
46.
MoraT, 2008, “The relationship between the capacity of the Spanish central government to retain tax-revenue shares and interregional inequality”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy26601–613.
47.
MusgraveR A, 1959The Theory of Public Finance (McGraw-Hill Kogakusha, Tokyo).
48.
NiskanenW, 1971Bureaucracy and Representative Government (Aldine Atherton, Chicago, IL).
49.
PaganAUllahA, 1999Nonparametric Econometrics, Themes in Modern Econometrics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
50.
PastorJ MTortosa-AusinaE, 2008, “Social capital and bank performance: An international comparison for OECD countries”The Manchester School76223–265.
51.
PedrajaFSalinasJSmithP, 1997, “On the role of weight restrictions in data envelopment analysis”Journal of Productivity Analysis8215–230.
52.
PrietoA MZofíoJ L, 2001, “Evaluating effectiveness in public provision of infrastructure and equipment: The case of Spanish municipalities”Journal of Productivity Analysis1541–58.
53.
PrietoA MZofíoJ LAlvarezI, 2009, “Economías de escala, densidad y alcance en la provisión pública de infraestructura básica municipal”Hacienda Publica Española/Revista de Economía Pública19059–94.
54.
Rodríguez-PoseAGillN, 2003, “The global trend towards devolution and its implications”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy21333–351.
55.
Rodríguez-PoseAGillN, 2005, “On the ‘economic dividend’ of devolution”Regional Studies39405–420.
56.
Rodríguez-PoseASandalR, 2008, “From identity to the economy: Analysing the evolution of the decentralisation discourse”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy2654–72.
57.
RollYCookWGolanyB, 1991, “Controlling factor weights in data envelopment analysis”IEE Transactions241–9.
58.
RossSYingerJ, 1998, “Sorting and voting: A review of the literature on urban public finance”, in Handbook of Urban Economics Eds CheshirePMillsE S, (North-Holland, NY) pp 2001–2060.
59.
Serrano-CincaCRueda-TomásMPortillo-TarragonaP, 2009, “Factors influencing e-disclosure in local public administrations”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy27355–378.
60.
SilkmanRYoungD R, 1982, “X-efficiency and state formula grants”National Tax Journal35383–397.
61.
SimarLZelenyukV, 2006, “On testing equality of distributions of technical efficiency scores”Econometric Reviews25497–522.
62.
SmithP, 1990, ‘Data envelopment analysis applied to financial statements”OMEGA, International Journal of Management Science18131–138.
63.
SweetingD, 2009, “The institutions of ‘strong’ local political leadership in Spain”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy27698–712.
64.
ThanassoulisE, 2001Introduction to the Theory and Application of Data Envelopment Analysis (Springer, New York).
65.
TieboutC M, 1956, “A pure theory of local expenditures”Journal of Political Economy64416–424.
66.
Vanden EeckautPTulkensHJamarM A, 1993, “Cost efficiency in Belgian municipalities”, in The Measuring of Productive Efficiency: Techniques and Applications Eds FriedH OLovellCAKSchmidtS S, (Oxford University Press, New York) pp ….
67.
WarnerMHebdonR, 2001, “Local government restructuring: Privatization and its alternatives”Journal of Policy Analysis and Management20315–336.
68.
YehQ-J, 1996, “The application of data envelopment analysis in conjunction with financial ratios for bank performance evaluation”Journal of the Operational Research Society47980–988.
69.
Zafra-GómezJ LLópez-HernandezA MHernández-BastidaA, 2009a, “Evaluating financial performance in local government: Maximising the benchmarking value”International Review of Administrative Science75151–167.
70.
Zafra-GómezJ LLópez-HernandezA MHernández-BastidaA, 2009b, “Developing an alert system for local governments in financial crisis”Public Money and Management29175–181.
71.
Zafra-GómezJ LLópez-HernandezA MHernández-BastidaA, 2009c, “Developing a model to measure financial condition in local government: Evaluating service quality and minimizing the effects of the socioeconomic environment: An application to Spanish municipalities”The American Review of Public Administration39425–449.
