The structure of local government in England and Wales is evaluated on the basis of public-choice theories concerning structural effects on performance. The concepts of fragmentation and concentration are applied to changes in the pattern of top-tier units since 1831. For most of this period the structure of this set of authorities became much less fragmented and more concentrated. Public-choice theory suggests that the net effect of these changes is likely to have been a reduction in the allocative and technical efficiency of service provision.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarlowM, 1995, “Greater Manchester: Conurbation, complexity and local government structure”Political Geography14379–400
2.
BishROstromV, 1973Understanding Urban Government (American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington, DC)
3.
BishRWarrenR, 1972, “Scale and monopoly problems in urban public service”Urban Affairs Quarterly897–122
4.
BoyneG A, 1992, “Local government structure and performance: Lessons from America?”Public Administration70333–357
5.
BoyneG A, 1995, “Population size and economies of scale in local government”Policy and Politics23213–222
6.
BoyneG A, 1996, “Competition and local government: A public choice perspective”Urban Studies33703–721
7.
BrandJ, 1974Local Government Reform in England (Croom Helm, London)
8.
CarrollK, 1989, “Industrial structure and monopoly power in the federal bureaucracy: An empirical analysis”Economic Inquiry27683–703
9.
ChicoineDWaltzerL, 1985Government Structure and Local Public Finance (Oelgeschlanger, Gunn and Hain, Boston, MA)
10.
ColeM SBoyneG A, 1995, “So you think you know what local government is?”Local Government Studies21191–205
11.
ColeM SBoyneG A, 1996, “Evaluating the structure of local government: The importance of tiers”Public Policy and Administration1163–73
12.
CoxKNartowiczF, 1980, “Jurisdictional fragmentation in the American metropolis”International Journal of Urban and Regional Government4196–211
13.
DearloveJ, 1979The Reorganisation of British Local Government (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
14.
DilorenzoT, 1983, “Economic competition and political competition: An empirical note”Public Choice40203–209
15.
DowdingKJohnPBiggsS, 1994, “Tiebout: A survey of the empirical literature”Urban Studies3769–797
16.
EbertsRGronbergT, 1988, “Can competition among local governments constrain government spending?”Economic Review of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland2–9
17.
EbertsRGronbergT, 1990, “Structure, conduct and performance in the local public sector”National Tax Journal43165–173
18.
EncaouaDJacqueminA, 1980, “Degree of monopoly, indices of concentration and threat of entry”International Economic Review2187–105
19.
FischelW, 1981, “Is local government structure in large urbanised areas monopolistic or competitive?”National Tax Journal3495–104
20.
JacksonP, 1995Measures for Success in the Public SectorChartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, 3 Robert Street, London WC2N 8BH
21.
JohnPDowdingKBiggsJ, 1995, “Residential mobility in London: A micro-level test of the behavioural assumptions of the Tiebout model”British Journal of Political Science25379–397
22.
LaskiH JJenningsW IRobsonW A, (Eds), 1935A Century of Municipal Progress (Allen and Unwin, London)
23.
LeachSDavisHGameCSkelcherC, 1991After AbolitionInstitute of Local Government Studies, University of Birmingham, Birmingham
24.
LipmanV D, 1949Local Government Areas 1834–1945 (Basil Blackwell, Oxford)
25.
MartinM, 1995, “Size of municipalities, efficiency and citizen participation: A cross-European perspective”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy13441–458
26.
MidwinterA, 1992, “The review of local government in Scotland: A critical perspective”Local Government Studies1844–54
27.
NewtonK, 1982, “Is small really so beautiful? Is big really so ugly? Size, effectiveness and democracy in local government”Political Studies30190–206
28.
OstromE, 1983, “A public service approach to the study of local government structure and performance”Policy and Politics11313–341
29.
OstromVBishROstromE, 1988Local Government in the United States (Institute of Contemporary Studies Press, San Francisco, CA)
30.
ParksR, 1985, “Metropolitan structure and systematic performance: The case of police service delivery”, in Policy Implementation in Federal and Unitary States Eds HanfKToonenT, (Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht) pp 161–199
31.
PearceC, 1980The Machinery of Change in Local Government 1888–1974 (Allen and Unwin, London)
32.
RobsonW A, 1931The Development of Local Government (Macmillan, London)
33.
Royal Commission, 1969Royal Commission on Local Government in England 1966–69, Volume I. Report Cmnd 4040, Chairman The Rt.Hon.Lord Redcliffe-Maud (HMSO, London)
34.
SalmonP, 1987, “Decentralisation as an incentive scheme”Oxford Review of Economic Policy324–43
35.
SchneiderM, 1986, “Fragmentation and the growth of local government”Public Choice48255–263
36.
SchneiderM, 1989, “Intermunicipal competition, budget-maximising bureaucrats, and the level of suburban competition”American Journal of Political Science33612–628
37.
SharpeL J, 1988, “Local government reorganisation: General theory and UK practice”, in The Dynamics of Institutional Change Eds DenteBKjellbergF, (Sage, London) pp 89–129
ShepherdW, 1990The Economics of Industrial Organisation (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ)
40.
SmellieK B, 1946A History of Local Government (Allen and Unwin, London)
41.
TieboutC, 1956, “A pure theory of local expenditure”Journal of Political Economy64416–424
42.
ZaxI, 1988, “The effects of jurisdiction types and numbers on local public finance”, in Fiscal Federalism Ed. RosenH, (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL) pp 79–106
