How Does Local Government Amalgamation Affect Spending? Evidence from Louisville,Kentucky

Abstract

While local government consolidation (amalgamation) has a long history among U.S. cities and counties, few studies have provided a rigorous analysis of the impact of consolidation on spending. This article addresses this issue through analysis of the 2003 consolidation of Louisville and Jefferson County, Kentucky, USA. We use financial data on the level and share of spending by function before and after the consolidation to examine changes in inflation adjusted spending. Total spending was variable after consolidation but generally higher than in the preconsolidation period. Per capita expenditures tended to be flatter. Several spending categories (general government and administration, inspections and permits, culture and recreation) increased around the time of the consolidation and then returned to the preconsolidation spending levels. Solid waste expenditures were relatively consistent over the entire period. Spending on public safety and public works increased and remained higher after consolidation. There were changes in spending priorities with public safety and public works experiencing substantial increases and the share of spending on general administration decreasing immediately following consolidation.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baumgartner

F.R.

and Jones

B.D.

(1993) Agendas and Instability in American Politics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bennett

and Gatz

(2008) A restoring prosperity case study: Louisville, KY, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program. Accessed January 10, 2013 (http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2008/09/17-louisville-bennett-gatz).

Besley

and Case

(1995) “Incumbent behavior: Vote-seeking, tax-setting, and yardstick competition”, American Economic Review, 85 (1) 25–45.

Boyne

G.A

. (1992) “Local government structure and performance: Lessons from America?”, Public Administration, 70 (3) 332–357.

Brennan

H.G.

and Buchanan

J.M.

(1980) The Power to Tax: Analytic Foundations of a Fiscal Constitution, Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

Center for Urban and Metropolitan Policy. (2002) Beyond merger A competitive vision for the regional city of Louisville, Washington DC: The Brookings Institution.

Condrey

S.E

. (1994) “Organizational and personnel impacts on local government consolidation: Athens-Clarke County Georgia”, Journal of Urban Affairs, 16 (4) 371–383.

Dollery

Crase

and O'Keefe

(2009) “Improving efficiency in Australian local government: Structural reform as a catalyst for effective reform”, Geographical Research, 47 (3) 269–79.

Dollery

Byrnes

J.D.

and Crase

(2007) An analysis of the new perspective on amalgamation in Australian local government. AccessedMay18, 2013 (http://www.une.edu.au/clg/working-papers/02-2007.pdf).

10.

Downs

(1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.

11.

Durning

and Nobbie

P.D.

(2000) “Post-transition employee perspectives on city-county unification: The case of Athens-Clarke County”, Public Administration Quarterly, 24 (2) 140–168.

12.

Faulk

and Hicks

(2011) Local Government Consolidation in the United States, Amherst, NY: Cambria Press.

13.

Feiock

R.C

. 2004. “Do consolidation entrepreneurs make a deal with the devil?”, in Carr

J.B.

and Feiock

R.C.

(eds) City-County Consolidation and Its Alternatives Reshaping the Local Government Landscape, pp. 39–52, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

14.

Howard

and Zwart

(2000) “Local government in Tasmania: Reform and restructuring”, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 59 (3) 34–48.

15.

Johnson

J.B.

and Reynolds

H.T.

(2008) Political Science Research Methods (6th Edition). CQ Press.

Washington, D.C.

16.

Kushner

and Siegel

(2005) “Are services delivered more efficiently after municipal amalgamations?”, Canadian Public Administration, 48 (2) 251–267.

17.

Leland

S.M.

and Thurmaier

(2010) City-County Consolidation Promises Made, Promises Kept? Washington, DC: Georgetown UP.

18.

Leland

S.M.

and Thurmaier

(2006) “Lessons from 35 years of city-county consolidation attempts”, The Municipal Yearbook, pp. 3–10, Washington DC: International City-County Management Association.

19.

Liphart

(1999) Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. Yale University Press.

New Haven and London.

20.

Martin

L.L.

and Schiff

J.H.

(2011) “City-county consolidations: Promise versus performance”, State and Local Government Review, 43 (2) 167–177.

21.

Reese

L.A

. (2004) “Same governance, different day: Does metropolitan reorganization make a difference?”, Review of Policy Research, 21 (4) 595–611.

22.

Savitch

H.V

. (2011) “Analysis and comment: Task force on merger 2.0” Report submitted to Darryl T. Owens, Representative House District 42 and Member of Merger 2.0 Task Force. Nov. 9, http://hvsavitch.blogspot.com/.

23.

Savitch

H.V.

and Vogel

R. K

. (2004) “Suburbs without a city: Power and city-county consolidation”, Urban Affairs Review, 39 (6) 758–790.

24.

Savitch

H.V.

and Vogel

R. K

. (2000) “Metropolitan consolidation versus metropolitan governance in Louisville”, State and Local Government Review, 32 (3) 198–212.

25.

Selden

S.C.

and Campbell

R. W.

(2000) “The expenditure impacts of unification in a small Georgia county: A contingency perspective of city-county consolidation”, Public Administration Quarterly, 24 (2) 169–201.

26.

Steiner

(2003) “The causes and effects of intermunicipal cooperation and municipal mergers in Switzerland”, Public Management Review, 5 (4) 551–571.

27.

Tiebout

(1956) “A pure theory of local expenditures”, Journal of Political Economy, 64: 416–424.

28.

Vojnovic

(2000) “The transitional impacts of municipal consolidations”, Journal of Urban Affairs, 22 (4) 385–417.

29.

Wildavsky

and Caiden

(2001) The New Politics of the Budgetary Process, 4th ed. New York: Addison Wesley/Longman.