[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/clh/resear/v15y2022.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Organizing Canadian Local Government

Author

Listed:
  • Zachary Spicer

    (York University)

Abstract
There is no one-size-fits all approach to organizing local governments in Alberta. Ultimately, communities will decide on the governance model that best suits their needs. A number of factors must be considered when determining which municipal governance arrangement works best for a given community. It’s not a straight- forward decision where one model stands out over another. This paper examines the three main models, using examples from across Canada, to look at their pros and cons. Those in decision-making roles about municipal governance in Alberta should consider the comparative perspective presented in this paper if they’re concerned with reforming their own models. The broad municipal governance models examined are single-tier, two-tier and self- organizing. However, they are not mutually exclusive. Self-organizing mechanisms are widely used throughout Canada in both single-tier and two-tier governments. Single-tier models have a single local government that is responsible for providing all municipal services within a geographic boundary. While this provides for equity in servicing and set lines of authority and accountability, it is rarely the case that a single-tier government encompasses its entire metropolitan region. This results in fragmented systems that require co-ordination and co-operation to control externalities. Toronto does not even cover all of its metropolitan or economic region. Two-tier models have an upper tier government that shares responsibility with lower tier governments. This allows the different governments to provide services for which they are best suited. However, multiple levels of government can result in inefficiencies and confusion when it comes to electing officials. Both Ontario and B.C. offer good examples of two-tier governance. Self-organizing models involve interlocal co-operation and co-ordination, allowing municipalities to partner for servicing or to work together on projects that benefit all participants. While research has shown that this works well for larger municipalities, more research is needed, particularly in Alberta, on the effectiveness in smaller communities outside of the major metropolitan areas. This comparative analysis provides examples from Canada that work well for those particular communities and examines the advantages and disadvantages of each model based on a set of standard political and economic factors to ensure the comparisons are equitable. Policy-makers must take into consideration each community’s unique features to determine which governance model would be best suited for the municipality in question.

Suggested Citation

  • Zachary Spicer, 2022. "Organizing Canadian Local Government," SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 1(Future of), May.
    • Handle: RePEc:clh:resear:v:15:y:2022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/AM.OrgCdnLocGovt.Spicer.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Harvey Schwartz, 2001. "The Financial Implications Of Amalgamation: The Case Of The City Of Toronto," Working Papers 2001_01, York University, Department of Economics.
    2. Sylvie Charlot & Sonia Paty & Virginie Piguet, 2015. "Does Fiscal Cooperation Increase Local Tax Rates in Urban Areas?," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(10), pages 1706-1721, October.
    3. Zachary Spicer, 2014. "Too Big, Yet Still Too Small: The Mixed Legacy of the Montréal and Toronto Amalgamations," IMFG Perspectives 05, University of Toronto, Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance.
    4. Fox, William F. & Gurley, Tami, 2006. "Will consolidation improve sub-national governments ?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3913, The World Bank.
    5. Enid Slack & Richard M. Bird, 2013. "Merging Municipalities: Is Bigger Better?," IMFG Papers 14, University of Toronto, Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance.
    6. Mariona Tomàs, 2012. "Exploring the Metropolitan Trap: The Case of Montreal," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(3), pages 554-567, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kimberly Jones & Mukesh Khanal & Kevin McQuillan, 2024. "Assessing the Viability of Smaller Municipalities: The Alberta Model," SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 17(04), March.
    2. Sandeep Agrawal & Cody Gretzinger, 2023. "Local Governance in Alberta: Principles, Options and Recommendations," SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 16(3), January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Roesel, Felix, 2017. "Do mergers of large local governments reduce expenditures? – Evidence from Germany using the synthetic control method," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 22-36.
    2. Enid Slack & Richard M. Bird, 2013. "Merging Municipalities: Is Bigger Better?," IMFG Papers 14, University of Toronto, Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance.
    3. Edoardo Di Porto & Vincent Merlin & Sonia Paty, 2013. "Cooperation among local governments to deliver public services : a "structural" bivariate response model with fixed effects and endogenous covariate," Working Papers halshs-00787600, HAL.
    4. Daniel Henstra & Jason Thistlethwaite, 2017. "Climate Change, Floods, and Municipal Risk Sharing in Canada," IMFG Papers 30, University of Toronto, Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance.
    5. Blesse, Sebastian & Baskaran, Thushyanthan, 2016. "Do municipal mergers reduce costs? Evidence from a German federal state," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 54-74.
    6. Bob Baldwin, 2015. "Municipal Employee Pension Plans in Canada: An Overview," IMFG Papers 23, University of Toronto, Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance.
    7. Wei Tang & Geoffrey J.D. Hewings, 2017. "Do city–county mergers in China promote local economic development?," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 25(3), pages 439-469, July.
    8. David Agrawal & Marie-Laure Breuillé & Julie Le Gallo, 2020. "Tax competition with intermunicipal cooperation," Post-Print hal-02949334, HAL.
    9. Feld, Lars P. & Fritz, Benedikt, 2015. "The political economy of municipal amalgamation: Evidence of common pool effects and local public debt," Freiburg Discussion Papers on Constitutional Economics 15/10, Walter Eucken Institut e.V..
    10. Edoardo di Porto & Angela Parenti & Sonia Paty, 2024. "Integration and voter participation: Evidence from local governments in France," Working Papers 2409, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    11. repec:dgr:rugsom:14019-eef is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Scorsone, Eric, 2007. "School District and Municipal Reorganization: Research Findings & Policy Proposals," Staff Paper Series 6543, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    13. Roy Bahl, 2017. "Metropolitan city finances in Asia and the Pacific region: issues, problems and reform options," MPDD Working Paper Series WP/17/04, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP).
    14. Ha T.T. Vu & Robert D. Ebel, 2014. "Rural Roads: Multi-Tier Monitoring of Infrastructure: Top Down and Bottom Up," International Center for Public Policy Working Paper Series, at AYSPS, GSU paper1414, International Center for Public Policy, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    15. Touria Jaaidane & Sophie Larribeau & Matthieu Leprince, 2024. "Inter-municipal cooperation and public employment: evidence from French municipalities," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 72(3), pages 987-1014, March.
    16. Hans Pitlik & Klaus Wirth & Barbara Lehner, 2010. "Gemeindestruktur und Gemeindekooperation," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 41359.
    17. Baskaran, Thushyanthan & Blesse, Sebastian, 2019. "Subnational border reforms and economic development in Africa," ZEW Discussion Papers 18-027, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research, revised 2019.
    18. Alexander Klein & Guy Tchuente, 2020. "Spatial Differencing for Sample Selection Models with Unobserved Heterogeneity," Papers 2009.06570, arXiv.org.
    19. Banaszewska, Monika & Bischoff, Ivo & Bode, Eva & Chodakowska, Aneta, 2022. "Does inter-municipal cooperation help improve local economic performance? – Evidence from Poland," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    20. Roy Bahl & Geeta Sethi & Sally Wallace, 2009. "West Bengal: Fiscal Decentralization to Rural Governments: Analysis and Reform Options," International Center for Public Policy Working Paper Series, at AYSPS, GSU paper0907, International Center for Public Policy, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    21. Clémence Tricaud, 2019. "Better alone? Evidence on the costs of intermunicipal cooperation," Economics Working Paper from Condorcet Center for political Economy at CREM-CNRS 2019-12-ccr, Condorcet Center for political Economy.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:clh:resear:v:15:y:2022. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Bev Dahlby (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/spcalca.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.