Scale Economy in Local Government: Theory, Concept and Debates

Yıl 2019, , 163 - 192, 30.09.2019

Refik Yaslıkaya

https://doi.org/10.36484/liberal.612182

Cited By: 1

Öz

The scale economy thesis is one of the leading motives of the reforms that seek more economic local public services on the basis of the local government size. In case of the existence of scale economies, average costs of the output can be reduced by means of increasing the inputs in a concrete local service’s production as long as optimal size of service area isn’t exceeded. However, the usage of the scale economy thesis in the literature of local government isn’t grounded over this scenario. It is built through the expectation of saving on the costs by means of increasing local authority’s size as a geographical area or population. In other words, the scale economy which is a thesis substantially belonging to the theory of the firm is used in a decontextualized way in the area of local governments. With snatching the output from production and defining it via population, gains which arise from the size of local authority or service capacity are also called as scale gains. The first aim is being able to frame the concepts correctly. Secondly, it is emphasized that scale gains cannot be a valid approach for the whole range of local service and local government sizes. Providing findings of many field research, empirical evidences of the relationship between size and efficiency are also presented. These evidences show that the expectation of cost savings originating from the scale economy doesn’t correspond in all cases.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Scale Economy, Scope Economy, Optimum Size, Reform in Local Governments

Yerel Yönetimlerde Ölçek Ekonomisi: Teori, Kavram ve Tartışmalar

Öz

Ölçek
ekonomisi tezi, yerel kamu hizmetlerini daha ekonomik sunabilmeyi, yerel
yönetim büyüklüğünde arayan reformların temel gerekçelerinden biridir. Ölçek
ekonomilerinin varlığı halinde, somut bir yerel hizmetin üretimindeki girdileri
arttırmak suretiyle, çıktının marjinal maliyetleri düşürülebilir. Ancak, ölçek ekonomisi
tezinin yerel yönetim literatüründeki kullanımı, bu senaryo üzerinden
temellendirilmez. Yerel otoritenin büyüklüğünün, coğrafi alan ya da nüfus
olarak arttırılması suretiyle, maliyetlerde tasarruf sağlama beklentisi üzerinden
kurgulanır. Başka bir deyişle, esasen firma teorisine ait bir tez olan ölçek
ekonomisi, yerel yönetimler alanında bağlamından koparılmak suretiyle
kullanılır. Çıktının üretimden koparılıp, nüfus üzerinden tanımlanması yanında,
yerel otoritenin boyutundan ya da hizmet sunma kapasitesinden kaynaklanan
kazançlar da ölçek kazançları olarak adlandırılır. Bu çalışmanın ilk amacı
kavramları doğru bir çerçeveye oturtabilmektir. İkinci olarak ölçek
kazançlarının tüm yerel hizmet yelpazesi ve tüm yerel yönetim büyüklükleri için
geçerli bir yaklaşım olamayacağı vurgulanmıştır. Ayrıca, yerel yönetimlerde
ölçek ekonomisi tezine yönelik pek çok alan araştırmasının bulgularına çalışma
içinde yer verilerek, büyüklük ve verimlilik ilişkisinin deneysel kanıtları
ortaya konmaya çalışılmıştır. Bu kanıtlar, ölçek ekonomisi kaynaklı maliyet
tasarrufları beklentisinin her durumda karşılığı olmadığını göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Ölçek ekonomisi, kapsam ekonomisi, optimum büyüklük, yerel yönetimde reform

Kaynakça

• Allan AM, P. (2003). Why Smaller Councils Make Sense. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 62(3), 74-81.
• Allers, M. A., & Geertsema, J. (2016). The Effects of Local Government Amalgation on Public Spending, Taxation and Service Levels. Evidence From 15 Years of Municipal Consolidation. Journal of Regional Science, 56(4), 659-682.
• Baldersheim, H., & Rose, L. E. (2010). Territorial Choice: Rescaling Governance in European States. H. Baldersheim, & L. E. Rose içinde, Territorial Choice. The Politics of Boundaries and Borders (s. 1-20). London: Palgrave MacMillan.
• Bel, G. (2012). Local Government Size and Efficiency in Capital Intensive Services: What Evidence is There of Economies of Scale, Density and Scope? Atlanta Georgia: George State University: International Center for Public Policy.
• Bel, G., & Costas, A. (2006). Do Public Sector Reforms Get Rusty? Local Privatization in Spain. The Journal of Policy Reform, 9(1), 1-24.
• Bikker, J., & Van Der Linde, D. (2016). Scale economies in local public administration. Local Government Studies, 42(3), 441-463.
• Bish, R. L. (2001). ‘Local government amalgamations: Discredited nineteen-century ideas alive in the twenty-first. C.D. Howe Institute Commentary (The Urban Papers), 150.
• Blesse, S., & Baskaran, T. (2016). Do municipal mergers reduce costs? Evidence from a German federal state. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 59, 54-74.
• Blom-Hansen, J., Houlberg, K., & Serritzlew, S. (2014). Size, Democracy and the Economic Costs of Running the Political System. American Journal of Political Science, 58(4), 790-803.
• Blom-Hansen, J., Houlberg, K., Serritzlew, S., & Treisman, D. (2016). Jurisdiction Size and Local Government Policy Expenditure: Assessing the Effect of Municipal Amalgamation. American Political Science Review, 110(4), 812-831.
• Bodkin, R. G., & Conklin, D. W. (1971). Scale and Other Determinants of Municipal Government Expenditures in Ontario: A Quantitative Analysis. International Economic Review, 12(3), 465-481.
• Bovaird, T. (2014). Efficiency in Third Sector Partnerships for Delivering Local Government Services: The role of economies of scale, scope and learning. Public Management Review, 16(8), 1067-1090.
• Boyne, G. (1995). Population Size and Economies of Scale in Local Government. Policy and Politics, 23(3), 213-222.
• Byrnes, J., & Dollery, B. (2002). Do Economies of Scale Exist in Australian Local Government? A Review of the Research Evidence 1. Urban Policy and Research, 20(4), 391-414.
• Callanan, M., Murphy, R., & Quinlivan, A. (2014). The Risks of Intuition: Size, Costs and Economies of Scale in Local Government. The Economic and Social Review, 45(3), 371–403.
• Capello, R., & Camagni, R. (2000). Beyond Optimal City Size: An Evaluation of Alternative Urban Growth. Urban Studies, 37(9), 1479-1496.
• Christoffersen, H., & Bo Larsen, K. (2007). Economies of scale in Danish municipalities: Expenditure effects versus quality effects. Local Government Studies, 33(1), 77-95.
• Cobban, T. W. (2017). Bigger Is Better: Reducing the Cost of Local Administration by Increasing Jurisdiction Size in Ontario, Canada, 1995–2010. Urban Affairs Review, 55(2), 462-500.
• Cooper, W. W., Seiford, L. M., & Tone, K. (2002). Data Envelopment Analysis. New York: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
• Council of Europe. (2001). Relationship Between The Size of Local and Regional Authorities and Their Effectiveness and Economy of Their Action. Council of Europe: Steering Committee on Local and Regional Democracy (CDLR).
• Deller, S. C., & Halstead, J. M. (1994). Efficiency in the Production of Rural Road Services: The Case of New England Towns. Land Economics, 70(2), 247-259.
• Derksen, W. (1988). Municipal amalgamation and the doubtful relation between size and performance. Local Government Studies, 14(6), 31-47.
• Dollery, B., & Crase, L. (2004). Is bigger local government better? An evaluation of the case for Australian municipal amalgamation programs. Urban Policy and Research, 22(3), 265-275.
• Dollery, B., & Fleming, E. (2005). A Conceptual Note on Scale Economies, Size Economies and Scope Economies in Australian Local Government. Armidale: University of New England School of Economics.
• Dollery, B., Byrnes, J., & Allan, P. (2007a). Optimal Structural Reform in Australian Local Government: An Empirical Analysis of Economies of Scale by Council Function in New South Wales. Urban Policy and Research,, 25(4), 473-486.
• Dollery, B., Byrnes, J., & Crase, L. (2007b). Is Bigger Better ? Local Government Amalgamation and the South Australian Rising to the Challenge Inquiry. Economic Analysis & Policy, 37(1), 1-14.
• Dollery, B., Byrnes, J., & Crase, L. (2008). Australian Local Government Amalgamation: A Conceptual Analysis Population Size and Scale Economies in Municipal Service Provision. Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, 14(2), 167-175.
• Drew, J., Kortt, M. A., & Dollery, B. (2016). Did the Big Stick Work? An Empirical Assessment of Scale Economies and the Queensland Forced Amalgamation Program. Local Government Studies, 42(1), 1-14.
• Ferguson, C. E. (1969). The Neoclassical Theory of Production and Distribution. London: Cambridge University Press.
• Fox, W., & Gurley, T. (2006). Will Consolidation Improve Sub-National Governments? Policy Research Working Paper 3913: The World Bank Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Public Sector Governance Group.
• Gabler, L. R. (1971). Population Size as a Determinant of City Expenditures and Employment: Some Further Evidence. Land Economics, 47(2), 130-138.
• Gyimah-Brempong, K. (1987). Economies of Scale in Municipal Police Departments: The Case of Florida. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 69, 352-356.
• Holzer, M., Fry, J., Charbonneau, E., Van Ryzin, G., & Burnash, E. (2009). Literature Review and Analysis Related to Optimal Municipal Size and Efficiency. New Jersey: The Local Unit Alignment, Reorganization, and Consolidation Commission (LUARCC).
• Keating, M. (1995). Size, Efficiency and Democracy:Consolidation, Fragmentation and Publici Choice. D. Judge, G. Stoker, & H. Wolman içinde, Theories of Urban Politics (s. 117-134). London: SAGE Publications.
• Ladd, H. F. (1994). Fiscal impacts of local population growth: A conceptual and empirical analysis. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 34, 661-686.
• Mouritzen, P. E. (2010). The Danish Revolution in Local Government: How and Why? H. Baldersheim, & L. E. Rose içinde, Territorial Choice The Politcs of Boundaries and Borders (s. 21-41). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Nadaroğlu, H. (1994). Mahalli İdareler (5 b.). İstanbul: Beta Yayınevi.
• Newton, K. (1982). Is Small Really So Beautiful? Is Big Really So Ugly? Size, Effectiveness, and Democracy in Local Government. Political Studies, 30(2), 190-206.
• Niaounakis, T., & Blank, J. (2017). Inter-municipal cooperation, economies of scale and cost efficiency: an application of stochastic frontier analysis to Dutch municipal tax departments. Local Goverment Studies, 43(4), 533-554.
• Pevcin, P. (2017). The Evidence on the Existence of Economies of Scale in Local Government Units. EBEEC Conference Proceedings The Economies of Balkan and Eastern Europe Countries in the Changed World (s. 379-384). KnE Social Sciences.
• Rasmussen, S. (2011). Production Economics. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
• Sancton, A. (2000). Merger Mania: The Assault on Local Government. Westmount: City of Westmount.
• Solé-Ollé, A., & Bosch, N. (2005). On the Relationship between Authority Size and the Costs of Providing Local Services: Lessons for the Design of Intergovernmental Transfers in Spain. Public Finance Review, 33(3), 343-384.
• Southwick, L. (2012). Economies of Scale in Local Government: General Government Spending. iBusiness, 4, 265-278.
• Steiner, R., & Kaiser, C. (2017). Effects of amalgamations: evidence from Swiss municipalities. Public Management Review, 19(2), 232-252.
• Tavares, A. F. (2018). Municipal Amalgamations and Their Effects: A literature review. Miscellanea Geographica-Regional Studies on Development, 22(1), 5-15.
• TBMM, (2012). TBMM: https://www2.tbmm.gov.tr/d24/1/1-0690.pdf adresinden alındı (Erişim Tarihi: 08.01.2019)
• TDK, (2019). Türk Dil Kurumu Türkçe Sözlük: http://sozluk.gov.tr/ adresinden alındı (Erişim Tarihi: 12.05.2019)
• Ulusoy, A., ve Vural, T. (2001). Kentleşmenin Sosyo Ekonomik Etkileri. Belediye Dergisi, 7(12), 9-20.
• Wolff, G. (2004). Economies of Scale & Scope in River Basin Management . Oakland California : The Pacific Institute.