ABSTRACT
Across the Midwest and Northeast there is renewed interest in regionalism and the consolidation of local government. This latest interest in reducing the number of governments is linked with the persistent economic stagnation that has plagued the region. Across America’s manufacturing belt there is surprising consistency in the view that consolidated governments would be better able to coordinate the public sector’s role in regional economic development initiatives to reverse the decadeslong declines in population and economic importance. It is widely accepted that consolidated governments would be in a stronger position to lead plans for regional development while reducing taxes through the efficient production of services and the elimination of departments that duplicate services provided by and to many small jurisdictions. In part the rationale is based on the premise that collaboration across governments is needed to achieve sustainable regional economic development and deliver services more efficiently. However, little empirical evidence sustains this claim and the theory guiding scholars is divided into two camps-new regionalism versus fragmentation (public choice). While the regionalists’ perspective advocates consolidation, public choice theorists argue this approach will fail to achieve any efficiency with regard to the use of scarce resources. Indeed, in their view, singleunit governments are more likely to behave as monopolists and reduce the quality of services while prices (taxes) rise.
