The Politics of Metropolitan Reform

Politics of Municipal Consolidation: The Case of Denizli

“…Therefore, they are hesitant about Denizli Municipality. Marando (1974) argues that metropolitan reorganization, where accepted, has been influenced more by political conditions than the objective of a metropolitan-wide approach to metropolitan-wide problems. Similarly, Rosenbaum and Henderson (1973) note that the ACIR warns urban reformers not to deal so much with the technical and administrative details of consolidation proposals that they pay no attention to the play of vested interests that might determine the outcome of a consolidation process.…”

Incentives, Entrepreneurs, and Boundary Change

“…Most work has focused on the individual instruments of boundary change: municipal annexation (e.g., Fleischmann 1986b; Galloway and Landis 1986;Liner 1990Liner , 1992Liner , 1993Liner and McGregor 1996), the consolidation of governments (e.g., Carr and Feiock 1999;Durning 1995;Feiock and Carr 1997;Lyons and Lowery 1989;Lyons and Scheb 1998;Marando 1979;Marando and Whitley 1972), municipal incorporation (e.g., Hoch 1985;Miller 1981;Rigos andSpindler 1989, 1991), and the formation of special districts (e.g., Bollens 1986;Foster 1997;Hawkins 1976;McFeeley 1978). Other scholars, although taking a somewhat broader view, have still tended to intellectually divorce the expansion or reorganization of existing jurisdictions (i.e., annexation and consolidation) from the formation of new local governments (i.e., municipalities and special districts) (e.g., Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations [ACIR] 1987;Burns 1994;Marando 1974;Oakerson and Parks 1988). Although these efforts provide a strong foundation, this fragmentary approach to government organization frustrates the development of a more general theory of boundary change, and it limits the contribution of this work to our understanding of local politics and governance.…”

“…The elements that lead to the emergence of reform on the agenda may not necessarily be the same elements that contribute to passage of the referendum after it has been proposed (Carr and Feiock 2000). In analyzing city-county consolidation referenda conducted through the early 1970s, Marando (1974) reported that 72.6% of the electorate supported proposals to conduct reorganization studies but only 46.8% supported actual reorganization of local government. Analyses of voting in more recent referenda have not been published, but judging from the high failure rate of these proposals, it is unlikely that this gap has narrowed significantly.…”

“…Marando's (1974) review of the politics of metropolitan reorganization itemized the actors typically involved in metropolitan reform. According to Marando, these reforms are most often supported by university and civic organizations, the local media, the chamber of commerce, and industrial associations.…”

“…Although scholars of urban politics have long recognized the role of business interests in local policy decisions, these interests have not always been prominent in explanations for boundary change. Studies have instead emphasized the role of public officials, suburban residents, and various civic organizations in explaining the success or failure of metropolitan reforms (e.g., Marando 1974). To the extent that business interests were considered in studies conducted prior to the mid-1980s, they were mostly seen as secondary to these other actors.…”