Boundary Change

Abstract

Boundary change is a divisive and politically risky venture as attested to by both the large scholarly literature and the political corpses of those who have attempted it in the past. However, boundary reform may also be a necessity—particularly if one is responsive to a comprehensive theory of local government which seeks to bring the people closer to their government and serve them best. In this chapter I review the key concepts that inform the optimal size of local government. Notably these concepts—adequate capacity, the need for homogeneity, the desirability of fiscal equivalence, and a cognisance of economic efficiency—are responsive to the purpose of local government and the structure required for it to carry out its appropriate remit. I then outline the various reasons why amalgamations tend not to deliver completely on promised savings, with particular reference to the special case of rural amalgamations. I conclude with a ‘dummies guide’ to local government boundary reform, which in view of recent public policy disasters seems to be desperately needed.

Appendix 1 Some Observations on Aristotle’s Approach to Government Size

Few are aware that the problems of optimal size and shape of government are matters which were first studied in antiquity. Even fewer will be aware that many of the solutions that I have posed to this thorny problem were preceded by the writings of Aristotle some 2,340 years ago.

Aristotle was writing about the state, not local government, however many of his ideas are eminently applicable to the problems that we have been examining thus far. Aristotle’s view of the purpose of the state is consistent with the principle of subsidiarity and the comprehensive theory of local government that I developed in Chap. 3. He defines the state as ‘an association of similar persons whose aim is the best life possible’ (Aristotle 1992 [fourth century BCE], p. 413). Sound familiar? Essentially Aristotle says that states should be composed of homogenous populations for the purpose of helping people to achieve their existential ends. This makes the state instrumental to the ends of persons, which is consistent with my outline of subsidiarity made in the previous chapter. Furthermore, Aristotle (1992, p. 413) makes plain the advantages of homogeneity and the need for a number of governments—because ‘different sets of people seek their happiness in different ways and by different means, and so make for themselves different lives and different constitutions’. Otherwise stated, we need a plurality of associations so that we can tailor government goods to the particular tastes of homogenous groups of residents (the Decentralisation Theorem that we discussed in Chap. 3 echoes this idea).

Moreover, Aristotle has quite a bit to say about the optimal size of government. He too criticises those who ‘judge greatness by the number of people living in it [the state] ….[because] one ought to look not at the numbers but at capacity’ (Aristotle 1992, p. 404). Now clearly Aristotle hasn’t referred to optimal scale and the search for efficiency as I did, but he has made plain that determining boundaries for government must be more than an exercise in arithmetic (or econometrics in our case)—we need to also think about capacity as a floor on size. Furthermore, Aristotle goes on to state that there is also a ceiling which he associates with the need for transparency. Specifically, Aristotle (1992, p. 405) states that ‘citizens should know each other and know the kind of people they are’. He also acknowledges the desirability of transparent size in order to prevent free-riding in expressing his concern that otherwise ‘it becomes easy for foreigners and aliens resident in the country, to become possessed of citizenship, because the excessive size of population makes detection difficult’ (Aristotle 1992, p. 405). Admittedly, I referred to the need for transparency to prevent free-riding and the taking of unwarranted perquisites by staff—but the sentiment is largely the same. Aristotle (1992, p. 405) sums up his argument about optimal population size by remarking that ‘the best limit of a state: it must have the largest population consistent with catering for the needs of a self-sufficient life, but not so large that it cannot be easily surveyed’.

Aristotle also had a bit to say on the geographic size of government, which is associated with population density. This consideration is largely missing from modern scholarship but is of critical importance to the success of rural and remote local governments in particular. Aristotle (1992, p. 406) states that ‘in a country that can easily be surveyed it is easy to bring up assistance at any point’ which is a good reminder of the fact that distance does have a bearing on the costs and capacity of government. It may make sense to draw boundaries over vast distances if population size alone is the principle consideration, but if one considers the need to actually traverse large distances to deliver services then it becomes a far less attractive proposition. It seems to me that boundary reform architects in capital cities have somehow neglected the fact that vast distances in rural and remote areas require lengthy commutes (and associated cost) to service. Perhaps if they read Aristotle from time to time, they may realise that boundaries by population numbers alone is a strategy likely to end in failure.

Thus, it can be seen that a lot of what I have written about to this point is largely consistent with the thinking that held sway over 2,300 years ago. For all of our advances in technology, economics and mathematics it seems that we haven’t got ourselves very far at all on the really important questions pertaining to the purpose, size and shape of local government (in fact we have probably gone backwards). It is my hope that this observation won’t be repeated in a further 2,340 years’ time, but we shall see.