Inter-municipal cooperation

Last updated

Inter-municipal cooperation (IMC) is a generic term for all joint provision of public services between municipalities, who are normally but not necessarily neighbours.

Contents

Municipalities are elements of administration and have a history of several hundred years in Europe. [1] One speaks of IMC when two or more municipalities work together to provide a public service, where cooperation ranges from coordinated behaviour to joint ventures. As territorial consolidation often fails because of political resistance, inter-municipal cooperation is a way to keep public services efficient and effective without territorial consolidation. [2] [3] However, IMC can have high failure rates when coordination problems between municipalities in steering and monitoring cannot be resolved. [4] [5] [6] Unfortunately, coordination can be hard to achieve due to the multiple principal problem that exists in inter-municipal cooperation. [5] In addition, its cost-efficiency can be limited. [7]

History

Cooperation of municipalities is a contemporary phenomenon. A historic example of inter-municipal cooperation is the Hanseatic League, [8] created by municipalities in Northern Europe and lasted from the 13th to the 17th century. Following the Industrial Revolution, as cities grew rapidly and the requirements concerning public services increased, inter-municipal cooperation became increasingly popular. While cooperation was initially without obligation, with the beginning of the 20th century IMC was increasingly legally codified.

Benefits and Barriers

Benefits

IMC is used to increase efficiency and effectiveness in providing public services. [3] The joint financing and operating of these services can cut costs and achieve economies of scale and scope, which becomes increasingly important in smaller and more rural municipalities. IMC can also allow capital investment that would be unaffordable otherwise, and eliminates duplicate efforts. A major advantage in Europe is that the European Union is providing incentives for municipal partnerships.

Barriers

The most important barrier for inter-municipal cooperation is lack of trust or coordination between the partners, and if these cannot be overcome, failure rates of IMC can be high. [4] Unfortunately, coordination is hard to achieve. Inter-municipal cooperation, especially in an institutional form where municipalities together govern an organization for service delivery, invokes a multiple principal problem that makes steering and monitoring the organization difficult and reduces the efficiency and accountability of that party. [5] Politicians and citizens may (rightfully) fear a loss of control over the service. [9] Besides the lack of trust, the often complicated legal structure of IMC can be a barrier. Citizens may also worry that cooperation is a step towards consolidation or amalgamation.

Types of Inter-municipal Cooperation

Coordinated Behaviour

Coordinated behaviour is the lowest level of inter-municipal cooperation. Both entry and exit are voluntary and non-binding. [10] Typical examples for coordinated behaviour are combined strategies for tourist development.

Public Contract

Public contracts are more binding than a coordinated behaviour. The costs for the formation of this cooperation are low as only the legal consulting may result noteworthy costs. However, failure rates can be high when contracts are incomplete. [4] This kind of cooperation is typically chosen when the service is similar for each of the participants, like one town settles the snow plowing service for one or more other towns and receives a certain amount of money in return. Such inter-municipal contracting is particularly common in the United States. [3]

Administration Unit / Special District

In this model, the participants of the intermunicipal cooperation found and own the administration unit or special district. They transfer the right to provide the public service to the newly formed unit. As well as the service, the unit will have the right to raise the fees for this service, if such fees were previously raised by the participating municipalities. As these units need clear defined rights and obligation the effort to form them is much higher, and they are not possible in all countries. [11] Disposal services and water supply may be organised in this fashion in some countries.

Private Limited Company

Private law units such as companies or foundations can be used as well. Some countries, so as Germany, allow the municipals the ownership of private companies only if the purpose of the company is an economical not a public service. The easiest way to form a company by private law is the private limited company. It is easy and fast to found and the liability is limited to the assets of the company. However, while research shows such cooperation can be effective and efficient, the complexity of contracts in such arrangements can also lead to high failure rates. [4]

Public Limited Company

To organise an intermunicipal cooperation with a public law unit such as a public limited company is one of the least used possibilities. Although the PLC shares the advantages of the Private Limited like limited liability the higher administration and financial effort makes the PLC rather unattractive for IMC. Besides that the PLC is often very difficult to control by the owners what rules is almost out for IMC. Just like private limited companies, public limited companies may have a high complexity of contracts that can also lead to high failure rates. [4]

Phases of implementing IMC

The phases to implement an IMC can be divided in up to 14 phases. [12] Usually it is enough to distinguish four phases: the analysis of the needs, the analysis of the effects, the implementation and the evaluation.

At first one has to perform a needs assessment to find the areas in which IMC can benefit the participants. What is needed is an exact specification of the goals the IMC should achieve. The parties have to realize what they want and make sure that the partner has similar goals. Especially in the area of public services, where there is a constant dialogue with citizens about these services, it is important to make the process and the goals as transparent as possible. Citizens can be involved in the process of forming the IMC by using workshops or panel discussions.

After that, a feasibility study is needed to analyse the economic, operational and administrative efforts and benefits. If the service to be organised as an IMC already exists, it needs to be exactly specified. All the facts flow into the negotiation of the agreement, whether it is a contract, an administrative unit or a private company. At this point the involved parties should be clear about the form of financing the IMC. It can be advisable to seek legal advice as IMC can become legally very difficult in some countries.

When everything is fixed in contracts the participants can start to realise the project. As well as in the first phase of the IMC implementation it is important to communicate the process to all involved parties. Especially when problems arise, transparent behaviour is needed to sustain trust between the involved parties.

After the successful implementation of the project, the parties should negotiate certain progress of improvement an adjustment to changing environmental conditions. It is advisable to establish the “change management” in the contract between the involved parties. There should be a periodical evaluation of the IMC so that changed prerequisites will be noticed.

Inter-municipal Cooperation in international area

Belgium

By a framework decree of 2001, inter-municipal cooperation was reformed by the Flemish Government. A variety of forms of inter-municipal cooperation were legally implemented. Beside that certain elements of supervision were implemented, to ensure control by the municipal councils. The framework insists on the "purity" of IMC, so municipalities shall be involved primarily. [1]

Finland

Especially in the thinly populated Finland inter-municipal cooperation has been an effective tool to ensure public services at reasonable cost. Finnish local governments are self-governing with a large variety of responsibilities. Due to this fact the services provided by the municipals are numerous. Even service competition between municipals is quite common in Finland. [1]

France

France was essentially governed by a central state, but within the last century municipal authorities have gained increasing autonomy. Nevertheless, inter-municipal cooperation is often performed on a voluntary basis. As discussion of other larger-scale, regional, consolidation is politically hazardous in France, IMC (intercommunalité) is becoming an important factor to help maintain public services at reasonable cost. [1]

Germany

Inter-municipal cooperation has a long history in Germany. In the administrative system of Germany (State, Federal States, Communities) the municipals have to finance their services themselves. Therefore, municipals have a natural interest in providing public services efficiently. [1]

United Kingdom

In contrast to other European Countries local governments are highly restricted in the United Kingdom. Therefore, inter-municipal cooperation is not that common in the UK. [13] Although municipalities have the authority to perform public services they often do not have the possibility to raise additional fees. [1]

United States

There are 39,000 local governments United States and 22,000 have under 2,500 inhabitants. [14] Besides providing public services themselves, municipalities in the USA have used privatization (contracting out) and cooperation with neighbouring municipalities for a long period of time. Cooperation is used to maintain independent identities and still achieve economies of scale. Most of the cooperative ventures are single-function (education, water, housing, transport).

See also

Further reading

Related Research Articles

A state-owned enterprise (SOE) is a government entity which is established or nationalised by a national or provincial government, by an executive order or an act of legislation, in order to earn profit for the government, control monopoly of the private sector entities, provide products and services to citizens at a lower price, implement government policies, and/or to deliver products & services to the remote locations of the country. The national government or provincial government has majority ownership over these state owned enterprises. These state owned enterprises are also known as public sector undertakings in some countries. Defining characteristics of SOEs are their distinct legal form and possession of financial goals and developmental objectives. SOEs are government entities established to pursue financial objectives and developmental goals.

Corporatization is the process of transforming and restructuring state assets, government agencies, public organizations, or municipal organizations into corporations. It involves the adoption and application of business management practices and the separation of ownership from management through the creation of a joint-stock or shareholding structure for the organization. The result of corporatization is the creation of state-owned corporations where the government retains a majority ownership of the corporation's stock. Corporatization is undertaken to improve efficiency of an organization, to commercialize its operations, to introduce corporate and business management techniques to public functions, or as a precursor to partial or full privatization.

A municipal corporation is the legal term for a local governing body, including cities, counties, towns, townships, charter townships, villages, and boroughs. The term can also be used to describe municipally owned corporations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Seizure response dog</span> Assists person during or immediately before or after a seizure

A seizure response dog (SRD) is a dog demonstrating specific assisting behaviour during or immediately after a person's epileptic seizure or other seizure. When reliably trained such dogs can serve as service dogs for people with epilepsy.

Water supply and sanitation in Colombia have been improved in many ways over the past decades. Between 1990 and 2010, access to improved sanitation increased from 67% to 82%, but access to improved water sources increased only slightly from 89% to 94%. In particular, coverage in rural areas lags behind. Furthermore, despite improvements, the quality of water and sanitation services remains inadequate. For example, only 73% of those receiving public services receive water of potable quality and in 2006 only 25% of the wastewater generated in the country underwent any kind of treatment.

Water supply and sanitation in France is universal and of good quality. Salient features of the sector compared to other developed countries are the high degree of private sector participation using concession and lease contracts and the existence of basin agencies that levy fees on utilities in order to finance environmental investments. Water losses in France (26%) are high compared to England (19%) and Germany (7%).

Drinking water and sanitation in Nicaragua are provided by a national public utility in urban areas and water committees in rural areas. Despite relatively high levels of investment, access to drinking water in urban areas has barely kept up with population growth, access to urban sanitation has actually declined and service quality remains poor. However, a substantial increase in access to water supply and sanitation has been reached in rural areas.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hybrid organization</span>

A hybrid organization is an organization that mixes elements, value systems and action logics of various sectors of society, i.e. the public sector, the private sector and the voluntary sector. A more general notion of hybridity can be found in Hybrid institutions and governance.

An Inter-dealer broker (IDB) is specialist financial intermediary that facilitates transactions between broker-dealers, dealer banks and other financial institutions rather than private individuals.

Water supply and sanitation in the Netherlands is provided in good quality and at a reasonable price to the entire population. Water consumption is one of the lowest in developed countries at 128 litres per capita per day and water leakage in the distribution network is one of the lowest in the world at only 6%.

The Oslo Package 2 or O2 is a political agreement for financing investments in public transport in Oslo and Akershus, Norway. The program ran from 2001 to 2011, and includes many large and small investments in railways, the Oslo Tramway, the Oslo Metro and infrastructure for buses. Total budget is 15.6 billion kr. The project is a cooperation between the transit authorities Oslo Sporveier and Stor-Oslo Lokaltrafikk, Oslo Municipality and Akershus County Municipality, and the government agencies of the Norwegian National Rail Administration and the Norwegian Public Roads Administration.

Swisscontact – Swiss Foundation for Technical Cooperation is a Swiss non-profit-organisation, which carries out projects aiming at reducing poverty in developing and transition countries by private sector development. It has been founded in 1959 as a politically and denominationally neutral organisation and has 60 employees in Switzerland and approximately 1,400 staff abroad. The main fields of activity are fostering skills development, small and medium enterprises, financial services and resource efficiency.

Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC), a key regulator of the power sector in India, is a statutory body functioning with quasi-judicial status under sec – 76 of the Electricity Act 2003. CERC was initially constituted on 24 July 1998 under the Ministry of Power's Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998 for rationalization of electricity tariffs, transparent policies regarding subsidies, promotion of efficient and environmentally benign policies, and for matters connected Electricity Tariff regulation. CERC was instituted primarily to regulate the tariff of power generating companies owned or controlled by the Government of India, and any other generating company which has a composite scheme for power generation and interstate transmission of energy, including tariffs of generating companies.

Privatization is the process of transferring ownership of a business, enterprise, agency, charity or public service from the public sector or common use to the private sector or to private non-profit organizations. In a broader sense, privatization refers to transfer of any government function to the private sector - including governmental functions like revenue collection and law enforcement.

Sidra Intersection is a software package used for intersection (junction), interchange and network capacity, level of service and performance analysis, and signalised intersection, interchange and network timing calculations by traffic design, operations and planning professionals.

A municipally owned corporation is a corporation owned by a municipality. They are typically "organisations with independent corporate status, managed by an executive board appointed primarily by local government officials, and with majority public ownership." Some municipally owned corporations rely on revenue from user fees, distinguishing them from agencies and special districts funded through taxation. Municipally owned corporations may also differ from local bureaucracies in funding, transaction costs, financial scrutiny, labour rights, permission to operate outside their jurisdiction, and, under some circumstances, in rights to make profits and risk of bankruptcy.

Local service delivery is the delivery of public services at the local level and is a distinct domain of public policy. Local governments can be more reflective of local needs and interests and a prime driver of innovation in government practices; at the same time, local service delivery deals with some challenges, such as expertise concerns, steering problems, and the presence of economies of scale. Local service delivery is a key topic of discussion for academics and practitioners in the wake of the decentralization and corporatization that occurred under New Public Management and in the wake of local austerity following the 2008 Financial crisis.

The multiple principal problem, also known as the common agency problem, the multiple accountabilities problem, or the problem of serving two masters, is an extension of the principal-agent problem that explains problems that can occur when one person or entity acts on behalf of multiple other persons or entities. Specifically, the multiple principal problem states that when one person or entity is able to make decisions and / or take actions on behalf of, or that impact, multiple other entities: the "principals", the existence of asymmetric information and self-interest and moral hazard among the parties can cause the agent's behavior to differ substantially from what is in the joint principals' interest, bringing large inefficiencies. The multiple principal problem has been used to explain inefficiency in many types of cooperation, particularly in the public sector, including in parliaments, ministries, agencies, inter-municipal cooperation, and public-private partnerships, although the multiple principal problem also occurs in firms with multiple shareholders.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Decentralization in Rwanda</span>

In the year 2000, Rwanda began a decentralization process by adopting a National Decentralization Policy. The policy's objective were to promote good governance, to reduce poverty and to promote efficient, effective, and accountable service delivery.

The political systems of Imperial China can be divided into a state administrative body, provincial administrations, and a system for official selection. The three notable tendencies in the history of Chinese politics includes, the convergence of unity, the capital priority of absolute monarchy, and the standardization of official selection. Moreover, there were early supervisory systems that were originated by local factions, as well as other political systems worthy of mention.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Hulst, Rudie (2007). Inter-Municipal Cooperation. Amsterdam: Springer. ISBN   978-1-4020-5378-8.
  2. ↑ Local Government and Public Reform Initiative. "When is IMC relevant?" . Retrieved 2011-07-05.
  3. 1 2 3 Bel, Germa, and Mildred E. Warner (2015). "Inter-municipal Cooperation and Costs: Expectation and Evidence" (PDF). Public Administration.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 Voorn, Bart, Marieke L. Van Genugten, and Sandra Van Thiel (2017) (2017). "The efficiency and effectiveness of municipally owned corporations: a systematic review" (PDF). Local Government Studies. 43 (5): 820–841. doi: 10.1080/03003930.2017.1319360 . hdl:2066/176125.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  5. 1 2 3 Voorn, B., Van Genugten, M., & Van Thiel, S. (2019). "Multiple principals, multiple problems: Implications for effective governance and a research agenda for joint service delivery". Public Administration. 97 (3): 671–685. doi: 10.1111/padm.12587 . hdl: 2066/207394 .{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  6. ↑ Sorensen, Rune J. (2007). "Does dispersed public ownership impair efficiency? The case of refuse collection in Norway". Public Administration. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.551.5414 .{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  7. ↑ Bel, Germà; Sebő, Marianna (3 April 2019). "Does Inter-Municipal Cooperation Really Reduce Delivery Costs? An Empirical Evaluation of the Role of Scale Economies, Transaction Costs, and Governance Arrangements". Urban Affairs Review. 57: 153–188. doi:10.1177/1078087419839492. hdl: 2445/173331 . S2CID   53600596.
  8. ↑ Froecker, Hans-Joerd. "Interkommunale Zusammenarbeit" (PDF). Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.
  9. ↑ Spicer, Zachary (2017) (2017). "Bridging the accountability and transparency gap in inter-municipal collaboration". Local Government Studies. 43 (3): 388–407. doi:10.1080/03003930.2017.1288617. S2CID   157069324.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  10. ↑ LeRoux, Kelly, Paul W. Brandenburger, and Sanjay K. Pandey (2010) (2010). "Interlocal service cooperation in US cities: A social network explanation". Public Administration Review. 70 (2): 268–278. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02133.x.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  11. ↑ Hessen Ministry of Economy, Traffic and Development. "Interkommunale Kooperation" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-03-03. Retrieved 2011-07-05.
  12. ↑ "Establishing IMC". Local Government and Public Reform Initiative. Retrieved 2011-07-05.
  13. ↑ Kelly, Josephine (2007) (2007). "The Curious Absence of Inter-municipal Cooperation in England". Public Policy and Administration. 22 (3): 319–334. doi:10.1177/0952076707078763. S2CID   154247037.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  14. ↑ Warner, Michael E. "Inter-municipal Cooperation in the USA" (PDF). Urban Public Economics Review.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.