Bruce Katz, of the Brookings Institution, has a very interesting piece on the Wall Street Journal about the costs of fragmentation in local government. This is an old discussion that has emerged over the years. Planners and Geographers tend to favour a more rational organisation of local government, with a view to making them more efficient in delivering services and managing local and regional economies. However a different version, supported by the notion popularised by Charles Tiebout that citizens vote with their feet, is that fragmented local authorities have the effect of increasing competition between constituencies and therefore promoting greater fiscal responsibility and better local government.
Bruce Katz clearly supports the former and he provides a solid body of evidence as to why it is the best option. His approach of justifying it first as something that makes sense from an economic point of view is probably a good way to convince people that would otherwise not care much if he mainly refered to better governance. The key issue now is whether the Obama's administration emphasis on urban policy will provide the necessary support to introduce sweeping reform. I wouldn't be surprised if reforming local government would lead to as much or even more anger and political opposition than the Health Care bill.
