Proceed with caution

AbstractMunicipalities1 face increasing demands in terms of quality and efficiency of public services, but not all are able to meet these expectations. Horizontal governance strategies such as inter-municipal cooperation (IMC) and municipal amalgamations are often cited in the literature as possible solutions to these local challenges. Is this statement also shared by local political elites (mayors) or is it only a theoretical consideration? This article aims to investigate the extent to which IMC and amalgamations are considered helpful strategies in local governance. By applying to municipal horizontal strategies (MHS) the theoretical dimensions of Europeanness of elites, empirical evidence on the assessments of mayors in three subnational units of the Alpine area (Grisons, South Tyrol and Tyrol) are provided and discussed. Findings show that the evaluation of horizontal strategies is influenced by the perceived benefits of such strategies, prior experience, and the relevant context, thus supporting the theory. Other findings, however, refute some theoretical assumptions, such as, that difficult financial conditions should enhance amalgamation. In addition, while IMC is evaluated positively, amalgamation is not seen as an effective solution to local challenges. The Alpine area provides useful insight for further investigation of local elite research in particular territorial contexts. Notes1 In this article, we employ the term municipality since it is the most common in the international scientific literature to refer to this local authority. It is to be intended as «commune» in the Swiss case.2 Municipal merger is the unification of two or more pre-existing municipalities. It may result from the amalgamation of more units to form a new body, or from the incorporation of one or more units into one pre-existing municipality. Here, the term amalgamation will be used to include both.3 In this article by region, we refer to the subnational/substate entities, namely the subnational constitutional unit of each state, e.g., the regions in Italy, the states (Länder) in Austria, and the cantons in Switzerland.4 The so-called Gemeindeschreiberbefragung (questioning of Swiss administrative heads). Surveys have been carried out since 1988, see for further information: http://www.andreasladner.ch/uebersicht.htm or https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/OLM3QO (access date: 27. 06. 2022).5 For the sake of clarity, it is important to stress that we are interested here in how mayors evaluate (positive/negative attitude) the different strategies, and not why they evaluate them in a certain way. Therefore, otherwise important aspects, such as party politics and partisan considerations, ideological orientations, and political or instrumental calculations, for example, are not considered here.6 While in South Tyrol and Tyrol, there is only one type of municipality, in Switzerland, several types of municipalities are present, thereof only one – the one this article focuses on – is a political unit providing public services comparable to those of the other two countries.7 Within the past seven years (2015–2022), 18 merger projects have been implemented and the total number of municipalities has decreased from 125 (2015) to 101 in January 2021. See: Amt für Gemeinden, Gemeindefusionen Gemeindefusionen – Gemeindefusionen (gr.ch) (access date: 20. 07. 2022).8 The online survey collects quantitative and qualitative data. The questionnaire included 64 questions on many more items concerning the implementation and evaluation of local cooperation. We present here only part of these data. The 12 sample municipalities were selected as follows. Two continuous variables (of interest also for other aspects of the wider research) were chosen, namely the size (number of residents) and the geographical location (distance in km from a central urban unit) of a municipality, then simplified into dichotomies (big/small and close/distant). The intersection resulted in four categories of municipalities. One municipality per each of the three regions was selected from each of these four categories. To select the municipality to address for the interview request, preference was given to those municipalities that had not completed the online questionnaire. The survey and the interviews are part of the ongoing PhD project by the co-author (Klotz Citation2023).9 All questions and statements are reported in the Appendix.10 We are aware that this is an indirect implication that is not necessarily true but, nonetheless, highly reasonable. Since the purpose of this study is to give a descriptive qualitative account of the topic, this shortcut is seen to be feasible.11 It is worth stressing that, despite a generalised negative attitude toward amalgamation, differences among the three regions are present, as presented in the Appendix. For instance, South Tyrol is the most critical, whereas Grisons is the least. A possible explanation for the evidence is twofold: in South Tyrol, mayors have both limited experience with this strategy (thus are possibly more sceptical due to their lack of knowledge) and when present, it often traces back to the Fascist period (thus immediately evoking other reactions linked to historical and cultural elements rather than to a pure evaluation of the strategy per se). In the case of Grisons, instead, the possible explanation is reversed: since the experience with this strategy is more diffused in this region, mayors might be less sceptical with respect to amalgamation, its functioning and its positive or negative potentialities. This difference, however, does not confute the validity of our finding, namely a generally negative attitude toward municipal amalgamation across all three regions, which is important evidence that highlights the mayors’ diverging evaluations of the two strategies.Additional informationNotes on contributorsSilvia BolgheriniSilvia Bolgherini is Associate Professor at the Department of Political Science, University of Perugia, Italy. She has carried out research and teaching at universities in Europe, the United States, and South America. Her work focuses on local government, comparative political systems and elections. She is Co-Editor-in-Chief of the Quaderni dell’Osservatorio elettorale – Italian Journal of Electoral Studies (QOE-IJES). She is also a lecturer at the National School of Administration (SNA) of the Ministry of the Interior in Italy.Greta KlotzGreta Klotz is a researcher at the Institute for Comparative Federal Studies, Eurac Research, Italy. Since 2012, she has been a researcher and project manager for the “Winter School on Federalism and Governance” training programme. Her research areas are multilevel governance, local government (particularly inter-municipal cooperation and institutional innovation/citizen participation), the autonomy of South Tyrol from a comparative perspective and cross-border cooperation in the Alps.