Law, Economics & Public Policy: 2009

ECONOMICS OF REGIONALISM IN MEGALOPOLIS
HOSSEIN NABILOU
May 2009

Abstract
By applying the economic theories to the legal scholarship, contemporary legal studies have undergone a radical change since the advent of such an approach especially in the United States legal academies. One of the most critical arenas that the economic analysis of law is concerned with is the issues subject to study in the local government law and urban studies. One of the biggest concerns in this field is the problem of the “size”. Concepts like zoning, incorporation, annexation, consolidation and regionalism are dominating issues in this branch of legal studies. The common element in all of these issues is undoubtedly the “size” which is effecting the local governments one way or another. On the other hand, the economists have dealt with the problem of size for a long time and they always tried to find a logical relationship between the efficiency of a firm and its size. The problem of size in Urban Studies and Local Government Law literature is merged into the dichotomy of localism and regionalism.
In this paper, my primary purpose is to explain the size of local governments by applying economic methods of thinking. In this regard, at first, after briefly introducing localism, I will try to show its economic inefficiencies. By emphasizing the inefficiencies of local approaches in solving regional problems in megalopolises, it will be argued that save having a regional approach, many unavoidable flaws will emerge. In this regard, I will try to show that the sources of economic inefficiencies in local approach to regional problems are multifold. First and foremost, these inefficiencies arise from the diseconomies of scale including costs of communication among municipalities, duplication of efforts and cannibalization in locally fragmented megalopolis. The other sources of inefficiencies are the tragedy of the commons and anticommons in the region, positive and negative externalities producing free riding, gentrification, environmental problems and sprawl. Last but not least, the problem of high transaction costs and hold-out problem for the municipalities to come together to contrive a solution for the regional problems will be discussed. Eventually, taking the socio-political concerns like problem of representation and paradox of voting, the sense of community and the like into account, I will argue in favor of the coexistent model of localism and regionalism, as an idea to minimize the economic inefficiencies arising from the purely local approach to regional problems in megalopolises.

Key Words: Regionalism, Localism, Megalopolis, Economic Efficiency

Introduction
One of the most critical flaws of many legal systems –especially in some parts of the world with a long history of civilization whose history of legal systems dates back to the advent of civilization and hence natural and divine law— is that it is not consistent with the facts and real world. Economics, among other academic fields is the best tool that can conciliate the relationship “between facts and norms”. Inherent nature of legal norms makes it stagnant and it needs the other disciplines to give it a hand to be dynamic and up to date. As Berolzheimer says “Economics and law considered as static phenomena are related as content and form; but both are subject to change—the one continuously, the other from time to time”. (Berolzheimer, 1968, pp. 22-23) This continuously changing nature of economics gives it a live spirit. By transplanting this spirit to law, the law can stay dynamic and live. This emerging interdisciplinary approach to law is the harbinger of change in the legal world, even if it should bravely face big questions of justice and efficiency. In this paper, I am to have an economic approach to local government law a field less touched by the economists.
Multilevel structure of the government has been one of the issues focused by many scholars from many different disciplines such as economics, law and politics. The political entity accepting such a multilayer government will engage in intricately increasing problems arising from the vertical and horizontal interdependencies of these governmental units. “Multilevelism” in the government tradition has its genesis in the historical facts and theories that believe that the separated power is less vulnerable to corruption, this belief which is adopted by many constitutional democracies all around the world, requires its logistics. Vertically, these logistics in the United States are provided by the federal, state and local governments.
Although American historical facts have enough evidential strength to justify these divisions, emerging regions, metropolises and megalopolises in the United States may require the “change” in American local government structure. Studying megalopolitan America, it seems that the factual requirements for the change are met and economists and local government scholars are trying to complete the theoretical side. Megalopolises in the United States urban areas with large population have trespassed the municipal boundaries and have grown in a pace that the traditionally known conservative and static nature of law and politics could not keep pace with them. Despite the quantitatively large number of the proponent of the regionalism especially in the metropolitan areas, thus far, their efforts to create a fully fledged regional government were in vain even in the presence of acute and continuing regional problems.
It should be noted that there are many issues in the law and economics of local governments that will remain untouched here because of the limits of the space. Methodologically, after having a brief introduction to the two fundamental concepts of localism and regionalism, I will start with the economic criticism of localism. In doing so, I will mention flaws in localism such as diseconomies of scale, the problem of the commons and anticommons in the region, local taxation and its consequences, transaction costs and hold-out problem in dealing with the regional issues. I will study them as the factors paving the way for regionalism. This means that the economic criticism of localism provides justifications for regionalism. I will end with the legal and democratic concerns about regionalism and argue for a coexistent model of localism and regionalism in the metropolitan areas.

Localism vs. Regionalism: A matter of Definition
Localism
History
Local governments have their genesis in the long history of civilization and the rules of governance in large scale empires. As historians demonstrate; Cyrus the Great the Emperor of Persian Empire had appointed the local officials for governing every region within the Empire. As Herodotus points out after conquering Lydia, Cyrus decided to appoint the ex-king of Lydia, Croesus, as the governor of Lydia within the Persian Empire. Thereafter, Darius, the Persian king, did the same and appointed the local officials for the administration of the then Persian territories which at that time were constituted from about 20 provinces called “satrapies”. (Farr, 1850, p. 152)
As the history of the Middle East shows, every empire who conquered a vast territory appointed the local governors for the administration of those occupied territories. And this became a tradition in governance at least in the Middle East and the Minor Asia. For instance, when Alexander the Great conquered Persia, he took advantage of such a policy. The great conquerors like Teymour Khan and Chingis Khan continued that policy partly because of the expertise problem and partly the common sense and intuitively known idea of the diseconomies of scale which would have frustrating effects on their territories and their strength of traditional sovereignty. This continued tradition had its special advantages and economic justifications for those emperors. Although many of the ancient empires officially claimed that they had a universal sovereignty (Van Creveld, 2002, p. 48), save the king Canute, it seems they were well aware of the limits of their sovereignty.
As scholars of the history of the state hinted, “the problems of time and distance as well as the limits of the information at their disposal, many emperors preferred to deal with entire communities – tribes, chiefdoms, villages, cities, even client-kings – rather than with individuals”. (Van Creveld, 2002, p. 48) This fact shows that almost from the advent of urban life and civilization, some limits have been imposed by factual economic facts like transaction costs for even the greatest empires in the world. Add to the scope of the country the problems arising from the lack of means of communication that the industrial revolution afterwards brought for the states. These limits imposed multilevel or multilayer system of governance even to those ancient empires.
The above historical examples show the very existence, though seminal, of local governments. With the gradual evolution of urban life, consciously or unconsciously, some other concepts came into existence; the concepts similar to annexation and incorporation in the history of urban life reflects the fact that the problem of size was one of the big concerns of the social scientists, economists and legal scholars. One of the best examples, which caused many problems very similar to ours today, was the city of Baghdad at the time of Abbasid Caliphate. At that time, the city of Baghdad had a position in the world comparable to world cities of today. Ibn-e-Khaldun describes the City of Baghdad as follows:
“[T]he town will extend farther and farther. Eventually, the layout of the town will cover a wide area, and the town will extend so far and wide as to be almost beyond measurement. This happened in Baghdad and similar cities. Baghdad included over forty of the adjacent neighboring towns and cities. It was not just one town surrounded by one wall. Its population was much too large for that, the same was the case with al-Qayrawan, Cordoba, and al-Mahdiyah in Islamic times. It is the case with . . . Cairo at this time, so we are told.” (Badi, 1988, p. 86)
This discussion of the growth of large cities such as Baghdad is similar in essence to what is referred today as the process of suburbanization, a phenomenon that in turn causes sprawl and the need for regional governments.

Definition
Although defining the phenomena in social sciences that are mixes of descriptive and normative issues sounds very difficult and in some instances impossible, in order to be clear enough and as a point of departure, it is better to start with the definition, although it might be something that is not inclusive and exclusive enough. Undoubtedly one of the best definitions of localism is given by Prof. Briffault, though we accept it here. He goes on defining localism as follows:
“a belief that land-use regulation, schools and tax policy ought to be controlled locally, with the interests of local residents as the exclusive desideratum of local decision makers. Localism reifies local borders, using invisible municipal boundary lines to delimit the range of local concern and the proper subjects of local compassion and treating the creation and maintenance of local borders as a basic right. Localism translates questions about the proper structure of government and the proper relationship between different levels of government (and between different governments at the same level) into a language of rights…Local borders, once created, reinforce local identification, become a focus of sentiment and symbolism and create a powerful legal bulwark for the preservation of local interests. Localism provides a normative basis for excluding regionally necessary but locally undesirable facilities and for treating problems that originate outside local borders as unworthy of local concern or the expenditure of local resources.” (Briffault, 1990b, pp. 445-46)
In his article about localism, he goes farther on Local government and associates it with the individual autonomy. In his view, the role of the local policy making in schooling, home and family leads to the tight connection between localism and western individualism and individual autonomy. Talking about localism, Prof. Briffault uses the language of rights, he emphasizes that much of the local rights are tightly related to right to privacy and immunity rights from the government intervention. (Briffault, 1990b, pp. 445-46)
Despite such an ardent defense of localism and its theoretical importance in protecting individual rights and especially negative liberties of the citizens, there is a long established constitutional tradition that gives less weight to localism than it may deserve. American constitutional law considers local governments just as state-subdivisions and do not recognize it as independent components of the body politic as a whole. (Ford, 1996-97, p. 1382) Although the political forces through history have greatly affected the creation of local governments, it seems that the strong economic incentives were the most important factors in the creation of local governments at least in the United States. Resource allocation within each state which is tightly related to land use is one of the areas that can prove our idea. On the other hand, one of the biggest problems in the local government law is the problem of size and boundaries. Taken one locality into account, localism and its aftermaths create both “citizens” and “non-citizens” at the same time. (Schragger, 2001, p. 373) This struggle over natural, financial and “local” resources created the local government as well as the political, cultural and social concerns related to it.

Justifications
At first blush, it seems that there are two major advocacies of localism arising from two different sources:
1. The Political and Legal Theory of Localism advocates localism because of the beliefs that:
a. Localism can lead to local autonomy and brings about bigger chances for the people in the maximization of the citizen participation and regulation of their public life, more generally self-determination which can be achieved with more ease through the smaller governments rather than the bigger ones. Because these small size governments bring the government much closer to the voters and consequently more accountable to them.
b. It is said that the localism makes democracy palpable for the general public and since their votes are counted locally, every citizen may have a voice in the election. This can be an incentive to have a higher participation or turnout in local elections.
c. The third argument for the local government arises from the plurality of the local government and the horizontal distribution of power among them. Supporters of localism argue that the very existence of the localities potentially protects the minority subgroups from the tyranny of the majority. In addition, local governments are “significant arbiter of the subgroup relations” because at the local level “subgroups have greater control over the composition of “their” jurisdiction”. (Ford, 1996-97, pp. 1367-68)
1. Many of the adherents of localism argue that smaller governments provide a better context in which the citizens can have a better sense of community. Some of these proponents go farther and argue that the constitutional and legal rights should be context sensitive. These advocates of localism believe in a broader decentralized constitutionalism. They argue that the courts should respect the “geographical variations of constitutional requirements in the aid of community”. (Rosen, 1999, pp. 1130-39 & Kymlicka, 1989, pp. 206-16)
2. The Economic Theory of Localism claims that:
a. The existence of large number of local governments who are much more familiar with the needs of the special communities and certain localities, with the amount of services and consumption which is usually limited to their own jurisdiction increases the economic efficiency in the provision of public goods and certain utilities. (Briffault, 1990a, p. 5) The question here is how it increases the economic efficiency. We should find the answer in the differences in preferences and cost differentials in the locally needed public goods. Taking this into account, it appears that the efficient level of output in local public goods seems to be variable in the local jurisdictions and governments are likely provide the better allocation of local services in a decentralized structure. (Oates, 1999, pp. 1121-22, see also Oates, 1972)
b. Other economic adherents of localism argue that the very existence of the localities brings about plurality of localities and extend the opportunities of the citizens to move into better localities which provide the better allocation of services and taxes and eventually serves the economic efficiency. (Cashin, 2001, pp. 753-54) Tiebout was the first theorist who elaborated the idea of the “voting with the feet”. (Tiebout, 1956) However, it seems that he took some related issues which adversely affect the outcome of the theory such as tremendous migration costs, externalities and asymmetric information as granted.

Regionalism
Definition
The first and foremost defense of the localism can be found in the works of Charles Tiebout who was an ardent advocate of localism and the notion of “Consumer-Voter”. In his view, the diversity and the high quantity of local government will cause the diversity and a vast scope of the citizens’ choices. If citizen’s are not content with the services provided by a given local government, she can move and choose another local government jurisdiction that can provide better services to live in. Tiebout’s theorem has some flaws and undoubtedly is not a Pareto optimum. In this case, the consumer voter will engage in the exorbitant transaction costs that will affect the optimality of the theorem. This theorem also generates inefficiencies that are unavoidable and can be removed by large scale regional action. Counter-arguments of Tiebout’s theorem are often raised focusing on the excessive fragmentation of a specific region. Some proponents of regionalism argue in favor of regionalism because of the appropriate redistribution of infrastructure and the costs of services that the regional government can do and the local one cannot.
Regionalists do not have a consensus on the policies how to realize the regionalism in the real world. Taking a “pattern of failure” in this realm into account (Weir, 2000, p. 127), they are now very cautious how to prepare and also define the regionalism to meet the criteria set forth by the constitutions and existing legal structure. They may not be the supporters of the revolutionary ideas set forth by Brooks about the session of the megalopolises and creating a new government for these regions anymore. Instead they are making the claims narrower, but these are the limits which the legal and political realities imposed on them and maybe this retreat does not have something to do with the merits of the arguments for the regionalism. Now as appears from the ideas of regionalists, there are at least three trends in regionalism which inspire three different notions of regionalism at least in practice:
1. Those who consider regionalism as an idea and are content with the proposals and cooperation of the municipalities and state governments for solving regional problems. These regionalists who surrendered to the legal and political constraints are minimalist in the claim in creating new institutions for regional governance.
2. Those who are in favor of creating some single purpose governments for regional governance of regional problems and sometimes are called “selective regionalists”.
3. Those who consider the regionalism as “creating a supra-municipal regional special district or “public authority” to address a region-wide need for an infrastructure-intensive service, such as transit, drainage, sewers and waste disposal”. (Reynolds, 2007, p. 486) The proponents of this trend in regionalism believe that so long as the selective regionalism exists, “the fundamental inequality and mal apportionment of metropolitan areas’ resources, services, and opportunities are likely to remain. (Reynolds, 2007, p. 487)
Elements
In order to deeply understand regionalism, we should have a close look at its elements. The idea of regionalism is supposed to have at least three elements:
1. The whole metropolitan area is a real socio-economic unit.
Studying this element we should take the whole metropolitan area as a unit and as a cultural, ecological, economical and sometimes political entity in which the residents of multiple municipalities constantly move back and forth into account. In this sense as David Rusk mentioned, “the real city is the total metropolitan Area”. (See: Rusk, 1995, cited form Frug, 2006, p. 395) In fact, the environmental and economical problems arising from living in a metropolitan area know no limits and often surpass the given municipalities’ political and urban boundaries. The conglomeration of population is the widespread and dominant form of settlement in the twentieth century United States. In some instances, the metropolitan areas and megalopolises represent the de facto identities between cities and states and in some particular instances form an entity far larger than the legal jurisdictions of the states and even it may result in an inter-state megalopolis, something emerging in the Northeast of the United States. However, these entities lack the legal personality and no metropolitan government or any other governmental institution in the United States formed for the administration of these megalopolises. Although there exist many single-purpose entities with a limited jurisdiction and often appointed administrators who are administrating special issues within these regions, but they often lack the jurisdiction and legal powers to think of comprehensive regional policies for these areas. The U.S federal and states’ constitutions lack the capacity to create some entities in between, i.e., between local governments and state governments and probably inter-states entities. Hence, this fact often results in the failure of the attempts to create metropolitan governments. The fact is that, at least in this respect, the legal norms could not keep pace with the changes in real world.
2. The necessity of regional policies instead of purely local ones
Taking the interrelation of the local municipalities with each other into account, it is really hard to think of some problems that are “purely” local. The problem of the externalities, be it positive or negative, exacerbates the situation. The very interrelation of the local communities, imposed by the fact that there exist no purely local issues in the megalopolises, is the result of contriving some mechanisms of dealing with the problem of externalities. These externalities result in phenomena for which the large amount of the efforts of the local government scholars have been exhausted, i.e., gentrification, sprawl, free riding and so and so. Since the possibility of finding “purely” local issues is next to nothing, then it does not sound wise to contrive purely local solutions for the problems in metropolitan areas or megalopolises. In fact, almost all of the problems in the megalopolis are intertwined in a way that dealing with one of them produces side-effects. Hence, the policies made for dealing with the problems with inter-municipal essence should have also inter-municipal essence too. The logical conclusion is the desire for the regional instead of (purely) local policies. This desire is reflected in the proposal by the regionalists concerning the economic development, tax, affordable housing, planning, education, finance, sewerage and so and so in given municipalities.
One of the strongest advocacies of regionalism is based on the fact of economic interdependence of the local governments and municipalities in a metropolitan area. Proponents of regionalism argue that the economic prosperity of the metropolitan area can only be achieved by having a strong central city with a comprehensive legal jurisdiction on the whole region which its policies for the regional problems can best serve the whole region or metropolitan area and reduce economic inequalities and redistribute the wealth in the region. This idea is predicated on the notion that the healthier and wealthier municipalities in the region should support the other areas. Some regionalists emphasize that those who are affected by the decisions of local governments which have impacts on the whole region should have a voice at least in the elections of that municipality. Because, it is almost impossible that the people adversely affected by the policies of the one municipality have a voice in political issues of other municipalities in the present local government context, they argue in favor of the regional solution to this problem. In the regions that can be considered as an entity –slightly unified socio-economic entity—this arguments seem sound. By transferring the local powers to the regional entities, these kinds of negative features of the local governments may disappear (Reynolds, 2007, p. 490-94). All in all, the democratic theory which once was in favor of the local governments, this time is going to be reversed and taking the whole region into account, will provide strong incentives and arguments for regionalism.
3. The desire for new mechanisms for regionalism for formulation and implementation of regional policies
As mentioned above many proposals concerning a fully-fledged regional government has been failed and thus far, no fully-fledged regional government exists in the Unites States. In fact, this failure caused regionalists to think of the limited purpose governments as the preeminent solution, but in fact these governments failed too. These facts propelled the regionalists and policy makers to think of other mechanisms to create regional policies and solutions. Actually, in their opinion the policy making for the region does not require the regional institutions which their creation will make the heavy bureaucracy and the high costs of communication of the U.S heavier and higher. In this respect, they found the solution in accepting the legal status quo. In this context, in addition to NGOs, the proposals for solving the regional problems may originate the existing local government, state governments or the federal governments. (Briffault, 2000, p. 6)

Economic Criticism of Localism: A Move toward Regionalism
In this section, I will try to briefly elaborate an economic analysis of localism and provide a basis and economic justification for regional governments in the metropolitan areas. This economic analysis will cover the diseconomies of scale, problems arising from the commons in the region, taxation, and its consequences like free riding, vote buying, gentrification, sprawl and transaction costs. Although there exist many other issues worthy of mentioning, the limits of place do not let me to do so here.
The first and foremost economic justification for regionalism can be found in the potential interlocal conflicts between the different localities with different interests. These interlocal conflicts arise from the fact that:
1. Municipalities like rational individuals are associated with the profit maximization and cost minimization characteristics,
2. Absence any regional government, municipalities like rational individuals are economically risk adverse and want to pass the bucks to other municipalities in regional issues.
3. Legal norms and rules cannot keep pace with the natural and real ones
Local boundaries within a megalopolis or any metropolitan area automatically narrows the attention of the residents just to the local events and simultaneously makes them blind to the broader issues going on in the region and within the jurisdiction of other municipalities which directly and indirectly affects their lives. Once Local governments historically formed in the U.S., they are considered as the sole limited authority without any other de facto or de jure city or any considerable population in the environs. This idea was depicted by the vast amount of accessible and usable land for the Americans. The mind-set was that “the law had to fit the needs of big, open country, with faith in abundance, and with huge tracts of vacant land”. (Friedman, 1985, p. 412) Unfortunately, after considerable change in population size in the U.S. throughout two centuries, even now, localism is established on that faulty and outdated idea. The fact that every municipality is affected by the actions of other municipalities makes it clear that there should be something including policies, regulations or any other mechanism to deal with them. The fact that localism fragments the whole ecologically, economically and socially de facto region or metropolitan area, increases the economical hindrances and especially transaction costs between municipalities to a considerable degree.
The fact that the local governments in metropolitan areas cannot fully meet the economic efficiency, be it Pareto or Kaldor-Hicks, is virtually obvious; mostly because of the external or spillover effects of the decisions made by every individual local government. But one should be reminded that the efficiency model, as we shall see in the next sections, does not argue that the local governments should be abolished in favor of the regional government. Instead, it suggests the mix of localist and regionalist structures and policies. These mechanisms “can develop norms or guidelines for local decisions; review and veto local decisions that impose unacceptable costs on neighboring localities or on the region as whole, or at least provide a mechanism for obtaining the consent of and providing compensation to those who are adversely affected by local decisions; and provide poorer localities with a share of regional resources so that a broader range of localities will have the fiscal capacity to provide the services their residents want.” (Briffault, 2000, pp. 23-24)

Economies and Diseconomies of Scale and Regionalism
As Stigler puts; “The theory of the economies of scale is the theory of the relationship between the scale of use of a properly chosen combination of all productive services and the rate of output of the enterprise.” He also emphasizes; “in its broadest formulation this theory is a crucial element of the economic theory of social organization, for it underlies every question of market organization and the role (and locus) of governmental control over economic life.” (Stigler, 1958, p. 54) Strictly speaking, this theory briefly implies that “the greater the level of output, the lower the average cost of production”. (Cooter & Ulen, 2000, p. 31)
The two economic terms “economies and diseconomies of scale” with the original application in the industrial organizations and theories of the firm, have spilled over to other fields, especially urban studies. Many of the economists even at the outset of the economic theory have applied and taken the advantage of the economies and diseconomies of scale in the analysis of the economic phenomena, unconsciously or intuitively. For instance, Adam Smith in his famous book An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations gives an example of a big pin factory and its size aftermaths like specialization of labor in that factory and compares it with another pin factory that consists of just one laborer. (Smith, 1976, pp.18-20) This example given by Adam Smith gives us this intuition that the economies of scale arise from the bare fact that workers within a firm can be specialized in one field and needless to say that the specialization lets them to be more skillful on their assignments. There are other problems with this theory that might result in a quite converse phenomenon called “diseconomies of scale”. It is often said that the diseconomies of scale arise from the coordination problems which are the inherent characteristics of any large scale economies. At the lower levels of production, the increasing size of the firm results in the economies of scale because diseconomies of scale is not so cute yet, but in the higher levels of production, because the benefits of the economies of scale have already been achieved, the effects of diseconomies of scale become more acute and this effect will cause large firm not to grow too large. (Mankiw, 2006, pp. 274-75)
What makes economies of scale interesting for economists is that taking advantage of economies of scale will reduce the unit costs. There are at least two major reasons why growing large generally reduces per unit costs:
1. As stated above, economies taking advantage of use of mass production methods will result in the specialized use of labor and machines. This specialization of labor in turn will bring about the innovation and creativity in the labor capital and the creativity and innovation in specialized labor will generate cost-reducing techniques. This process means higher productivity of specialized labor originating from the economies of scale.
2. One of the characteristics of the large scale economies is the higher start-up and fixed costs, in these kinds of industries having small scale firms will cause diseconomies of scale because the higher fixed costs will adversely affect the price of the marginal unit and will result in the lower surplus both for producer and consumer. In these kinds of industries, once the means of production established, and the fixed costs consumed, the marginal costs will be very low. In this case, extending the firms scope will result in higher marginal benefit. (Gwartney et al., 2006, pp. 187-88)
3. Taking advantage of the Law of Large Numbers increases the predictability for a better planning for the region.
But taking the advantage of economies of scale continues to a point, beyond that point, the firms will run into diseconomies of scale. Some reasons for diseconomies of scale are as follows:
1. Bureaucratic inefficiencies which has its genesis in the rules and general orders in the management of large firms and will result in the inflexible rules and general orders,
2. Reduction in the innovation rate,
3. Cannibalization or competition among one’s own parts or products,
4. Principle-agent problem (agency costs),
5. The need for more levels of monitoring.

Although diseconomies of scale may appear with a high variance in different firms, but the general theory is that there is a point for the firms beyond which diseconomies of scale will outweigh the economies of scale. In economic terms, beyond that output level the long-run average total costs will rise and stifle the economies of scale. (Gwartney et al., 2006, pp. 187-88)
According this theory, there exist a maximum and minimum efficient size for the firm, the firms below the minimum efficient size usually have higher per unit costs and the firms larger than that sufficient size cannot earn as much as desirable. Taking advantage of economies of scale is one of the characteristics of the oligopolistic markets in which in the supply side, there are a few suppliers and they can meet the needs of the whole market. (Gwartney et al., 2006, pp. 241-42) Thinking of the economies of scale, it should also be noted that there are differences between the markets subject to study. Based on the industrial, agricultural and service economies, the ideal firm size may vary. The industrial economies tend to be larger, while the two others tend to be smaller.
The question is that how to apply the economic concepts of economies and diseconomies of scale to local government context and how to take advantage of them as one of the justifications of regionalism in metropolitan areas or megalopolises. The lost ring of this application is that, if there are economies of scale in the industry, “one” firm can produce any level of output in a lower cost than “many” firms and also the fact that public utilities tend to fall under the theory of economies of scale. (Cooter & Ulen, 2000, p. 31) In urban studies, economies of scale are often called agglomeration economies. History of urban studies shows that in the United States throughout the nineteenth century the annexation and enthusiasm for the large cities was dominant. This idea was inspired by the “booster spirit” and also by the idea that the large scale economies will bring about the advantages of the economies of scale. Hence, in this century a large number of annexations and consolidations of municipal governments happened that the underlying idea was the business and economic idea of economies of scale. As Jackson puts it, even sometime the supporters of efficiency in large scale cities used it as mask for their own desires for exploitation and controlling the whole region what he calls “the local or downtown brand of urban imperialism”. (Jackson, 1985, pp. 144-45) It seems obvious that the large scale businesses and mercantilist spirit prefer large scale markets and they are likely to support these large scale cities; in fact, in the annexation and consolidation context in the nineteen century they did what they should have done.
Needless to say, local governments do engage in many activities that have something to do with economics in one way or another. Strictly speaking, they are engaging in economic activities. Should local governments are to provide the residents with the public goods and services, they will engage in a lot of economic activities such as transactions and contracting. Thus, local governments too, can take the advantage of many aspects of the theory. For example, in a very small municipality, it will be inefficient to a municipality to provide the citizens with a sewerage system, power, waste disposal, if it wants to do it alone.
As seminal empirical studies showed local government covering small geographical area and population spent larger sums in comparison with their larger counterparts. (Shapiro, 1963, p. 176-77) The nature of the services provided by the local government is very similar to the large firms in the high start-up and fixed costs. Once established they can provide more services to larger population with lower marginal costs. In 1940s Hansen and Perloff suggested “incorporated municipalities required a minimum of 10,000 persons for the efficient performance of modern municipal services” (Shapiro, 1963, pp. 176-77). In Sweden from 1950s till now, two municipal reforms have taken place. The first municipal reform in 1950 reduced the number of municipalities from 2498 to 1037 and the second reform in 1974 also reduced the number of municipalities to 278. The underlying idea behind these reforms was achieving economies of scale. The first reform wanted to generate municipalities no less that 2000-3500 inhabitants and the second reform has taken place in order to form municipalities no less than 8000 inhabitants. (Hanes, 2003, p. 3)

As stated above there is a correlation between the size and population of the local government and also the services that it should provide the residents with. The larger the municipality, the vaster the services that the local government should provide people with. This logical correlation may suggest the economies of scale in local governments. As Shapiro points out in 1963, the consolidation of the local governments in the metropolitan area in a regional government will not be the proper solution because of the diseconomies of scale. He says that at that time the “economic efficiency may be highest in medium-sized communities of 50,000 to 100,000 residents”. (Shapiro, 1963, p. 178) In this regard, one of the enthusiastic proponents of regionalism suggests that “it is important to permit central cities to annex surrounding communities with relative ease. He argues that cities that can easily annex surrounding territory are elastic and therefore can “capture” suburban growth, while cities that cannot are “inelastic” and therefore “contribute to” suburban growth”. (Rusk, 1995, Cited from: Frug, 2006, p. 396)
From a different standpoint, Buchanan and Tullok in response to the question of the optimum and appropriate size of the government or collective unit say that: “The group should be extended so long as the expected costs of the spillover effects from excluded jurisdictions exceed the expected incremental costs of decision-making resulting from adding the excluded jurisdictions… Conceptually, the answer is given by a comparison between the additional decisionmaking costs involved in moving from a lower to a higher level and the spillover costs that remain from retaining the activity at the lower level.” (Buchanan, & Tullock, 1999, pp. 113-14) Following this subject, below, we are going to discuss some major sources of inefficiency in fragmented megalopolises.

Costs of Communication
In every firm, each worker should have a one on one communication with each other in order to have a symmetric cooperation and to prevent the duplication of efforts. Once the number of the workers increases, the number of the communication channels for connecting them will increase too. It is evident that the communication will not be costless. Every communication imposes some kind of costs and those costs will increase the transaction costs within a firm. But there is another fact that exacerbates the situation. The fact is that the number of the communication channels is growing much faster than the number of the workers. The relationship of the number of the workers and communication channels is shown below:

Therefore, in case we have 10 workers, it will require 45 channels for communication. As noted above channeling and communication will impose some costs for communication which is a type of transaction costs.
Let’s come back to local government context. The state of Pennsylvania has 2566 local governments. Imagine that there exists an environmental problem that engages fifty local governments in the state of Pennsylvania, absence of any regional and state government, it will impose a very high transaction costs for them to come together, negotiate, reach a conclusion and enforce it. Just think of one thousand and two hundred twenty five come together and negotiate about the regional problem. Although in reality, it will not be so hard to do it, but in the absence of the regional or state government, there will be no way round. Although, the state governments will take action about the state problems but what if a metropolitan area or a megalopolis which consists of many fragmented municipalities and also trespass the boundaries of many states run into such a problem?

Duplication of Efforts
Duplication of efforts may be considered as one of the results of the large amount of communication channels and high transaction costs. Suppose that there are many municipalities in a metropolitan area, one regional problem occurs, the channels that they should create for communication will costs a small fortune for each municipality. Because of this high transaction costs, it is more probable that they will be blind of the efforts that each municipality takes in order to deal with the problem, and the obvious consequence will be the duplication of efforts that will causes many wasted parallel efforts and consequently, decrease the overall efficiency.

Network Effects
Will the consolidation of the municipalities to form a regional government lead into network economic effects? Network externalities appear when greater number of users join to a network. This theory assumes that “the utility that a given user derives from a good depends upon the number of other users who are in the same “network” as is he or she.” (Katz & Shapiro, 1985, P. 424) This network in the local government law can appear when the municipalities join together in a unified network to share their resources. Although this fact may generate some unintended consequences like diseconomies of scale, but it seems that taking the size and number into a serious consideration and not letting them grow more than necessary, this will increase the positive externalities of networking. One of the examples worth mentioning here is the networking of the schools and universities in the region and sharing their resources with each other rather than insulating one another. The good example is the example of the University of Pennsylvania, Drexel University, Villanova University, Southeastern University and Saint Joseph University in the greater Philadelphia which by networking and taking the advantage of the economies of scale and network externalities can compete with the higher rank universities in the United States and around the globe. Although this scheme might not be probable, because of the rank and resource differentials among these universities and some other biases, but all things equal, it seems a solution that might work. Being aware of their limited resources and technologies, European universities now are taking advantage of the economies of scale and network externalities by generating new networked programs and degrees.
The best way of networking occurs in the cyberspace rather than the actual world. Of course there is a problem with this approach, i.e., in the long run, the shared resources characteristics will change from the private property or source and turn into the public good or the commons which will be studied at the next chapter. It means that it is probable in many cases; the problem of the commons may frustrate the sources of the better providers of the shared resource and disincentivize him or her from investing the amount needed. Indeed this kind of resource sharing needs precise regulations.
At the end of this section, it is also worth mentioning that like any other rational human being, local governments and municipalities are assumed to be rational agents and being a rational agent, makes them to have almost all characteristics that a rational individual has, like cost minimizing and benefit maximizing and being risk averse and the like. This fact leads these local governments to engage in a frustrating competition with each other within the regional structure called cannibalization which may reduce the overall efficiency of regionalism.

The Tragedy of the Commons and Anticommons
Form the advent of the concept of property, although most “things” are considered to be eligible for ownership, there exist some “things” that were not intended to be owned and controlled by individuals. In Roman law these things that were not subject of the private ownership were called res extra commercium. These things were categorized in three subtitles as follows:
1. res communes: things that could only be used and not owned and hence they were adapted to general use.
2. res publicae: Things that “were adapted to public use, that is, use for public purposes by public functionaries or by the political community”
3. res sanctae, res sacrae, and res religiosae: things “devoted to religious purposes or consecrated by religious acts inconsistent with private ownership” (Pound, 1992, pp. 110-111)
As Pound puts it, in modern law “we have made the second category into property of public corporations.” And accordingly legal scholars have distinguished between three categories of res publicae:
1. “Those things which cannot be owned at all, such as human beings…
2. Things which may be owned by public corporations but may not be transferred…
3. Things which are owned by public corporations in full dominion.” (Pound, 1992, pp. 110-111)
The modern general definition of “the commons” is not so different from the three categories recognized by Roman law. But the main problem in the modern law which emerged by the population growth and its consequences is how to regulate the commons in a way to preserve it from depletion. Population growth in the modern era causes the commons to be vulnerable to depletion and this raised the voices for mechanism for preserving them, that is, how to regulate the “things not subject to the private ownership”?
The term “tragedy of the commons” coined by Garret Hardin in his famous article in 1968 indicates a source shared by a group of people, (Hess, & Ostrom, 2007, P. 4) in which individuals are granted the right to use that given resource without any cost-efficient way of monitoring or limiting each other’s use. This will lead to the destruction of that resource. Considering this situation, without any control of the entry or any other regulation, the common resource will be exploited “even at the levels of negative marginal productivity”. As Hardin emphasized: “Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in commons brings ruin to all.” (Hardin, 1968, p. 1244)
This happens because the external effects are not fully internalized within the choice of each individual decision maker. There might be two kinds of externalities in the commons:
1. Static or current externalities: in the static externalities simply taking advantage of a given source reduces other people’s chances to take advantage of that source.
2. Dynamic or future Externalities: In dynamic externalities the uses of a renewable resource today may have destructive effects on the future uses of that given resource.
In the commons because of the lack of conformity between the use and the exclusion rights —one of the inherent characteristics of the ownership in the western tradition— individuals do not use the commons with due care and attention and they do not bear the whole costs of their activities, i.e. the externalities cannot be internalized using the commons. (Parisi, & Depoorter, 2005, pp. 74-75) On the other hand, anticommons problem may occur when multiple owner, each have the effective right to exclude the other form the common source, this means that all of the owners at last will be prevented from “maximizing his privilege of the use”, and the common resource will remain unused and be wasted even if there is net social benefit in using them. In other words, the Commons and anticommons problem are the consequence of “symmetric structural departures from a unified conception of property”, and are the consequence of a lack of conformity between use and exclusion rights, i.e., the fragmentation of the property rights. (Parisi et al., 2004, pp. 175-76)
Taking the fact that a commons may exist in different levels into account, from a very small group like family and its refrigerator to the community (Sidewalks), national, international and global levels (atmosphere and the place beyond it) (Hess & Ostrom, 2007, p. 4), it seems that it is unavoidable in the local government law to escape the tragedy of the commons. The problem of the commons in the present local government structure arises from the bare fact that the natural boundaries do not coincide the political, administrative or manmade boundaries. Considering many municipalities in a region which contains the commons like a lake, river or air which knows no municipal boundaries, and all the municipalities can take advantage of that source and no one will be in charge of neither of them which may internalize those externalities, will cause serious problems to it. Also, if in a common source in the region, every municipality holds the right to exclude others, the tragedy of anticommons will occur. These two phenomena is two strong defenses in favor of creating (at least single-purpose) regional governments to preserve the commons in the region.

Taxation
Undoubtedly, the tax and taxation which has its roots in the theory of the state (Bentley, 2007, p. 17 & Feser, 2000) and is one of the most important issues that the local, state and federal governments willy-nilly engage in it. In fact, absence of taxation, especially in societies that the sources of expenditure of the government comes from another source rather than tax, local government and hence local government law does not make sense and its importance will be reduced to the administrative divisions of the centralized state. In some countries like Iran, the taxation system is paralyzed to the extent that at first blush the beholder may not find any trace of taxation and its effects on the local and national politics. Therefore, thus far, in these countries local governments has not been taken into a serious account. The taxation is the confluence of the three disciplines of economics, law and politics, Then if one cannot say that tax system and taxation is not the raison d’être of the local government law, it is one of the most strong reasons of existence. Many of the concepts in local government revolve around the tax like zoning, incorporation, annexation and so forth.
The taxation is the incentive for many of the issues in the local government especially in zoning, incorporation and also regional governments and so and so. As Gary Miller puts it “the most basic and pervasive common denominator for incorporation was the avoidance of high property taxation”. (Miller, 1981, cited from Frug, 2006, p. 339) Competition over the mix of lower taxes and higher services in terms of quality and quantity also is the source of disputes in many areas like schooling, zoning, incorporation, economic development and many other component parts of the local government law. In this paper, the main issue is that the current local tax system may produce many problems in the local governments that cannot be avoided save having a regional approach to taxation. These problems are as follows:
1. Gentrification: One of the major problems caused by the manipulation of the property tax in the different municipalities is the phenomena called gentrification which is in turn the source of many economic, social and especially racial conflicts.
2. Free riding: The people might live in low tax municipalities and work in the high tax central cities. This causes the negative externalities whose actual victims are the congested, high crime central city residents.
3. Effects on schooling
4. Sprawl and excessive suburbanization
5. Tax may cause local government to take the exclusionary zoning as a strategy to exclude the people with lower income and higher demand for social services and amenities. This may put the municipalities who do not take exclusionary strategies in trouble, because they may be overwhelmed by the families with lower income and consequently its tax base will shrink. (Cashin, 2001, pp. 752-53)
Although localism may encourage tax payers to pay the taxes as willingly as possible, because they can see the effects of the taxes which are distributed and spent in the same locality they reside, and in this regard, many criticism of the taxes which is raised by the economists may resolve, the above-mentioned externalities may cause many problems that would serve as a potential justification for the regional governments especially in the metropolitan areas. Three of the externalities which the local taxation may generate and without having a regional approach they will not be internalized will be studied below.

Free riding
As mentioned above, one of the major sources of free riding in the region is the different rates of taxation in different and usually adjacent municipalities. Free riders are those who consume more than the fair share of their use and also shoulder less than the costs they should do. In other words, free riders are those who receive the benefits of the goods without paying for them. (Gwartney et al., 2006, p. 118) Public goods, having two distinct characteristic in comparison to the private property, that is, nonexcludibility and nonrivalry and mostly provided by local, state or federal government, are most likely vulnerable to free riding.
Although there are many ways of free riding in the adjacent municipalities, the most obvious one is the problem of commuters. It seems that the commuters under the provision of the “freedom of movement” (See for instance: Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 13 & U.S Constitution, Article IV, section I) use the local services without paying for them. And residents perceive commuters as free riders. Since commuters take advantage of the services provided by local governments and municipalities, and often do not pay for them. In fact, those who shoulder the tax burden are residents. It means that the taxes paid by the residents are consuming to serve the non residents. The question here is that how can local government avoid the free riders problem. How can local governments capture revenues from those nonresidents who are taking advantage of the local services without paying for them? The question is whether taxing commuters is just or not. (Shields & Shideler, 2003, pp. 27-28) As Shields and Shideler in their empirical evidence suggest “traditional jurisdictional taxing mechanisms (i.e., poll taxes) will generally fail to generate Pareto-efficient outcomes”. They suggest that although the commuters should be taxed, “the impacts of commuters on local government expenditures at the workplace are slight”. Commuters have also positive impact on some local public expenditure and they also have “differential expenditure impacts at the margin between workplace and bedroom communities”. Taking the revenue side into account, we can find out that the commuters pay the taxes for the services they are provided with, in one way or another, whether by their employers who are in charge of the business taxes which some amount of it can be considered as the compensation of the using the municipal services by their employees. At the end of the day, their empirical inquiry suggests that the policy makers should be hesitant to levy the tax for commuters for fairness reasons. (Shields & Shideler, 2003, pp. 40-41)
The other free rider problem may arise between city and suburb, as cities taxes are much higher than the suburb, the people living in cities, tend to be suburbanites with a lower tax rates and with the advantage of escaping congestion and obnoxious aspects of urban life while taking advantage of the economic and cultural advantages of central cities. (Hall, 1988, Cited from Frug, p. 309) This may cause the city to become poorer and poorer and the suburbs much better off. Escaping the congested gray city and taking refuge in the quiet and green suburbia caused some scholars call the suburbia as the “utopia for middle class” or bourgeoisie. (Fishman, 1987, cited from Frug, p. 328)
The second type of free riding occurs in a different arena, i.e., in the local elections in countries that have no voter registration and voters can vote in another jurisdiction to which they do not belong. This phenomenon generates vote buying. This kind of vote buying will also appear because of the disproportionality in the size of the adjacent constituencies. Vote buying will generate less accountable representatives towards the constituency and also a gap between the votes and the public interests. (Karlan, 1994, pp. 1474-75) For example, in Iran, where there exists no legal provision for voter registration which in turn enables voter mobility the day of the election, this phenomenon frequently occurs.
The extreme disproportionality can be seen in Tehran Metropolitan Area (Greater Tehran) in which the biggest constituency with 30 representatives is surrounded by many small constituencies with very small population and one or two representative. Since the costs of vote buying in Tehran constituency is very high because of the larger constituency, there will be no costumer for votes, but the candidates of the smaller constituencies near Tehran, taking advantage of voter mobility, transfer the people from Tehran to the constituencies in which there is no voter registration and also there is no legal sanction against the transferring the voters in the day of election. In this case, it seems that the candidates who buy the votes are free riders. Because as mentioned above, vote buying has some consequences that makes the citizens living in the residencies that are vulnerable to vote buying, not to have their voice in the local election while paying the taxes for local services. This is called the disruption of the votes from public interests. While the outsiders by selling their votes which are supposed to have no economic value for them, especially when they know that their votes will not have a significant impact in very large constituencies, will sell their votes even if in a very low price to the vote buyers who gain a significant political advantage in a small constituency. In this case, the residents who are committed citizens are bearing the burden of unaccountability of their representatives.

Gentrification & Racial Segregation
During the 1970s and 1980s with the growing importance of some cities in the U.S and around the world, like New York and London, we have seen a capital flight from the other areas to the central cities. This phenomenon resulted in the higher rates and prices in real estates in the central cities and consequently higher property value and taxes in that area. As a result, the lower and middle income residents living previously in those areas now could not afford higher taxes and are forced to leave those areas, and wealthier people will replace them. The wealthier the area becomes, the lower income people should leave. This will generate a new gentry and this process is called “gentrification”. Needless to say that the newly arrived wealthy residents, need new and better services which is not comparable to the services existed before for the low or middle income residents, then as far as the services grow, the tax grows concomitantly and the poor people should be priced out. (Maurrasse, 2006, p. 44) Gentrification (also called “suburbanization in reverse” or “reverse exclusionary zoning”) is a term generally used for the arrival of wealthier to the existing relatively poor neighborhood and pricing them out. It indicated the incursions of middle and high class households into decaying inner city neighborhoods. (Scott, 2008, p. 71) This phenomenon will result in the change in the character and culture of the area and may also cause the racial and economic stratification and therefore racial conflict because residents of the affluent communities have an incentive to avoid sharing the tax burdens of the poor. (Briffault, 1990a, p. 5) Although at first blush, it seems that this phenomenon is economically desirable, its effects are in fact very complicated.

In the United States the debate over gentrification is intertwined with the debate over racial segregation and stratification. As wealthier neighborhoods in the U.S are the nest of the white high income people and quite to the contrary, the decaying neighborhoods are considered the home for the black lower income families. As Richard ford suggests even race-blind policies in the United States will result in the segregation and socio-economic stratification within a society with a history of racism. (Ford, 1994, pp. 1850-51)
One of the biggest incentives that can exacerbates the gentrification and racial segregation is the competition among local governments. As David Rusk puts it “Fragmented local government fosters segregation” and “unified local government promotes integration”. In the context of the United States always the fragmentation of the metropolitan areas is intertwined with at least a minimum degree of the social and residential segregation. Although for most Americans, smaller government always was a symbol of the local communities with a better interaction with the voters, but it seems that in reality the smaller governments are serving the neighborhood least and also as an externality these fragmented small governments are generating racial and economic segregation. Quite to the contrary, the bigger the government geographically, the more the racial and socio-economic integration and the greater social mobility are. (Rusk, 1995, Cited from Frug, 2006, p. 398) Needless to say, the more fragmented the metropolitan area with local governments, the less likely to mandate the integrating strategies. As David Rusk puts:
“What is clear is that, absent federal or state mandates, a metro area in which local government is highly fragmented is usually incapable of adopting broad, integrating strategies. Conversely, a metro area in which key planning and zoning powers are concentrated under a dominant local government has the potential to implement policies to promote greater racial and economic integration if that government has the courage and vision to do so.” (Rusk, 1995, Cited from Frug, 2006, pp. 398-99)
The amount of the segregation in the United States is so high that the white people no longer want to live in neighborhood in which the blacks are in majority and also they “are willing to pay13% premium in order to live in an all-white neighborhood”. Needless to say, this premium is an indicator of the de facto segregation, in a world that it is supposed to be no de jure segregation. (Cashin, 2001, pp. 737-38) It seems that we can achieve the converse relationship between economic growth including well-paid jobs, better schools and property and the number of blacks in most part of the Unites States like Atlanta, Washington and Chicago. This in turn causes the “increasing average commute times and limiting access to “New Economy” jobs.” (Cashin, 2001, p. 757)

The important problem here is the zoning and its impact on neighborhood segregation and gentrification. In most instances, zoning has an important impact on the prices of the real estates and the zoning that increases the costs of the retaining housing can lead in the gentrification. As stated above these kind of zoning will displace the low income families to poorer areas. As we know every transaction in the real world has transaction costs and the displaced often black families, because of the high taxes and high costs of new amenities, who are leaving the community will engage in a very high transaction costs of the searching suitable and affordable housing.
The important point here is that usually the gentrification process is justified under the title of economic development by government which sometimes leads to the eminent domain cases. The opponents of gentrification –under the guise of economic development –argue that the government has the responsibility of improving the neighborhood without letting the gentrification occur and displacement of citizens. May be their rationale is the market failure, but the fact that the government interference for improving the neighborhood entails and imposes higher taxes beyond the capability of the lower and middle income classes often adds to the complexities of the problem. (Dubin, 1992-1993, pp. 768-70) Needless to say that this kind of gentrification under the guise of economic development, in addition to its social and economic impacts has a great psychological aftermaths, that is, the citizens may see it as a plot for organized gentrification and it will decrease the confidence of the citizens to the government which is often considered as one of the most important social capitals. This fact will favor the emergence of the “right to protective zoning” which is a very controversial issue in local government law.

Sprawl
One of the results of the conflicts among different municipalities is sprawl. The uncoordinated and unchecked growth of the cities and municipalities in a metro area in the United States with a vast amount of available land caused sprawl. (Frug et al., 2006, p. 419) At first blush, sprawl provides certain benefits for people living in congested old cities. It can provide the lower income families with the new housing opportunities outside the city. It gives citizens almost unlimited space for their automobiles. It takes the citizens away from the fiscal and social problems of the cities and can provide better and also more homogenous place to live in. Lower property taxes and also proper education are the other benefits. Some of the laws and policies, especially zoning policies, in the local level are accentuating the sprawl in the U.S. (Burchell et al., 2005, pp. 15-16) In this context, sprawl can be considered as one of the negative externalities of localism. Economists have argued that the sprawl does not result in an efficient outcome. It can be said that sprawl has four categories of costs that in an economic calculus, it produces inefficiency. The four categories of costs that sprawl may impose are as follows:
1. Environmental Costs
2. Economic Costs
3. Social Costs and
4. Public Health Costs (Jackson, 2005, pp. 301-305)

This is because; sprawl has four main characteristics in its definition that make it extremely costly:
1. “Unlimited outward extension into undeveloped areas.
2. Low density
3. Leapfrog development
4. strict segregation of housing and commercial development, often through the construction of standardized development types, automobile dependence, and fragmented planning and governance” (Burchell et al., 2005, p. 12)

One of the causes that the localism can lead to sprawl is that the local governments are largely dependent on the property taxes as a source of revenue. As an economic assumption the local governments are fully aware of their own cost and benefit analysis and they do not want to have new residents whose costs exceed their benefits. In the context of sprawl, it means that local government will take advantage of the land use and zoning policies to exclude the residents and also businesses that providing them with the services will cost more than their contribution to the tax base. In this case, local governments will do their land use and housing power in a way to increase the property value in their residency and will make the entry cost higher to their residency. This will result in the fact that the poor families will be displaced to the poorer localities with a lower tax. This in turn may have a “ripple effect” in the region and other localities may do the same to protect themselves from less affluent citizens with a lower contribution to the tax base and also probably more need for public goods and services. This ripple effect will bring about the exclusionary zoning across metropolitan area and as a result the property value will increase. In this situation less affluent families will be forced out from the metropolitan area to the outside of the metropolitan area and they will go and constitute residencies that they can afford. Adding the factors like developments in new transportation, advent of the electronic government and new communication technologies has contributed to the sprawl. Theses technological advances decreased the dependency of the families to the central cities and even to the suburbs and in some cases encouraged them to live in exurban and rural areas.
In addition, sprawl has another obnoxious effect on the industry, As a result of sprawl, the local governments attempt to collect more taxes to provide the sprawling area with the infrastructures like roads, sewerage system and so and so. This in turn, will raise taxes to a considerable degree and the elected local governments prefer to impose the tax burden not to the voters but to the businesses. This will cause the flight of businesses from that area.
The second argument for the regionalism in the context of sprawl is the poverty in metropolitan areas. As mentioned above, poorer areas are more service recipients and have less contributing in the tax base and this will cause the flight of the more affluent families and also businesses from certain municipalities in the metropolitan areas. To be clear, more affluent families who are mostly bearing the tax burden of the particular municipality do not receive enough services will move to better-off municipalities with stronger tax base, i.e. with more affluent residency and in this way they will contribute both to the concentration of poverty and also sprawl. As Prof. Briffault puts it “concentrated poverty operates as a “push” factor…[and]the availability of commercial and residential sites elsewhere in the metropolitan area… operates as “pull” factor inducing people to move.” (Briffault, 2000, pp. 12-14) In the end, following Prof. Briffault, we should say that because the “sprawl is a regional phenomenon”, (Briffault, 2000, p. 10) the existing local government system will not let it to be controlled by regional policies. (Briffault, 2000, pp. 10-12)

Transaction Costs & Hold-out Problem
The costs parties incur in the process of a bargain i.e., searching, negotiating, reaching, and enforcing agreements are called transaction costs (Polinsky, 2003, p. 14). At first blush, it seems that the localism can reduce the transaction costs in democracies to a considerable degree. Localism by decreasing and limiting the geographical scope of certain communities and consequently by decreasing the number of the citizens can help the public decisions be reached out with a lower transaction costs. In this part of the paper, we should consider the transaction costs in two different viewpoints: firstly, decisions that should be made with the participation of the citizens directly and secondly, decision which should be made with the participation of the localities or municipalities about the whole region or metropolitan area. Therefore, in this regard, the transaction costs should be taken into account twice. Having regional government without having municipalities or in other words, merging municipalities in the regional government can reduce the costs of transaction to a considerable degree. It means that the most costly and expensive part of the transaction costs for decision making about the issues in question, will be reduced. One of the major arguments for indirect democracies has its roots in the high transaction costs of the every individual participating in the democratic process. As John Stuart Mill says:

“It is evident that the only government which can fully satisfy all the exigencies of the social state is one in which the whole people participate; that any participation, even in the smallest public function, is useful; that the participation should everywhere be as great as the general degree of improvement of the community will allow; and that nothing less can be ultimately desirable than the admission of all to a share of the sovereign power of the state. But since all cannot, in a community exceeding a single small town, participate personally in any but some very minor portions of the public business, it follows that the ideal type of a perfect government must be representative.” (Mill, 1865, p.69)

In this statement from Mill, it seems that there exist two economic hindrances that do not let direct democracies work, that is, the participation of the whole people and the transaction costs and hold-out problem plus the opportunity costs that people may incur to be fully participative in democracies. This argument is the foundation of the representative government. The transaction costs in direct democracies are high to the extent that in the modern world there is no sign of such a government unless in some places and in its weak forms. Although the representative governments have a considerable agency costs, and there are some settings in representative governments that almost plagues the process of bargaining in political sphere, (Parisi, 2003, Pp. 25-26) transaction costs of the direct democracies outweigh the agency costs of the representative government. (Wittman, 1989)

It should be taken into account that every decision made in the regional level impacts the lives of the residents in the localities and quite vice versa. If so, the decisions made by democratically elected representatives by people and supervised by the system of checks and balances in the whole region will reflect the ideas of the region. On the other hand, the costs of communication among localities or municipalities in case of a regional problems are very high, especially in a disorganized society, because within well organized societies, costs will be reduced through effective lobbying and fighting a court case, but in an unorganized society, the cost of organizing people will be added to the costs of negotiation and solving the problem. (Lawson, 2007, p. 27) The negotiation tactics (hold-out) and strategic behavior of the parties will exacerbate the situation and will increase the transaction costs tremendously.

Democratic Concerns
Democratic theory has traditionally served the localism; even within the American metropolitan areas, no one claims that the efficiency arguments should outweigh the democratic argument or concerns and hardly anyone argued in favor of the abolition of the local governments. Because local governments has long been adopted as the realization and the most concrete example of the democratic theory as laboratory of democracy. But at least, the situation in which modern metropolitan areas and megalopolises are in, had propelled the theorists of democracy not to look at the regionalism as pessimistically as they did before.
With The advent of the Public Choice Theory or Positive Political Economy, Hobbsian and Lockean political man has been replaced with the economic rational individual or “utility maximizing political consumers” (Duch, & Stevenson, 2008, Pp. 8-9) In fact in this calculus rational individuals and “parties formulate policies in order to win elections, rather than win elections in order to formulate policies” (Downs, 1957, p. 28 ) With the introduction of this man in political economy literature, the main concern shifted from the nature of state or government to the procedural characteristics of modern democracy and consequently, electoral systems came to the focus of attention of the political economists. This approach is dominated by the issues concerning the economic vote. In fact these theorists tried to explain how economic factors impact the voters’ utility function.
One of the big problems that can be argued against the regionalism and at the same time is the most important argument in favor of localism is the paradox of voting. Paradox of voting briefly suggests that the individuals’ votes which came out of their preferences will probably not affect the outcome of the election. An individual in deciding whether to vote or not, will take account of different factors in order to make sure that his or her vote will be of any effect. These factors are as follows: 1. what is the marginal benefit of voting, 2. what is the marginal costs of the voting, and 3. How much is the probability of the decisiveness of my vote? The rational individual also thinks of the marginal benefit of voting. It seems that the opportunity costs of voting is just the opportunity costs of casting the vote on the election day, that is relatively low cost, but compared to the marginal benefit of voting which will be affected wholly by the probability of decisiveness which is extremely low, is not so trivial. When the political consumer finds out that the marginal costs of the participation in the election are nontrivial and the marginal benefits trivial, the rational individual will prefer not to vote.
In the context of localism and regionalism and the election, it can be said that the lower the number of the people in the municipalities, the more the probability of being decisiveness in election and vice versa. Then construction a regional government with a greater constituencies, will result in less probability of being effective in the election result and the voters as “utility maximizing political consumer” will have less incentive to participate in the election. This will cause a lower turn out in the democracies with big constituencies. (Duch & Stevenson, 2008, pp. 8-9) We can formulate these factors as follows:
Marginal benefit of voting= probability of decisiveness × differential value
If
1. Marginal benefit of voting> marginal costs of voting= higher turnout
2. Marginal costs of voting> marginal benefits of voting=lower turnout
If population goes up, probability of decisiveness comes down and vice versa.
In regional elections the voter turnout will be much less than local elections.

The most crucial and central idea of the democratic theory is the right to self determination. And the central idea of that right requires that the people who are anyhow affected by certain decisions of the governors be able to have their voice in making those decisions. To put it differently, one of the most important premises of the democracy is the equal voice of those affected by the decisions should be considered in the decision making process. As stated above, the pure localism lacks at least this criterion; because of the externalities that the local decisions may impose on other citizens outside the locality. As a matter of course, this fact infringes the basic presumption of modern democracies i.e., political equality. This problem appears in areas such as land use and zoning which may directly affect the citizens rights living outside of the local boundaries. Maybe one can cite thousands of examples that the local governments decision bringing about negative externalities. On the other hand, local governments’ decisions may lead into some positive externalities too, but in this case the free riding problem may arise against localism. As prof. Briffault mentions: “The extralocal consequences of local decisions, thus, not only cause inefficiency; they undermine the assumption that local actions are democratic.” (Briffault, 2000, pp. 24-27) Therefore, the sole democratic argument against localism remains is that the sense of effectiveness that citizens may feel when they are participating in small units of governments, and it seems that this argument will lose its importance in the presence of the efficiency argument. Although the citizens may have a palpable participation in local elections and they may feel the democracy at home, in metropolitan areas, the fact that the local government cannot deal with the regional issues that might be of greater importance for the residents of metropolitan areas, limits the power of the local solutions. In this case, citizens may be voiceless in regional matters and they may be left to the political bargains. The fact that there are many purely local issues that have not any extraterritorial effects, supports the idea that the “combination of localist and regionalist policies and institutions rather either a totally fragmented localist system or the consolidation of all local government decision-making at the regional level.” (Briffault, 2000, pp. 24-27)
In addition, there are many other socio-political concerns about regionalism, such as concerns about accountability, social concerns, especially concerns about the sense of community (See: Kanter, 1972, pp. 148-175 & Jackson, 1985, pp. 272-82), concerns about diseconomies of large scale economies or governments such as cannibalization, existence of purely local issues in the region and so and so that do not let us to choose either regionalism or localism at the expense of the other.

Concluding Remarks
The main idea of this paper is the current local structure in the United States’ local government structure does not result in an efficient outcome both for local and state governments especially in the metropolitan areas and megalopolises. In supporting this idea, by taking advantage of the economic concepts and applying them in the local governments’ context, I have gone through some factors in my analysis of current structure of local governments in the United States. In this regard, I started with a brief introduction to localism and regionalism and their political and economic underpinnings. At the second step, I continued with the economic criticism of localism which its reverse side was the economic justifications for regionalism. In doing so, I have considered the economies and diseconomies of scale and their potential effects on the local governments and also studied the optimal size of local government from the economic stand point. The lower costs of communication, eliminating the duplication of efforts and achieving network economic effects were among the advantages that this theory provided for the regionalism as opposed to localism. Although this theory implies that the regional governments should not grow too large because of the diseconomies of scale and cannibalization they may generate.
The second factor in my calculus was the tragedy of the commons and anticommons which may occur in case of a region-wide common source shared among municipalities. Local taxation and its aftermaths, i.e., free riding, vote buying in countries without voter registration which facilitates voter mobility, gentrification and sprawl were among the consequences of the local policy making about taxation that serves as a justification for regional planning. Needless to say, the existence of so many local governments in the present structure of the local government system in the U.S will result in a high transaction costs and also strategic behavior such as hold out problem in the cooperation of the local governments coping with a regional problem. All in all, these economic arguments are all in favor of having regional approach to the regional problems in American metropolitan area and megalopolises. Although these economic justifications are all in favor of the regionalism, it should be noted that all these arguments have the characteristics of the “slippery slope” argument. It means that there are some other legitimate socio-political concerns about regionalism which do not let us to believe in the total abolition of the local governments; concerns about representation, accountability, sense of community and diseconomies of large scale governments, propel us to be in favor of the coexistent model of localism and regionalism in megalopolises.

References:
2. Badi, F. (1988), Society, State, and Urbanism: Ibn Khaldun’s Sociological Thoughts, Albany, State University of New York Press
3. Bentley, D. (2007), Taxpayers' Rights: Theory, Origin and Implementation, The Netherlands, Kluwer Law International BV
4. Berolzheimer, F. (1968), The world’s Legal Philosophers, Boston, Boston Book Co.
5. Briffault, R. (1990a), “Our Localism: Part I—The Structure of Local Government Law”, in Columbia Law Review, Vol. 90, January 1990, No. 1
6. Briffault, R. (1990b), “Our Localism: Part II—Localism and Legal Theory”, in Columbia Law Review, Vol. 90:346
7. Briffault, R. (2000), “Localism and Regionalism”, in Buffalo Law Review, Volume 48, Winter 2000, Number 1
8. Buchanan, J. & Tullock, G. (1999), The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy, Indianapolis, Liberty Fund
9. Burchell, R., Downs, A., McCann, B., Mukherji, S. (2005), Sprawl Costs: Economic Impacts of Unchecked Development, Washington, Island Press
10. Cashin, S. (2001), “Middle-Class Black Suburbs and the State of Integration: A Post-Integration Vision for Metropolitan America”, In Cornell Law Review, Vol. 86:729
11. Church, J. & Ware, R. (2000), Industrial Organization: A Strategic Approach, Boston, Irwin/McGraw-Hill
12. Cooter, R. & Ulen, T. (2000), Law and Economics, (3rd ed.), New York, Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
13. Downs, A. (1957), An Economic Theory of Democracy, New York, Harper and Row
14. Dubin, J. (1992-1993), “From Junkyards to Gentrification: Explicating a Right to Protective Zoning in Low-Income Communities of Color”, in Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 77:739
15. Duch, R. & Stevenson, R. (2008), The Economic Vote: How Political and Economic Institutions Condition Election Results, New York, Cambridge University Press
16. Farr, E. (1850), History of the Persians, New York, Robert Carter & Brothers
17. Feser, E. (2000), “Taxation, Forced Labor, and Theft” in The Independent Review, vol. V, n. 2
18. Ford, R. (1994), “The Boundaries of Race: Political Geography in Legal Analysis”, in Harvard Law Review, Vol. 107, No. 8 (June., 1994)
19. Ford, R. (1996-97), “Geography and Sovereignty: Jurisdictional Formation and Racial Segregation” in Stanford Law Review, Vol. 49: 1365
20. Friedman, L. (1985), A History of American Law, (2nd ed.), New York, Simon & Schuster, Inc.
21. Frug, G., Ford, R., Barron, D. (2006), Local Government Law: Cases and Materials, St. Paul, Minnesota, Thompson/West
22. Gwartney, J., Stroup, R., Sobe, R., Macpherson, D. (2006), Microeconomics: Private and Public Choice, (11th ed.), Thompson/South western
23. Hanes, N. (2003), “Empirical Studies in Local Public Finance: Spillovers, Amalgamations, and Tactical Redistribution” In: Umeå University, Department of Economics / Umeå Economic Studies. RePEc:hhs:umnees:0604.
24. Hardin, G. (1968), “The tragedy of the Commons”, in Science, New Series, Vol. 162, No. 3859 (Dec. 13, 1968)
25. Hess, C. & Ostrom, E. (2007), Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice, Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press
26. Jackson, K. (2005), “The Need for Regional Management of Growth: Boulder, Colorado, as a Case Study”, in The Urban Lawyer, Vol. 37, No. 2, Spring 2005
27. Jackson, K. (1985), Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States, New York, Oxford University Press
28. Kanter, R. (1972), Commitment and Community: Communes and Utopias in Sociological Perspective, Cambridge, Harvard University Press
29. Karlan, P. (1994), "Not by Money but by Virtue Won? Vote Trafficking and the Voting Rights System" in Virginia Law Review, Vol. 80, No. 7
30. Katz, M. & Shapiro, C. (1985), “Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility”, in The American Economic Review, Vo. 75, No. 3 (Jun. 1985)
31. Kymlicka, W. (1989), Liberalism, Community and Culture, New York, Oxford University Press
32. Lawson, G. (2007), Federal Administrative Law, (4th ed.), St. Paul, Thompson West
33. Mankiw, G (2006), Principles of Microeconomics, Fourth Edition, ?, Harcourt College Pub
34. Maurrasse, D. (2006), Listening to Harlem: Gentrification, Community, and Business, New York, Routledge Tailor and Francis Group,
35. Mill, J. S. (1865), Considerations on Representative Government, (3rd ed.), London, Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts & Green.
36. Oates, W. (1972), Fiscal Federalism, New York: Harcourt Brace
37. Oates, W. (1999), “An Essay on Fiscal Federalism”, in Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XXXVII (September 1999)
38. Parisi, F. (2003), “Political Coase Theorem”, in Public Choice, Vo;. 115, No. ½ (April 2003)
39. Parisi, F., Schulz, N., Depoorter, B. (2004), “Simultanous and sequential anticommons”, in European Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 17, Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers
40. Parisi, F. & Depoorter B. (2005), “Commons and AntiCommons” in The Elgar Companion to Law and Economics, (2nd ed.), Edited by Jürgen G. Backhaus, Northampton, Massachusetts
41. Polinsky, M. (2003), An introduction to Law and Economics, (3rd ed.), ASPEN publishers, New York
42. Pound, R. (1992), An introduction to the Philosophy of Law, New Haven & London, Yale university Press
43. Reynolds, L. (2007), “Local Governments and Regional Governance”, in The Urban Lawyer, Vol. 39. No. 3, Summer 2007
44. Rosen, M. (1999), “Our Nonuniform Constitution: Geographical Variations of Constitutional Requirements in the Aid of Community”, in Texas Law Review, Vol. 77
45. Schragger, R. (2001), “The Limits of Localism”, in Michigan Law Review, Vol. 100:371
46. Scott, A. (2008), Social Economy of the Metropolis: Cognitive-Cultural Capitalism and the Global Resurgence of Cities, New York, Oxford University Press
47. Shields, M. & Shideler, D. (2003), “Do Commuters Free-ride? Estimating the Impacts of Interjurisdictional Commuting on Local Public Goods Expenditure”, in The Journal of Regional Analysis & Policy, (2003)33:1
48. Shapiro, H. (1963), “Economies of Scale and Local Government Finance”, in Land Economics, Vol. 39, No. 2 (May, 1963)
49. Smith, A. (1976), An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Indianapolis, Liberty Fund
50. Stigler, G. (1958), “The Economies of Scale”, in Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 1 (Oct., 1958)
51. Tiebout, C. (1956), “A Pure Theory of Local Public Expenditures.” in Journal of Political Economy. 64(5)
52. Van Creveld, M. (2002), The Rise and Decline of the State, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
53. Weir, M. (2000), “Coalition Building for Regionalism”, in Katz, Bruce (ed.), Reflection on Regionalism, Washington, D.C., Brookings Institution Press
54. Wittman, D. (1989), “Why Democracies Produce Efficient Results”, in The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 97, No. 6 (Dec., 1989)

Law, Economics & Public Policy

Monday, May 25, 2009

Is there any limit to innovation and Invention?

Monday, May 18, 2009

Economics of Regionalism in Megalopolis

Popular Posts