ЮФУ

ул. М. Горького, 88, к. 211
г.Ростов-на-Дону, Россия
344002
+7 (863) 250-59-54
terraeconomicus@mail.ru 
te@sfedu.ru

МЕЖМУНИЦИПАЛЬНЫЕ ВЗАИМОДЕЙСТВИЯ С ПОЗИЦИЙ ЭКОНОМИЧЕСКОГО АНАЛИЗА

TERRA ECONOMICUS, , Том 15 (номер 3),

Благосостояние граждан в значительной мере зависит от объема и качества клубных и социально-значимых благ, получаемых ими по месту их проживания. Названные параметры этих благ, в свою очередь, зависят, во-первых, от объемов доступных ресурсов, а во-вторых, от стимулов работников органов местного самоуправления (далее, для краткости, муниципалитетов) к качественному и творческому исполнению своих служебных функций по организации производства и/или поставки соответствующих благ. Характер и действенность названных стимулов определяют, в частности, и объемы доступных ресурсов – за счет обеспечения (или необеспечения) некоторых взаимодействий муниципалитетов между собой.
Цель данной статьи – проанализировать разнообразие возможных форм межмуниципальных взаимодействий (ММВ) с точки зрения результативности и эффективности исполнения муниципалитетами их функций обеспечения поставки муниципальных услуг. Обсуждаются такие формы ММВ, как конкуренция, кооперация (сотрудничество), коопкуренция (совмещение кооперации и конкуренции), а также такая «предельная» форма взаимодействия, как слияние (объединение) муниципалитетов.
Анализ показывает, что в силу неоднородности муниципальных услуг, различий в зависимостях их издержек от размеров муниципалитетов, для разных типов услуг существуют свои дискретные институциональные альтернативы, обеспечивающие результативность и эффективность их оказания.


Ключевые слова: межмуниципальные взаимодействия; конкуренция; кооперация; коопкуренция; слияние

Список литературы:
  • Adelaja, A. O., Gibson, M. A. and Racevskis, L. A. (2010). Transaction costs and interjurisdictional cooperation: an application to land use collaboration. Journal of Public Affairs, 10(4), 265–279.
  • Ashworth, G., and Kavaratzis, M. (Eds.) (2010). Towards Effective Place Brand Management: Branding European Cities and Regions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  • Assens, C., Bartoli, A., and Hermel, P. (2015). The Combination of Competition and Cooperation in French Local Government: Toward A Specific Public “Coopetition”. Cahier de recherche du LAREQUOI. Université de Versailles-Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, 2, 7–18.
  • Baker, K., Van De Walle, S., and Skelcher, C. (2011). Citizen Support for Increasing the Responsibilities of Local Government in European Countries: A Comparative Analysis. Lex Localis - Journal of Local Self-Government, 9(1), 1–21.
  • Banerjee, R., Baul, T., and Rosenblat, T. (2015). On self selection of the corrupt into the public sector. Economics Letters, 127, 43–46.
  • Barfort, S., Harmon, N. A., Olsen, A. L., and Hjorth, F. G. (2015). Dishonesty and Selection into Public Service in Denmark: Who Runs the World’s Least Corrupt Public Sector? SSRN Working Paper (https://ssrn.com/abstract=2664983).
  • Baumol, W. (1990). Entrepreneurship: Productive, Unproductive, and Destructive. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 893–921.
  • Bel, G., and Warner, M. E. (2015). Inter‐Municipal Cooperation and Costs: Expectations and Evidence. Public Administration, 93(1), 52–67.
  • Bellone, C. J., and Goerl, G. F. (1992). Reconciling Public Entrepreneurship and Democracy. Public Administration Review, 52(2), 130–134.
  • Bengtsson, M., Eriksson, J., and Wincent, J. (2010). Co-opetition dynamics – an outline for further inquiry. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 20(2), 194–214.
  • Bernier, L., and Hafsi, T. (2007). The changing nature of public entrepreneurship. Public Administration Review, 67(3), 488–503.
  • Blom-Hansen, J. (2010). Municipal Amalgamations and Common Pool Problems: The Danish Local Government Reforms in 2007. Scandinavian Political Studies, 33(1), 51–73.
  • Blom-Hansen, J., Houlberg, K., Serritzlew, S., Treisman, D. (2016). Jurisdiction Size and Local Government Policy Expenditure: Assessing the Effect of Municipal Amalgamation. American Political Science Review, 110(4), 812–831
  • Bouncken, R.B., Gast, J., Kraus, S., Bogers, M. (2015). Coopetition: a systematic review, synthesis, and future research directions. Review of Managerial Science, 9(3), 577–601.
  • Bourgon, J. (2008). The future of public service: A search for a new balance. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 67(4), 390–404.
  • Boyne, G.A. (1992). Local Government Structure and Performance: Lessons from America. Public Administration, 70(3), 333–357.
  • Brandenburger, A., and Nalebuff, B. (1996). Co-opetition. New York: Doubleday Currency.
  • Byrnes, J., and Dollery, B. (2002). Do Economies of Scale Exist in Australian Local Government? A Review of the Research Evidence. Urban Policy and Research, 20(4), 391–414.
  • Dalhberg, M. (2010). Local Government in Sweden, рp. 122–146 / In: Mosio, A. (Ed.) Local Public Sector in Transition: A Nordic Perspective. Helsinki: Government Institute for Economic Research.
  • Deininger, K., and Mpuga, P. (2005). Does Greater Accountability Improve the Quality of Public Service Delivery? Evidence from Uganda. World Development, 33(1), 171–191.
  • Edwards, C., Jones, G., Lawton, A., and Llewellyn, N. (2002). Public entrepreneurship: rhetoric, reality and context. International Journal of Public Administration, 25(12), 1539– 1554.
  • Faguet, J. P. (2004). Does decentralization increase responsiveness to local needs? Evidence from Bolivia. Journal of Public Economics, 88(4), 867–894.
  • Fehrler, S., Fischbacher, U., and Schneider, M. T. (2016). Who Runs? Honesty and SelfSelection into Politics. IZA Discussion Papers, 10258.
  • Feiock, R. (2014). How Cities Collaborate While Competing in the New Economy, pp. 89–121 / In: Pagano, M. (Ed.) Metropolitan Resilience in a Time of Turmoil. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
  • Ferraresi, M., Migali, G., and Rizzo, L. (2017). Does Inter-municipal Cooperation Promote Efficiency Gains? Evidence from Italian Municipal Unions. Società italiana di economia pubblica, WP, 725. June 2.
  • Fog, A. (2013). Towards a universal theory of competition and selection. Technical University of Denmark, July 4 (http://www.agner.org/cultsel/universal_competition_theory. pdf).
  • Foster, K. A. (1997). The Political Economy of Special-Purpose Government. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
  • Frère, Q., Leprince, M., and Paty, S. (2014). The impact of intermunicipal cooperation on local public spending. Urban Studies, 51(8), 1741–1760.
  • Gerring, J., and Thacker, S. C. (2004). Political institutions and corruption: The role of unitarism and parliamentarism. British Journal of Political Science, 34(2), 295–330.
  • Gordon, I. (2010). Territorial competition, pp. 30–43 / In: Pike, A., Rodríguez-Pose, A. and Tomaney, J. (Eds.) Handbook of Local and Regional Development. Abingdon: Routledge.
  • Gulzar, S. (2014). Ruling Parties, Patronage and Bureaucratic Performance in Democracies: Evidence from Punjab, Pakistan. New York University. October 27 (http://rubenson. org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/gulzar_tpbw14.pdf).
  • Hanna, R., and Wang, S.-Y. (forthcoming). Dishonesty and Selection into Public Service: Evidence from India. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy.
  • Hendrick, R.M., Jimenez, B.S., and Lal, K. (2011). Does local government fragmentation reduce local spending? Urban Affairs Review, 47(4), 467–510.
  • Hölscher, K., Wittmayer, J. M., Avelino, F., and Giezen, M. (2017). Opening up the transition arena: An analysis of (dis)empowerment of civil society actors in transition management in cities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change (https://doi.org/10.1016/j. techfore.2017.05.004).
  • Hulst, R., and van Montfort, A. (Eds.) (2007). Inter-Municipal Cooperation in Europe. Springer Netherlands.
  • Isen, A. (2014). Do local government fiscal spillovers exist? Evidence from counties, municipalities, and school districts. Journal of Public Economics, 110, 57–73.
  • Ketchen, D., Jr., Snow, C., and Hoover, V. (2004). Research on competitive dynamics: Recent accomplishments and future challenges // Journal of Management, 30(6), 779–804.
  • Kim, Y. (2010). Stimulating entrepreneurial practices in the public sector: The roles of organizational characteristics. Administration and Society, 42(7), 780–814.
  • Kitson, M., Martin R., and Tyler P. (2004). Regional Competitiveness: An Elusive yet Key Concept? Regional Studies, 38(9), 991–999.
  • Klein, P. G., Mahoney, J. T., McGahan, A. M., and Pitelis, C. N. (2010). Toward a theory of public entrepreneurship. European Management Review, 7(1), 1–15.
  • Labianca, M. (2014). Inter-municipal cooperation: from cooperation through rules to cooperation through networks – empirical evidence from Puglia. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 1(1), 184–206.
  • Leibenstein, H. (1966). Allocative Efficiency vs. X-Efficiency // American Economic Review, 56(3), 392–415.
  • Lewis, E. (1980). Public Entrepreneurship: Toward a Theory of Bureaucratic Political Power. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
  • Link, A. N., and Link, J. R. (2009). Government as Entrepreneur. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Luo, Y. (2005). Toward coopetition within a multinational enterprise: a perspective from foreign subsidiaries. Journal of World Business, 40(1), 71–90.
  • Mazzucato, M. (2013). Тhe Entrepreneurial State: Debunking public vs. private sector myths. London–New York: Anthem.
  • Moisio, A., and Uusitalo, R. (2013). The impact of municipal mergers on local public expenditures in Finland. Public Finance and Management, 13(3), 148–166.
  • Niedomysl, T. (2010). Towards a conceptual framework of place attractiveness: a migration perspective. Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography, 92(1), 97–109.
  • Oostveen, I. (Eds.) (2010). Inter-municipal cooperation. Introduction: Guide to the VNG International Approach to a Successful IMC. The Hague, Netherlands: VNG International.
  • Osborne, D. and Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, Mass: Addision Wesley.
  • Pasquinelli, C. (2013). Competition, cooperation and co-opetition: unfolding the process of inter-territorial branding. Urban Research and Practice, 6(1), 1–18.
  • Previtali, P. (2015). The Italian Administrative Reform of Small Municipalities: Stateof-the-Art and Perspectives. Public Administration Quarterly, 39(4), 548–568.
  • Salazar, G. (1997). Public Entrepreneurship: a Contradiction in Terms? // Korean Review of Public Administration, 2(1), 125–139.
  • Skocpol, T. (1985). Bringing the State Back In: Strategies of Analysis in Current Research, pp. 3–43 / In: Rueschemeyer, P. and Skocpol, T. (Eds.) Bringing the State Back In. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Slack, E., and Bird, R. (2013). Does municipal amalgamation strengthen the financial viability of local government? A Canadian example. Public Finance and Management, 13(2), 99–123.
  • Solé-Ollé, A. (2006). Expenditure spillovers and fiscal interactions: Empirical evidence from local governments in Spain. Journal of Urban Economics, 59(1), 32–53.
  • Sorrentino, M., and Simonetta, M. (2013). Incentivising inter-municipal collaboration: the Lombard experience. Journal of Management and Governance, 17(4), 887–906.
  • Stevenson, H. H., and Jarillo, J. C. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial management. Strategic Management Journal, 11(5), 17–27.
  • Thomson, A. M., and Perry, J. L. (2006). Collaboration Processes: Inside the Black Box. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 20–32.
  • Treisman, D. (2007). What have we learned about the causes of corruption from ten years of cross-national empirical research? Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 211–244.
  • Wilson, J. D. (1999). Theories of Tax Competition. National Tax Journal, 52(2), 269–304.
  • Zerbinati, S. and Souitaris, V. (2005). Entrepreneurship in the public sector: a framework of analysis in European local governments. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development: An International Journal, 17(1), 43–64.
  • Zineldin, M. (2004). Co-opetition: The organisation of the future. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 22(7), 780–789.
Издатель: Южный Федеральный Университет
Учредитель: Южный федеральный университет
ISSN: 2073-6606