ABSTRACT
There is a large literature that seeks to evaluate municipal amalgamations ex post, but a relative dearth of scholarly inquiry into the practical political task of persuading the public to accept amalgamations ex ante. We address this important gap in the literature by conducting a rhetorical analysis to ascertain what types of arguments are believed to be efficacious for persuasion on amalgamation. We find evidence to suggest belief in the efficacy of persuading the public through recourse to various projected dreadful consequences, particularly amongst opponents of amalgamation. We conclude by considering some of the reasons behind the observed rhetorics and briefly outline one possible solution.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Alona Shatz for research assistance on the Israeli case.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Joseph Drew
Joseph Drew is a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Technology Sydney, Australia, and an adjunct Professor at Tokyo Metropolitan University, Japan. His principal research interests are performance management, government financial sustainability and the art of selling public policy.
Eran Razin
Eran Razin is a Professor of Geography and Urban and Regional Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel, and holds the Leon Safdie Chair in Urban Studies. He specialises in comparative local government, urban planning and development and has published/coedited eight books and numerous journal articles in these fields.
Rhys Andrews
Rhys Andrews is Professor of Public Management in Cardiff Business School, UK. His research interests focus on the management and performance of public organisations. He is co-author, with G Boyne, J Law and R Walker, of Strategic Management and Public Service Performance (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012) and, with Tom Entwistle, of Public Service Efficiency: Reframing the Debate (Routledge, 2013).