The impact of public discourse on local representatives’ amalgamation preferences

References

• Baldersheim, H., and L. Rose. 2010. “Territorial Choice: Rescaling Governance in European States.” In Territorial Choice, edited by H. Baldersheim and L. Rose, 1–20. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230289826_1.
   Google Scholar
• Blom-Hansen, J. 2010. “Municipal Amalgamations and Common Pool Problems: The Danish Local Government Reform in 2007.” Scandinavian Political Studies 33 (1): 51–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2009.00239.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blom-Hansen, J., K. Houlberg, and S. Serritzlew. 2014. “Size, Democracy, and the Economic Costs of Running the Political System.” American Journal of Political Science 58 (4): 790–803. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12096.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brink, A. 2004. “The Break-Up of Municipalities: Voting Behavior in Local Referenda.” Economics of Governance 5 (2): 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10101-003-0068-0.
   Google Scholar
• Denters, B., M. Goldsmith, A. Ladner, P. E. Mouritzen, and L. E. Rose. 2014. Size and Local Democracy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• De Vries, M. S., and I. Sobis. 2014. “Consolidation in Local Government. An International Comparison of Arguments and Practices.” Administration: Journal of the Institute of Public Administration of Ireland 61 (3): 31–50.
   Google Scholar
• Dhimitri, E. 2018. “Analysis Related to Optimal Size of Municipality and Efficiency - a Literature Review.” European Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 10 (1): 131–138. https://doi.org/10.26417/ejis.v10i1.p131-138.
   Google Scholar
• Dollery, B., J. Byrnes, and J. Crase. 2007. “Is Bigger Better? Local Government Amalgamation and the South Australian Rising to the Challenge Inquiry.” Economic Analysis & Policy 37 (1): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0313-5926(07)50001-9.
   Google Scholar
• Erlingsson, G. Ó., J. Ödalen, and E. Wångmar. 2020. “How Coerced Municipal Amalgamations Thwart the Values of Local Self-Government.” Urban Affairs Review 57 (5): 1226–1251. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087420921458.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimes, M., and P. Esaiasson. 2014. “Government Responsiveness: A Democratic Value with Negative Externalities.” Political Research Quarterly 67 (4): 758–768. Retrieved from. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24371949.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanes, N., and M. Wikström. 2010. “Amalgamation Impacts on Local Growth: Are Voluntary Amalgamations More Efficient Than Compulsory Amalgamations?.” Canadian Journal of Regional Science 33 (1): 57–70.
   Google Scholar
• Hanes, N., M. Wikström, and E. Wångmar. 2012. “Municipal Preferences for State-Imposed Amalgamations: An Empirical Study Based on the Swedish Municipal Reform of 1952.” Urban Studies 49 (12): 2733–2750. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098011429488.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen, S. W., and U. Kjær. 2020. “Local Territorial Attachment in Times of Jurisdictional Consolidation.” Political Geography 83:102268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2020.102268.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henriksson, L., and H. S. Christensen. 2023. “Miles’ Law in Finnish Municipalities: Where Decision-Makers Stand Depends on Where They Sit.” Local Government Studies 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2023.2217410.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heywood, A. 2015. Political Theory: An Introduction. 4th ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Hooghe, L., and G. Marks. 2016. Community, Scale and Regional Governance. A Postfunctionalist Theory of Governance. Vol. II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Keating, M. 1995. “Size, Efficiency, and Democracy: Consolidation, Fragmentation and Public Choice.” In Theories of Urban Politics, edited by G. Stoker and H. Wolman, 117–134. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Klausen, J. E., L. E. Rose, and M. Winsvold. 2021. “Kommunereformen - en reform uten konsekvenser?” In Lokalvalget 2019: Nye kommuner - nye valg? edited by J. Saglie, S. B. Segaard, and D. A. Christensen, 143–169. Cappelen Damm Akademisk. https://doi.org/10.23865.
   Google Scholar
• Leckie, G. 2013. “Three-Level Multilevel Models - Concepts. 1-47. LEMMA VLE Module 11.” http://www.bristol.ac.uk/cmm/learning/course.html.
   Google Scholar
• Leknes, E., L. Ridderstrøm, and H. Rommetvedt. 2019. Rogalandskommunene og kommunestrukturspørsmålet - Sammendrag av resultater fra kommuneundersøkelsen i 2019. NORCE Samfunnsforskning. http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2637616.
   Google Scholar
• Manifesto for the Norwegian Government. 2013. “Manifesto for the Norwegian Government cConsisting of the Conservative Party and the Progress Party.” https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/a93b067d9b604c5a82bd3b5590096f74/plattform.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Mathisen, R. B. 2023. Economic Inequality and Political Power in Norway. Bergen: Universitetet i Bergen.
   Google Scholar
• Miles, R. E. 1978. “The Origin and Meaning of Miles’ Law.” Public Administration Review 38 (5): 399–403. https://doi.org/10.2307/975497.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miyazaki, T. 2014. “Municipal Consolidation and Local Government Behavior: Evidence from Japanese Voting Data on Merger Referenda.” Economics of Governance 15 (4): 387/410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10101-014-0145-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myhr, A. I. 2015, March 20. “Intensjonsavtaler.” Accessed December 5, 2022. Distriktssenteret. https://distriktssenteret.no/artikkel/intensjonsavtaler/.
   Google Scholar
• Myksvoll, T. 2021. Target, Shaper, Implementor - Regional Administrative Behaviour in the Rescaling of Norway’s Subnational Government Architecture. Bergen: University of Bergen.
   Google Scholar
• Myksvoll, T. 2023. “Conditional Support from Below? Understanding the Dynamics of Municipal Amalgamation Preferences Among Local Politicians.” Regional & Federal Studies 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/13597566.2023.2191318.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myksvoll, T., M. Tatham, and A. L. Fimreite. 2021. “Understanding Support for Coerced Institutional Change.” Governance 35 (4): 1119–1138. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12647.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nygård, S. R. 2021. “‘Man fikk en del pussige konstellasjoner’ - Organiseringen av kommunereformens gjennomføring og dens betydning for lokale utfall. Avhandling for graden PHILOSOPHIAE.” DOCTOR (Ph.D.), Stavanger: Institutt for medie- og samfunnsfag.
   Google Scholar
• Oldervik, H. 2022. “Kommune- og regionreformens lokale forløp. En diskursanalyse.” Norsk Sosiologisk Tidsskrift 6 (6): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.18261/nost.6.6.6.
   Google Scholar
• Pitkin, H. F. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Reprint 2019 ed. Berkeley: University of California.
   Google Scholar
• Rec. 300 S (2013-2014). 2014. Recommendation by Standing Committee on Local Government and Public Administration on Municipal Proposition 2015. Standing Committee on Local Government and Public Administration.
   Google Scholar
• Reingewertz, Y., and S. Serritzlew. 2019. “Special Issue on Municipal Amalgamations: Guest editors’ Introduction.” Local Government Studies 45 (5): 603–610. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2019.1615465.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saarimaa, T., and J. Tukiainen. 2015. “Common Pool Problems in Voluntary Municipal Mergers.” European Journal of Political Economy 38: 140–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2015.02.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sommet, N., and D. Morselli. 2017. “Keep Calm and Learn Multilevel Logistic Modeling: A Simplified Three-Step Procedure Using Stata, R, Mplus, and SPSS.” International Review of Social Psychology 30 (1): 203–218. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SSB. 2017, November 22. Ny sentralitetsindeks for kommunene. Accessed May 3, 2022. https://www.ssb.no/befolkning/artikler-og-publikasjoner/ny-sentralitetsindeks-for-kommunene.
   Google Scholar
• Stein, J., T. S. Broderstad, and H. Bjørnå. 2022. “Territorial Reforms, Mobilisation, and Political Trust: A Case Study from Norway.” Local Government Studies 49 (3): 568–589. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2021.2025360.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strebel, M. A. 2019. “Why Voluntary Municipal Merger Projects Fail: Evidence from Popular Votes in Switzerland.” Local Government Studies 45 (5): 654–675. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2019.1584557.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strebel, M. A. 2023. “The Political Economy of Territorial Integration Referendums.” Territory, Politics, Governance 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2023.2182352.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swianiewicz, P. 2021. “Territorial Restructuring: Amalgamations, Secessions and the Financial Crisis.” In A Research Agenda for Regional and Local Government, 35–48. Cheltenham, UK: Elgar Research Agendas. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839106644.00008.
   Google Scholar
• Tatham, M., L. Hooghe, and G. Marks. 2021. “The Territorial Architecture of Government.” Governance 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12603.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tavares, A. F. 2018. “Municipal Amalgamations and Their Effects: A Literature Review.” Miscellanea Geographica 22 (1): 5–15. https://doi.org/10.2478/mgrsd-2018-0005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terlouw, K. 2016. “Territorial Changes and Changing Identities: How Spatial Identities are Used in the Up Scaling of Local Government in the Netherlands.” Local Government Studies 42 (6): 938–957. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2016.1186652.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terluow, K. 2018. “Transforming Identity Discourses to Promote Local Interests During Municipal Amalgamations.” GeoJournal 83 (3): 525–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-017-9785-8.
   Google Scholar
• Toubeau, S., and E. Massetti. 2013. “The Party Politics of Territorial Reforms in Europe.” West European Politics 36 (2): 297–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2013.749657.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toubeau, S., and M. Wagner. 2015. “Explaining Party Positions on Decentralization.” British Journal of Political Science 45 (1): 97–119. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123413000239.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vabo, S. I., A. L. Fimreite, and K. Houlberg. 2023. “Why Such a Different Choice of Tools? Analysing Recent Local Government Reforms in Denmark and Norway.” Local Government Studies 49 (2): 255–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2021.2013210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, R. A. 2020. Ordinal Independent Variables, edited by P. Atkinson, S. Delamont, A. Cernat, J. W. Sakshaug, and R. A. Williams. SAGE Research Methods Foundations. https://www.doi.org/10.4135/9781526421036938055.
   Google Scholar
• Yamada, K. 2016. “Crucial Decisions by Small Towns and Villages: Why Did Some Municipalities Choose to Merge but Others Did Not During the Nationwide Wave of Municipal Mergers in Japan?.” International Journal of Public Administration 39 (6): 480–491. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2015.1028632.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeedan, R. 2017. “Bigger but Not Always Better: Size and Democracy in Israeli Amalgamated Local Governments.” Journal of Urban Affairs 39 (5): 711–728. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2016.1262701.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmerbauer, K., and A. Paase. 2013. “When Old and New Regionalism Collide: Deinstitutionalization of Regions and Resistance Identity in Municipality Amalgamations.” Journal of Rural Studies 30:31–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2012.11.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar