Impact of municipal amalgamation on stakeholder collaboration: the case of Auckland, New Zealand

References

• [AC] Auckland Council. 2011. Background paper – Auckland economic development strategy. Auckland: Auckland Council.
   Google Scholar
• [AC] Auckland Council. 2012. Auckland plan: people and the economy [Internet]. [accessed 2014 Apr 8]. http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/theaucklandplan/Pages/theaucklandplan.aspx.
   Google Scholar
• [AC] Auckland Council. 2014. Council to review super-city organisations [Internet]. [accessed 2015 Mar 3]. http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/newseventsculture/OurAuckland/mediareleases/Pages/CouncilToReviewSuper-CityOrganisations.aspx.
   Google Scholar
• [AC] Auckland Council. 2015. Council Controlled Organisations governance and monitoring committee open agenda [Internet]. [accessed 2015 Aug 31]. http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2015/03/COU_20150303_AGN_5666_SUP.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Blakely R. 2015. The planning framework for Auckland ‘super city’: an insider’s view. Policy Quarterly. 11:3–14.
   Google Scholar
• Blesse S, Baskaran T. 2016. Do municipal mergers reduce costs? Evidence from a German federal state. Regional Science and Urban Economics. 59:54–74. [Internet]. [accessed 2017 Jul 26]. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166046216300254. doi: 10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2016.04.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boudreau JA, Hamel P, Jouve B, Keil R. 2006. Comparing metropolitan governance: the cases of Montreal and Toronto. Progress in Planning. 66:7–59. doi: 10.1016/j.progress.2006.07.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calciolari S, Cristofoli D, Macciò L. 2013. Explaining the reactions of Swiss municipalities to the ‘amalgamation wave’: at the crossroad of institutional, economic and political pressures. Public Management Review. 15:563–583. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2012.698852
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen M. 2014. Transforming Auckland: the creation of Auckland Council. Wellington: LexisNexis NZ Limited.
   Google Scholar
• Collins FL, Wardlow F. 2011. Making the most of diversity? The intercultural city project and a rescaled version of diversity in Auckland, New Zealand. Urban Studies. 48:3067–3085. doi: 10.1177/0042098010394686
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Ceuninck K, Reynaert H, Steyvers K, Valcke T. 2010. Municipal amalgamations in the low countries: same problems, different solutions. Local Government Studiees. 36:803–822. doi: 10.1080/03003930.2010.522082
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Souza SV, Dollery BE, Kortt MA. 2015. De-amalgamation in action: the Queensland experience. Public Management Review. 17:1403–1424. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2014.930506
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dixon J, Dupuis A. 2003. Urban intensification in Auckland, New Zealand: a challenge for new urbanism. Hous Stud; 18:353–368. doi: 10.1080/02673030304239
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dollery B, Robotti L, editors. 2008. The theory and practice of local government reform. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Drew J, Kortt MA, Dollery B. 2014. Economies of scale and local government expenditure: evidence from Australia. Administration & Society. 46:632–653. doi: 10.1177/0095399712469191
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edgar J. 2012. Urban legend Sir Dove-Myer Robinson. Salisbury: Griffin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Faulk D, Grassmueck G. 2012. City–county consolidation and local government expenditures. State and Local Government Review. 44:196–205. doi: 10.1177/0160323X12447955
   Google Scholar
• Faulk D, Hicks M. 2011. Local government consolidation in the United States. New York (NY): Cambria Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gray B. 1989. Collaborating: finding common ground for multiparty problems. London: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Gustafsson G. 2007. Modes and effects of local government mergers in Scandinavia. West European Politics. 3:339–357. doi: 10.1080/01402388008424290
   Google Scholar
• Hlepas NK. 2010. Incomplete Greek territorial consolidation: from the first (1998) to the second (2008–09) wave of reforms. Local Government Studies; 36:223–249. doi: 10.1080/03003930903560596
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitchen H. 1993. Efficient delivery of local government services. Government and competitiveness project. Kingston: School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University.
   Google Scholar
• Kreci V, Ymeri B. 2010. The impact of territorial re-organisational policy: interventions in the Republic of Macedonia. Local Government Studies. 36:271–290. doi: 10.1080/03003930903560646
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kushner J, Siegel D. 2003. Effect of municipal amalgamations in Ontario on political representation and accessibility. Canadian Journal of Political Science; 36:1035–1051. doi: 10.1017/S0008423903778950
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leland SM, Thurmaier K. 2006. The municipal yearbook. Washington (DC): International City/County Management Association. Chapter 1A, Lessons from 35 years of city–county consolidation attempts; p. 3–10.
   Google Scholar
• Leland SM, Thurmaier K. 2010. City–county consolidation: promises made, promises kept? Washington (DC): Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Local Government (Auckland Council) Act, New Zealand Statues s17. 2009. [Internet]. [accessed 2014 Aug 4]. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2009/0032/83.0/DLM2044909.html.
   Google Scholar
• McKinlay P. 2011. Integration of urban services and good governance: the Auckland supercity project. Paper presented at: The Pacific Economic Cooperation Council (PECC) Seminar on Environmental Sustainability in Urban Centres; Perth, AU.
   Google Scholar
• Orsman B. 2014 Mar 12. Sect. A1–21. Budget warning for Brown. NZ Herald.
   Google Scholar
• Ponterotto JG. 2006. Brief note on the origins, evolution, and meaning of the qualitative research concept ‘thick description’. The Qualitative Report. 11:538–549.
   Google Scholar
• Quesnel PL. 2006. Is local democracy sacrificed to metropolitan governance? The recent Québec experience. Paper presented at: The annual UAA 2006 meeting; Apr; Montreal, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Reingewertz Y. 2012. Do municipal amalgamations work? Evidence from municipalities in Israel. Journal of Urban Economics. 72:240–251. doi: 10.1016/j.jue.2012.06.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sancton A. 2005. The governance of metropolitan areas in Canada. Public Administration and Development; 25:317–327. doi: 10.1002/pad.386
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz H. 2009. Toronto ten years after amalgamation. Canadian Journal of Regional Science. 32:483–494.
   Google Scholar
• Slack E, Bird R. 2013. Institute on municipal finance & governance papers on municipal finance and governance. Toronto: University of Toronto. Chapter 14, Merging municipalities: is bigger better? p. 1–34.
   Google Scholar
• Smith DK. 2007. Inter-municipal collaboration through forced amalgamation: a summary of recent experiences in Toronto & Montreal. Paper presented at: The meeting of the NPC Project workshop; Vancouver, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Swianiewicz P. 2010. If territorial fragmentation is a problem, is amalgamation a solution? An East European perspective. Local Gov Stud. 36:183–203. doi: 10.1080/03003930903560547
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomson D, Mulligan P, Dellow T, Hood L, Evitt V. 2009. Putting the Auckland jigsaw together again: at large or ward-based council? [Internet]. Auckland: Buddle Findlay; [accessed 2017 Aug 5]. http://www.buddlefindlay.com/article/2009/05/28/putting-the-auckland-jigsaw-together-again-at-large-or-ward-based-council.
   Google Scholar
• Tomas M. 2012. Exploring the metropolitan trap: the case of Montreal. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 36:554–567. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2011.01066.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tracy SJ. 2010. Qualitative quality: eight ‘big-tent’ criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry. 16:837–851. doi: 10.1177/1077800410383121
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vrangbæk K. 2010. Structural reform in Denmark, 2007–09: central reform processes in a decentralised environment. Local Government Studies. 36:205–221. doi: 10.1080/03003930903560562
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weir M, Rongerude J. 2007. Multi-level power and progressive regionalism. Berkeley (CA): University of California.
   Google Scholar
• Wollmann H. 2010. Territorial local level reforms in the East German regional states: phases, patterns, and dynamics. Local Government Studies. 36:251–270. doi: 10.1080/03003930903560612
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar