Economies of Scale on the Municipal Level: Fact or Fiction in the Czech Republic?

Open access


Many countries have carried out extensive amalgamation-related territorial reforms at the level of local self-government and created relatively large municipalities. The Czech Republic is one of the few remaining European countries with a fragmented territorial structure. There is a lot of discussion in the country about the need for amalgamation, but this discussion is mainly based on political arguments rather than on empirical evidence about the feasibility of amalgamation and its potential to improve local government performance. This paper analyses economies of scale on the local level as a factor that should be reflected in debates about the pros and cons of amalgamation in the Czech Republic. To add to the existing knowledge about the reality of economies of scale on the municipal level in the Czech Republic, we processed the municipal costs of three selected areas on a representative sample of municipalities in the South Moravian Region. The analysis showed that economies of scale can be identified for collecting local fees and for pre-school and elementary education, but not for local administration. Our results suggest that the existence of too small municipalities in the Czech Republic results in inefficiencies and should be addressed.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Allan Percy. 2003. “Why Smaller Councils Make Sense.” Australian Journal of Public Administration 62 74–81.

  • Alt James E. 1971. “Some Social and Political Correlates of County Borough Expenditures.” British Journal of Political Science 1 49–62.

  • Appelbaum Richard P. and Ross Follett. 1978. “Size Growth and Urban Life A Study of Medium-Sized American Cities.” Urban Affairs Review 14 139–168.

  • Baldersheim Harald and Lawrence Rose. 2008. A Comparative Analysis of Territorial Choice in Europe. Oslo: Political Institute.

  • Blom-Hansen Jens. 2004. “Stordriftsfordele i den kommunale serviceproduktion? Skoleområdet som eksempel.” In Jens Blom-Hansen Asbjørn Sonne Norgaard and Thomas Pallesen (eds). Politisk Ukorrekt. Århus Universitetsforlag 250–274.

  • Bours Adriann. 1993. “Management Tiers Size and Amalgamations of Local Government.” In Robert Bennett (ed.). Local Government in the New Europe. London: Belhaven 130–163.

  • Bovaird Tony and Elke Löffler. 2003. “Evaluating the Quality of Public Governance: Indicators Models and Methodologies.” International Review of Administrative Sciences 69 313–328.

  • Boyne A. George. 1995. “Population Size and Economies of Scale in Local Government.” Policy and Politics 23 213–222.

  • Byrnes Joel and Bryan Dollery. 2002. “Do Economies of Scale Exist in Australian Local Government? A Review of the Research Evidence.” Urban Policy and Research 20 391–414.

  • Coase H. Ronald. 1937. “The Nature of the Firm.” Economica 4 386–405.

  • Czech Statistical Office. 2016. Malý lexikon obcí ČR 2015. Available at (last accessed 20 June 2016).

  • Dahl R. Allan and Edward R. Tufte. 1973. Size and Democracy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

  • Davies Bleddyn. 1971. Variations in Services for the Aged: A Causal Analysis (No. 40). London: G. Bell and Sons.

  • Denters Bas. 2002. “Size and Political Trust: Evidence from Denmark the Netherlands Norway and the United Kingdom.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 20 793–812.

  • Dollery Bryan Joel Byrnes and Lin Crase. 2008. “Australian Local Government Amalgamation: A Conceptual of Analysis Population Size and Scale Economies in Municipal Service Provision.” Australasian Journal of Regional Studies 14 167.

  • Dollery Bryan and Euan Fleming. 2006. “A Conceptual Note on Scale Economies Size Economies and Scope Economies in Australian Local Government.” Urban Policy and Research 24 271–282.

  • Drew Joseph Andy Kortt and Bryan Dollery. 2012. “Economies of Scale and Local Government Expenditure: Evidence from Australia.” Administration & Society 20 1–22.

  • Faulk Dagney Gail and Joel Hicks. 2011. Local Government Consolidation in the United States. New York: Cambria Press.

  • Foster D. Christopher Richard Jackman and Morris Perlman. 1980. Local Government Finance in a Unitary State. London: George Allen and Unwin.

  • Fox William F. and Tami Gurley-Calvez. 2006. “Will Consolidation Improve Sub-National Governments?” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3913.

  • Galvasová Iveta et al. 2007. Identifikace kompetencí zatěžujících výkon veřejné správy se zvláštním přihlédnutím k malým obcím. Available at (ast accessed 15 August 2016).

  • Goldsmith M. and Lawrence E. Rose. 2000. “Constituency Size and Electoral Politics: A Comparison of Patterns at Local Elections in Norway and the UK.” Paper presented at the IPSA 18th World Congress Quebec Canada.

  • Hampl Martin and Jan Müller. 1998. “Jsou obce v České republice příliš malé.” Geografie – Sborník ČGS 103 1–12.

  • Hansen Sune Welling Kurt Houlberg and Lene Holm Pedersen. 2014. “Do Municipal Mergers Improve Fiscal Outcomes?” Scandinavian Political Studies 37 196–214.

  • Hertzog Robert. 2010. “Inter-municipal co-operation: a viable alternative to territorial amalgamation?” In Pawel Swianiewicz (ed.). Territorial Consolidation Reforms in Europe. Budapest: Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative 289–312.

  • Hirsch Z. Werner. 1959. “Expenditure Implications of Metropolitan Growth and Consolidation.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 1959 232–241.

  • Holcombe G. Randall and DeEdgra W. Williams. 2009. “Are there Economies of Scale in Municipal Government Expenditures?” Public Finance and Management 9 416.

  • Houlberg Kurt. 1995. “Kommunale stordriftsfordele: Myte eller realitet?” Nordisk administrativt tidsskrift 76 65–88.

  • Houlberg Kurt. 2010. “Municipal Size Economy and Democracy.” In Pawel Swianiewicz (ed.). Territorial Consolidation Reforms in Europe. Budapest: Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative 309–331.

  • Houlberg Kurt and I. L. Møller. 2001. “Kommunestørrelse og udgift sniveau: Er der en sammenhæng?” In R. Norstrand and N. Groes (eds). Kommunestyrets fremtid. København: Akf Forlaget 185–198.

  • Hutcheson John D. and James E. Prather. 1979. “Economy of Scale or Bureaucratic Entropy? Implications for Metropolitan Governmental Reorganization.” Urban Affairs Review 15 164–182.

  • Keating Michael. 1995. “Size Efficiency and Democracy: Consolidation Fragmentation and Public Choice.” In D. Judge G. Stoker. and H. Wollman (eds). Theories of Urban Politics. London: Sage 117–134.

  • King N. David. 1984. Fiscal Tiers: The Economics of Multi-Level Government. London: Allen & Unwin.

  • Kushner Joseph and David Siegel. 2003. “Citizens’ Attitudes toward Municipal Amalgamation in Three Ontario Municipalities.” Canadian Journal of Regional Science 26 49–60.

  • Löffler Elke. 2002. “Defining and Measuring Quality in Public Administration.” In Joanne Caddy and Mirko Vintar (ed.). Building Better Quality Administration for the Public: Case Studies from Central and Eastern Europe. Bratislava: Nispacee 15–34.

  • Montén Anna and Christian Thater. 2011. “Determinants of Efficiency in Child-Care Provision.” FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis 67 378–403.

  • Mouritzen Poul Erik. 1989. “City Size and Citizens’ Satisfaction: Two Competing Theories Revisited.” European Journal of Political Research 17 661–688.

  • Mouritzen Poul Erik. 1991. Den politiske cyklus. Aarhus: Politica.

  • Musgrave Richard Abel and Peggy B. Musgrave. 1989. Public Finance in Theory and Practice. New York: McGraw/Hill Inc.

  • Newton Kenneth. 1982. “Is Small Really so Beautiful? Is Big Really so Ugly? Size Effectiveness and Democracy in Local Government.” Political Studies 30 190–206.

  • Nielsen Hans Jorgen. 1981. “Size and Evaluation of Government: Danish Attitudes towards Politics at Multiple Levels of Government.” European Journal of Political Research 9 47–60.

  • Oates Wallace E. 1972. Fiscal Federalism. Chicago: Books.

  • Oates Wallace E. 1999. “An Essay on Fiscal Federalism.” Journal of Economic Literature 37 1120–1149.

  • OECD. 2004. OECD territorial reviews: The Czech Republic 2004. Available at (last accessed 27 June 2016).

  • Pudil Pavel et al. 2004. Zdanění a efektivnost. Praha: Eurolex Bohemia.

  • Rose Lawrence E. 2002. “Municipal Size and Local Nonelectoral Participation: Findings from Denmark the Netherlands and Norway.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 20 829–851.

  • Sawyer M. C. 1991. The Economics of Industries and Firms: Theories Evidence and Policy. London: Routledge.

  • Schofield John A. 1978. “Determinants of Urban Service Expenditures: Fire and Social Services.” Local Government Studies 4 65–80.

  • Sharpe J. 1995. “Local Government: Size Efficiency and Citizen Participation.” In Michael Martins (ed.). The Size of Municipalities Efficiency and Citizen Participation. Strasbourg: Local and Regional Authorities in Europe Council of Europe 56.

  • Stigler George J. 1958. “Economies of Scale.” The Journal of Political Economy 1958 54.

  • Soukopová Jana. 2016. Efektivnost výdajů obcí na nakládání s odpady. Habilitation thesis Masaryk University Brno.

  • Soukopová Jana et al. 2014. “Municipality Size and Local Public Services: Do Economies of Scale Exist?” NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy 7 151–171.

  • Soukopová Jana et al. 2016. “Factors Influencing the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Municipal Waste Management Expenditure.” Lex Localis 14 359.

  • Swianiewicz Pawel. 2002. “Size of Local Government Local Democracy and Efficiency in Delivery of Local Services: International Context and Theoretical Framework.” In Pawel Swianiewicz (ed.). Consolidation or Fragmentation: The Size of Local Governments in Central and Eastern Europe. Budapest: Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative 1–29.

  • Swianiewicz Pawel. 2010. “If Territorial Fragmentation is a Problem is Amalgamation a Solution? An East European Perspective.” Local Government Studies 36 183–203.

  • Swianiewicz Pawel. 2014. “An Empirical Typology of Local Government Systems in Eastern Europe.” Local Government Studies 40 292–311.

  • Tiebout Charles M. 1956. “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures.” The Journal of Political Economy 64 416–424.

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.57

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.267
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.411

Cited By
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 352 172 11
PDF Downloads 152 96 2