{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013774104683195593, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0036730945821854912, 'mean_word_length': 5.566265060240964, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Is Government Consolidation the Answer?

The Great Recession that started in late 2007 is threatening to alter the local government landscape in the United States. With the steep decline in property and sales taxes, a number of state governments are now reviewing how their local government systems can be restructured to improve service delivery. Scholars from two camps—the advocacy of regional versus multiple centers of local government—have proposed contrasting visions of how the local public sector should be organized. The century-old debate between regionalists and localists has generated a considerable body of theoretical and empirical literature from which state governments can draw as they consider the most effective way of organizing their local governments. This essay discusses the different arguments for local government fragmentation versus consolidation, reviews the empirical evidence, and identifies future areas of research. It focuses on the impacts of the local public sector structure on service delivery, social class and racial segregation, and urban sprawl.