'Options for Governing Australia's Large Metropolitan Areas: Some Statistical Insights into the Viability of Various Two-sphered Government Models'

A Working Paper/Talk delivered by Mark Drummond (markld@ozemail.com.au) at

The 7^th Shed a Tier Congress

Sunday 16 March 2003

The Darlington Centre

Sydney University

[updated in late March 2003 to incorporate ABS data in Catalogues 2016.0 to 2016.7, as released 25 March 2003]

Good morning everyone.

Firstly I'd like to thank John August, Klaas Woldring and Frank Stilwell for the generous parts they've played in helping organise today's Congress, and I'd also like to thank everyone who has made it along to share in our ongoing efforts to help move Australia, and our many and varied communities, towards improved systems of governing.

Well the first part of the title of this talk here is 'Options for Governing Australia's Large Metropolitan Areas'. So this present talk will focus upon our larger cities - specifically, Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide, all of which now have metropolitan area populations exceeding one million. But I'd like to stress from the outset my view - and I understand that this is a matter of general agreement - that, in exploring improvements to our systems of governing, we obviously need to give very serious attention not just to our largest cities, but to all of Australia's populated localities, ranging from isolated individual households in remote areas, through towns and cities of all sizes, and eventually up to our largest metropolitan areas of Melbourne and Sydney. So my hope is that this talk can be the first in a series of talks, each of which will focus on a different category of Australian settlement based on population size, remoteness and related criteria. And, so, even as we focus on our large cities here in this talk, I'd hope we can remain mindful of other parts of the country as well.

It is also helpful to consider, up front, the sorts of qualities we'd like our systems of government to exhibit. I'd like to propose that, at the very least, we'd want our system to be genuinely democratic; understandable; accountable; just; equitable; affordable; efficient; stable yet flexible; socially, environmentally and economically sustainable; outcome effective in functional areas such as the environment, health, education and justice; helpful to individuals and businesses small and large; and centralised and decentralised in an appropriate balance. We want a system which is close to and responsive to the diverse needs of individuals and communities across the country, and which is responsive also to the needs of the country as a whole and to global challenges and circumstances.

It would be nice if we could take it for granted that our government systems in Australia already host qualities like these, but I think most of us here today aspire to something significantly better than what we have now, and so my hope is that we can keep qualities like these in mind in our ongoing reflections today and beyond.

Now the term 'governing' has been intentionally chosen in the title here in order to include both governments and public governance, so the terms 'government' and 'governance' will now be more fully explained. Governments here shall be defined as general-purpose, or multi-function, governments, such as Australia's present federal, state, territory and local governments. So it is assumed that Australia would host a national government and one or more levels of sub-national government. Special-purpose or single-function governments, like county councils that have existed in Australia, and the many special-purpose local governments in place in the United States (notably their school districts and other special districts), shall, for present purposes, be considered examples of governance rather than government.

According to the OECD (2001: 11), in a publication titled 'Cities for Citizens: Improving Metropolitan Governance':

the term 'government' is no longer appropriate to describe the way populations and territories are organised and administered. In a world where the participation of business and civil society is increasingly the norm, the term 'governance' better defines the process by which citizens collectively solve their problems and meet society's needs, using 'government' as the instrument.

And according to Hamilton (1999: 33), in his book 'Governing Metropolitan Areas: Response to Growth and Change':

The term governance is not concerned with government structures per se but with government processes and functions. Governance is a functional and issue-oriented approach to addressing problems of a regional nature. It includes functional arrangements for provision of services, how regional policy issues are addresses, and the extent and processes of regional cooperation.

So whilst definitions can vary in their emphasis, 'governance' is clearly a broader term than 'government'. Whereas governments and their activities are typically very rigid and solid in their nature, governance generally refers to more fluid and more flexible approaches to public service and outcome facilitation, which generally extend beyond individual governments themselves. Governance encompasses collaborative structures and processes which may include multiple governments and the business and community sectors. Regional Organisations of Councils (ROCs) in Australia - which comprise clusters of two or more adjoining local governments, exemplify 'bottom-up' regionalism and shall be considered as forms of regional 'governance'. State government health regions and policing districts in Australia's present system, and other similar examples of top-down regionalisation, however, will be considered part of government rather than as forms of sub-central governance, because these subdivisions constitute administrative decentralisation rather than democratic or political decentralisation.

To further clarify this distinction between government and governance, it is useful to consider the American system of government and its very rich diversity of sub-national government types. According to the United States Census Bureau (2002: v) 2002 Census of Governments:

There were 87,576 governmental units in the United States as of June 30, 2002. In addition to the federal government and the 50 state governments, there were 87,525 units of local government. Of these, 38,967 are general purpose local governments—3,034 county governments, and 35,933 subcounty general-purpose governments (including 19,429 municipal governments and 16,504 town or township governments). The remainder, more than half the total number, are special-purpose local governments, including 13,506 school district governments and 35,052 special district governments.

Table 1 below shows the numbers of the various types of sub-national governments in America, as at 30 June 2002, and also shows average populations served by these units. The fourth column of Table 1 shows the numbers of such units that would be needed in Australia to achieve units serving the same average populations as the corresponding American units. The two rightmost column list the actual numbers of such units, if present, in the Australian system and average populations served by these units of government.

Table 1: Sub-national Governments in the United States and Australia^a

Government Units in the United States	Number of Units in the USA	Average Population Served by Units in US System	Number of Units if Present in Australia and Serving Same Average Population as in the USA	Number of Units in Present Australian System	Average Population Served by Units in Australian System
States/ Territoriesb	51	5,506,860	3.48	9	2,128,556
Counties	3,034	92,568	207	0	N/A
Municipal governments	19,429	14,455	1,325	692	27,684
Towns or Townships	16,504	17,017	1,126	0	N/A
General-Purpose Local Governments Excluding Counties	35,933	7,816	2,451	692	27,684
General-Purpose Local Governments Including Counties	38,967	7,207	2,658	692	27,684
School Districts	13,506	20,794	921	0	N/A
Special Districts	35,052	8,012	2,391	0	N/A
Total Special-Purpose Local Governments	48,558	5,784	3,312	0	N/A
All Local Governments	87,525	3,209	5,970	692	27,684

^a Based on 2000 population data from US Census Bureau and the ABS, and on local government numbers again from the US Census Bureau and the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) website at http://www.alga.asn.au/about/, page last updated 17 Dec 2002).

^b including the District of Columbia in the USA

Table 1 shows that sub-national governing arrangements display much greater diversity in the United States than in Australia. It is also seen that the United States has significantly greater numbers of local governments than Australia on a per capita basis.

Hamilton (1999:18) notes that in the American system:

Municipalities were the basic self-governing units. They were established by petition to the state when enough people were living together in close proximity to form a viable community for self-governing purposes.

Hamilton then goes on to describe the American counties and their relationship with municipal governments (i.e. general-purpose local governments) as follows:

The traditional role of the county is to serve as an administrative arm of the state in providing certain state-mandated services and limited local government functions in unincorporated areas. The county has no choice or option in the provision of state-mandated functions. … The county's responsibility in unincorporated areas is to provide limited municipal services including police protection, roads, parks and recreation. In addition, in many states the county may provide services jointly with municipalities (or for them) through interlocal agreements.

When an area incorporates, the municipality takes over the county's limited municipal functions, but the county continues providing state-mandated administrative functions, such as legal recordkeeping, the judicial function, welfare, and health services.

Salant (1991, in Kemp 2002:119) observes further that:

County populations range from as low as 164 in Loving County, Texas, to eight million [now close to nine million] in Los Angeles County; the average is between 10,000 and 25,000 residents.

Counties, like cities, are created by the state, but primarily for the purpose of providing state services. As such, counties are considered quasi-corporations. Their powers are derivative, but counties have always been recognized as units of local government as well. With few exceptions, the county governing body and most line officers are elected locally, and have some authority to provide optional local services and raise additional revenues which makes local autonomy a reality, though limited.

According to the above descriptions, counties might fall into a grey area between governments and governance as defined earlier, although several observers (for example Menzel 1996:3; Hamilton 1999:253-5) have noted that counties are showing the potential to evolve from 'an administrative arm of the state' to a more autonomous provider of regional services (Hamilton 1999:253) in the future. I'd certainly encourage people to consider the possibility, at least, that Australia might benefit from forms of government resembling the American counties, for some purposes at least.

The American system also exercises governance through bodies known as Regional Councils, which Hamilton (1999:230) describes as 'cooperative, regional organizations composed of counties, towns, and often special districts', whose purpose 'is to increase communication, cooperation, and coordination among local governments in planning and implementing programs that address regional issues.' The most prominent types of regional councils to have evolved have been Regional Planning Commissions (RPCs) and Councils of Governments (COGs), which in practice have assumed very similar roles (Hamilton 1999:231). Stephens and Wikstrom (2000:25) describe COGs as:

associations of elected officials from most and/or from the major local governments within an urban or metropolitan area. Their purpose is to establish consensus concerning area needs and actions to solve local and interlocal problems. COGs are voluntary associations that represent governments, but are not themselves governments.

We see here that Regional Organisations of Councils (ROCs) in Australia (see ALGA website at http://www.alga.asn.au/links/regionalOrgs.php, last updated 6 Feb 2003) would be like these Regional Councils in America if they involved local governments across entire metropolitan areas.

Counties and voluntary associations of local governments are also found in numerous other countries besides America, and are common in Europe. In Sweden, for example, there are two tiers of sub-national government comprising 289 municipalities, 'ranging in size from Bjurholm's 2,800 to the 727,000 inhabitants of Stockholm', (Lidstrom, in Loughlin 2001:324) and 18 County Councils in addition to two regions and the municipality of Gotland (Swedish Institute 2001). Whereas Swedish municipalities have considerable autonomy, in accordance with the 1991 Local government Act and the longstanding Scandinavian tradition of local self-government, the Swedish counties, like those in America, 'are primarily a central government administrative division at the regional level' (Council of Europe 1996:5). The Stockholm metropolitan area, which has a population of 1.7 million, hosts Sweden's largest County Council and also contains 26 municipalities. And these 26 municipalities are all members of the Stockholm County Association of Local Authorities (see this organisation's website, last updated 27 February 2003, at http://www.ksl.se/English/presentation.html), which are much like the American Regional Councils described above and our own Regional Organisations of Councils here in Australia.

The preceding descriptions touch on the government arrangements of only a few countries, and only address but a few of the numerous forms of governance on display around the world, but they hopefully suffice to demonstrate that there are some quite exciting government system possibilities for us to explore in our quest for an improved system of government in Australia.

Now the second part of the title of my talk here is 'Some Statistical Insights into the Viability of Various Two-sphered Government Models'.

I'd like to have applied a deeper analysis here that would extend well beyond statistics, but for a 15 to 20 minute talk, I thought some numerical insights might offer the most useful guidance to those among us who are exploring various models of government at the moment. Some people, for example, have shown support for a system comprising just national and regional levels of governments, with regional governments numbering anywhere between 15 and 150 or so. Others believe that it is most important for us to host governments at the national and local levels, and that we might continue with our present 700 or so local governments, leaving governance arrangements to take care of the regional level. The following reflections are designed to offer guidance as to the viability and appropriateness of government systems comprising 15, 150, 700 or any other number of sub-national governments.

So let's now take stock of Australia's current situation. Table 2, below in the paper here, shows how many Australian settlements there were in various population ranges, based on 2001 Census data (ABS Cats. 2016.0 through 2016.7).

Table 2: Population Distribution of Australian Settlements

with Populations of 200 and over, based on 2001 Census Data

Population Range	Number of Settlements	Cumulative Total	Percentage Share of Australia's Population
1,000,000 and over	4 (Sydney, Melb., Bris., Perth)	4	Major Urban Centres - those with populations of 100,000 and over - made up 65.1% of Australia's total population at the time of the 2001 Census. Other Urban Areas - with populations from 1,000 to 99,999 - made up 22.0%. Bounded Localities - with populations from 200 to 999 - made up 2.5%. The Rural Balance - i.e. settlements with less than 200 people - made up 10.3%. The remaining 0.1% of the population was classified as migratory.
500,000 to 999,999	1 (Adelaide)	5
200,000 to 499,999	5	10
100,000 to 199,999	4	14
50,000 to 99,999	11	25
20,000 to 49,999	32	57
10,000 to 19,999	51	108
5,000 to 9,999	83	191
2,000 to 4,999	232	423
1,000 to 1,999	285	708
500 to 999	413	1121
200 to 499	587	1708

It is significant in Table 2 here that there were 708 settlements in Australia in 2001 with populations exceeding 1000 people, and that, according to the Australian Local Government Association (see http://www.alga.asn.au/about/, page last updated 17 Dec 2002), 'Australia has 692 shires and councils accountable to diverse metropolitan, regional, rural, and indigenous communities.' So we presently have roughly one local government in Australia for every settlement exceeding 1000 or so in population.

Table 3 now provides the populations and numbers of local governments within the 25 metropolitan areas in Australia which exceeded 50,000 in population at the time of the 2001 Census.

Table 3: Australian Metropolitan Areas and their Populations and Local Government Numbers, Based on 2001 Census Data

R A N K	Metropolitan Areas with Populations Exceeding 50,000 a	Population	Cumulative Percentage of Population	Number of Local Govern-ments	Average Population Per Local Government
1	Sydney (excluding Gosford-Wyong)	3,857,660	19.80	43	89,713
2	Melbourne	3,488,750	37.70	32	109,023
3	Brisbane b	1,653,365	46.19	9	183,707
4	Perth	1,397,048	53.36	30	46,568
5	Adelaide	1,110,547	59.06	20	55,527
6	Newcastle (NSW)	494,355	61.59	5	98,871
7	Gold Coast (QLD)	425,418	63.78	1	425,418
8	Canberra-Queanbeyan (ACT-NSW)	364,403	65.65	2	182,202
9	Gosford-Wyong (NSW)	297,062	67.17	2	148,531
10	Wollongong (NSW)	271,145	68.56	3	90,382
11	Hobart (TAS)	197,816	69.58	7	28,259
12	Geelong (VIC)	194,902	70.58	1	194,902
13	Townsville-Thuringowa (QLD)	145,372	71.32	2	72,686
14	Cairns (QLD)	120,433	71.94	1	120,433
15	Toowoomba (QLD)	109,327	72.50	5	21,865
16	Darwin (NT)	108,191	73.06	3	36,064
17	Launceston (TAS)	98,820	73.57	5	19,764
18	Albury-Wodonga (NSW-VIC)	97,883	74.07	5	19,577
19	Bendigo (VIC)	90,502	74.53	1	90,502
20	Ballarat (VIC)	83,753	74.96	1	83,753
21	Mackay (QLD)	75,977	75.35	1	75,977
22	Rockhampton (QLD)	63,427	75.68	2	31,714
23	Mandurah (WA)	60,085	75.99	2	30,043
24	Bundaberg (QLD)	56,923	76.28	2	28,462
25	Wagga Wagga (NSW)	56,729	76.57	1	56,729
	25 Largest Total/Average	14,919,893	76.57	186	80,214
	Australia Total/Average	19,485,278	100.00	692	27,916
	5 Largest Total/Average	11,507,370	59.06	134	85,876
	Balance After 25 Largest	4,565,385	23.43	506	9,023
	Balance After 5 Largest	7,977,908	40.94	558	14,297

^a Sources: ABS Catalogues 3218.0 (Census of Population and Housing: Regional Population Growth Australia and New Zealand 1991 to 2001) and 2016.0 (Census of Population and Housing: Selected Characteristics for Urban Centres, 1996 and 2001). Metropolitan areas listed in Table 3 are all either Statistical Divisions, Statistical Subdivisions, Statistical Districts or Local Government Areas as classified by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The list here has been established according to the author's judgements with the assistance of the ordered list of Australia's largest Urban Centres as presented in Table 1 of ABS Cat. 2016.0 (1996 and 2001).

^b The average population of the eight local government areas in the Brisbane metropolitan area besides Brisbane City itself was 94,361, using 2001 Census data in ABS Cat. 3218.

Table 3 shows that about 59% of Australia's population lives in our five largest cities, and that our 25 largest metropolitan areas are home to over three-quarters of our entire population. So whilst we certainly can't forget the 23 percent of our population who live in places other than these 25 largest cities, if we are to move successfully beyond state governments, we are obviously going to have to come up with governing systems that can work well for the 77% of Australians who live in our largest 25 cities.

Table 3 also shows that Australia's five largest cities all host nine or more local governments within their metropolitan areas, and that local governments in these five cities already serve quite large populations - typically in the order of 100,000. Brisbane City, serving a population of 898,480 (according to the 2001 Census), is by far the most populous local government area in Australia, followed by the Gold Coast (serving 425,418 in 2001) and Blacktown (266,072).

So, besides the status quo as summarised in Tables 1 and 3 here, what, then, are some of the other government system options available to Australia's large cities? Well, when we conduct a survey of how cities are governed throughout the world, we find that there really are numerous different styles of government and governance on display. And of course we'd expect a good deal of diversity in view of the varying extents of constitutional and financial powers that are assigned to the one or more levels of government that operate in different cities.

At one extreme, we have very powerful city-states like Singapore, in which a single government hosts powers that in other countries are shared among national and sub-national levels of government. Then we have sub-national city-state governments in countries with federal systems of government, such as those operating in our own Australian Capital Territory and the German metropolitan areas of Berlin, Bremen and Hamburg. These three German cities are three of the 16 Länder (equivalents of the Australian states) of the German federation.

Quite powerful city governments are also found within national or sub-national states. The new city governments of Toronto (formed in 1998) and Ottawa (formed in 2001) in Canada, for example, are single local governments serving populations of approximately 2.5 million and one million respectively, though it should be kept in mind that this Toronto government only serves about half of the nearly five million inhabitants of the greater Toronto metropolitan area (Ness 1999: 646).

Whilst there are many fascinating models of government on display all around the world, we saw in Table 1, earlier on, that American sub-national governments are especially diverse, and hence especially good at illustrating some of the government system options available to Australia's large cities and indeed all of our localities. New York City, for example, and its surrounding metropolitan region - known as the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut 'tri-state' region provides a fascinating illustration of the diversity of local government sizes within American metropolitan areas. New York City itself has just a single local government for its eight million or so people, but the tri-state metropolitan region overall hosts over 2100 local governments serving a total population of just over 20 million. (Benjamin and Nathan, 1990: 3-4,6).

Chicago displays a similar pattern to New York, with a single government presiding over the 3 million or so people in Chicago City itself, but a total of over 1400 local governments in total to serve a greater metropolitan area population of approximately eight million (Altshuler et al. 1999:23).

As of 1999, there were 276 separate metropolitan areas in America with populations of 50,000 or more, 18 of which had populations exceeding one million. And these metropolitan areas made up just over 80% of America's total population (US Census Bureau 2000, 2002). So, noting the figures in Table 2, the metropolitan area population distribution within the United States is seen to be at least somewhat similar to that of Australia.

Altshuler et al. (1999:23) observed that:

In 1997, the average metropolitan area consisted of 114 local governments: 2 counties, 42 [general purpose] municipalities or towns, and 70 special districts, of which 21 were school districts. There were 18 local governments for every 100,000 people in metropolitan areas.

According to data employed by Altshuler et al. (1999:23), Amercia's 15 largest metropolitan areas, in 1997, had an average of 520 local governments each, 190 of which were general-purpose governments, which amounted to an average of one local government for every 8000 people or so, or one general-purpose government for every 23,000 or so (on data from). Table 3 shows that Australia's largest cities host approximately one general-purpose local government for every 80,000 people.

So what are the key messages in all these numbers? Well, perhaps above all, these figures should open our minds to the fact that a great many vastly different styles of government can and do work satisfactorily, at least, in large cities around the world. Much has been written about the advantages and disadvantages associated with larger numbers of smaller local governments, and likewise with smaller numbers of larger local governments, but many different forms of city governing have proven the test of time. Another stand out observation is that whilst many cities throughout the world host just a single local government for a significant fraction of their metropolitan areas, very few host just the one local government for the full extent of their metropolitan areas, although we did earlier observe that the three German city-states of Berlin, Bremen and Hamburg host just single sub-national state type governments. And quite a number metropolitan areas, such as Portland (in the American state of Oregon) and Vancouver (in Canada), host two tiers of local government, with a single government for their metropolitan regions alongside multiple municipal governments within these areas (Ness 1999: 521, 652). Stockholm, as observed earlier, has a two-tier city government structure comprising a whole of city county government and 26 municipalities. Also, the Brussels conurbation, in Belgium, with a population of approximately one million, has features of a two-tier model and also the city-state model, being a unit of the Belgian federation which comprises 19 municipalities (Council of Europe 1998: 7-8).

So if, in Australia for example, we decided to create just single regional governments for our five largest metropolitan regions, these governments would be almost unique in the world. And my own opinion, and this view is supported by numerous studies, is that such governments would be far too big and distant from their people to provide optimal government if that's all we had. To further emphasise this point: if we were to move to a system comprising, for example, just 20 regional governments, as the only sub-national governments within Australia, and if our five largest metropolitan areas each formed one of these regional governments, then the data in Table 3 enables us to estimate that the remaining 15 regional governments would serve 'communities' - if you could call them that - with populations averaging over 500,000 (which exceeds Tasmania's population) and land areas averaging over 500,000 square kilometres (about the land area of Spain, and more than twice Victoria's land area). If we had 100 regions, with 25 taken up by our 25 largest metropolitan areas as listed in Table 3, then the remaining 75 regions would still average about 61,000 in population and about 100,000 square kilometres in land area (which would be more than 300 km by 300 km if the region had a square shape).

In closing, I believe the facts, figures and reflections presented here, when considered alongside our own observations, and research done throughout the world, support the following tenative conclusions:

Firstly, our local government areas in our metropolitan areas are already quite large in comparison with those found in other large cities throughout the world, and if they became larger, they could be too distant from their people to provide effective local government.

Secondly, if we move to a system comprising a national government and 100 or less regional governments, we'd probably need to retain at least some form of local government or local governance, and my own view is that communities themselves would have to be able to decide for themselves what forms of localised governing they'd like to retain at local community levels.

Thirdly, if we move to a system comprising just a national government and our local governments in roughly their present sizes and numbers, there'd probably be a need to establish additional regional and metropolitan-area-wide governance arrangements, especially for responsibilities such as water, waste and environmental management, transport and urban planning. My tentative view is that bodies akin to American counties might well be suitable for such purposes, because most of these responsibilities, just mentioned, refer to essential services and public goods which, in my view, ought to be subject to national standards, albeit with considerable room for regional and city-wide bodies to tailor their activities to suit local needs and preferences. I'd be optimistic that our Regional Organisations of Councils could come out of the shadows of the states to assume a far more significant role if and when we move beyond state governments in their present forms.

My hope is that we can keep facts, figures and thoughts like these in mind in our ongoing cooperative efforts to come up with a better system of government.

Thanks very much again for your kind attention and best wishes to you all.

THE END

Mark Drummond

5 Loddon Street

Kaleen ACT 2617

phone: 02 6255 0772

email: markld@ozemail.com.au

References Used and Recommended for Further Reading

ACIR (1974), Governmental Functions and Processes: Local and Areawide, Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Washington.

ACIR (1992), Metropolitan Organization: The Allegheny County Case, Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Washington, D.C.

Altshuler, A., Morrill, W. et al. (1999), Governance and Opportunity in Metropolitan America, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Australian Bureau of Statistics: Catalogues 2016.0 through 2016.7 (Selected Characteristics for Urban Centres and Localities) and 3218.0 (Census of Population and Housing: Regional Population Growth Australia and New Zealand 1991 to 2001).

Australian Local Government Association (2002), website at http://www.alga.asn.au/about/, page last updated 17 December 2002.

Baldersheim, H. & Stahlberg, K. (1994), Towards the Self-regulating Municipality: Free Communes and Administrative Modernization in Scandinavia, Ashgate, Alershot, UK.

Barlow, I. M. (1991), Metropolitan Government, Routledge, London.

Benjamin, B. & Nathan, R. P. (2001), Regionalism and Realism: A Study of Governments in the New York Metropolitan Area, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Berry, J. M., Portney, K. E., & Thomson, K. (1993), The Rebirth of Urban Democracy' The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.

Bogasson, P. (Ed.) (1996), New Modes of Local Political Organizing: Local government Fragmentation in Scandinavia, Nova Science Publishers, Inc., Commack, New York.

Boyne, G. A. (1995), "Population Size and Economies of Scale in Government", Policy and Politics, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 213-222, School for Advanced Urban Studies, Bristol.

Boyne, G. A. (1998), Public Choice Theory and Local Government: A Comparative Analysis of the UK and the USA, Macmillan, Basingstoke.

Brunn, S. D. & Williams, J. F. (1993), Cities of the World: World Regional Urban Development (2^nd Ed.), HarperCollins College Publishers, New York.

Chapman, R., Haward, M. & Ryan, B. (1997), Local Government Restructuring in Australasia, Centre for Public Management and Policy, University of Tasmania, Hobart.

CLAIR (1997), Comparative Study on Local Government Reform in Japan, Australia and New Zealand, Council of Local Authorities for International Relations, Sydney.

CLAIR (2000), Local Government in Japan, Council of Local Authorities for International Relations, Tokyo.

Coppa, F. J. (2000), County Government: A Guide to Efficient and Accountable Government, Praeger, Westport, Connecticut.

Council of Europe (1995), The Size of Municipalities, Efficiency and Citizen Participation, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg.

Council of Europe (1997-2001), Structure and Operation of Local and Regional Democracy (series comprising editions for many European countries), Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg.

Dickinson, R. E. (1964), City and Region: A Geographical Interpretation, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd, London.

Dickinson, R. E. (1947), City Region and Regionalism: A Geographical Contribution to Human Ecology, Oxford University Press, New York.

Dickinson, R. E. (1967), The City Region in Western Europe, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd, London.

DiGaetano, A. & Klemanski, J. S. (1999), Power and City Governance: Comparative Perspectives on Urban Development, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

Dijkink, G. (1995), 'Metropolitan government as a political pet? Realism and tradition in administrative reform in The Netherlands', Political Geography, Vol. 14, No. 4, May 1995, pp. 329-341, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam.

Dollery, B. & Marshall, N. (Eds), Australian Local Government: Reform and Renewal, Pan Macmillan, Melbourne.

Fletcher, C. & Wlash, C. (1992), The Impact of Federalism on Metropolitan Strategies in Australia, Federalism Research Centre, ANU, Canberra.

Forster, C. (1999), Australian Cities: Continuity and Change (2^nd Ed), Oxford University Press.

Frisken, F. (Ed.) (1994), The Changing Canadian Metropolis: A Public Policy Perspective (2 Vols), Institute of Governmental Studies Press, University of California, Berkeley.

Gidlund, J. & Jerneck, M. (Eds) (2000), Local and Regional Governance in Europe: Evidence from the Nordic Regions, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.

Haggroth, S., Kronvall, K., Riberdahl, C. & Rudebeck, K. (1993), Swedish Local Government: Traditions and Reforms, The Swedish Institute, Stockholm.

Halligan, J. A. (1980), 'Metropolitan Government for Melbourne', in J.A. Halligan, C. A. Maher & J. McKay, Local Government in Victoria: Role Structure and Administration: Research Appendices, Volume IV, Victorian Government Board of Review, Melbourne.

Hamilton, D. K. (1999), Governing Metropolitan Areas: Response to Growth and Change, Garland Publishing, Inc., New York.

Hirsch, W. Z. (1968), 'The Supply of Urban Public Services', in H. S. Perloff & L. Wingo, Jr. (Eds), Issues in Urban Economics, The John Hopkins Press, Baltimore.

Hochman, O. (1990), 'Cities, Scale Economies, Local Goods and Local Governments', Urban Studies, Vol. 27, No. 1, February 1990, pp. 45-65, Carfax, Abingdon, Oxfordshire.

Hoggart, K. & Clark, T. N. (Eds) (2000), Citizen Responsive Government, Elsevier Science Inc., New York.

Jones, M. A. (1993), Transforming Australian Local Government: Making It Work, Allen & Unwin, Sydney.

Jouve, B. & Lefevre, C. (2002), Local Power, Territory amd Institutions in European Metropolitan Regions, Frank Cass, London.

Kemp, R. L. (Ed.) (1999), Forms of Local Government: A Handbook on City, County and Regional Options, McFarland & Company, Inc., Jefferson, North Carolina.

Kemp, R. L. (Ed.) (2002), How American Governments Work: A Handbook of City, County, Regional, State and Federal Operations, McFarland & Company, Inc., Jefferson, North Carolina.

Larsson, T., Nomden, K. & Petiteville, F. (Eds) (1999), The Intermediate Level of Government in European States: Complexity versus Democracy?, European Institute of Public Administration, Maastricht, the Netherlands.

Loughlin, J. (2001), Subnational Democracy in the European Union: Challenges and Opportunities, Oxford University Press.

Martin Harloff, E. (1987), The Structure of Local Government in Europe, Intenrational Union of Local Authorities, The Hague, Netherlands.

Menzel, D. C. (Ed.) (1996), The American County: Frontiers of Knowledge, The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Miller, D. Y. (2002), The Regional Governing of Metropolitan America, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.

Neilson, L. (1980), 'The possible future structure and administration of the provincial Cities of Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo and their surrounding areas', in L. Neilson, Local Government in Victoria: Role Structure and Administration: Research Appendices, Volume I, Victorian Government Board of Review, Melbourne.

Ness, I. (Ed.) (1999), Encyclopedia of World Cities, Fitzroy Dearborn, Chicago.

Neutze, M. (1974), 'Local, Regional and Metropolitan Government', in R. L. Mathers (Ed.), Intergovernmental Relations in Australia, Angus & Robertson, Sydney.

Oakerson, R. J. (1999), Governing Local Public Economies: Creating the Civic Metropolis, Institute for Cointemporary Studies, Oakland, California.

Oakley, A. (1993), Issues Confrinting City and State governments: A Guide to Improving and Understanding Local governments of All Shapes and Sizes, from Towns to Counties to State Agencies, P.O. Publishing company, Skokie, Illinois.

OECD (1999), Taxing Powers of State and Local Government, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.

OECD (2001), Cities for Citizens: Improving Metropolitan Governance, OECD, Paris.

Orfield, M. (1998), Metropolitics: A Regional Agenda for Community and Stability (Revised Edition), The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.

Parkin, A. (1982), Governing the Cities: The Australian Experience in Perspective, Macmillan, South Melbourne.

Power, J. M. & Halligan, J. A. (1987), 'Changing Patterns of Government in Australian Metropolitan Areas … with particular reference to Melbourne', Local Government Studies, Vol. 15, No. 5, Sep/Oct 1987, pp. 77-86, Charles Knight, Croydon, Surrey.

Rothblatt, D. N. & Sancton, A. (1998), Metropolitan Governance Revisited: American/Canadian Intergovernmental Perspectives, Institute of Governmental Studies Press, University of California, Berkeley.

Salant, T. J. (1991), 'Overview of County Governments', reproduced in R. L. Kemp (Ed.) (2002), How American Governments Work: A Handbook of City, County, Regional, State and Federal Operations, McFarland & Company, Inc., Jefferson, North Carolina.

Savitch, H. V. & Vogel, R. K. (2000), 'Metropolitan Consolidation versus Metropolitan Governance in Louisville', State and Local Government Review, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Fall 2000), pp. 198-212, Carl Vinson Institute of Government, The University of Georgia, Athens.

Sellers, J. M. (2002), Governing from Below: Urban Regions and the Global Economy, Cambridge University Press.

Senior, D. (1966), The Regional City: An Anglo-American Discussion of Metropolitan Planning, Longmans, Green and Co Ltd, London.

Sharpe, L. J. (1995), The government of World Cities: The Future of the Metro Model, Wiley, Chichester.

Sisk, T.D. et al. (2001), Democracy at the Local Level: The International IDEA Handbook on Participation, Representation, Conflict Management and Governance, International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, Stromsborg, Sweden.

Soul, S. C. (2000), Population Size and Economic and Political Performance of Local Government Jurisdictions (PhD thesis), Southern Cross University, Lismore.

Stephens, G. R. and N. Wikstrom. Metropolitan Government and Governance: Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Analysis, and the Future. Oxford University Press, 2000.

Stilwell, F. (1995), Understanding Cities and Regions, Pluto Press, Sydney.

Stilwell, F. (1993), Reshaping Australia: Urban Problems and Policies, Pluto Press, Sydney.

Stockholm County Association of Local Authorities (2003), website at http://www.ksl.se/English/presentation.html, page last updated 27 February 2003.

Syrett, S. & Baldock, R. (Ed.) (2001), Governing London: Competitiveness and Regeneration for a Global City, Middlesex University Press, London.

Troy, P. (Ed.) (1995), Australian Cities: Issues, Strategies and Policies for Urban Australia in the 1990s, Cambridge University Press.

Troy, P. (Ed.) (1999), Serving the City: The Crisis in Australia's Urban Services, Pluto Press, Sydney.

Troy, P. (Ed.) (2000), Equity, Environment, Efficiency: Ethics and Economics in Urban Australia, Melbourne University Press.

US Census Bureau (2002), 2002 Census of Governments: Volume 1, Number 1, Government Organization, Governments Division, US Census Bureau, Washington, D.C.

Van der Veer, J. (1998), 'Metropolitan Government in Amsterdam and Eindhoven: a Tale of Two Cities', Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Vol. 16, No. 1, February 1998, pp. 25-50, Pion, London.

Vince, A. (1997), "Amalgamations". In B. Dollery & N. Marshall (Eds), Australian Local Government: Reform and Renewal, Pan Macmillan, Melbourne.

Weiher, G. R. 1991), The Fractured Metropolis: Political Fragmentation and Metropolitan Segregation, State University of New York Press, Albany.

Witherby, A., Dollery, B., Auster, M. & Marshall, N. (1999), Is Bigger Better? Towards a Model Process for Local Government Structural Reform. Australian Institute of Urban Studies, Sydney.