No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Some Comparative Experience in Adjusting Local Units and Areas*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Extract
The problem of adjusting the units and areas of local government to meet changing conditions seems to be a universal one. It involves not only the question of procedure, but also the quest of the ideal. With the exception of school districts, extensive experimentation has not been forthcoming in the United States; other English-speaking countries have been far more concerned with local units and areas.
The present paper deals with the experiences of four central governments—England and Wales, New Zealand, Alberta, and Saskatchewan. None of them has found the ideal system. All have evolved various successful techniques to adjust local units and areas from time to time.
I
Widespread interest in reorganizing the areas and units of local government in England and Wales has been evident since before 1944. During the period 1943 to 1945, numerous individuals and groups came forward with plans for reform, among them the Labor party, the Liberal party, the Liberal National Committee, the National Association of Local Government Officers, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the County Councils Association, and the Urban and Rural Districts Associations. Proposals by the two Liberal groups, the counties, and the urban and rural districts involved only minor variations from the existing local government structure. As a result, most interest was focused upon the NALGO and AMC reports calling for varying plans of single all-purpose authorities and on Labor's proposal for a two-tier structure.
- Type
- Foreign Government and Politics
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1948
Footnotes
*
This study was financed in part by a generous grant from the University of Minnesota Graduate School Research Fund. Robert C. Storey, research assistant, capably collected data for the section on England and Wales. Thanks are due not only to the Graduate School and Mr. Storey, but also to several public officials in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and New Zealand who promptly answered many inquiries. The article is based upon developments through the autumn of 1947.
References
1 For more complete discussions of some of these plans, see Warren, J. H., “The Structure of Local Government and Recent Proposals for Its Reform,” Public Administration (London), Vol. 22, pp. 3–11 (1944)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, discussing the NALGO, AMC, and Labor party proposals; and Liberal National Committee, “Future of Local Government,” Municipal Journal, Vol. 62, pp. 779–780 (1944).Google Scholar
2 As reported in Municipal Journal, Vol. 54, p. 2146 (1946).
3 For example, see Local Government Journal, Vol. 76, pp. 30 and 51 (1947).
4 Weidner, Edward W., “Trends in English Local Government, 1944,” in this Review, Vol. 39, p. 348 (1945).Google Scholar
5 A summary of the White Paper may be found in Local Government Journal, Vol. 74, pp. 43–46 (1945).
6 The Report of the Local Government Committee (Wellington, Government Printer, 1945, 189 pp.) not only outlines the committee's recommendations, but also presents in some detail a description of the historical background and present structure of local government in New Zealand. The contents of the report, as well as developments leading to the passage of the act, have been summarized in various biweekly issues of Board and Council (New Zealand) since 1944.
7 Local Government Committee, Report, p. 150.
8 Ibid., pp. 179–180.
9 Alberta Revised Statutes, 1942, Municipal District Act, Part 3, Sec. 17a(1).
10 Department letter to author, Apr. 10, 1947.
11 Alberta Revised Statutes, 1942, School Act, Ch. 175, Sec. 251(1).
12 Department letter to author, May 12, 1947. For an account of the experiences of one division since its establishment, see Ten Years of the Foremost School Division No. 3 (Foremost, Alberta, 1947), pp. 1–19.
13 Larger School Units Act, Sec. 3(1).