侯爱敏

Hou Aimin

关键词：市县合并；美国；特征；区划调整；启示

Keywords：City-County Consolidation; The US; Characteristics; Administrative Division Adjustment; Lessons

摘要：

市县合并是美国近两个世纪以来应对被区域主义者诟病的都市区碎片化的重要手段，其程序、目标、方案、后效、机制等等在较长的历史时期中得到了深入的观察探索。本文系统总结：美国市县合并的尝试较多但成功率低，合并程度、范围和政府结构模式多样，目标诉求多元且随时代背景变化，目标实现多数不如预期，公众意见起决定作用但法律影响合并难度与取向等五个突出特征。继而结合我国当前撤县设区等区划调整中遇到的矛盾，提出了四个方面的启示，包括关注多元目标、重视后效评估，倾听不同利益群体呼声，内容应重于形式，鼓励多种模式以及替代方案的探索，加强规范和制度建设等等。

Abstract：

City-County consolidation (CCC) is a common practice in the US metropolitan areas, which has been used to deal with the consequences of government fragmentation ever since 1815. Due to the frequent attempts of CCC in the US, rich theoretical and empirical literature has been developed, on CCC’s procedures, objectives, mechanisms and effects. This paper summarizes the five major characteristics of CCC in the US, including more attempts but low success rate, diversified consolidation ranges and modes, multiple goals that change with time, few goals achieved, public participation playing decisive roles etc. Four inspirations are discussed for administrative division adjustment in China’s fast growing urban areas.

侯爱敏，博士，苏州科技大学城乡规划专业硕士生导师，副教授

• [1] 谢涤湘, 文吉, 魏清泉“. 撤县（市）设区”行政区划调整与城市发展[J]. 城市规划学刊, 2004(4): 20-22.
  [2] 张京祥, 吴缚龙. 从行政区兼并到区域管治——长江三角洲的实证与思考[J]. 城市规划, 2004(5): 25-30.
  [3] 张蕾, 张京祥. 撤县设区的区划兼并效应再思考——以镇江市丹徒区为例[J]. 城市问题, 2007(1): 36-40.
  [4] 高琳. 快速城市化进程中的“撤县设区”：主动适应与被动调整[J]. 经济地理, 2011, 31(4): 573-577.
  [5] 李郇, 徐现祥. 中国撤县（市）设区对城市经济增长的影响分析[J]. 地理学报, 2015, 70(8): 1202-1214.
  [6] 韩永辉, 黄亮雄, 舒元. 县域行政区划改革的绩效分析——以“撤市设区”为切入点[J]. 经济学报, 2014(4): 49-67.
  [7] LELAND S, THURMAIER K. Political and functional local government consolidation: the challenges for core public administration values and regional reform[J]. The American Review of Public Administration, 2014, 44(4_suppl): 29s-46s.
  [8] MARTIN L, SCHIFF J. City–county consolidations: promise versus performance[J]. State and Local Government Review, 2011, 43(2): 167-177.
  [9] REESE L A. Same governance, dif ferent day: does metropolitan reorganization make a difference?[J]. Review of Policy Research, 2004(4): 595-611.
  [10] LELAND S, THURMAIER K. Metropolitan consolidation success: returning to the roots of local government reform[J]. Public Administration Quarterly, 2000, 24(2): 202-222.
  [11] JONES E T. Toward regionalism: the St. Louis approach[J]. St. Louis University Public Law Review, 2014 (34): 103-126.
  [12] MEAD T D. Governing Charlotte-Mecklenburg[J]. State and Local Government Review, 2000, 32(3): 192-197.
  [13] SWANSON B E. Quandaries of pragmatic reform: a reassessment of the jacksonville experience[J]. State and Local Government Review, 2000, 32(3): 227-238.
  [14] KELLY J M, ADHIKARI S. Indicators of financial condition in pre-and postmerger Louisville[J]. Journal of Urban Affairs, 2013, 35(5): 553-567.
  [15] NORRIS D F. Prospects for regional governance under the new regionalism: economic imperatives versus political impediments[J]. Journal of Urban Affairs, 2001, 23(5): 557-571.
  [16] SAVITCH H V, VOGEL R K, YE L. Beyond the rhetoric: lessons from Louisville’s consolidation[J]. The American Review of Public Administration, 2010, 40(1): 3-28.
  [17] SALSICH P W, CALUORI S. Can St. Louis city and county get back together? [J]. St. Louis University Public Law Review, 2014(34): 13-50.
  [18] ROSENTRAUB M S. City-county consolidation and the rebuilding of image: the fiscal lessons from Indianapolis’s UniGov Program[J]. State and Local Government Review, 2000, 32(3): 180-191.
  [19] SAVITCH H V, VOGEL R K. Metropolitan consolidation versus metropolitan governance in Louisville[J]. State and Local Government Review, 2000, 32(3): 198-212.
  [20] JIMENEZ B S, HENDRICK R. Is government consolidation the answer?[J]. State and Local Government Review, 2010, 42(3): 258-270.
  [21] CARR J B, BAE S S, LU W. City-County government and promises of economic development: a tale of two cities[J]. State and Local Government Review, 2006, 38(3): 131-141.
  [22] AMMONS D N, SMITH K W, STENBERG C W. The future of local government: will current stresses bring major, permanent changes?[J]. State and Local Government Review, 2012, 44(1_suppl): 64s-75s.
  [23] GAFFNEY M, MARLOWE J. Fiscal implications of city-city consolidations [J]. State and Local Government Review, 2014, 46(3): 197-204.
  [24] KUSHINER J, SIEGEL D. Are Services delivered more efficiently after municipal amalgamations?[J]. Canadian Public Administration, 2005, 48(2): 251-267.
  [25] FEIOCK R C, CARR J B. Private incentives and academic entrepreneurship: the promotion of city-county consolidation[J]. Public Administration Quarterly, 2000: 223-245.
  [26] LELAND S, WOOD C. Improving the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery in local government[M] // SUZANNE M L, KURT T, eds. Citycounty consolidation: promises made, promises kept? Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2010: 245-270.
  [27] KRUPA O. Government consolidation in property tax administration[J]. State and Local Government Review, 2017, 49(1): 27-36.
  [28] MCDAVID J C. The impacts of amalgamation on police services in the Halifax Regional Municipality[J]. Canadian Public Administration, 2002, 45(4): 538-565.
  [29] PARKS R B, OAKERSON R J. Regionalism, localism, and metropolitan governance: suggestions from the research program on local public economies[J]. State and Local Government Review, 2000, 32(3): 169-179.
  [30] GREEN III W. The impact of city-county consolidation upon political participation within rural Georgia[D]. Atlanta: Clark Atlanta University, 2016.
  [31] CARR J B, FEIOCK R C. Metropolitan government and economic development[J]. Urban Affairs Review, 1999, 34(3): 476-488.
  [32] LELAND S, THURMAIER K. When efficiency is unbelievable: normative lessons from 30 years of city-county consolidations[J]. Public Administration Review, 2010 , 65(4): 475-489.
  [33] YANG J, LI G. Fiscal and spatial characteristics of metropolitan government and planning in China: understanding centralization trends in a decentralization context[J]. Habitat International, 2014(41): 77-84.
  [34] EDWARDS M, XIAO Y. Annexation, local government spending, and the complicating role of density[J]. Urban Affairs Review, 2009, 45(2): 147-165.
  [35] KRUEGER S, BERNICK E M. State rules and local governance choices [J]. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 2010, 40(4): 697-718.
  [36] DILLON S. Merger of memphis and county school districts revives race and class challenges[N]. New York Times, 2011-11-05.

• 收起