Abstract:
In late 2009, Auckland underwent the biggest change in its political history. The much-maligned system of several local councils and a weak regional authority were replaced by a single 'supercity'. But while Auckland's amalgamation was a significant change, it was not an unprecedented one. There have been other cases in the past of cities replacing their systems of multiple councils with one centralised authority. One such example is Toronto, which, just over a decade earlier, replaced its municipalities with one 'megacity' council that had a more significant economy than some whole Canadian provinces. There can be no doubt that amalgamating leads to significant economic growth. By pooling all available resources, a much larger economy, known as an 'economy of scale', is created. Amalgamation can also have the positive effect of giving a city more influence and clout in dealings with the rest of the country and with cities abroad. Cities are increasingly dealing and competing with other cities around the world on the global marketplace that has been created by globalisation. Cities are now required to conduct their own foreign policy, bargain with international business and compete against other cities across the globe. But can concentrating too extensively on those economic commitments and competition lead to neglect of a city's people? Does amalgamation requite an unacceptable compromise in the quality of government being offered to citizens for the sake of economic rewards? It is the goal of this thesis to explore these questions through a survey of relevant literature on urban government in the context of globalisation and thorough analysis of the cases of Toronto and particularly Auckland. The argument that will be put forward is that amalgamation in itself does not entail a decline in quality of local government. Rather, it is the responsibility of the elected representatives to maintain a balance between economic and local government responsibilities.