Inter-Municipal Cooperation in the Development of Industrial Parks and Tax Redistribution: The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions

Main Article Content

Eran Razin

Abstract

Inter-municipal cooperation mechanisms have been promoted as flexible tools, reflecting the transition from government to governance in a new network economy and eliminating the need to engage in redrawing clear-cut boundaries in the context of soft spaces with fuzzy boundaries. An evaluation of inter-municipal cooperation in the development of industrial parks and tax revenue redistribution in Israel, from the first 1992 initiative to imposed redistribution in 2014/15, reveals how an initiative ’from below’ has been adopted and encouraged ’from above’, finally used by the central state as a tool of control, to serve its own objectives. It highlights the inherent temptation for top-down imposition, embedded in bottom-up cooperation mechanisms, calling for light-touch regulatory legislation and opting for gently imposed solutions where needed.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Razin, E. (2016). Inter-Municipal Cooperation in the Development of Industrial Parks and Tax Redistribution: The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions. Quaestiones Geographicae, 35(2), 83-90. https://doi.org/10.1515/quageo-2016-0017
Section
Articles

References

  1. Allmendinger P., Haughton G., 2009. Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries, and metagovernance: The new spatial planning in the Thames Gateway. Environment and Planning A 41: 617-633.
  2. Desage F., Guéranger D., 2013. L’intercommunalité, les maires et notre démocratie. Métropolitiques, 24 avril. Online: http://www.metropolitiques.eu/L-intercommunalite-les-maires-et.html.
  3. Drucker R., 2012. Poverty in Lod thrives, but who benefits from its money? Nana10, 11.12. Online: http://news.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=937207 (in Hebrew).
  4. Haughton G., Allmendinger P., Oosterlynck S., 2013. Spaces of neoliberal experimentalism: Soft spaces, postpolitics, and neoliberal governmentality. Environment and Planning A 45: 217-234.
  5. Heinelt H., Razin E., Zimmerman K. (eds), 2011. Metropolitan governance, different paths in contrasting contexts: Germany and Israel. Campus, Frankfurt and New York.
  6. Héritier A., Lehmkuhl D., 2008. The shadow of hierarchy and new modes of governance. Journal of Public Policy 28(1): 1-17.
  7. Hulst R., van Monfort A. (eds), 2007. Inter-municipal cooperation in Europe. Springer, Dordrecht.
  8. Kerrouche E., 2008. L’intercommunalité en France. Montchrestien, Paris.
  9. Marom N., 2013. Activising space: The spatial politics of the 2011 protest movement in Israel. Urban Studies 50(13): 2826-2841.
  10. Nemery J.-C. (ed.), 2010. Quelle nouvelle réforme pour les collectivites territoriales françaises. L’Harmattan, Paris.
  11. Razin E., 1998. Policies to control urban sprawl: Planning regulations or changes in the rules of the game. Urban Studies 35: 321-340.
  12. Razin E., Hazan A., 2001. Redrawing Israel’s local government map: Political decisions, court rulings or popular determination. Political Geography 20: 513-533.
  13. Razin E., Hazan A., 2006. Redistributing municipal wealth in Israel. Floersheimer Institute for Policy Studies, Jerusalem (in Hebrew).
  14. Razin E., Hazan A., 2013. Municipal-private partnerships in Israel: From local development to budgetary bypass. In: Pradhan P.K., Bucek J., Razin E. (eds), Geography of governance: Dynamics for local development. International Geographical Union, Commission on Geography of Governance: 77-88.
  15. Ruano de la Fuente J.M., Schaap L., 2007. Democratic legitimacy of inter-municipal and regional governance. In: Bekkers V., Dijkstra G., Edwards A., Fenger M. (eds), Governance and the democratic deficit. Ashgate, Aldershot: 203-222.
  16. Savitch H.V., Vogel R.K., 2000. Paths to new regionalism. State and Local Government Review 32(3): 158-168.
  17. Schaap L., Daemen H. (eds), 2012. Renewal in European local democracies. Springer, Wiesbaden.
  18. Smismans S., 2008. New modes of governance and the participatory myth. West European Politics 31(5): 874-895.
  19. Spicer Z., 2014. Linking regions, linking functions: Inter-municipal agreements in Ontario. Institute on Municipal Finance & Governance, University of Toronto.
  20. Tennant P., Zirnhelt D., 1973. Metropolitan government in Vancouver: The strategy of gentle imposition. Canadian Public Administration 16(1): 124-138.
  21. Thurmaier K., Wood C., 2004. Interlocal agreement as an alternative to consolidation. In: Carr J.B., Feiock R.C. (eds), City-county consolidation and its alternatives. M.E.Sharpe, Armonk, NY: 113-130.
  22. Wollmann H., 2010. Comparing two logics of interlocal cooperation: The cases of France and Germany. Urban Affairs Review 46(2): 263-292.