Foreign Experience of Consolidation of Municipalities: Significance for Russia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the article, using general scientific research methods, the analysis of approaches to improving the territorial structure of local self-government in foreign countries in terms of the enlargement of municipalities is carried out. The theoretical positions developed by modern science, as well as the experience of the modern stage of consolidation of municipalities in European countries, Australia and Canada, proposed by the practice of municipal construction, are analyzed. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of the arguments of supporters and opponents of the consolidation of municipalities, economic and institutional aspects of this process. Based on the performed analysis, the conclusion is made about the insolvency of the classical economic argument in favor of the consolidation of municipalities (achieving economies of scale), since it gives the expected economic effect only when a limited number of the smallest municipalities merge. The expected savings on administrative expenses, even if they are observed, are covered by an increase in the costs of fulfilling the main powers of the municipality (for education and health care). In fact, in foreign countries there are no generally accepted quantitative criteria for justifying the rationality of merging (consolidation) of municipalities. It is recognized that consolidation is not a universal option for the development of all subsidized municipalities, each specific case requires analysis and consideration of the socio-economic features of the consolidation of municipalities. Therefore, the main approach that the authorities adhere to when justifying measures to organize a rational territorial structure of municipalities abroad is a situational approach. It is shown that trying to transfer the positive aspects of the foreign experience of the consolidation of municipalities into the Russian reality, one should not forget about an alternative instrument to support the financing of the institute of local self-government – the development of inter-municipal cooperation, recognized in the modern world as an important potential source of co-financing of municipal development
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".