Small Is Beautiful

Jim Manzi raises an eyebrow at Jon Corzine's plan to punish his political enemies improve government efficiency by forcing New Jersey's small towns to merge into larger ones.

Comments

Let's review - a governor enacts a policy that tends to benefit the people that actually voted for him.

That's stunning. And it's not like there's a war going on or anything that might seem more, uh, pressing, like John McCain hiring Bloody Billy Kristol's towel boy.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 2, 2008 5:42 PM

This should work well. It is not like New Jersey is corrupt or anything.

Posted by Sean | June 2, 2008 10:09 PM

Just because per capita spending is the same doesn't mean that there are no efficiency differences. It could be that the larger localities provide more services per dollar. Or that there are income disparities between large and small communities that aren't accounted for and explain some of the differences.

My municipality is, from my perspective, too small. (I do not in live in NJ.) There's a lot of duplication between neighboring municipalities: roads, trash, sewage, etc. Even government buildings. And there are issues, such as streets and bridges, where a broader approach would make more sense.

To be fair, some of our services are inter-municipality, in particular police and schools. But even there you have equity issues: is it fair that our municipality has a lot more schools, which are tax exempt, compared to other municipalities in the same school district?

And some municpalities are probably too big as well from an efficiency standpoint.

Posted by Dave | June 3, 2008 11:29 AM

I live in New Jersey. Most towns out here are the size of a postage stamp. I can imagine worse things than merging a few of them.

Posted by Tim Dees | June 3, 2008 12:55 PM

I don't know enough about New Jersey to comment.

I do know, however, that separately incorporated suburbs have been absolutely awful for Los Angeles, where I am. This basically allows people to keep the poor concentrated in the central city, which has to pay for them and jack up taxes to do it. Meanwhile, these suburban communities could never even exist and be as wealthy as they are were it not for the existence of the City of Los Angeles.

It's a classic example of capturing the benefits while forcing someone else to pay the costs.

Posted by Dilan Esper | June 3, 2008 2:19 PM

Dilian,

It's a classic example of capturing the benefits while forcing someone else to pay the costs.

.
The proper terminology is privatizing the profits while socializing the cost.

I've learned that term from observing the current mortgage/credit crisis and how well the Republicans are at implementing it (ex. Bear Sterns).

Posted by Loviatar | June 3, 2008 4:49 PM