Abstract
Mergers are seldom straight-forward,
usually creating tension between the national
and local levels and dividing political parties,
with various interest groups, including the
representatives of the local populace, attempting
to influence the outcome of the process. In the
2000s, Finland and Japan experimented broadly
with municipal amalgamation as a means for local
government reform, but both ended with
problems. We compare and explain those reforms
by focusing on the respective political processes
and interactions between the concerned
political actors. The cases used in comparison
represent very different cultures; hence the concepts
of municipal autonomy or political power
might be interpreted differently depending on
the context. On the other hand, our analysis
identifies both similarities and differences which
can be discussed. We can see that municipal reforms
resemble each other, and in particular,
amalgamations as a solution for enlarging municipalities.
Amalgamation processes are politically
sensitive and often create both supporters and
opposers. We see that political parties are important.
In addition, councils seldom decide against
the will of the majority of the citizenry, although
the role of citizens can vary.
