Cooperation matters: Some lessons from the intermunicipal cooperation in the Alpine Region

Intermunicipal cooperation plays an essential role, both legally and politically in the three territories. For many municipalities, IMC is a proven model as they can no longer manage certain services independently. There are many policy areas, especially cost-intensive ones, that have long been organized in associations or districts for many years. There are longstanding experiences in various policy fields and for diverse types of municipalities in all territories. Yet, IMC is a type of governance that is considered forward-looking by local political elites. Nevertheless, (voluntary) cooperation remains on the sidelines for most municipalities, so that service provision is not dominated by this organizational model, and it cannot serve as a panacea for all municipalities.

The three Alpine territories also show a certain degree of similarity in terms of local autonomy and, related to this, also in the ways they can engage in intermunicipal cooperation. A distinct local autonomy is a prerequisite for promising cooperation. Despite institutional differences such as the degree of local autonomy and the diverse political contexts for cooperation and related challenges, the collected data reveal numerous similarities both in the legal framework and in the practical implementation of local cooperation of Alpine municipalities, or at least in how this is perceived by local politicians.

It was to be expected that municipalities from different territories or various types of municipalities use and evaluate cooperation differently. Interestingly, these factors play a role only in some results: they show that the predominantly rural municipalities in the Alpine region are very similar to each other (at least according to mayors’ judgments), although based on variables such as size and geographical location they may be classified differently (larger vs. smaller, central vs. peripheral). The size and geographical location of a municipality results only in some respects as relevant influencing factors for the implementation and evaluation of intermunicipal cooperation. Although the influence of these variables is present in certain aspects, their influence is significantly stronger in different types of municipalities within the same territory and less in comparing the same types of municipalities across regions. This indicates a low importance of the size and location of a municipality compared to other variables. What counts more is, interestingly, the territory itself. IMC appears to be a valuable strategy for many municipalities, regardless of their size or location and primarily concerns their performance and competitiveness. The respective subnational constituent units – Grisons, South Tyrol and Tyrol – the political traditions, and experiences within them have a considerable influence on the implementation of intermunicipal cooperation and prove to be a dominating element.

The main reasons for cooperation concern the high administrative capacity and quality of the municipalities. The positive evaluation of cooperation is supported by the fact that the local politicians have had and are having satisfactory experiences with it, especially from an administrative point of view. In addition, there is also the political importance of IMC, which is recognized as crucial in all three areas. The majority of local political elites see intermunicipal cooperation as a forward-looking and suitable model for administration, and a highly beneficial governance strategy. In contrast, the majority of the actors surveyed reject the strategy of mergers and, for territorial identity reasons, have reservations about adopting or expanding amalgamations.

It became clear that IMC depends on political decision-makers and their actions. Firstly, this concerns the subnational policies through which local cooperation can be promoted or inhibited. In particular, however, it is local politics which decide consciously for or against cooperation and thereby shape local governance. Intermunicipal cooperation, at least in the small-structured territories of the Alpine region, is very much characterized by personal relationships and dominated and influenced by the mayors of the municipalities themselves. Their political will decides not only on the implementation, but also on the continuation or, conversely, the rejection of cooperation. Local political elites can thus act as accelerators or impeders. Their influence not only makes cooperation political, but above all, also dependent on individuals. Nevertheless, it would be too short-sighted to explain intermunicipal cooperation from a political point of view only. In the end, without competent and experienced administrative staff, politicians are largely on their own. Competence and willingness to cooperate must therefore also be present in the administration. Furthermore, the factor of continuity should not be underestimated. The administration can guarantee continuity for administrative processes, while the political decision-makers depend on electoral results.

The results of the research show a high congruence with existing studies from Europe, especially with regard to forms, policy areas, reasons and actors of intermunicipal cooperation in practice. The general approval of intermunicipal cooperation as a sustainable strategy and the simultaneous rejection of mergers by the political elite in the three Alpine territories of Grisons, South Tyrol and Tyrol is equally revealing. It can be assumed that politicians associate higher risks and loss of influence, control, or financial opportunities through mergers. Cooperation, then, is not a universal remedy but, in the Alpine context, it is often the most realistic path between preserving local identity and ensuring effective governance.