Résumés
Résumé
La fusion de la Ville de Montréal en 2002 a exigé un travail colossal pour harmoniser les pratiques fiscales et piloter la décentralisation des fonctions de proximité vers les villes fusionnées et les quartiers soudainement transformés en arrondissements. La défusion survenue en 2006 est venue ajouter un élément de complexité en reconfigurant les structures de gouvernance, notamment par la création de l’agglomération. Cet article explore l’évolution des processus de centralisation et de décentralisation financières au sein des structures centralisée (l’agglomération) et décentralisées (les arrondissements) de la Ville de Montréal à l’aide de données issues des budgets et des états financiers des vingt dernières années. L’analyse permet de constater que l’harmonisation des taux de taxation au sein de la nouvelle ville fusionnée s’est effectuée rapidement. La divergence dans les taux qui subsiste en 2021 découle essentiellement d’écarts dans les taux des taxes d’arrondissement. L’utilisation de ces taxes a permis d’accroître l’autonomie financière des arrondissements. Leur poids budgétaire dans les finances de la Ville a toutefois diminué constamment au cours de la période, marquant une tendance à la centralisation. Au niveau de l’agglomération, les indicateurs financiers sont relativement stables depuis 2006. Notre analyse montre que les changements dans les structures de gouvernance ont tout de même permis à la Ville de Montréal de s’extirper d’une situation qui semblait lui être désavantageuse sur l’île de Montréal avant la fusion de 2002.
Mots-clés :
- décentralisation inframunicipale,
- arrondissements,
- agglomération,
- fusions,
- Montréal,
- finances publiques locales
Abstract
The amalgamation of the City of Montreal in 2002 required hard work to harmonize tax practices and decentralize local functions to newly amalgamated cities and historic neighbourhoods suddenly transformed into boroughs. The 2006 de-amalgamation added another level of complexity in the governance structure of the city, leading to the creation of the agglomeration. Using data from budgets and financial statements produced over the last twenty years, this article analyzes the evolution of fiscal centralization and decentralization processes that occurred through structures like the agglomeration and the boroughs of the City of Montreal. The analysis shows that the harmonization of tax rates within the new amalgamated city took place on a short period. The divergence in tax rates that remains in 2021 is mainly due to differences in the boroughs’ tax rates. The use of these taxes has contributed to increasing the boroughs’ financial autonomy. But their budgetary weight within the city steadily decreased over this period, showing a trend towards centralization. At the agglomeration level, financial indicators have been relatively stable since 2006. Our analysis shows that changes in governance structures have however enabled the City of Montreal to improve its relative position among the municipalities of the island of Montreal since the 2002 amalgamation.
Keywords:
- sub-local decentralization,
- boroughs,
- agglomeration,
- amalgamation,
- Montreal,
- local public finances
Parties annexes
Bibliographie
- Annala, C. N. (2003). Have state and local fiscal policies become more alike ? Evidence of beta convergence among fiscal policy variables. Public Finance Review, 31(2), 144-165.
- Bäck, H., Gjelstrup, G., Helgesen, M., Johansson, F. et Klausen, J. E. (dir.). (2005). Urban Political Decentralization. Six Scandinavian Cities. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
- Baskaran, T., Feld, L. P. et Schnellenbach, J. (2016). Fiscal federalism, decentralization, and economic growth : A meta-analysis. Economic Inquiry, 54(3), 1445-1463.
- Boulenger, S., Meloche, J.-P., Milord, B. et Vaillancourt, F. (2018). Adéquation des transferts aux besoins des municipalités : quelques réflexions sur les enjeux d’équité et d’efficacité (rapport de projet no 2018RP-06). CIRANO.
- Brenner, N. (2002). Decoding the newest “metropolitan regionalism” in the USA : A critical overview. Cities, 19(1), 3-21.
- Cobban, T. W. (2019). Bigger is better : Reducing the cost of local administration by increasing jurisdiction size in Ontario, Canada, 1995–2010. Urban Affairs Review, 55(2), 462-500.
- Collin, J.-P. et Robertson, M. (2005). The borough system of consolidated Montreal : Revisiting urban governance in a composite metropolis. Journal of Urban Affairs, 27(3), 307-330.
- Dollery, B., Garcea, J. et LeSage, E. (dir.). (2008). Local government reform : A comparative analysis of advanced Anglo-American countries. Edward Elgar.
- Edwards, M. M. (2008). Understanding the complexities of annexation. Journal of Planning Literature, 23(2), 119-135.
- Fimreite, A. L. et Aars, J. (2007). Tensions and cooperation in a multilevel system : Integrating district councils in city government in Bergen. Local Government Studies, 33(5), 677-698.
- Gemmell, N., Kneller, R. et Sanz, I. (2013). Fiscal decentralization and economic growth : Spending versus revenue decentralization. Economic Inquiry, 51(4), 1915-1931.
- Grassmueck, G. et Shields, M. (2010). Does government fragmentation enhance or hinder metropolitan growth ? Papers in Regional Science, 89(3), 641-657.
- Hansen, S. W., Houlberg, K. et Pedersen, L. H. (2014). Do municipal mergers improve fiscal outcomes ? Scandinavian Political Studies, 37(2), 196-214.
- Heim, C. E. (2012). Border wars : Tax revenues, annexation, and urban growth in Phoenix. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 36(4), 831-859.
- Hendrick, R., Jimenez, B. et Lall, K. (2011). Does local government fragmentation reduce local spending ? Urban Affairs Review, 47(4), 467-510.
- Hlepas, N. K., Kersting, N., Kuhlmann, S., Swianiewicz, P. et Teles, F. (dir.). (2018). Sub-municipal governance in Europe : Decentralization beyond the municipal tier. Palgrave Macmillan.
- Jepson Jr., E. J. (2008). City–county consolidation : Does it lead to better planning ? Planning, Practice & Research, 23(1), 147-162.
- Jimenez, B. S. (2016). Externalities in the fragmented metropolis : Local institutional choices and the efficiency–equity trade-off. The American Review of Public Administration, 46(3), 314-336.
- Jimenez, B. S. et Hendrick, R. M. (2010). Is government consolidation the answer ? State and Local Government Review, 42(3), 258-270.
- Kitchen, H. (2013). Property tax : a situation analysis and overview. Dans McCluskey, W., Cornia, G., and Walters, L. (dir.). A primer on property tax : administration and policy, première édition. Oxford : Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
- Lõhmus, M. (2008). Local autonomy and territorial decentralisation in capital cities. Halduskultuur, 9, 60-83.
- Lowndes, V. et Sullivan, H. (2008). How low can you go ? Rationales and challenges for neighbourhood governance. Public Administration, 86(1), 53-74.
- Martin, L. L. et Schiff, J. H. (2011). City-county consolidations : Promise versus performance. State and Local Government Review, 43, 167-177.
- Martínez-Vázquez, J., Lago-Peñas, S. et Sacchi, A. (2017). The impact of fiscal decentralization : A survey. Journal of Economic Surveys, 31(4), 1095-1129.
- Meloche, J.-P. (2014). Gouvernance urbaine et décentralisation inframunicipale dans les grandes villes d’Amérique. Cahiers de géographie du Québec, 58(164), 173-192.
- Meloche, J.-P. et Leblanc-Desgagné, M. (2018). Municipal reforms in Montreal and the issue of fairness. Canadian Journal of Urban Studies, 27(1), 37-56.
- Meloche, J.-P. et Vaillancourt, F. (2012). Le financement des arrondissements de la Ville de Montréal : constats, principes et options (rapport de projet no 2012RP-11). CIRANO.
- Meloche, J.-P. et Vaillancourt, F. (2015). Designing proper fiscal arrangements for sub-local decentralization in Montreal. Journal of Urban Affairs, 37(5), 530-547.
- Meloche, J.-P. et Vaillancourt, F. (2021). Municipal financing opportunities in Canada : How do cities use their fiscal space ? (no 52). Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance.
- Meloche, J.-P., Vaillancourt, F. et Yilmaz, S. (2004). Decentralization or fiscal autonomy ? What does really matter ? Effects on growth and public sector size in European transition countries (Policy Research Working Paper 3254). World Bank Institute.
- Musgrave, R. A. (1958). The theory of public finance. McGraw-Hill.
- Norris, D. F. (2001). Prospects for regional governance under the new regionalism : Economic imperatives versus political impediments. Journal of Urban Affairs, 23(5), 557-571.
- Oates, W. E. (1972). Fiscal federalism. Edward Elgar.
- Ostaaijen, J., Gianoli, A. et Coulson, A. (2012). The added value of intra-municipal decentralisation : Comparing Bologna, Rotterdam, and Birmingham. Dans L. Schaap et H. Daemen (dir.), Renewal in European local democracies (p. 145-163). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
- Pratchett, L. (2004). Local autonomy, local democracy and the ”new localism”. Political Studies, 52(2), 358-375.
- Quah, D. (1993). Empirical cross-section dynamics in economic growth. European Economic Review, 37, 426-434.
- Rothwell, J. T. et Massey, D. S. (2010). Density zoning and class segregation in U.S. metropolitan areas. Social Science Quarterly, 91(5), 1123-1143.
- Saarimaa, T. et Tukiainen, J. (2015). Common pool problems in voluntary municipal mergers. European Journal of Political Economy, 38, 140-152.
- Savitch, H. et Vogel, R. K. (2009). Regionalism and urban politics. Dans J. S. Davies et D. L. Imbroscio (dir.), Theories of Urban Politics (2e éd.). Sage.
- Skidmore, M. et Deller, S. (2008). Is local government spending converging ? Eastern Economic Journal, 34, 41-55.
- Stoker, G. (2004). New localism, progressive politics and democracy. The Political Quarterly, 75, 117-129.
- Swianiewicz, P. (2014). Intra-municipal units in urban political systems in Poland : Vicious roundabout of marginalization or dead-end street ? NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 7(2), 173-198.
- Tavares, A. F. (2018). Municipal amalgamations and their effects : A literature review. Miscellanea Geographica, 22(1), 5-15.
- Tiebout, C. M. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64, 416-424.
- Tomàs, M. (2012). Exploring the metropolitan trap : The case of Montreal. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 36(3), 554-567.
- Ulfarsson, G. F. et Carruthers, J. I. (2006). The cycle of fragmentation and sprawl : A conceptual framework and empirical model. Environment and Planning B : Planning and Design, 33(5), 767-788.
- Van Assche, D. et Dierickx, G. (2007). The decentralisation of city government and the restoration of political trust. Local Government Studies, 33(1), 25-47.