Survey shows weak support for Metro Vancouver megacity
https://www.biv.com/news/commentary...support-for-metro-vancouver-megacity-11546053
AI Overview:
Increased Corruption Potential:
• Reduced Oversight & Centralization: In a notable case, a commission found that the amalgamation of South African intelligence branches had "disastrous consequences" because it created a highly centralized structure controlled by a "super-director-general" who lacked clear legal oversight, making abuse and corrupt intentions easier to execute.
• Greater Scale for Misuse: Larger, amalgamated organizations may present opportunities for larger-scale corruption due to the increased amount of resources and complexity involved, which can make auditing and public scrutiny more difficult without robust external checks and balances.
• Political Alienation: Some research suggests that amalgamations can lead to increased political alienation among citizens due to the larger size of the new municipality, which may reduce local engagement and oversight, creating an environment where corruption can more easily thrive undetected.
Decreased Corruption Potential:
• Improved Controls in Larger Entities: An alternative argument is that smaller organizations may have less formal audit control and fewer people to detect graft, making it easier to be corrupt on a smaller scale. Larger, consolidated entities might be able to implement more sophisticated and professional anti-corruption measures.
• Efficiency & Accountability Goals: Amalgamations are often proposed with the intention of improving governance effectiveness, transparency, and accountability by streamlining services and making processes more efficient.
Mitigating Factors:
• The presence of strong external checks and balances (like an effective Inspector General or Auditor General), clear legislation, and a people-centered doctrine are crucial for preventing corruption regardless of the organizational structure.
• Conversely, a lack of transparency, weak enforcement mechanisms, and a culture that normalizes an "unholy alliance" between corrupt business and politics will foster corruption in any setup.
Ultimately, amalgamation itself is a structural change, and the potential for corruption is determined by the governance framework and ethical environment in which it operates.
Me: Against amalgamation. Communities each have their own character and I wouldn't disrupt the freedom of choise.
https://www.biv.com/news/commentary...support-for-metro-vancouver-megacity-11546053
AI Overview:
Increased Corruption Potential:
• Reduced Oversight & Centralization: In a notable case, a commission found that the amalgamation of South African intelligence branches had "disastrous consequences" because it created a highly centralized structure controlled by a "super-director-general" who lacked clear legal oversight, making abuse and corrupt intentions easier to execute.
• Greater Scale for Misuse: Larger, amalgamated organizations may present opportunities for larger-scale corruption due to the increased amount of resources and complexity involved, which can make auditing and public scrutiny more difficult without robust external checks and balances.
• Political Alienation: Some research suggests that amalgamations can lead to increased political alienation among citizens due to the larger size of the new municipality, which may reduce local engagement and oversight, creating an environment where corruption can more easily thrive undetected.
Decreased Corruption Potential:
• Improved Controls in Larger Entities: An alternative argument is that smaller organizations may have less formal audit control and fewer people to detect graft, making it easier to be corrupt on a smaller scale. Larger, consolidated entities might be able to implement more sophisticated and professional anti-corruption measures.
• Efficiency & Accountability Goals: Amalgamations are often proposed with the intention of improving governance effectiveness, transparency, and accountability by streamlining services and making processes more efficient.
Mitigating Factors:
• The presence of strong external checks and balances (like an effective Inspector General or Auditor General), clear legislation, and a people-centered doctrine are crucial for preventing corruption regardless of the organizational structure.
• Conversely, a lack of transparency, weak enforcement mechanisms, and a culture that normalizes an "unholy alliance" between corrupt business and politics will foster corruption in any setup.
Ultimately, amalgamation itself is a structural change, and the potential for corruption is determined by the governance framework and ethical environment in which it operates.
Me: Against amalgamation. Communities each have their own character and I wouldn't disrupt the freedom of choise.
