Density of population and local government in inverse relationship

[The Green Troll]

Density of population and local government are often found in inverse
relationship, especially in the Great Lakes region. Where population
density is in the range of 400-800 per square kilometer, I find
municipal governments every 100 square kilometers or less. Yet as much
as 70% of land having a population density in excess of 2,000 per
square kilometer has municipal governments every 130-600 square
kilometers. The pattern seems counter-intuitive.

I can think of few reasons why it might make sense to organize society
in this manner. If economic pressure consumes government real estate
for private development, that would tend to push dispersed government
offices into one tall building. If gaps in settlement are considered
more appropriate places for civil boundaries, the greater frequency of
those gaps in sparse populations would allow more frequent boundaries.
Looking at the evidence, though, I am not inclined to support either
explanation.

The function does not appear linear. Many sparsely-populated areas
also have a sparse distribution of governments.

The pattern is not evident everywhere. I cannot find it consistently
applied in Virginia or New Jersey, states that exhibit behavior unlike
their neighbors, such as electing their legislatures in odd years.

Of course, what is commonly called population is residential
population. Some people spend less time at home than away in another
community.

Is there any literature that quantifies the uneven density of
municipal governments and explains the philosophy behind it? I do not
understand what benefits it is supposed to provide.


Merk Gator
<http://www.rev.net/~aloe/boundary>