Local self-governance is a proud American tradition. (For evidence, look no further than a presidential primary campaign that requires Oval Office hopefuls to prostrate themselves before the humble citizens of countless towns and cities across Iowa and New Hampshire.) But in dire circumstances, cities face the dramatic option of ending their existence altogether.

A recent story in The New York Times highlighted this phenomenon. The paper reported that several towns in Maine are considering eliminating their local government, thereby eliminating costs and easing financial pressures brought on by declining populations and struggling economies.

This process of municipal dissolution, or disincorporation, is defined as “the termination of the political unit of an incorporated municipality, whether city, village, or incorporated town,” according to a 2012 article by Michelle Wilde Anderson, now at Stanford Law School. It is, in a sense, political suicide.

Although the U.S. Constitution establishes a complex federal system with powers divided between and shared by national and state governments, it makes no mention of local government. Therefore, the power to establish or abolish cities is delegated to the states by virtue of the 10th Amendment. As such, the process of disincorporation varies according to each state’s constitution and laws. According to data compiled by Anderson, 40 states allow for disincorporation; with the passage of H.B. 1773 in October 2014, Pennsylvania became the 41st state to do so.

…

One reason, Anderson writes, is economics. Both long-term economic decline, perhaps caused by departing businesses or an aging population, and short-term economic crisis, perhaps caused by a financial crash, can force cities to consider such an extreme option.

…

Lest one despairs at the future of America’s town hall, Stanford’s Anderson identifies a powerful countervailing force: community. “It is a notion that cityhood defines a place, forges community bonds, and preserves local history,” she explains. “Captured here as well is the idea that bonds—residents with one another, but also residents with their government—are stronger when formed at a small scale, because participation is better and government closer.”