the future of local self-government in europe

The Future of Local Self-Government in Europe

Univ.-Prof. Dr. Sabine Kuhlmann

“The local and regional dimension of European democracy was born out

of the conviction that the excessive concentration of power in the national centers must be counterbalanced by stronger

development of the power base at the grassroots,

at local and regional level.” (Keith Whitmore, 2011)

Prof. Dr. Sabine Kuhlmann 2

Univ.-Prof. Dr. Sabine Kuhlmann 3

Structure

Importance of Local Self-Government in

Europe

Different Local Government Cultures in

Europe

Trajectories of Reform

The Changing Role of Local Government

Challenges and Future Prospects

The Importance of Local Self-Government


91,200 municipalities 1,100 second-tier LG

50% of EU-total public employment

Ø 16% of EU-GDP

34% of EU-public spending

Participation: opportunity for people to be directly involved in democratic processes (grass roots democracy)

Trust: considerably higher in the local/regional authorities than in national governments (Eurobarometer)

Stability: local level in Europe important for stabilization/ acceptance of national/supra-national political systems

Counterbalance: to centralizing tendencies (EU-integration/globalization)

Reform-Frontrunners: most active level in some countries (reform pressure; seriously affected by crisis)

Proximity: Direct contact to the citizens/voters But: is there a “one and best way” of LG in Europe?


The Importance of Local Self-Government: More than service-delivery!


Different Local Government Cultures in Europe

North Middle Europ. Group

(e.g. Germany, Sweden)

Franco Group/ Napoleonic

tradition(e.g. France, Italy, Spain)

Anglo Group(e.g. UK, Ireland)

Functionally strong municipalities

multi purpose model of local self-government

Functionally weak municipalities; strong

territorial statesingle purpose model of locally operating state

offices

“Ultra vires”-principle; functionally strong

municipalitiesmulti purpose model of local self-government

Partly separation (Sweden)/ partly

integration (Germany) of state and local

government tasks; weak (Sweden)/ medium

(Germany) control from above

Integration of state and local government tasks =

fused system; strong control from above

Separation of state and local government tasks = separational system/ dual polity; weak control from

above

Politically strong, parliamentary/presidential

Politically strong; powerful mayors; cumul

des mandats

Politically weak, no community identity/

leadership


Different Local Government Cultures in Europe: Territorial Variances

North-European Type: Large-scale units; „big

is beautiful“ (Sweden, Norway, Denmark,

Finland, UK; some German States, e.g. NRW,

Hesse)

South-European Type: Small-scale units;

mainly Napoleonic State tradition (France,

Italy, Portugal, Spain, Greece; some German

States, e.g. RhP, SH)


Different Local Government Cultures in Europe: Traditions of Local Service Provision

Tradition of

Local Self-Production

Tradition of

Contracting Out

- Régie; municipal empires;

Stadtwerke;

municipalizzate

- Germany (except social

services), Sweden,

Italy, UK

- Purchaser-Provider-

Split; PPP, model of

délégation, concessions,

local governance

-France (big private

firms)

Trajectories of Reform: similar discourses; different paths

Privatization Marketization

(NPM)

Managerialism and Output-

oriented Steering (NPM)

Decentralization/ Regionalization

Territorial Consolidation

Corporatization/ Formal Privatization

Asset Privatization/ New Shareholders

Contracting Out/ Functional

Privatization/ Délégation

Agencification; Separation Politics -

Administration

Performance Management, Benchmarking,

Contract Management

Public Service Reforms/ Performance Related Pay; Flexible

Employment Conditions

Federalization/ Regionalization

Political/ Administrative Decentralization

Administrative De-concentration

Municipal Mergers/Amalgamation

(coercive vs. voluntary)

Regional-Scale Counties/ County

Mergers

Inter-municipal /Regional Cooperation; Regional governance


Trajectories of Reform: Decentralization/De-Concentration

Political Decentralization: Transfer of state tasks including political decision-making competencies for the local council (France) but: units too small

Administrative Decentralization: Transfer of state tasks without political decision-making competencies for the local council (Germany) but: decrease in local autonomy/reductions in voluntary tasks/privatizations

De-Concentration: Creation of locally operating single purpose state agencies substituting local governments (England) but: more state intervention


Persisting Differences: Proportion of Public Sector Employees by Level

(2005)Municipal State/Region National Special

Sector

Germany 35% 53% Federal 12%

France 30% 51% Public Health

System

19.0%

U.K. 56% 16.9% National

Health

Service 26%

Sweden 83% 17%

Italy 13.6% 3.8% 54.7% Public Health

System

20.3%

Spain 23.6% 49.9% 22.5%

North-European Reform Type

South-European Reform Type

“Up-Scaling”; Mergers Enforcement of mergers through binding legislation

Subordination of municipality under parliamentary decision-making authority

Objective: Performance improvements; efficiency, effectiveness, productivity

UK, S, DK, German states (NRW, HE)

Small-scale municipal structures preserved; further fragmentation

Principle of Voluntariness: Mergers only with consent of municipalities

Inter-municipal formations as instead of mergers

Massive local resistance to territorial reform

F, I, many CEE countries; German states (RhP, SH)

Trajectories of Reform: Territorial Consolidation

CountryØ Inhabitants

per municipality

Ø km²%

municipalities < 5,000 PT

% municipalities > 100,000 PT

Czech Rep. 1,640 13 96 5

France 1,720 15 95 37

Hungary 3,170 29 91 9

Spain 5,430 62 85 58

Estonia 5,930 199 80 2

Germany 6,690 29 77 81

Italy 7,270 37 71 43

Greece 10,750 128 53 8

Finland 12,660 813 52 6

Poland 15,390 126 25 39

Bulgaria 29,090 420 11 11

Sweden 31,310 1,552 4 13

Denmark 55,480 440 3 6

Lithuania 56,570 1,088 2 5

UK 139,480 562 Not relevant 68

EU27 5,410 47 82* 500

The Changing Role of Local Government in Europe:Trends towards Strengthening

Functional dimension: de-centralization, transfer of state tasks = upgrading of LGs functional profile; more decision-making competencies of local councils (political de-centr.)

Political dimension: introduction of participatory elements, direct democracy, citizen involvement, consultations

Territorial dimension: up-scaling of LG-boundaries, territorial consolidation (amalgamation/cooperation), more viable LG-structures

Administrative dimension: citizen and costumer-oriented administrative structures/procedures; performance improvements, competition/benchmarking (NPM)


The Changing Role of Local Government in Europe:Trends towards Weakening

Functional dimension: over-burdening of LGs/losses in autonomy due to excessive devolution of state tasks; hollowing out through (NPM/EU-triggered) privatization

Political dimension: strengthening of local executives (direct election) to the disfavour of the council; weakening of the council due to contracting-out/privatization

Territorial dimension: Growing institutional thickness through new “inter-municipal” levels, regional bodies, cooperation structures (e.g. France, Italy); transaction costs

Administrative dimension: negative effects of NPM (steering deficits; fragmentation; decreasing staff motivation; increasing state intervention, e.g. UK)


Challenges and Future Prospects: Task Portfolio

Challenges: • Increasing functional responsibilities; partly without equivalent

(political) decision-making competencies (e.g. Germany) = “false de-centralization”

• More tasks with supra-local impacts (environment, pollution control)

• Increasingly interconnected tasks; cross-cutting policies

Requirements for the future: • Emphasis on political decentralization – including the council (see

Sweden, France) instead of only administrative decentr. (Germany)

• Supra-local tasks cannot solely be discharged by local authorities (bad experiences in Germany) not all tasks transferrable

• Strengthening cross-policies-coordination in the territory principle of “territoriality” (instead of only “functionality”)

• Strengthening the territorial basis for viable LGs (consolidation)Univ.-Prof. Dr. Sabine Kuhlmann 16

Challenges and Future Prospects:Local Finances/Resources

Challenges: • Increased demands to cope with fiscal constraints (financial

crisis particularly South European LGs affected; Germany, too, debt brake)

• More tasks, less resources (e.g. LG-staff cutbacks in Germany by 1/3 since 1990 decreasing quality of service delivery?)

Requirements for the future: • Solid resource basis for local task fulfilment + noticeable

fiscal autonomy as core requirement for viable local self-government

• Critical review of re-centralization tendencies, e.g. UK: % of local taxes: 80 40 14 (Thatcher) 22 (Blair) Coalition Gov.?

• Learning from good practices, e.g. Sweden (70% local taxes); increased proportion also in France (60%)


Challenges and Future Prospects:Democratic Participation/Political

Accountability Challenges:

• Increasing disenchantment with politics/representative democracy (decreasing turnouts/party memberships)

• Increasing demands of local electorate to be (directly) involved in decision-making processes (engagement in interest groups etc.)

• Strengthened political accountability of the directly elected mayor (partly also recall possible) too much mayoral powers? (France)

Requirements for the future: • Finding instruments/procedures to continuously include various

local interests into decision-making processes• Participation management in LG; avoid participation overkill

(France) • Implementation of results; take participation results seriously in

political decision-making processes (although not legally binding)• More direct democracy (local referenda etc.; exp. of Germany)


Challenges and Future Prospects: Europeanization/EU-Policy-Making

Challenges: • Centralizing effects of EU-integration• LG involvement in EU-decision-making considered inadequate• EU-regulation as a burden for local policy implementation;

bureaucratization; overburdening of the local level• EU-liberalization policies as a danger for traditionally protected

local markets (e.g. German “Stadtwerke”)

Requirements for the future: • Enhancing local EU-competencies (internal organization, staff

qualification; EU-Lobbying; inter-local cross border cooperation etc.)

• Further strengthening of local self-government as a fundamental basis of EU-integration and in EU-law (see Lisbon treaty)

• Watching over the compliance with the subsidiarity principle in Europe to guarantee task fulfilment at the best suited level


“The Union shall respect the equality of Member States before the Treaties as well as their

national identities, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and

constitutional, inclusive of regional and local self-government (…).”

(Art- 3a sec. 2, Treaty of Lisbon 2009)

„The Union’s blindness regarding local self-government has come to an end

since the Lisbon-Treaty.“ (Articus; Chief Executive of the German Cities‘ Assoc.;

2009)Univ.-Prof. Dr. Sabine Kuhlmann 20

Thank you for your attention!

Prof. Dr. Sabine Kuhlmann 21

the future of local self-government in europe

Documents