This four-country comparison has four sections. First, some remarks on appropriate definitions and concepts are made (inter alia by introducing and emphasising the distinction between 'traditional' and New Public Management-inspired administrative reforms). Then, country by country accounts of the pertinent reforms are submitted 'in a nutshell'. Third, with the 'convergence or divergence?' question in mind, the conclusion is put forward that significant differences persist (and even increase), particularly between Sweden and Germany, on the one hand, and England and France on the other. In the final section, an attempt is made to assess the 'performance' of the different local government systems in looking at their capacity to 'co-ordinate' policies and activities. It is argued that Sweden's and Germany's traditional type of democratically accountable, multi-functional and territorially viable local government does relatively well in achieving policy co-ordination, democratic participation and political accountability. Great Britain and France, however, could do better.
1The purpose of this paper 1 is to put the reform waves which Great Britain's/ England's 2 local government has seen since the late 1970s into a comparative international perspective. The article considers Great Britain/England, Sweden, Germany and France. The consideration underlying this selection is that in many comparative accounts these four countries are seen as representing, at least in their historical evolution, distinctly different local government systems, so that the analysis of their more recent developments should provide relevant insights. FLGS300411 (NT)
In taking a historical‐institutionlist approach, this paper looks at the development of administrative reforms in German local government which, because of the comparatively high degree of political and administrative decentralization of the Federal Republic has played a crucial role in the latter’s entire politico‐administrative setting and, hence, in its institutional reforms. The paper mainly identifies three stages in the post‐war development of administrative reforms. During the ‘planning movement’ of the late 1960s and early 1970s, Germany’s local level government and administration underwent significant and, to a considerable degree, lasting institutional changes. The 1980s were a period of incrementalist adaptation. Since the beginning of the 1990s, conspicuously later than in the Anglo‐Saxon and Scandinavian countries, but earlier and faster than the federal and the Länder levels, Germany’s local government has embarked upon dramatic changes particularly on two scores. First, in a growing number of municipalities and counties, administrative modernization was incorporated under the heading of a ‘New Steering Model’ (NSM) that largely drew on the dominant international New Public Management (NPM) debate. The dynamics of the ongoing administrative reforms are marked by an ‘amalgamation’ of NPM/NSM and earlier (‘traditional’) reform concepts. Secondly, at the same time, the political institutions of local government have under‐gone a significant shift as a result of the introduction of direct democratic procedures (direct election of mayors and heads of counties, binding local referenda). The paper argues that it is this co‐incidence and co‐evolution of administrative and political reforms that make for the peculiarity of Germany’s current modernization trajectory, distinguishing it from the Anglo‐Saxon and, to a lesser degree, from the Scandinavian modernization paths.
This article discusses the provision of public services (public utilities) and personal social services in European countries. In pursuing a historical perspective, four stages are discerned: the pre-welfare state of the late nineteenth century; the advanced welfare state climaxing in the 1970s; the neo-liberal policy phase since the early 1980s; and the recent phase since the mid-2000s. It is argued that, during each phase, the prevalent organizational form of service provision (whether municipal/public, private, or third sector) was shaped by the current dominant political beliefs and discourse; that is, by the "social democratic" assumption of the operational preference of public/municipal sector provision until the 1970s and the neo-liberal trust in the operational superiority of market liberalization and privatization. In the recent phase since the mid-2000s, divergent trends are observed. On the one hand, the neo-liberal market and privatization drive has persisted while, on the other, in reaction to the downturn of the neo-liberal policy tenets and the socio-economic fallout of fiscal austerity policies, a comeback of the public/municipal sector (remunicipalization) in public service provision and a (re-)emergence of third sector organizations and actors in the provision of personal social services and care have taken shape, somewhat reminiscent of the pre-welfare state engagement of societal actors.
In the post-1945 rebuilding of local democracy and local government in West Germany the local government statutes enacted by each of the regions ("Länder") created a conspicuous variety of local governments that ranged from the council/directly elected (chief executive) mayor form (installed in the South German Länder of Baden-Württemberg and Bayern) to that of the (British local government-derived) council/council-elected mayor, and the city director form (introduced in the Land of Nordrhein-Westfalen). This made almost for a natural experiment with different local government models. Since the early 1990s, in a striking sequence of legislative moves, all Länder have adopted the ('South German') directly elected (chief executive) variant. The legislative motives behind this shift were twofold: first, to strengthen the direct democratic rights of citizens ('local democracy'); and, second, to improve the capacity of local leadership in running and managing the city ('governability'). The article argues that - as evidenced by the 50 year-long practice in the South German Länder - the directly elected (chief executive) mayor form seems capable of fulfilling the double goal of strengthening the administrative leadership in local government and of enhancing its political accountability to the citizens. Furthermore, experience indicates that the potentially 'over-powerful' position of the directly elected mayor (as political "and" administrative leader) has been counterbalanced and held in check by an active local council and by vigorous local political parties. Copyright Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004.
In this article the interaction and cooperation of local level actors is conceived as being premised on two organizational logics, that is, on the territorialitybased general purpose elected local government form and on institutionalized functionality-based single-purpose non-elected intermunicipal cooperation. Drawing on the work by Hooghe and Marks the two variants are identified as “type I” and “type II” institutional arrangements. Germany and France are treated as comparative cases in point.In Germany the institutional development resulted, with federalism-typical variance between the Länder, in a mono structure of type I local government in some and in a dual structure with type II intermunicipal bodies in others, whereas in France the dual structure with a multitude of type II intermuncipal bodies (intercommunalité) has prevailed. Recently a new wave of territorial reforms in East German Länder has extended the coverage of type I local government and reduced that of type II intermunicipal bodies, while in France the introduction of the type II communautés bears traces of the type I local government form. In both countries these reform moves have been triggered largely by mounting criticism of the operational (conflict and transaction) costs and democratic deficits of the dual structure with type II intermuncipal bodies. These advances of the type I local government form concur with local level territorial reforms put into effect in a growing number of other European countries. Finally the article interprets the findings by drawing on and applying the conceptual government/governance scheme.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.