Impacts of decentralization: The French experience in a comparative perspective

Abstract

Shifts in competencies between levels of government fundamentally changed public policymaking not only in France -with its two 'Actes' of decentralization but also in a similar vein in Germany and England. The effects of these reforms, however, have so far remained largely understudied. This analysis traces national decentralization strategies and compares their impacts on public service performance in person-related services. The results of the empirical case studies are astonishing, as the often considered unique French case seems to share substantial features with its neighbors: Local government performance is largely determined by the properties of the policy area under consideration the potential to reap synergies between relevant actors at place and the capacity to built up professional expertise at the local level turn out to be decisive factors for the 'success' of decentralization as a multi-level governance strategy.

Institutional impact assessment in multi-level systems: conceptualizing decentralization effects from a comparative perspective

“…;Pollitt, 2005;Schmidt, 1990;Thoenig, 2005;Wollmann, 2008), as well as our own research on decentralization impacts from cross-country comparative and policy-specific perspectives (e.g. Bogumil and Kuhlmann, 2010;Ebinger et al, 2010;Grohs et al, 2012;Kuhlmann, 2008aKuhlmann, , 2008bKuhlmann, , 2009aKuhlmann, , 2009bKuhlmann, , 2009cKuhlmann, , 2010aKuhlmann, , 2010bKuhlmann, , 2010cKuhlmann, , 2011Ongaro et al, 2010;Reiter et al, 2010;Richter and Kuhlmann, 2010;Wayenberg, 2006), we find evidence containing partly theoretical and partly empirical merits to support both positive and negative effects of decentralization. Taking the dimension of effectiveness as an example, on the one hand, improvements can be expected due to more citizen proximity and increased know-how regarding local needs, service targets and citizen preferences (Mill, 1991(Mill, [1835; Oates, 1972).…”

Digital transformation going local: implementation, impacts and constraints from a German perspective

“…As with any type of impact assessment, and against the backdrop of the conceptual and empirical hurdles, it is necessary to specify suitable assessment criteria and indicators when exploring the impacts of institutional policies. In our analysis, we apply a three step-model of impact assessment, drawing on Kuhlmann and Wayenberg (2016, p. 239); as well as Kuhlmann and Wollmann (2011); see also Pollitt and Bouckaert (2017); and Reiter et al (2010). As a first step, we examined the institutional changes which have resulted from the implementation of digital tools and assess the level of digital maturity with regard to the information, communication, and transaction functions combining the front office (e-government) and the back office (eadministration) perspectives.…”

Reforming the French health-care system: the quest for accountability

“…planning, 'fair' compensation to care providers, control, evaluation for quality assurance purpose) and steering methods (Favoreu et al, 2015), as opposed to external scrutiny (Bovens, 2007) or public accountability (Brinkerhoff and Wetterberg, 2015). Greater participation from regional health forums, local governments and labour unions in the aftermath of the decentralization laws of the 1990s and early 2000s (Reiter et al, 2010) did not improve fund management because of opacity (Cadiou, 2013) and crony management by a local elite (Fitoussi, 2002). Despite the emergence of an 'audit society' in France (Dent and Whitehead, 2013; Tremblay and Malsch, 2012) and NPM's emphasis on transparency (Pollitt and Dan, 2011) and on data collection in an attempt to diminish the principal-agent relationship (Pratt and Zeckhauser, 1991) between physicians and policymakers, accountability was lacking.…”

“…planning, ‘fair’ compensation to care providers, control, evaluation for quality assurance purpose) and steering methods (Favoreu et al., 2015), as opposed to external scrutiny (Bovens, 2007) or public accountability (Brinkerhoff and Wetterberg, 2015). Greater participation from regional health forums, local governments and labour unions in the aftermath of the decentralization laws of the 1990s and early 2000s (Reiter et al., 2010) did not improve fund management because of opacity (Cadiou, 2013) and crony management by a local elite (Fitoussi, 2002).…”