New Challenges in Local and Regional Administration

Max Barlow, Doris Wastl-Walter

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• eBook ISBN:
  9781351915076
• Subtopic: Public Affairs & Administration
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Focusing on democratization, flexibilization, ethnic diversity and restructuring of transitional and emerging states, this volume analyzes the changes and challenges for administrative structures at the beginning of the 21st century, from a geographical perspective. A team of leading scholars from throughout the world provides a differentiated spatial overview of key problems currently faced in public administration. By offering a wide range of regional case studies from Eastern and Western Europe, the Middle East and Africa, the book tests current theories and concepts of government and governance, space and place, and society and community. In doing so, it offers valuable insights and makes policy implications.

Chapter 1
Local and National Democracy:
Lessons from the ‘Third Wave’
of Democratization

Brian Smith

Local Government and the Transition to Democracy

The democratization of local government has been an almost ubiquitous feature of the transition to democracy in countries emerging from a recent period of authoritarianism in the so-called ‘third wave’ of democratization. This has been the case irrespective of whether the preceding authoritarianism took the form of military rule, single-party regime, racial exclusion or state communism.

By 1994, 63 of the 75 developing countries or countries in transition with populations over 5 million had policies to transfer power to local governments (Hommes, 1996). This included transitions in Latin America (Marcondes, 1996; Rodriguez, 1995), Asia (Tapales, 1996; Aziz and Arnold, 1996), Central and Eastern Europe¹ (Tordoff, 1995; Davey, 1995a; Coulson, 1995; Norton, 1995; Hesse, 1993; Campbell, 1995c), Southern Europe (Tura, 1993; Medhurst, 1984; Diamandouros, 1984) and Africa (Pasteur, 1996; Tordoff and Young, 1994).

Throughout the transitions to democracy there has been a growing interest in ‘place’ as an alternative to centralization, with the emergence of strengthened municipalities, serving specific populations, loyal to specific territories, and linking localities with government (Reilly, 1995b; Bird, Ebell and Wallich, 1995).

The Analysis of Local Democratization

Much of the commentary by social scientists on these trends and changes has tended to focus on local democratization as a means to better policy outcomes, in terms of both substance and process (for example, Robinson 1998; Baldersheim and Illner, 1996). Local government has been examined for its relationship to economic development, economic globalization, service quality and regional development. In studies of transitions explanations of reforms have been sought in central-local government relations, the previous history of local government, and variations in local social and economic conditions (Bennett, 1994; Lopez-Murphy, 1995; World Bank, 1997; Fukasaku and Hausmann, 1998).

However, occasionally observers have been tempted to reassert long-standing beliefs about the contribution which local government makes to viable democratic government nationally in order to see whether the consolidation of democracy in the post-authoritarian period requires democracy at the local level.

Sometimes this has meant no more than integrating local democracy into one’s general definition of democracy (for example, Teune, 1995; Beetham, 1993; Diamond, Linz and Lipset, 1995; Massolo, 1996; McCarney, 1996; Elster, Offer and Preuss, 1998; Regulska, 1993). However, some statements about the contribution of local government to democratic transition clearly imply a causal relationship between local and national democracy. The theorizing here is very reminiscent of arguments in support of local democracy found in the history of liberal political thought: that it provides political education, protects liberty and supports political stability (Smith, 1985). The conviction that democratic government at the local level is a necessary condition for democracy generally – that there is a ‘necessary local dimension of democratization’ – is stated quite explicitly by Teune (1995). Similarly Ostrowski, writing about central Europe, believes that it became clear between 1989 and 1990 that ‘the stability and continuity of democratic reforms must be secured by strengthening traditional institutions with a proven record in Western democracies: parliaments and local self-government’ (Ostrowski, 1995). Wollmann also claimed that ‘the decentralization both of political power and of administrative functions was crucial in order to ... ensure the development of democratic governance’ (1997). Even public opinion surveys in Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia have shown ‘a strong level of belief in the importance of local governments in the process of democratization’ (Cielecka and Gibson, 1995; Hanson and Gibson, 1996). As Regulska and Kocan put it: ‘There cannot be a democratic state without local democratic institutions’ (Regulska and Kocan, 1994).

Experts in other regions experiencing the ‘third wave’ similarly perceive this role for local democracy. For example, democracy in Thailand is said to be unsustainable ‘without increased popular participation in self-government at the local level’ (Kokpol, 1996). In both Thailand and South Korea ‘the development of meaningful and autonomous local government – both in the cities and in the villages – will be an important factor in whether democracy can be successfully developed and consolidated’ (Diamond, 1989). Recent reforms in Vietnam are thought to indicate that the democratization of social life requires decentralization (Luan, 1996). According to Westergaard and Alam ‘the issue of devolution is central to the process of democratization in the present period of transition in Bangladesh’ (1995).

In Latin America the centralization of political power has been a ‘major structural impediment’ to the development of democracy. An example is Paraguay where the creation of democratic institutions was seen to be dependent upon ‘the decentralization of power, strengthening local government and encouraging citizen participation as key areas of democratic reform’ (Rojas, Rodriguez-Acosta and Rosenbaum, 1998). Democratic transition in Mexico is believed to be encouraged by ‘free, responsible and efficient municipal governments’ (Massolo, 1996). In fact throughout Latin America local government is believed to be ‘crucial to sustaining democratic rule’ (Nickson, 1995).

Thus we find statements to the effect that democratic local government ‘is necessary for’, is ‘central to’, ‘secures’, ‘sustains’, ‘ensures’ and ‘encourages’ democratization. All too often these are assertions unsupported by analysis of the causality, but occasionally an argument is presented about the influences thought to be at work that enable local democracy to support the consolidation of democratic government more generally.

Arguments in defence of democratic decentralization in the analysis of the democratization process generally stress four main positive contributions: to legitimacy, to political education, to the protection of liberty, and to the development of civil society. The remainder of this chapter assesses these arguments and discusses the main methodological problems raised by them.

State Legitimacy

One way in which local democracy is said to support the consolidation of democracy more widely is by strengthening the state’s legitimacy. This can work in a variety of ways.

First, establishing the legitimacy of government centrally can be helped by legislation for municipal reform to redress the state’s ‘institutional deficit’ that has, under authoritarianism, produced policy instability, poor management, and corruption, generating pressures for democratic decentralization (Naim, 1995; Rodriguez, 1995; Fiszbein, 1997; Davey, 1995b).

Second, experience of democracy is thought to boost its legitimacy (Diamond, 1994). Decentralization is a ‘source of democratic vitality’, enhancing commitment to the system and serving democratic consolidation by removing barriers to participation, strengthening the responsiveness and accountability of government, preventing politics becoming a ‘winner takes all’ game, and giving minorities opportunities to share power, learn the complexities of government, and obtain credibility and responsibility (Diamond, Linz and Lipset, 1995).

Third, legitimacy may be served by democratic decentralization under conditions of ethnic pluralism. Transitions from highly centralized authoritarian regimes provide opportunities for a ‘new configuration of territorial authority’ demanded by ethnically, linguistically or culturally distinctive peripheral areas (Schmitter, 1992). Political decentralization can help by giving ethnic groups a degree of autonomy, by protecting such autonomy against recentralization, and by protecting the rights of minorities in quasi-autonomous areas (Przeworski, 1995). An equitable intergovernmental fiscal system may be crucial for ethnically diverse societies to recognize the state’s legitimacy (Bird, Ebell and Wallich, 1995). Botswana is but one example of local government contributing to the legitimacy of the state by its recognition of the boundaries of the Tswana tribes and their cultural distinctiveness (Holm, 1988).

Finally, the national state may benefit by recognizing the legitimacy that sub-national political authority enjoys in the local political culture (Gombay and O’Manique, 1996; Tordoff and Young, 1994; Davey, 1995a).²

The argument that local democracy strengthens the legitimacy of the nation state needs to recognize factors that moderate this contribution to the democratization process.

The Nature of Local Elites

First, rather than enabling the development of a democratic legitimacy, local government may remain dominated by legacies of the earlier authoritarianism. The residues of authoritarianism may persist locally after the transition has been made at national level. There may be support for democracy at the centre, but the appointees of the former dictatorship may remain in power locally. Local political elites may represent the old order and resist democratization (Grichtchenko and Gritsanov, 1995; White, 1997; Boukhalov and Ivannikov, 1995). Democratization sometimes has also found aspiring elites seeking power for themselves through democratic decentralization (Hommes, 1996; Rodriguez, 1992).

Local Democracy and the Poor

While it is true that centralization frequently entrenches the political exclusion of the poor and shields authoritarian ‘enclaves’ from grassroots organizations, it does not follow that decentralization guarantees the empowerment of the poor or responsiveness to their needs. The experience of local government of those at the lower end of the socio-economic scale may not engender faith in the legitimacy of the state. The transition to democracy is quite capable of giving power to socio-economic elites at all levels of government (Mainwaring, 1989; Lee, 1996). Decentralization may mean a redistribution of power and resources from centre to periphery, but this does not mean that power and income redistribution between classes will follow, as the Brazilian case shows (Souza, 1994). Local elites are also capable of responding to participation by or on behalf of the poor with severe repression, leading to ‘democracy without citizenship’ at the local level (Cammack, 1994).

Before local democracy can serve the interests of poverty alleviation it must be endowed with technical and financial capacity and receive well-designed fiscal transfers (Bird and Rodriguez, 1999). Even in those rare cases where local government has contributed to a reduction in poverty, such as West Bengal, other conditions need to accompany democratic decentralization: civil service reforms to strengthen the accountability of field officers; reforms strengthening human rights, especially gender and property rights; and a political discourse on poverty that changes perceptions of it (Webster, 1999). And of course India is not a newly democratizing country.

National Democracy

What the democratization process shows is that a significant consensus about democracy among national elites is necessary before local democratization can be initiated. A culture of democracy supports decentralization and participation rather than the reverse (Aziz and Arnold, 1996; Kokpol, 1996; Lee, 1996; Massolo, 1996). Conversely, democratic decentralization will...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Contributors
• Preface
• Introduction
• I DEMOCRATIZATION
• 1 Local and National Democracy: Lessons from the ‘Third Wave’ of Democratization
• 2 Territorial Reform of Central–Regional–Local Government Relations: The Implications for Local Economic Development Agencies in England
• 3 Municipal Boundary Change Procedures: Local Democracy versus Central Control
• II FLEXIBILIZATION
• 4 Multipurpose Government and Flexibility: An Appraisal
• 5 Public–Private Partnerships and Urban Governance: Towards a New Concept of Local Government?
• 6 Switzerland and the Challenge of European Integration
• 7 Flexibility in Local Public Administration: Responses to Size and Ethnic Structure of Communes in Slovakia
• III RESTRUCTURING IN TRANSITIONAL AND EMERGING STATES
• 8 Administrative Territorial Reform in Latvia: Reasons, Goals and Strategy
• 9 Hometown Associations and Flexible Governance in Nigeria
• 10 Democratic Institution Building in the Context of a Liberation War: The Example of Western Sahara and Polisario Front
• 11 Challenges for Restructuring of Local Government in a Transition Period: Palestine
• Index