Local Governance in England and France

Alistair Cole, Peter John

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2012
• Print ISBN: 9781138384156
• eBook ISBN: 9781135129736
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Comparative Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Local Governance in England and France addresses issues at the cutting edge of comparative politics and public policy. The book is based on extensive research and interviews, over 300 in total, with local decision makers in two pairs of cities in England and France: Lille and Leeds; Rennes and Southampton. No other Anglo-French comparative project has ever gone into such depth - based on actual case studies - making this book an invaluable resource for students and professionals alike. The book poses key questions about the changing role of the state, the difficulties of policy coordination in a fragmented institutional context, and about the relationship between governance, networks as well as political and democratic accountability. It will be of great interest to the professional research community, and practitioners in Britain, France and beyond, as well as to students of comparative politics, European public policy, British / French politics, European studies, public management and local government studies.

1 The age of governance

The subject of this book is local governance. While traditional local government took place in a set of well-defined local political and administrative institutions, governance occurs in a more fragmented organisational context and incorporates a wider group of decision-makers than hitherto. Wider policy networks, stronger public–private partnerships, more complex policy problems, a move away from hierarchical patterns of public sector organisation and Europeanised public policy-making characterise the new governance. We claim that such a pattern now describes local politics and decision-making in both England and France, the countries we study in this book. Both systems have lost some of their hierarchical and closed character and have moved towards a more flexible and networked pattern of politics.

The reasons for changes in the pattern of governing localities include the pressures of greater economic competition, both national and international; the transfer of policies across nations; the rapidity of changes in ideas and economies; the growing incentives for central governments to improve the delivery of public services; reforms of the institutions of local government; and the profound changes in political behaviour that have occurred within localities. These changes are cross-national in the sense that they affect local administration and politics across economically advanced democracies, including England and France. Our research maps how rapid institutional, economic and policy changes have reshaped local political systems. We argue that local and central government decision-makers have had to cope with greater problems of co-ordinating policy. Traditional methods of municipal management, such as political clientelism and tight party control, have become less effective in the new governing environment. Contemporary political leaders must build broad networks of new and old decision-makers; they must respond to the challenges of economic restructuring; and they need to adapt to the varied initiatives that come from national governments and the European Union.

At the same time as there are cross-national trends, much depends on the contexts in which they take place. Though we observe much that is similar in England and France, the two countries have very different starting points – and this influences how policy networks form and what implications we draw for democratic practice. Moreover, the practice of policy-making varies according to the task at hand; in this book we consider the contrasting examples of economic development and secondary education. Most of all, each locality has its own political culture and tradition that affects the practice of politics and mediates whatever national or cross-national influences take place. While cities and localities are changing, they approach the new politics in manners consistent with their own political traditions.

We return to these themes at various points during the book. This first chapter sets the scene. We first review traditional perceptions of local government in England and France and consider whether the approach of governance is useful in understanding changing patterns of local policy-making in the two countries. We investigate the forces behind the emergence of governance and give a working definition of the concept. We address the issue of the effectiveness of public decisions and discuss the dilemmas of political accountability and leadership that arise from our empirical investigation. The chapter finally sets out the comparative method underpinning the study, which is based upon the relative importance of political institutions, policy sectors and cities.

Local government in England and France: a most different comparison?

There is a long tradition of Anglo-French comparison. England and France are shaped by highly distinctive historical and institutional legacies. Whether defined in terms of legal frameworks (common versus Roman law), state traditions (the dual polity against the indivisible Republic) or political culture (representative versus directive democracy), England and France have represented contrasting liberal democratic poles. They have traditionally both been ‘exporting’ nations. Each has cultivated its political model and has been reluctant to accept innovations coming from elsewhere, especially from its cross-channel neighbour. Throughout the nineteenth century there was open political competition between the institutional models of English parliamentary sovereignty and French republicanism. There is also an older tradition of exchange and emulation; in the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, Montesquieu and Voltaire looked to England as the model of a limited and balanced parliamentary regime.

In certain respects, the Anglo-French case is an exemplar of the most different comparison (Przeworski and Teune 1982; Dogan and Kazancigil 1997). Not only do Anglo-French contrasts stand out as a theme of academic commentary in the last three decades; the two countries form part of a more general framework for comparing sub-central governments across Europe. Differences in institutions, legal frameworks and political cultures underpin the comparison of English and French local politics (Lagroye and Wright 1979; Ashford 1982). Writers such as Page (1991) and Sharpe (1993), while applying the necessary qualifications and recognising the diversity of nation-states, contrast local government systems across Europe. They distinguish countries with Napoleonic traditions like France, Spain and Italy, with their strong states and weak local governments, from the functionally stronger local governments in states like Sweden and England (Page and Goldsmith 1987; Page 1991; Sharpe 1993). On the other hand, the ‘most different’ properties of the Anglo-French comparison are balanced by countervailing forces. The United Kingdom and France have generally been considered as unitary (or ‘union’) states with coherent doctrines of undivided political sovereignty that break with the federal political tradition. They are countries of comparable economic and demographic importance with strong senses of their respective historical legacies and distinctive French and English traditions.

In the sphere of sub-national politics and administration, however, distinctive French and English state traditions bestowed varying levels of discretion upon local governments (Wunder 1995). While local government was functionally stronger in the English case than in the Napoleonic French model, it was less well linked into central government networks. In England, the corollary of local autonomy was a separation between the spheres of local and central administration. This was well captured in Bulpitt's metaphor of the ‘dual polity’ (see chapter 2) where politicians in the UK centre and the periphery co-existed in two separate policy spheres, at least up until the 1960s (Bulpitt 1983). In the French case, the counterpart to weak and divided local authorities was a pattern of strong peripheral linkage to central government. The practice of multiple office-holding (cumul des mandats) lay at the core of this system. In order to defend the interests of their localities in the central decisions over the distribution of resources, ambitious politicians accumulated several local offices (such as mayor or president of a departmental council) with national elective mandates (usually those of deputy or senator). This interconnection has been interpreted as producing an adaptable, negotiated system in which policies were implemented flexibly because of the strong ties between central and local governments.

These contrasting models of French and English sub-national politics and administration are set out in detail in chapters 2 and 3. The thesis of French and English local divergence was pushed furthest by Ashford (1982) who contrasted centralist and inflexible traditions of policy-making in England (dogmatism) with a flexible and negotiated style in France (pragmatism). Ashford's thesis was that, in spite of all the authority delegated to sub-national authorities, the English state was locked into a rigid system of central control: it pushed through dogmatic solutions because it did not have much contact with and distrusted local government; in contrast, the practice of French central–local relations, revolving around the cumul des mandats, was based on the political representation of local interests in central government and resulted in more pragmatic solutions. Ashford's controversial thesis focused attention on the different state traditions operating in each country. In the UK, in keeping with its ideology of the limited state, the formal apparatus of the centre was kept small, while service delivery functions were offloaded onto local government or other public bodies. Local authorities administered vast tracts of the post-1945 welfare state. Their primary concern with service delivery partly explains the functional specialisation of English local authorities and the high degree of autonomy acquired by professionals in their policy communities. In France, the state took on a more direct and directive role; in England, local government administered vast tracts of the post-1945 welfare state. The primary concern with service delivery partly explains the functional specialisation of English local authorities and the high degree of autonomy acquired by professionals in their policy communities. Unlike in England, the French welfare state was administered directly by government departments (for example, in education or social welfare) or nationally organised partnership agencies (for example, in social security and housing), with local authorities reduced to a minor service delivery function. Each system had its costs and benefits. The English system prided itself on the efficient and professional delivery of services and clear lines of accountability. But it tended to be rather rigid in its approach and to lack sensitivity to political contexts of the centre and the periphery. The French, in contrast, represented local interests more flexibly, but local services were delivered with minimal concern for democratic accountability.

In so far as they represent distinctive traditions within the EU, Anglo-French comparisons make sense; good Anglo-French comparisons allow for the examination of similar policy challenges in specific policy contexts. When common trends appear in the case of France and England, it is likely they will have a more general validity across EU states. In the main body of the chapter we argue that comparable (but not identical) trends have restructured the different systems of local government in each country. Old systems of making policy have changed. New actors participate in local decision-making and the roles of familiar decision-makers have been transformed. Established routines of making policy have been disrupted. Fresh challenges have emerged. Accountability mechanisms have been contested. We set out these changes in the following chapters. But first we need to develop a working definition of governance.

Varieties of governance

The research questions developed throughout this chapter are broadly derived from a decade of academic debates over ‘governance’ (see summary in Pierre 2000). Political science theory has grappled with the circularity, indeterminacy and ambiguity of the concept. Rhodes (1996, 1997) proposes six separate interpretations of governance. The use of governance ranges from a loose metaphor to a causal explanatory model. Theorists typically understand governance as wider than ‘government’, often as a useful descriptor for the compound of diverse internal and external pressures that have reshaped traditional patterns of public administration in western liberal democracies since the early 1980s (Kohler-Koch and Eising 1999). Many proponents of governance argue that the wider structural context of government has changed under the impact of global economic pressures, regional integration in supranational organisations, such as the European Union, and the increased incidence of transnational policy exchanges (Mayntz 1993; Cerny 1997; Andrew and Goldsmith 1998; John 2001). Internally focused explanations place greater emphasis on endogenous changes, which have produced more interdependent actors, leading to ‘overcrowded policy making’ (Richardson and Jordan 1979), the rise of meso-level government (Sharpe 1993; Rhodes 1996, 1997), a decentralisation and fragmentation of the state (Keating and Loughlin 1997), and a greater involvement of private actors in public policy-making processes (Bennett 1990; Stoker 1991).

Governance is highly abstract and elusive. The definition provided by Mayntz (1993) is a useful benchmark. She draws a distinction between governing and governance. The process of governing involves goal-directed interventions on behalf of the public authorities; the metaphor of ‘steering’ refers to ‘the ability of political authorities to mould their social environments’ (Mayntz 1993: 11). Governing through steering described the traditional practice of government; in recent decades, however, western societies have been confronted with new problems of ungovernability, defined as a weakening capacity to steer social development. Of the many causes of ungovernability (social, political and economic) the most important concerns the governmental system. The state is no longer able to steer society by proposing solutions to the problems it has identified. Modern states need to lower expectations of public policy action and develop new policy instruments. Governance is thus rooted in the weakening of older forms of regulation. In one colourful formulation, the nation-state has been ‘hollowed out’ as the principal locus of social and economic regulation (Jessop 1998, 2000), challenged by global market forces, new supranational institutional forms and the consequences of past state failure.

Governance is not synonymous with ungovernability, however. The new governance is based on new types of ‘goal-directed interventions’ on behalf of the public authorities, whose competencies are increasingly dissipated across several interdependent levels (local, regional, central, European) and which recognise the need to develop new forms of policy co-ordination. These new ‘goal-directed interventions’ break with traditional hierarchical forms of state control. They are directed towards mobilising policy networks, building inter-institutional (and public–private) partnerships and creating organisational incentives to achieve rational policy outcomes. Governance is reflexive (Rhodes 1997; Ascher 1998). Its rationality is based on dialogue, exchange and long-term commitment. In one version, governance consists in ‘instituting negotiation around a long-term consensual project as the basis for both positive and negative co-ordination among interdependent actors’ (Jessop 2000: 16). As a generic concept, governance is best understood as a new form of regulation of an increasingly complex, indeterminate and multi-layered polity.

Governance also refers to new patterns of state-society interactions, hence the particular importance placed on policy networks and new coalitions of actors. Marin and Mayntz (1991: 19) affirm that ‘policy networks are “new” phenomena; they are linked to structural changes in society and the polity’. Policy networks, they argue, represent new forms of policy-making to deal with the complexity of modern governance. Fragmentation has increased pressures for coalition formation to implement policy. Policy actors are dependent on each other; they need to pool resources (knowledge, finance) to resolve complex, dynamic and diversified problems. In this ‘differentiated polity’ (Rhodes 1986) co-ordination occurs through bargaining, rather than hierarchical control (van Waarden 1992).

The governance concept has gradually gained ground in the study of sub-national politics and administration (Andrew and Goldsmith 1998; Pratchett 2000; Stoker 2000). In France and England and elsewhere there have been profound changes in the external and internal environments within which local authorities and other public and private bodies operate. External pressures on localities have become more pronounced since the late 1970s and provide a plausible context for policy change. These are considered immediately below. The internal changes within localities and within the organisations of local government itself have also been important in both countries. As it is the internal changes that directly lead towards local governance, they are the main focus of this book.

Governance and externally driven change

Certain observers contend that governance has come about primarily because the wider structural context of government has been affected by new international economic pressures and transnational policy exchanges (Mayntz 1993; Cerny 1997; Goldsmith 1997). For Goldsmith (1997) ‘globalisation’, Europeanisation and ideological change are the pressures that have underpinned the move from local government to local governance over the last twenty years. External changes have affected the operation of localities in various ways. Localities have had to respond to the direct and indirect consequences of ‘internationalisation’. They have had to react to the growth of transnational policy-making in bodies such as the European Union. They have been encouraged to exchange ideas and build networks across nations.

’Internationalisation’ has affected local as well as national governments. We prefer the term internationalisation to that of globalisation: internationalisation describes the growing competition in international markets and the greater mobility of capital, without implying either that nation states are withering away or that the main centres of power are becoming global (Hirst and Thompson 1999). The economic integration of Europe, competition from new regional centres of economic activity and changes in the concentration of multinational firms have all had an impact upon localities. Increased economic interdependence has led to growing competition between cities (Harding 1998); in a fast-changing economic climate, cities and localities have become aware that new policies need to be adopted if they are to survive economically. Because the type of economic activity which is easiest to cultivate is (or was) on offer to most cities –growth in the service and financial sectors – cities are in competition with each other, both within nations and between them. Business interests are in a powerful position to determine business location decisions. Economic interdependence has arguably made economic management at the level of the nation-state much more difficult, but it can favour sub-regional cohesion. Cities can influence investment decisions by deliberate strategic actions (Harding 1998). There is, it is argued, a direct link between external challenges and the internal quality of local governing coalitions. Hence the move to urban regimes, the long-term public–private governing coalitions that involve shared visions and values amongst political and economic decision-makers, and a commitment to economic growth (Stone 1989).

Internationalisation has increased pressures for labour market deregulation and for improved training and education provision. It has encouraged national and local governments to offer incentives for inward investment. In a more economically interdependent and integrated environment, national governments are less able to use traditional economic policy instruments, such as Keynesian demand management and full employment policies. International constraints encourage governments to adopt supply-side policies and to impose budgetary restraints, privatisation and the retrenchment of the welfare state. This has implications for centre-periphery relations as national governments tend to favour economic development objectives over traditional welfare concerns.

Transnational policy-making in political institutions, such as the European Union, also appears to reduce the salience of national governing processes and thus of traditional central–local government relationships. European-wide ideas and international policy exchanges have had a more general impact upon local political systems. In England and France, local governments have recognised the developing importance of the European Union: there is a growing awareness of new sources o...

Table of contents

• Front Cover
• Local Governance in England and France
• Routledge studies in governance and public policy
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• 1 The age of governance
• 2 Local politics and policy-making in England
• 3 Local politics and policy-making in France
• 4 The governance of local economic development in England and France
• 5 The governance of sub-national education in England and France
• 6 Governing English cities
• 7 Governing French cities
• 8 Local governance in England and France
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index