Local government

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

"Regional government" redirects here.
This article possibly contains original research. Please
improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations.
Statements consisting only of original research should be
removed. (January 2011)
Part of the Politics series

Basic forms of government

Power structure
Confederation Federation Hegemony Empire
Unitary state
Power source
Authoritarianism

Autocracy Despotism Dictatorship

Totalitarianism
Democracy

Direct Representative others

Monarchy

Absolute Constitutional
Oligarchy

Aristocracy Military junta Plutocracy

Stratocracy Timocracy
Other

Anarchy Anocracy Kritarchy Particracy

Republic Theocracy

Politics portal

vte
Local government is a form of public administration which in a
majority of contexts, exists as the lowest tier of administration within a
given state. The term is used to contrast with offices at state level,
which are referred to as the central government, national government,
or (where appropriate) federal government and also to supranational
government which deals with governing institutions between states.
Local governments generally act within powers delegated to them by
legislation or directives of the higher level of government. In federal
states, local government generally comprises the third (or sometimes
fourth) tier of government, whereas in unitary states, local
government usually occupies the second or third tier of government,
often with greater powers than higher-level administrative divisions.
The question of municipal autonomy is a key question of public
administration and governance. The institutions of local government
vary greatly between countries, and even where similar arrangements
exist, the terminology often varies. Common names for local
government entities include state, province, region, department,
county, prefecture, district, city, township, town, borough, parish,
municipality, shire, village, and local service district.

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

1 Africa
1.1 Egypt
1.2 Kenya
1.3 Mali
1.4 South Africa
2 Asia
2.1 Afghanistan
2.2 Bangladesh
2.3 India

Contents [hide]

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

2.4 Israel
2.5 Japan
2.6 Malaysia
2.7 Pakistan
2.8 Palestinian Authority
2.9 Philippines
2.10 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
2.11 Taiwan
2.12 Turkey
3 Europe
3.1 Albania
3.2 Andorra
3.3 Bulgaria
3.4 Croatia
3.5 Czech Republic
3.6 Denmark
3.7 Estonia
3.8 Finland
3.9 France
3.10 Germany
3.11 Greece
3.12 Hungary
3.13 Iceland
3.14 Ireland
3.15 Isle of Man
3.16 Italy
3.17 Latvia
3.18 Liechtenstein
3.19 Lithuania
3.20 Netherlands
3.21 Norway
3.22 Portugal
3.23 Spain
3.24 Sweden

6
6

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

6
6
6

3.25 Ukraine
3.26 United Kingdom
3.26.1 England
3.26.2 Northern Ireland
3.26.3 Wales
3.26.4 Scotland
4 North America
4.1 Canada
4.2 Mexico
4.3 United States
5 Oceania
5.1 Australia
5.2 New Zealand
6 South America
6.1 Argentina
6.2 Brazil
6.3 Paraguay
6.4 Peru
6.5 Uruguay
7 References
8 Further reading
9 External links
9.1 New Zealand

Africa[edit]
Egypt[edit]
Local government traditionally had limited power in Egypt's highly
centralized state. Under the central government were twenty-six
governorates (sing., muhafazah; pl., muhafazat). These were
subdivided into districts (sing., markaz; pl., marakaz) and villages
(sing., qaryah; pl., qura) or towns. At each level, there was a
governing structure that combined representative councils and
government-appointed executive organs headed by governors, district

officers, and mayors, respectively. Governors were appointed by the

president, and they, in turn, appointed subordinate executive officers.
The coercive backbone of the state apparatus ran downward from the
Ministry of Interior through the governors' executive organs to the
district police station and the village headman (sing., umdah; pl.,
umadah).[citation needed]
Before the revolution, state penetration of the rural areas was limited
by the power of local notables, but under Nasser, land reform reduced
their socioeconomic dominance, and the incorporation of peasants
into cooperatives transferred mass dependence from landlords to
government. The extension of officials into the countryside permitted
the regime to bring development and services to the village. The local
branches of the ruling party, the Arab Socialist Union (ASU), fostered
a certain peasant political activism and coopted the local notablesin
particular the village headmenand checked their independence
from the regime.[citation needed]
State penetration did not retreat under Sadat and Mubarak. The
earlier effort to mobilize peasants and deliver services disappeared
as the local party and cooperative withered, but administrative
controls over the peasants remained intact. The local power of the old
families and the headmen revived but more at the expense of
peasants than of the state. The district police station balanced the
notables, and the system of local government (the mayor and council)
integrated them into the regime.[citation needed]
Sadat took several measures to decentralize power to the provinces
and towns. Governors acquired more authority under Law Number 43
of 1979, which reduced the administrative and budgetary controls of
the central government over the provinces. The elected councils
acquired, at least formally, the right to approve or disapprove the local
budget. In an effort to reduce local demands on the central treasury,
local government was given wider powers to raise local taxes. But
local representative councils became vehicles of pressure for

government spending, and the soaring deficits of local government

bodies had to be covered by the central government. Local
government was encouraged to enter into joint ventures with private
investors, and these ventures stimulated an alliance between
government officials and the local rich that paralleled the infitah
alliance at the national level. Under Mubarak decentralization and
local autonomy became more of a reality, and local policies often
reflected special local conditions. Thus, officials in Upper Egypt often
bowed to the powerful Islamic movement there, while those in the
port cities struck alliances with importers. [citation needed]

Kenya[edit]

Main article: Local authorities of Kenya

Mali[edit]
In recent years, Mali has undertaken an ambitious decentralization
program, which involves the capital district of Bamako, seven regions
subdivided into 46 cercles, and 682 rural community districts
(communes). The state retains an advisory role in administrative and
fiscal matters, and it provides technical support, coordination, and
legal recourse to these levels. Opportunities for direct political
participation, and increased local responsibility for development have
been improved.[citation needed]
In AugustSeptember 1998, elections were held for urban council
members, who subsequently elected their mayors. In May/June 1999,
citizens of the communes elected their communal council members
for the first time. Female voter turnout was about 70% of the total, and
observers considered the process open and transparent. With
mayors, councils, and boards in place at the local level, newly elected
officials, civil society organizations, decentralized technical services,
private sector interests, other communes, and donor groups began
partnering to further development.[citation needed]
Eventually, the cercles will be reinstituted (formerly grouping
arrondissements) with a legal and financial basis of their own. Their

councils will be chosen by and from members of the communal

councils. The regions, at the highest decentralized level, will have a
similar legal and financial autonomy, and will comprise a number of
cercles within their geographical boundaries. Mali needs to build
capacity at these levels, especially to mobilize and manage financial
resources.[citation needed]

South Africa[edit]

Main article: Local government in South Africa

South Africa has a two tiered local government system comprising
local municipalities which fall into district municipalities, and
metropolitan municipalities which span both tiers of local government.

Asia[edit]

Afghanistan[edit]
Afghanistan was traditionally divided into provinces governed by
centrally appointed governors with considerable autonomy in local
affairs. There are currently 34 provinces. During the Soviet
occupation and the development of country-wide resistance, local
areas came increasingly under the control of mujaheddin groups that
were largely independent of any higher authority; local commanders,
in some instances, asserted a measure of independence also from
the mujaheddin leadership in Pakistan, establishing their own
systems of local government, collecting revenues, running
educational and other facilities, and even engaging in local
negotiations. Mujaheddin groups retained links with the Peshawar
parties to ensure access to weapons that were doled out to the
parties by the government of Pakistan for distribution to fighters inside
Afghanistan.[citation needed]
The Taliban set up a shura (assembly), made up of senior Taliban
members and important tribal figures from the area. Each shura
made laws and collected taxes locally. The Taliban set up a
provisional government for the whole of Afghanistan, but it did not

exercise central control over the local shuras.[citation needed]

The process of setting up the transitional government in June 2002 by
the Loya Jirga took many steps involving local government. First, at
the district and municipal level, traditional shura councils met to pick
electorspersons who cast ballots for Loya Jirga delegates. Each
district or municipality had to choose a predetermined number of
electors, based on the size of its population. The electors then
traveled to regional centers and cast ballots, to choose from amongst
themselves a smaller number of loya jirga delegates according to
allotted numbers assigned to each district. The delegates then took
part in the Loya Jirga.[citation needed]
The warlords who rule various regions of the country exert local
control. The transitional government is attempting to integrate local
governing authorities with the central government, but it lacks the
loyalty from he warlords necessary to its governing authority. More
traditional elements of political authoritysuch as Sufi networks,
royal lineage, clan strength, age-based wisdom, and the likestill
exist and play a role in Afghan society. Karzai is relying on these
traditional sources of authority in his challenge to the warlords and
older Islamist leaders. The deep ethnic, linguistic, sectarian, tribal,
racial, and regional cleavages present in the country create what is
called "Qawm" identity, emphasizing the local over higher-order
formations. Qawm refers to the group to which the individual
considers himself to belong, whether a subtribe, village, valley, or
neighborhood. Local governing authority relies upon these forms of
identity and loyalty.[citation needed]

Bangladesh[edit]

Bangladesh is divided into seven administrative divisions, [1] each

named after their respective divisional headquarters: Barisal,
Chittagong, Dhaka, Khulna, Rajshahi, Sylhet and Rangpur.
Divisions are subdivided into districts (zila). There are 64 districts in
Bangladesh, each further subdivided into upazila (subdistricts) or

thana. The area within each police station, except for those in
metropolitan areas, is divided into several unions, with each union
consisting of multiple villages. In the metropolitan areas, police
stations are divided into wards, which are further divided into
mahallas. There are no directly elected officials at the divisional or
district levels, although elected chairs of subdistricts also sit on district
councils.[2] Direct elections are held for each union (or ward), electing
a chairperson and a number of members. In 1997, a parliamentary
act was passed to reserve three seats (out of 12) in every union for
female candidates.[3][4]
Dhaka is the capital and largest city of Bangladesh. The cities with a
city corporation, having mayoral elections, include Dhaka South,
Dhaka North, Chittagong, Khulna, Sylhet, Rajshahi, Barisal, Rangpur,
Comilla and Gazipur. Other major cities, these and other
municipalities electing a mayor and councilors for each ward, include
Mymensingh, Gopalganj, Jessore, Bogra, Dinajpur, Saidapur,
Narayanganj, Naogaon and Rangamati. Both the municipal heads are
elected for a span of five years.

India[edit]

For more details on this topic, see Local self-government in India.

In India the local government is the third level of government apart
from the State and Central governments. There are two types of local
government in operation: panchayats in rural areas and municipalities
in urban areas. The panchayats are a linked system of local bodies
with village panchayats (average population about 5,000), panchayat
samities at the intermediate level (average population about 100,000),
and district panchaytas (average population about 1,000,000). [citation
needed]
. The local government bodies are the democratic institutions at
the basic level.

Israel[edit]
The Israeli Ministry of Interior recognizes four types of local
government in Israel:[citation needed]

Cities: 71 single-level urban municipalities, usually with populations

exceeding 20,000 residents.
Local councils: 141 single-level urban or rural municipalities, usually
with populations between 2,000 and 20,000.
Regional Councils: 54 bi-level municipalities which govern multiple
rural communities located in relative geographic vicinity. The number
of residents in the individual communities usually does not exceed
2000. There are no clear limits to the population and land area size of
Israeli regional councils.
Industrial councils: Two single-level municipalities which govern large
and complex industrial areas outside cities. The local industrial
councils are Tefen in Upper Galilee (north of Karmiel) and Ramat
Hovav in the Negev (south of Beer Sheva).

Japan[edit]

Main article: Districts of Japan

Since the Meiji restoration, Japan has had a local government system
based on prefectures. The national government oversees much of the
country. Municipal governments were historical villages. Now mergers
are common for cost effective administration. There are 47
prefectures. They have two main responsibilities. One is mediation
between national and municipal governments. The other is area wide
administration.

Malaysia[edit]

Main article: Local government in Malaysia

Local government is the lowest level in the system of government in
Malaysiaafter federal and state. It has the power to collect taxes (in
the form of assessment tax), to create laws and rules (in the form of
by-laws) and to grant licenses and permits for any trade in its area of
jurisdiction, in addition to providing basic amenities, collecting and
managing waste and garbage as well as planning and developing the
area under its jurisdiction.

Pakistan[edit]

Main article: Local government in Pakistan

Local government is the third tier of government in Pakistan, after
Federal Government and Provincial Government.There are three
types of administrative unit of local government in Pakistan:
District Government Administrations
Town Municipal Administrations
Union Council Administrations
There are over five thousand local governments in Pakistan. Since
2001, these have been led by democratically elected local councils,
each headed by a Nazim (the word means "supervisor" in Urdu, but is
sometimes translated as Mayor). Some districts, incorporating large
metropolitan areas, are called City Districts. A City District may
contain subdivisions called Towns and Union Councils. Council
elections are held every four years. District Governments also include
a District Coordination Officer (DCO), who is a civil servant in-charge
of all devolved departments. Currently, the Powers of Nazim are also
held by the DCO.

Palestinian Authority[edit]

Local government in the Palestinian National Authority-controlled

areas are divided into three main groups: Municipal councils, village
council and local development committees.
Municipality (Palestinian Authority): Depends on size of locality.
Localities that serve as the centers of governorates and populations
over 15,000 have 15-member councils. Localities with populations
over 15,000 residents have 13-member councils and localities with
populations between 4,000 and 15,000 have 9-member councils.
Village Council (Palestinian Authority): Localities with populations
between 800 and 1,500 have 3-member councils while those
between 1,500 and 4,000 residents have 7-member councils.

Philippines[edit]

Main article: Local government in the Philippines

See also: Philippines Regions and Provinces
The Local Government Code of 1991 provides for the three levels of
Local Government Units or LGUs in the Philippines: (1) the province
(2) city and municipality, and (3) the barangay. The country remains a
unitary state and the National Government continues to have strong
influence over local government units.
A province is led by a governor along with the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan (Provincial Council) composed of board members. A
mayor leads a city or municipality while the Sangguniang Panlungsod
(City Council) and the Sangguniang Bayan (Municipal Council)
constitute the legislative branches of a city and municipality,
respectively. A barangay is headed by the Barangay Captain and the
Barangay Council. Barangays can be further divided into puroks and
sitios but their leadership is unelected.
The 1987 Philippine Constitution also provides for the existence of
autonomous regions. The Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao
(ARMM) is the only autonomous region in the Philippines. There was
an attempt to institute an autonomous region in the Cordillera, but
that failed and instead the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR)
was established.
Local governments have limited taxing authority. Most of their funds
come from the national government via the Internal Revenue
Allotment

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia[edit]

There are three levels of local government in the Kingdom of Saudi

Arabia: the city council, the municipal council and the municipality.
The city council is the highest level of local government. The
municipal councils began in 2005 and is the second level of local
government. The municipality is the third level of local government.
There are 178 municipalities across the kingdom. The first began in
Jeddah during the Othmanic period. Each municipality is run by its

city's mayor. As a collective the kingdom's municipalities make up the

Ministry of Municipality and Rural Affairs (MoMRA).

Taiwan[edit]

Taipei City Government

The Republic of China government in Taiwan consists of special

municipality governments, provincial city governments and county
governments for their local governments. They also have councils in
each of those three local government levels.

Turkey[edit]

Turkey has two levels of local government; provinces (Turkish: iller )

and districts (Turkish: ileler ).
The territory of Turkey is subdivided into 81 provinces for
administrative purposes. The provinces are organized into 7 regions
for census purposes; however, they do not represent an
administrative structure. Each province is divided into districts, for a
total of 923 districts.

Europe[edit]

See also: European Charter of Local Self-Government

Albania[edit]

Main articles: Counties of Albania, Districts of Albania and

Municipalities of Albania
Albania has 3 levels of local government :
12 administrative counties (Albanian: qark or prefektur).
36 districts (Albanian: rreth).
373 municipalities (Albanian: bashki or komun), 72 of which have
city status (Albanian: qytet).
There are overall 2980 villages/communities (Albanian: fshat) in all
Albania. Each district has its council which is composed of a number
of municipalities. The municipalities are the first level of local

governance, responsible for local needs and law enforcement. [5]

Andorra[edit]
Andorra is formed by seven parishes (parrquies, singular
parrquia); Andorra la Vella, Canillo, Encamp, La Massana,
Escaldes-Engordany, Ordino, Sant Julia de Loria.
Some parishes have a further territorial subdivision. Ordino, La
Massana and Sant Juli de Lria are subdivided into quarts
(quarters), while Canillo is subdivided into 10 venats
(neighborhoods). Those mostly coincide with villages, which are
found in all parishes. Each parish has its own elected mayor who is
the nominal head of the local government known as a com in
Catalan.

Bulgaria[edit]

Main articles: Provinces of Bulgaria and Municipalities of Bulgaria

Since the 1880s, the number of territorial management units in
Bulgaria has varied from seven to 26.[6] Between 1987 and 1999 the
administrative structure consisted of nine provinces (oblasti, singular
oblast). A new administrative structure was adopted in parallel with
the decentralisation of the economic system.[7] It includes 27
provinces and a metropolitan capital province (Sofia-Grad). All areas
take their names from their respective capital cities. The provinces
subdivide into 264 municipalities.
Municipalities are run by mayors, who are elected to four-year terms,
and by directly elected municipal councils. Bulgaria is a highly
centralised state, where the national Council of Ministers directly
appoints regional governors and all provinces and municipalities are
heavily dependent on it for funding.[8]

Croatia[edit]

Main articles: Counties of Croatia, List of cities in Croatia and

Municipalities of Croatia
Croatia is divided into 20 counties and the capital city of Zagreb, the

latter having the authority and legal status of a county and a city at
the same time. The counties subdivide into 127 cities and 429
municipalities.[9]

Czech Republic[edit]

Main articles: Regions of the Czech Republic and Districts of the

Czech Republic
The highest tier of local government in the Czech Republic are the
thirteen regions (Czech: kraje, singular kraj) and the capital city of
Prague. Each region has its own elected Regional Assembly (krajsk
zastupitelstvo) and hejtman (usually translated as hetman or
"president"). In Prague, their powers are executed by the city council
and the mayor.
The regions are divided into seventy-six districts (okresy, singular
okres) including three "statutory cities" (without Prague, which had
special status). The districts lost most of their importance in 1999 in
an administrative reform; they remain as territorial divisions and seats
of various branches of state administration.[10] A further reform in effect
since January 2003 created 204 Municipalities with Extended
Competence (obce s rozenou psobnost; also obce III. stupn
third-level municipalities, unofficially also called "little districts"
(Czech: 'mal okresy') which took over most of the administration of
the former district authorities. Some of these are further divided
between Municipalities with Commissioned Local Authority (obce s
povenm obecnm adem, shortened to poven obec, pl.
poven obce; "second-level municipalities"). In 2007 the borders of
the districts were slightly adjusted and 119 municipalities are now
within different districts.

Denmark[edit]

Main articles: Regions of Denmark and Municipalities of Denmark

For local government purposes, Denmark is divided into five regions
(Danish: regioner), with their most important area of responsibility
being the public health service. They are also responsible for

employment policies, and some regions are responsible for public

mass transit. Regions are not entitled to levy their own taxes., and
they rely entirely on central state funding (around 70%) and funding
coming from the municipalities (around 30%). Regions are led by
directly elected councils (regionsrd). They consist of 41 members
each.
The regions are further divided into 98 municipalities (kommuner).
Elections for the municipalities are held on the third Tuesday of
November every four years.

Estonia[edit]

Main articles: Counties of Estonia and Municipalities of Estonia

Estonia is divided into fifteen counties (Estonian: maakonnad), each
led by a county governor (maavanem), who represents the national
government at the regional level. Governors are appointed by the
government, and so the regions do not have full self-government. The
regions are further divided into 227 municipalities (omavalitsus), and
each municipality is a unit of self-government with its representative
and executive bodies.

Finland[edit]

Main articles: Regions of Finland, Sub-regions of Finland and

Municipalities of Finland
The most important administrative layer of local government in
Finland are the 336 municipalities, which may also call themselves
towns or cities. They account for half of public spending. Spending is
financed by municipal income tax, state subsidies, and other revenue.
In addition to municipalities, there are two intermediate levels of local
government. Municipalities co-operate in seventy-four sub-regions
and nineteen regions. These are governed by the member
municipalities and have only limited powers. However, the
autonomous province of land has a directly elected regional council,
and the Sami people have a semi-autonomous Sami Domicile Area in
Lapland for issues on language and culture.

France[edit]

Main articles: Decentralisation in France and Administrative divisions

of France
According to its Constitution of 1958, France has 3 levels of local
government :
22 Rgions (including Corsica) and 4 Rgions d'outre-mer (Runion,
Martinique, Guadeloupe and French Guiana). Corsica is not referred
to as a "rgion" but simply as a "collectivit territoriale", that merely
means "local government area".
96 dpartements and 5 dpartements d'outre-mer (Runion,
Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte and French Guiana). Paris is both a
commune and a dpartement.
There are 36,679 municipalities (in French: Communes).
However, in addition to the constitutional clauses of 1958, there now
exist specificities:
Intercommunalities are now a level of government between
municipalities and departments.
There exist 2 "pays d'outre-mer": French Polynesia and New
Caledonia. The expression "pays d'outre-mer" is convenient as it can
be understood in French as both "overseas country" and "overseas
county/traditional area" (as evidenced by Pays de la Loire that is a
home rgion, not a home "country"). French Polynesia works as an
autonomous rgion, whereas New Caledonia has a sui generis local
government status with specific institutions and even more autonomy.

Germany[edit]

Main articles: Federalism in Germany and States of Germany

Subdivisions

Greece[edit]

Main articles: Modern regions of Greece and Municipalities and

communities of Greece
Since 1 January 2011, Greece consists of thirteen regions subdivided

into a total of 325 municipalities and communities. The regions have

their own elected governors and regional councils, however there are
seven decentralized administrations, which group from one to three
regions under a government-appointed general secretary. There is
also one autonomous area, Mount Athos.

Hungary[edit]

Main articles: Counties of Hungary and Subregions of Hungary

For local government, Hungary is divided into 19 counties. In addition,
the capital (fvros), Budapest, is independent of any county
government
The counties are further subdivided into 174 subregions
(kistrsgek), and Budapest is its own subregion.
There are also 23 towns with county rights (singular megyei jog
vros). The local authorities of these towns have extended powers,
but these towns belong to the territory of the respective county
instead of being independent territorial units.

Iceland[edit]

Main article: Municipalities of Iceland

The Municipalities of Iceland are local administrative areas in Iceland
that provide a number of services to their inhabitants such as
kindergartens, elementary schools, waste management, social
services, public housing, public transportation, services to senior
citizens and handicapped people. They also govern zoning and can
voluntarily take on additional functions if they have the budget for it.
The autonomy of municipalities over their own matters is guaranteed
by the constitution of Iceland.
The municipalities are governed by municipal councils which are
directly elected every four years The sizes of these councils vary from
five members in the smallest municipalities to fifteen in the largest
one. Most municipalities except for the very small ones hire an
executive manager who may or may not be a member of the
municipal council. These managers are usually referred to as mayors

(bjarstjri / borgarstjri) in the mostly urban municipalities but

"commune manager" (sveitarstjri) in the rural or mixed
municipalities.

Ireland[edit]

Main article: Local government in the Republic of Ireland

Local government in Ireland is mainly based on a structure of 29
county councils and five city councils. By far the main source of
funding is national government. Other sources include rates on
commercial and industrial property, housing rents, service charges
and borrowing. The city and county councils suffer from a
combination of a lack of power to raise their own taxes and a gradual
and persistent erosion of their powers over time. Therefore, local
policy decisions are sometimes heavily influenced by the TDs who
represent the local constituency in Dil ireann (the main chamber of
parliament), and may be dictated by national politics rather than local
needs.

Isle of Man[edit]

Main article: Local government in the Isle of Man

Local government on the Isle of Man is based on the concept of
ancient parishes. There are three types of local authorities: a borough
corporation, town commissions, and parish commissions.

Italy[edit]

The Italian Constitution defines three levels of local government:

Regions: At present 5 of them (Valle d'Aosta, Friuli-Venezia Giulia,
Trentino-Alto Adige, Sardinia and Sicily) have a special status and are
given more power than the others. The constitutional reform of 2001
gave more power to regions.
Provinces: They mostly care to roads, forests, and education. They
had more power in the past.
Communes: The Mayor and staff, caring for the needs of a single
town or of a village and neighbouring minor towns or villages.

Major cities also have an extra tier of local government named

Circoscrizione di Decentramento Comunale or, in some cities (e.g.
Rome) Municipio.

Latvia[edit]

Main article: Administrative divisions of Latvia

Latvia is a unitary state, currently divided into 110 municipalities
(Latvian: novadi) and 9 republican cities (Latvian: republikas pilstas)
with their own council.

Liechtenstein[edit]

Liechtenstein is divided into eleven municipalities (Gemeinden

singular Gemeinde), most consisting of only a single town.

Lithuania[edit]
Main articles: Counties of Lithuania, Municipalities of Lithuania and
Elderships of Lithuania
This article is outdated. Please update this article to reflect recent
events or newly available information. (June 2013)
Lithuania has a three-tier division of local government: the country is
divided into 10 counties (Lithuanian: singular apskritis, plural
apskritys) that are further subdivided into 60 municipalities
(Lithuanian: singular savivaldyb, plural savivaldybs) which
consist of over 500 elderships (Lithuanian: singular seninija, plural
seninijos).
The counties are ruled by county governors (Lithuanian: apskrities
virininkas) appointed by the central government, and effectively
oversee the two lower tiers of local government.
Municipalities are the most important administrative unit of local
government. Each municipality has its own government and council,
with elections taking place every four years. The council elects the
mayor and appoints elders to govern the elderships.
Elderships, numbering over 500, are the smallest units of local
government. They provide public services such as registering births

and deaths and identifying individuals or families in need of welfare.

Netherlands[edit]

Main articles: Municipal politics in the Netherlands and Provincial

politics in the Netherlands
The Netherlands has three tiers of government. There are two levels
of local government in the Netherlands, the provinces and the
municipalities. The water boards are also part of the local
government.
The Netherlands is divided into twelve provinces (provincie, pl.
provincies). They form the tier of administration between the central
government and the municipalities. Each province is governed by a
provincial council, the States-Provincial (Provinciale Staten, abbr. to
PS). Its members are elected every four years. The day-to-day
management of the province is in the hands of the provincial
executive, the States Deputed (Gedeputeerde Staten, abbr. to GS).
Members of the executive are chosen by the provincial council from
among its own members and like the members of the provincial
council serve for a period of four years. Members elected to the
executive have to give up their membership of the provincial council.
The size of the executive varies from one province to another. In
Flevoland, the smallest of the Dutch provinces, it has four members,
while most other provinces have six or seven. Meetings of the
provincial executive are chaired by the Queen's Commissioner
(Commissaris van de Koning(in), abbr. to CvdK). The Queen's
Commissioner is not elected by the residents of the province, but
appointed by the Crown (the Queen and government ministers). The
appointment is for six years and may be extended by a second term.
The Queen's Commissioner can be dismissed only by the Crown.
Queen's Commissioners play an important part in the appointment of
municipal mayors. When a vacancy arises, the Queen's
Commissioner first asks the municipal council for its views as to a
successor, then writes to the Minister of the Interior recommending a

candidate.
Municipalities (gemeente, pl. gemeenten) form the lowest tier of
government in the Netherlands, after the central government and the
provinces. There are 415 of them (1 January 2012). The municipal
council (gemeenteraad) is the highest authority in the municipality. Its
members are elected every four years. The role of the municipal
council is comparable to that of the board of an organisation or
institution. Its main job is to decide the municipality's broad policies
and to oversee their implementation. The day-to-day administration of
the municipality is in the hands of the municipal executive (college
van burgemeester en wethouders, abbr. to (college van) B&W), made
up of the mayor (burgemeester) and the aldermen (wethouder, pl.
wethouders). The executive implements national legislation on
matters such as social assistance, unemployment benefits and
environmental management. It also bears primary responsibility for
the financial affairs of the municipality and for its personnel policies.
Aldermen are appointed by the council. Councillors can be chosen to
act as aldermen. In that case, they lose their seats on the council and
their places are taken by other representatives of the same political
parties. Non-councillors can also be appointed. Unlike councillors and
aldermen, mayors are not elected (not even indirectly), but are
appointed by the Crown. Mayors chair both the municipal council and
the executive. They have a number of statutory powers and
responsibilities of their own. They are responsible for maintaining
public order and safety within the municipality and frequently manage
the municipality's public relations. As Crown appointees, mayors also
have some responsibility for overseeing the work of the municipality,
its policies and relations with other government bodies. Although they
are obliged to carry out the decisions of the municipal council and
executive, they may recommend that the Minister of the Interior quash
any decision that they believe to be contrary to the law or against the
public interest. Mayors are invariably appointed for a period of six

years and are normally re-appointed automatically for another term,

provided the municipal council agrees. They can be dismissed only
by the Crown and not by the municipal council.
Water boards (waterschap and hoogheemraadschap, pl.
waterschappen and hoogheemraadschappen) are among the oldest
government authorities in the Netherlands. They literally form the
foundation of the whole Dutch system of local government; from time
immemorial they have shouldered the responsibility for water
management for the residents of their area. In polders this mainly
involves regulating the water level. It has always been in the common
interest to keep water out and polder residents have always had to
work together. That is what led to the creation of water boards. The
structure of the water boards varies, but they all have a general
administrative body and an executive board (college van dijkgraaf en
heemraden) consisting of a chairperson (dijkgraaf) and other
members ((hoog)heemraad, pl. (hoog)heemraden). The chairperson
also presides the general administrative body. This body consists of
people representing the various categories of stakeholders:
landholders, leaseholders, owners of buildings, companies and, since
recently, all the residents as well. Importance and financial
contribution decide how many representatives each category may
delegate. Certain stakeholders (e.g. environmental organisations)
may be given the power to appoint members. The general
administrative body elects the executive board from among its
members. The government appoints the chairperson for a period of
six years. The general administrative body is elected for a period of
four years. In the past the administrative body was elected as
individuals but from 2009 they will be elected as party
representatives. Unlike municipal council elections, voters do not
usually have to go to a polling station but can vote by mail.

Norway[edit]
Norway's regional administration is organised in 19 counties (fylke),

with 18 of them subdivided into 431 municipalities (kommune) per

January 1, 2006. The municipal sector is a provider of vital services
to the Norwegian public, accounting for about 20% of Norwegian
GNP and 24% of total employment. Norway had 435 municipalities of
varying size in 2003, each administered by an elected municipal
council. They are grouped into 19 counties (fylker), each governed by
an elected county council. Each county is headed by a governor
appointed by the king in council. Oslo is the only urban center that
alone constitutes a county; the remaining 18 counties consist of both
urban and rural areas. County and municipal councils are popularly
elected every four years. The municipalities have wide powers over
the local economy, with the state exercising strict supervision. They
have the right to tax and to use their resources to support education,
libraries, social security, and public works such as streetcar lines, gas
and electricity works, roads, and town planning, but they are usually
aided in these activities by state funds.

Portugal[edit]

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Main articles: Autonomous regions of Portugal, Districts of Portugal,

Municipalities of Portugal and Freguesias of Portugal
Currently, mainland Portugal is divided into 18 districts (in Portuguese
distritos). Each district takes the name of their respective capital city:
Aveiro District capital: city of Aveiro
Beja District capital: city of Beja
Braga District capital: city of Braga
Bragana District capital: city of Bragana
Castelo Branco District capital: city of Castelo Branco
Coimbra District capital: city of Coimbra
vora District capital: city of vora
Faro District capital: city of Faro
Guarda District capital: city of Guarda
Leiria District capital: city of Leiria
Lisbon District capital: city of Lisbon

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Portalegre District capital: city of Portalegre

Porto District capital: city of Porto
Santarm District capital: city of Santarm
Setbal District capital: city of Setbal
Viana do Castelo District capital: city of Viana do Castelo
Vila Real District capital: city of Vila Real
Viseu District capital: city of Viseu
Insular Portugal, comprising the two Atlantic archipelagos of the
Azores and Madeira, is organized as two autonomous regions (in
Portuguese regies autnomas):
the Autonomous Region of the Azores capitals: the cities of Angra
do Herosmo (seat of the regional High Court), Horta (seat of the
regional Parliament) and Ponta Delgada (seat of the regional
Government);
the Autonomous Region of Madeira capital: city of Funchal.
Each district and each Autonomous region is divided into
Municipalities (in Portuguese municpios) which, in turn, are
subdivided into parishes (in Portuguese freguesias).
Since 1976, when the two Autonomous regions of Portugal were
established, the Azores and Madeira are no longer divided into
districts.

Spain[edit]

Main articles: Political divisions of Spain, Municipalities of Spain and

Comarcas of Spain
Spain is divided into 17 autonomous communities, which in turn are
divided into 50 provinces. There are also two autonomous cities:
those of Ceuta and Melilla. Finally, each province comprises a
number of municipalities.
Each administrative entity is given powers, structure, and boundaries
by a law that was passed by the Prime Minister .
Law 7/1985,[11] passed by the former Spanish President Felipe
Gonzlez Mrquez (socialist), lays down the procedure of the Local

Government. Every city in Spain used this Law until 2003. This year,
the former Spanish President Jos Mara Aznar Lpez
(conservative), passed a Law (57/2003)[12] to modernize organic rules
of those cities which had more than 250,000 inhabitants, and other
important cities (like capital cities of provinces with at least 175,000
inhabitants). Also, it exists two other important Laws for specifically
Madrid (Law 22/2006)[13] and Barcelona (Law 1/2006).[14] The main
governing body in every city is called the Plenary (el Pleno). The
number of members that compose The Plenary varies depending on
city's population (for example, since 2007 Valencia has 33 members
and Pamplona has 27). The name given to the members of the
Plenary is councillor (concejal). Those councillors are elected
between city's inhabitants every four years by direct vote. After being
elected, councillors meet in a special Plenary session to determine
who will be elected, between them, as city's Mayor. In the next days
after the election, the mayor chooses some councillors to set up the
executive governing body (Junta de Gobierno). After that, and for the
next four years, city's mayor and the Junta de Gobierno will govern
over the city according to their competences (urbanism, some taxes,
local police, licenses for specific activities, cleaning services, etc.).
Meanwhile, councillors in the Plenary but not part of the Junta de
Gobierno (the opposition) will oversee Mayor's rule. The autonomous
community of Catalonia is divided in 4 provinces and more than 900
municipalities. Between these two tiers, there are 41 comarques
(singular, comarca), roughly equivalent to 'district' or 'county'. The
comarca is a commonwealth, or union, of municipalities with
competences in several fields (Law 6/1987 of the Parliament of
Catalonia).

Sweden[edit]

Main articles: Municipalities of Sweden and County Councils of

Sweden
Every fourth year general elections are held in Sweden to elect

members of the national parliament, 20 county council assemblies

and 290 municipal assemblies. As the parliament elects the national
government, the local assemblies elect their executive committees
and their boards. Members in local committees and boards are
elected proportionally by the political parties in the assemblies, giving
all the major parties representation. The parties usually cooperate
well on the local levels.
The county councils (landsting) are responsible for health care and
usually provide transportation.
The municipalities (kommuner) are responsible for
social services, childcare, preschool, elderly care
primary and secondary education
planning and building
health protection, water, sewerage, refuse, emergency services
On a voluntary basis, the municipalities provide sports, culture,
housing, energy as well as commercial service.
The activities are financed by income taxes. Swedes pay around 20%
of their taxable income to the municipality and around 11% to the
county council. (The national government is financed by VAT and
payroll taxes and fees.)

Ukraine[edit]

Main article: Local government in Ukraine

United Kingdom[edit]
The system of local government is different in each of the four
countries of the United Kingdom. In total there are 426 local
authorities in the UK. 346 of these are in England, 26 in Northern
Ireland, 32 in Scotland and 22 are in Wales.
England[edit]
Main article: Local government in England
The most complex system is in England, the result of numerous
reforms and reorganisation over the centuries. The top level of subnational administration within England until the end of March 2012

consists of the nine regions. The regions were used by central

government for various statistical purposes, and Government Offices
and assorted other institutions including Regional Development
Agencies. Regional Government Offices, Regional Development
Agencies and Regional Ministers were all abolished by the Cameron
ministry in 2010. Only the London region which is a sub-region
compared to the other regions of England has a directly elected
government. Only one regional referendum has been held to date to
seek consent for the introduction of direct elections elsewhere in
the northeast of England and this was overwhelmingly rejected by
the electorate.
The layers of elected local government vary. In different areas the
highest tier of elected local government may be
Counties, which may be
single tier unitary authorities, or
divided into districts (also known as boroughs in some areas)
districts, which are separate unitary authorities in some areas
metropolitan districts (also called metropolitan boroughs) in some
areas which are similar to unitary authorities, but have joint boards
with other districts in the same metropolitan county
Greater London, which is divided into 32 London boroughs and the
City of London
In most areas there is a lower tier of government, civil parish, with
limited functions. Most civil parishes are in rural areas, but if the
parish is a town the parish council may be called a town council. In a
few cases the parish is a city, and the parish council is called a city
council.
Metropolitan counties, and a few non-metropolitan counties, no longer
have elected councils or administrative functions, and their former
functions are performed by districts. Such counties remain
ceremonial counties.
See also: metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties of England

Northern Ireland[edit]
Main article: Local government in Northern Ireland
Northern Ireland is divided into 26 districts. Local government in
Northern Ireland does not carry out the same range of functions as
those in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Northern Irish
Department of the Environment has announced plans to decrease the
number of councils to 11 by 2015. This will see the transfer of
(designated) powers from regional government departments to local
authority districts. Powers include tourism, economic development
and planning.
Wales[edit]
Main article: Local government in Wales
Wales has a uniform system of 22 unitary authorities, bout to as
counties or county boroughs. There are also communities, equivalent
to parishes.
Scotland[edit]
Main article: Local government of Scotland
Local government in Scotland is arranged on the lines of unitary
authorities, with the nation divided into 32 council areas.

North America[edit]
Canada[edit]

Main article: Local government in Canada

Canada has a federal system with three orders of government. The
largest is the federal government, followed by the provincial and local
governments.[15] Municipal governments are separately elected. They
must follow laws and guidelines as set out by their province, but are
allowed to pass additional by-laws and acts unique to them.

Mexico[edit]

Mexico is a Federal Republic made up by 31 states and a federal

district. Each state is divided in municipios, while the federal district is
divided in sixteen delegaciones. Twenty-nine states of Mexico were

created as administrative divisions by the constitution of 1917, which

grants them those powers not expressly vested in the federal
government; Mexico's two remaining territories, Baja California Sur
and Quintana Roo, achieved statehood on 9 October 1974, raising
the total to 31. Each state has a constitution, a governor elected for
six years, and a unicameral legislature, with representatives elected
by district vote in proportion to population. An ordinary session of the
legislature is held annually, and extraordinary sessions may be called
by the governor or the permanent committee. Bills may be introduced
by legislators, by the governor, by the state supreme court, and by
municipalities (a unit comparable to a US county). In addition to the
31 states, there is also one federal district comprising Mexico City,
whose governor serves as a member of the cabinet. Many state
services are supported by federal subsidies.
The principal unit of state government is the municipality. Mexico's
2,378 municipalities are governed by municipal presidents and
municipal councils. State governors generally select the nominees for
the municipal elections. Municipal budgets are approved by the
respective state governors. Until 1997, the president appointed the
mayor of Mexico City. Political reforms allowed the first open elections
in 1997, and Cuauhtmoc Cardenas Solrzano beame Mexico City's
first elected mayor.

United States[edit]

Main article: Local government in the United States

Oceania[edit]
Australia[edit]

Main article: Local government in Australia

Local government is the third type of government in Australia, after
Federal and State.

New Zealand[edit]

Main article: Local government in New Zealand

New Zealand has a local government system comprising two

complementary sets of local authoritiesregional councils and
territorial authorities. There are 78 local authorities consisting of:
11 regional councils, which cover much of New Zealands land area,
and
67 territorial authorities (comprising 53 district councils, 12 city
councils and 2 other councils).
Six of the territorial authorities are unitary authorities, which also have
the powers of a regional council. They are Auckland Council, Nelson
City Council, the Gisborne, Marlborough and Tasman district councils,
and Chatham Islands Council.
Regional council areas are based on water catchment areas,
whereas territorial authorities are based on community of interest and
road access. Within a regional council area there are usually many
city or district councils, although city and district councils can be in
multiple regional council areas.

South America[edit]
Argentina[edit]

Argentina is a federation of 23 provinces and the federal capital of

Buenos Aires. During the 19th century there was a bitter struggle
between Buenos Aires and the interior provinces, and there has long
been an element of tension regarding the division of powers between
the central government and provincial bodies. The federal
government retains control over such matters as the regulation of
commerce, customs collections, currency, civil or commercial codes,
or the appointment of foreign agents. The provincial governors are
elected every four years.
The constitutional "national intervention" and "state of siege" powers
of the president have been invoked frequently. The first of these
powers was designed to "guarantee the republican form of
government in the provinces." Since the adoption of the 1853

constitution, the federal government has intervened over 200 times,

mostly by presidential decree. Under this authority, provincial and
municipal offices may be declared vacant, appointments annulled,
and local elections supervised. Between 1966 and 1973, all local
legislatures were dissolved and provincial governors were appointed
by the new president. A restoration of provincial and municipal
government followed the return to constitutional government in 1973.
After the March 1976 coup, the federal government again intervened
to remove all provincial governors and impose direct military rule over
all municipalities. Since 1983, representative local government has
been in force again.
Until 1996, the President appointed the mayor of Buenos Aires, and
by law, the president and Congress controlled any legislation that
affected the city. Constitutional reforms that year led to an elected
mayoral position, and a 60-member Poder Legislativo (legislative
power).

Brazil[edit]

Brazil is divided into 26 states and a federal district, the government is

divided into federal, state, and municipalities. The federal district has
no municipalities and acts as a state and municipality at the same
time.
There is no minimum or maximum population requirement for
municipalities. Bor is the smallest municipality of the country with
805 inhabitants, So Paulo is the largest with 11,316,149 inhabitants.
Elections in federal, state and municipalities follow all the same
system, with elections of president, governor and mayor for executive
branch and federal deputy, federal senate, state deputy and alderman
for legislative branch. In municipalities according to the constitution,
the number of alderman varies from 9 to 55 aldermans.

Paraguay[edit]

Paraguay is divided into 17 departments, which are subdivided into

districts, which, in turn, comprise municipalities (the minimum

requirement for a municipality is 3,000 persons) and rural districts

(partidos). A governor, elected by popular vote, runs each
department. Municipal government is exercised through a municipal
board, chosen by direct election, and an executive department. In the
principal cities and capitals, the executive department is headed by a
mayor appointed by the minister of the interior; in other localities, the
mayor is appointed by the presidents of the municipal boards.Police
chiefs are appointed by the central government.

Peru[edit]

Peru is divided into 25 regions and the province of Lima. Each region
has an elected government composed of a president and council that
serve four-year terms.[16] These governments plan regional
development, execute public investment projects, promote economic
activities, and manage public property.[17] The province of Lima is
administered by a city council.[18] The goal of devolving power to
regional and municipal governments was among others to improve
popular participation. NGOs played an important role in the
decentralisation process and still influence local politics.[19]

Uruguay[edit]
Uruguay's administrative subdivisions consisted of nineteen territories
called departments and governed by intendencias, which were
subordinate to the central government and responsible for local
administration. They enforced national laws and administered the
nation's social and educational policies and institutions within their
territories. These territories had limited taxing powers, but they could
borrow funds and acquire property. They also had the power to
establish unpaid five-member local boards or town councils in
municipalities other than the departmental capital if the population
was large enough to warrant such a body.
Executive authority was vested in a governor (intendente), who
administered the department, and in a thirty-one-member
departmental board (junta departmental), which carried out legislative

functions. These functions included approval of the departmental

budget and judicial actions, such as impeachment proceedings
against departmental officials, including the governor. At the
municipal level, a mayor (intendente municipal) assumed executive
and administrative duties, carrying out resolutions made by the local
board (whose members were appointed on the basis of proportional
representation of the political parties). The governor was required to
comply with and enforce the constitution and the laws and to
promulgate the decrees enacted by the departmental board. The
governor was authorized to prepare the budget, submit it for approval
to the departmental board, appoint the board's employees, and, if
necessary, discipline or suspend them. The governor represented the
department in its relations with the national government and other
departmental governments and in the negotiation of contracts with
public or private agencies.
Like the governor, the members of the departmental board and the
mayor were elected for five-year terms in direct, popular elections. A
governor could be reelected only once, and candidates for the post
had to meet the same requirements as those for a senator, in addition
to being a native of the department or a resident therein for at least
three years before assuming office. Departmental board members
had to be at least twenty-three years of age, native born (or a legal
citizen for at least three years), and a native of the department (or a
resident for at least three years).
The board sat in the capital city of each department and exercised
jurisdiction throughout the entire territory of the department. It could
issue decrees and resolutions that it deemed necessary either on the
suggestion of the governor or on its own initiative. It could approve
budgets, fix the amount of taxes, request the intervention of the
Accounts Tribunal for advice concerning departmental finances or
administration, and remove from officeat the request of the
governormembers of nonelective local departmental boards. The

board also supervised local public services; public health; and

primary, secondary, preparatory, industrial, and artistic education.
Although Montevideo was the smallest department in terms of area
(divided into twenty-three geographic zones that generally coincided
with the electoral zones), its departmental board had sixty-five
members in 1990; all other departments had thirty-one-member
boards and a five-member executive council appointed by the
departmental board, with proportional representation from the
principal political parties.
Data as of December 1990
1
2

3
4

7
8
9

References[edit]

Jump up ^ "Rangpur becomes a division". bdnews24.com. 25 January

2010. Retrieved 6 August 2011.
Jump up ^ Kamal Siddiqui (2012). "Local Government". In Sirajul Islam
and Ahmed A. Jamal. Banglapedia: National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh
(Second ed.). Asiatic Society of Bangladesh.
Jump up ^ Local Government Act, No. 20, 1997
Jump up ^ "Strengthen Local Government Towards Deepening
Democracy: Annual report 20122013". Bangladesh Mahila Parishad.
Retrieved 31 March 2014.
Jump up ^ "On the Organization and Functioning of the Local
Government, Republic of Albania, 2000" (PDF). Archived from the original
on 20 September 2010. Retrieved 27 August 2010.
Jump up ^ "
" (in Bulgarian).
Ministry of Regional Development. Retrieved 26 December 2011.
Jump up ^ " . ". Ministry of Regional
Development. Retrieved 4 December 2011.
Jump up ^ Library of Congress 2006, p. 17.
Jump up ^ "Zakon o podrujima upanija, gradova i opina u Republici
Hrvatskoj" [Territories of Counties, Cities and Municipalities of the Republic
of Croatia Act]. Narodne novine (in Croatian). 28 July 2006. Retrieved 9
September 2011.

10
11
12

13
14

15
16
17
18
19

Jump up ^ The death of the districts, Radio Prague 3 January 2003.

Jump up ^ Ley 7/1985, de 2 de abril, Reguladora de las Bases del
Rgimen Local. Noticias.juridicas.com. Retrieved on 2012-12-02.
Jump up ^ Ley 57/2003, de 16 de diciembre, de medidas para la
modernizacin del gobierno local. Noticias.juridicas.com. Retrieved on
2012-12-02.
Jump up ^ Ley 22/2006, de 4 de julio, de Capitalidad y de Rgimen
Especial de Madrid. Noticias.juridicas.com. Retrieved on 2012-12-02.
Jump up ^ Ley 1/2006, de 13 de marzo, por la que se regula el Rgimen
Especial del municipio de Barcelona. Noticias.juridicas.com. Retrieved on
2012-12-02.
Jump up ^ Fact Sheet: Government in Canada. Cic.gc.ca (2010-08-23).
Retrieved on 2012-12-02.
Jump up ^ Ley N 27867, Ley Orgnica de Gobiernos Regionales, Article
N 11.
Jump up ^ Ley N 27867, Ley Orgnica de Gobiernos Regionales, Article
N 10.
Jump up ^ Ley N 27867, Ley Orgnica de Gobiernos Regionales, Article
N 66.
Jump up ^ Monika Huber, Wolfgang Kaiser (February 2013). "Mixed
Feelings". dandc.eu.

Further reading[edit]

Kemp, Roger L. Managing America's Cities: A Handbook for Local

Government Productivity, McFarland and Co., Jefferson, NC, USA,
and London, Eng., UK 1998 (ISBN 0-7864-0408-6).
Kemp, Roger L. Model Government Charters: A City, County,
Regional, State, and Federal Handbook, McFarland and Co.,
Jefferson, NC, USA, and London, Eng., UK, 2003 (ISBN 978-0-78643154-0).
Kemp, Roger L. Forms of Local Government: A Handbook on City,
County and Regional Options, McFarland and Co., Jefferson, NC,
USA, and London, Eng., UK, 2007 (ISBN 978-0-7864-3100-7).
Lockner, Allyn O. Steps to Local Government Reform: A Guide to

Tailoring Local Government Reforms to Fit Regional Governance

Communities in Democracies. iUniverse, Bloomington, Indiana, USA,
2013 (ISBN 978-1-4620-1819-2).

External links[edit]

Look up local government

in Wiktionary, the free
dictionary.
Wikimedia Commons has
media related to Local
government.

Department of Local and Regional Democracy and Good

GovernanceCouncil of Europe
The Congress in brief
Rural local self-government challenges and development prospects
by Rukhman Adukov
Women in Governance, India on YouTube
Using a Model Municipal Performance Measurement System to
Assess Mid-sized Texas Cities.
Factors Contributing to Municipal Annexation among Medium Sized
Southern US Cities. Colin Rice
United Cities and Local Governments is an organisation for cities,
local governments and municipal associations throughout the world.
Agenda 21 for culture is the reference document for cultural
programmes of local authorities
Rural Decentralization and Local Governance provides free access to
selected e-resources and news on local governance in developing
countries.

New Zealand[edit]

http://suvfree.blogspot.com
Local Councils Government Website
Local Government Online

Local Government New Zealand

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_government
January 21, 2015

Local Government
International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences | 1968 | Copyright
new beta test

Achieve
Political Reform
godofpolitics.com

The Nonpartisan
Guide To Government And
Politics.Learn How To
Reform

Weird Golf
Trick
squaretosquaremethod.com/Go
lf-Swing

Learn how to Add 20

Yards. 8 Free HD Golf
Lesson Videos.

Did Hubble
Discover God?
y-jesus.com

New Scientific
Evidence Causes
Scientists to Speak About
God

Tente Rollen
GmbH
tente.com

Rder & Rollen fr

industrielle Anwendungen

Local Government
Federal-decentralized systems
Unitarydecentralized systems
Napoleonic-prefect systems
Communist systems
Postcolonial systems
The role of local government
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Local government may be loosely defined as a public organization
authorized to decide and administer a limited range of public policies within
a relatively small territory which is a subdivision of a regional or national
government. Local government is at the bottom of a pyramid of
governmental institutions, with the national government at the top and
intermediate governments (states, regions, provinces) occupying the
middle range. Normally, local government has general jurisdiction and is
not confined to theperformance of one specific function or service.
This simple definition obscures wide variations in local governmental
systems and operational patterns, and it should be supplemented by a
system of classification for both description and analysis. In the past, local
governments have been classified largely in terms of their formal
structures. Thus, in the United States great stress was laid on the question
of whether a local government had a mayor with broad executive powers
or a mayor who was little more than a presiding officer of the city council
(the strong versus the weak mayor plans); whether the council members
divided among themselves administrative responsibility for the several
aspects of local government (the commission plan); or whether the council
employed a professional excutive agent to administer the citys affairs and
be accountable to the council (the city manager plan). Similar emphasis

was placed on form and structure by authors attempting cross-national

comparisons of local governmental systems. A perusal of the publications
of the International Union of Local Authorities (e.g.,The Structure of Local
Governments. .. , Humes and Martin 1961) or of the contents of The
Municipal Yearbook will indicate the dominant concern for structure. The
Yearbook, for example, provides details on the organization of local
government, but only in 1963 did it begin to provide data on local elections.
The formal structure of local government, important as it can be to the
character of a system, is not the only nor even the most significant
determinant of the style of local government. The quality and character of a
local government are determined by a multiplicity of factorsfor example,
national and local traditions, customary deference patterns, political
pressures, party influence and discipline, bureaucratic professionalism,
economic resource controls, and social organization and beliefs. That a
local government is located in a nation controlled by a communist party
may be an infinitely more important fact than the structural forms it has.
That an American city is located in the South, where Negroes occupy an
inferior social position, may explain far more about the local government
than its structure. The existence of a huge economic enterprise within a
given municipality may be more determinative of the style and policies of a
local government than its organization. And, it might be added, this may be
as true in a totalitarian regime as in a democratic one.
There are hundreds of thousands of local governments in the world, and
we lack sufficient information about their operational characteristics to
make completely confident generalizations about the nature of local
government or to isolate the most critical variables that shape it. In the
process of moving toward surer understanding of the phenomenon it is
useful to pursue answers to three basic questions about any local
government. First, to what extent is there local self-government? For
example, do the people of the community have an opportunity to
participate in government through meaningful elections and to have access
to public officials to express their opinions by organized and individual
activity? Second, to what extent does the municipality have relative
autonomy and discretionary authority to act? That is, is there a
deconcentration of authority from the central government to the locality
with little or no local discretion, or is there decentralization of authority with
relative discretion to undertake programs on local initiative and with
relative freedom from strict supervision and restriction from the central
government? Third, is the local government a vital and significant force in
the lives of the people? Is the government an institution with the will and
the authority to undertake activities that deeply affect the lives of people, or
is it so marginal an aspect of life that the citizenry is scarcely aware that it
exists?

To facilitate discussion of local government in terms of these broad

questions, five broad categories of local governmental systems may be
postulated: (1) federal-decentralized, (2) unitary-decentralized, (3)
Napoleonic-prefect, (4)communist, and (5) postcolonial. The meaning of
each category will become clear in the discussion.
Federal-decentralized systems
Those federal systems which decentralize much authority to the regional
governments that compose the federation also tend to be the nations that
allow the broadest range of discretionary authority to local government.
This is not true of all systems that are called federal, however, but only of
those with actual decentralization. The Soviet government is formally
organized along federal lines, but such decentralization of authority to the
districts as exists occurs under strict central government controls; it is
made abundantly clear that the sub-units of the Soviet system (the
republics and their subdivisions) are in reality agents of the central
government and the Communist party. In federal systems with much
decentralization (for example, Australia, Canada, Germany, Switzerland,
and the United States) the degree of autonomy of local government varies
considerably from country to country, but in all cases a considerable
degree of local independence prevails.
This variation extends deeper than the countryby-country comparison, for
there is often much variation among individual states or provincial-regional
governments as to the forms and authority of local government. For
example, the closeness of supervision by administrative agencies of
regional governments varies widely from fairly extensive reporting and
oversight to almost none, except in cases of flagrant corruption. Likewise,
certain states in the United States grant home rule to municipalities by
statutory or state constitutional provisions that permit municipalities to alter
their forms of government at will and that grant local authority to make all
laws and ordinances relating to municipal concerns, or broadly the
powers of local self-government, while in other states the municipality
has to appeal to the state legislature for specific permission to undertake a
particular program.
The idea of home rule as local independence is an ancient doctrine, but
as a legal concept it originated in the late nineteenth century when
American state legislatures interfered, often corruptly, with the functioning
of local government. Gradually, home rule has extended, with varying
degrees of effectiveness, to most of the states. Home rule does not grant
total autonomy by any means, since legislatures through general law and
the courts through interpretation still restrain local government.
Nevertheless, the concept contradicts the principle of municipal inferiority
that previously stood as a basic rule of law. In the late nineteenth century
Judge John F. Dillon stated the classic principle of the status of the local

government by saying that municipal corporations were completely

creatures of the legislature which could control or even destroy
municipalities at will. In the famous Dillons Rule he stated:
It is a general and undisputed proposition of law that a municipal
corporation possesses and can exercise the following powers, and no
others: First, those granted in express words; second, those necessarily or
fairly implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted; third, those
essential to the accomplishment of the declared objects and purposes of
the corporationnot simply convenient, but indispensable. Any fair,
reasonable, substantial doubt concerning the existence of power is
resolved by the courts against the corporation, and the power is denied.
(Dillon [1872] 1911, vol.1, sec. 237)
American courts no longer follow Dillons Rule rigidly, although its
fundamental precepts are still frequently drawn upon even in home rule
states, when local and state jurisdictions are in conflict. Litigation and the
threat of litigation are important restraints upon local independence.
In the United States all local legislative bodies and most chief executives
are directly elected. Local government organization varies enormously
from the town meeting, where all registered voters may participate in basic
decision making, to the highly bureaucratized governments of many large
cities where mayors combat the inertia of professionalism and pluralistic
stasis (see Sayre & Kaufman I960; Dahl 1961; Banfield 1961). In some
cities powerful political party machines control decision making by the
formal officeholders; in others business elites have great power; in still
others authority is widely dispersed to independent boards and
commissions which are relatively invisible to the voters and partially
beyond the control of the council or the mayor (for example, Los Angeles).
Although it has commonly been thought that American small communities
are highly democratic in the sense that the public has easy access to and
much control over their representatives, research on local governmental
operation suggests that this is not necessarily true (see Vidich & Bensman
1958; Presthus 1964). For example, survey research in American cities
concerning the citizens subjective competence (that is, a persons belief
that he can exert significant influence upon his local government) indicated
that two-thirds of the respondents felt a high degree of confidence in their
political effectiveness, but there was no evidence of significant variation in
terms of the size of the community from which the respondent came.
Indeed, insofar as there was a variation, it favored the larger as opposed to
the smallest cities (see Almond & Verba 1963, p. 235).
Swiss municipalities also have a wide area of local autonomy, although
there are variations among the Swiss cantons (states) in this respect. The
German-speaking cantons usually permit more discretion than do the
Italian- and French-speaking ones. A high degree of local self-government

prevails, particularly in the rural communities; in nine out of ten communes

the municipal deliberative body is an assembly of all electors. In larger
municipalities elective councils are employed, and under certain conditions
a referendum may be used to submit questions to the vote of the people.
Other federal systems permit somewhat less local autonomy. In Australia,
for example, local actions are subject to review by the state governor and
ordinances are effective only after their approval by the governor, although
there remains a general autonomy for the locality within the limitations of
its local charter and the supervision of the state departments of local
government. In Canada a considerable sphere of local autonomy exists,
but not as much as traditionally prevails in the United States or
Switzerland. An illustration of this is found in the decision of the provincial
legislature of Ontario to form a new unit of metropolitan government in the
Toronto area in 1953. The premier of Ontario warned that the legislature
would act if the local communities failed to create some orderly method of
coping with the problems of the metropolitan area, and when no action
followed the legislature created a new governmental unit covering both the
center city and its suburbs. While such action would be legally feasible in
most (although not all) states in the United States, American political
traditions of local independence make it nearly impossible to do this.
The local government system of the West German Federal Republic also
has variations in local powers and procedures among the provincial
governments (Lander), yet the overall independence of local governments
is considerable. The degree of independence does not match that in the
United States or Switzerland, however. The burgomaster (roughly
equivalent to a mayor) is a professional administrator and occupies a very
strong position in the local government; significantly, he is not only a local
official but a federal and state official as well, since the city performs
certain functions for the higher jurisdictions. The -supervision of local
government from higher echelons is also fairly rigorous, and this has
increased as the practice of the states delegating certain functions for
local performance has grown. It is perhaps suggestive of the
representativeness of German local government that a far higher
proportion of German respondents to an opinion survey indicated that they
believed they could do something about an unjust local law or regulation
than those who felt any competence to correct an unjust national law
(Almond & Verba 1963, p.185).
The vitality of local government in the federal-decentralized countries
varies both within and among countries. In the United States the role of
local government expanded greatly with the maturation of industrial society
in the first half of the twentieth century; protective, regulatory, welfare,
planning, economic promotion, cultural, and other activities were initiated
or expanded. But the extent of expansion varies greatly with the size of the

city, the area of the country, and even for adjacent cities. In the largest
cities, where the functional expansion has been greatest, the hugeness
and impersonal nature of the government probably make government
appear to impinge less on the lives of the citizens than it does in fact. In
smaller rural or suburban communities, local government ranges from the
moribund to the fairly vital. Like-wise in other nations the degree of vitality
and impact of government varies widely. In the Swiss communities where a
town-meeting style of government prevails, the sense of involvement and
the level of participation are high. The English-speaking Commonwealth
federal systems appear to have a range of variation in the vitality of local
government that compares generally with that in the United States.[see
Federalism.]
Unitarydecentralized systems
Great Britain and the Scandinavian countries are examples of nations with
unitary (that is, non-federal) governments which have a considerable
degree of decentralization of autonomous power to localities. Although in
all cases there is supervision by the central government, and although
localities can take only such actions as authorized by the central
government, local governments in these nations do have fairly wide
responsibilities and make independent decisions about them. The
independent status of the English city has a long history, as evidenced by
ancient royal charters of cities. The first charters were just agreements by
the king to recognize certain concessions that local leaders had bought or
bargained for, but in time the charters became regularized and the basis of
a considerable area of local discretion. As early as the fifteenth century
merchant guilds and borough councils originated the rudiments of local
self-government. Parliament remains the supreme source of local authority,
but the practice of permitting local prerogatives is so firmly established that
curtailment is always resisted and comes only after great deliberation.
Nevertheless, there has been a considerable diminution of local
independence since the nineteenth century. Although the functions of the
municipality have in some respects been enlarged with the coming of new
problems and public policies to meet them (for example, public housing),
an extension of the central governments concern for formerly purely local
matters has taken place simultaneously. Particularly in the fields where the
central government has provided a percentage of the cost of programs
through grants-in-aid, central government departments have greatly
extended their control over local decisions. Centrally established minimum
standards of performance have unquestionably raised the efficiency of
local government, but at the same time they have curtailed the
independence that once existed.
British local government is representative self-government. The local
council is directly elected, although the local executive is not. The mayor

(or chairman in certain local bodies) is chosen from among the council
members, but he is not the chief executive in the same way that an
American mayor is. The British mayor is more a ceremonial and presiding
official than an active executive leader, and to the extent that he is the
latter it is the result of his personal qualities or his political position. The
major operating element of the British local council is the committee
system, into which noncouncil members are co-opted as experts on
aspects of policy covered by the particular committee. Although the council
must ratify all committee actions before they are valid, the committees are
the active elements in the process rather than the council as a whole. The
town (or county) clerk also plays a significant role in local government in
his relationship to the committees. It is he who prepares information for the
committee and sets the agenda, but he is not a British parallel to the
American city manager, for he is not directly given the function of
overseeing administration. Traditionally clerks are not trained in
administrative management but in the law, although their apprenticeship in
local government necessarily emphasizes administrative matters, and as
the problems of local government become more complex it increasingly
falls to the clerk to provide expertise and to coordinate the diverse
elements of local government.
Since the early nineteenth century local governments in the Scandinavian
nations have been allowed a fair degree of autonomy. The list of powers
for local government is extensive, and while regional appointees of the
central government who are in some respects similar to the French prefect
oversee local operations, the actual supervision is not strict and does not
compare with that in nations with prefectoral systems. In Norway all
actions involving expenditures must be cleared with the provincial governor
before they can be carried out, which on the surface suggests that
Norwegian local government may be less autonomous than that of Britain.
In fact, however, Norwegian municipalities have somewhat more
discretion, since the supervision is not strict. Norwegian local government
is vital, has broad scope, and is a very important aspect of the nations
political-governmental system. Local government is a common recruiting
ground for higher political office, and local forms and practices have been
used as modes for creating regional institutions and practices. Denmark
also has close supervision of fiscal matters, but the check on local
government that this might imply is not apparently onerous. Local
government is democratic, has a fairly wide range of discretion, but is
somewhat less autonomous and vital than Norwegian local government. In
Sweden local government activities are divided between those that are
free of super-vision, except on legal challenge, and those that are
regulated. Generally speaking, the free functions are those concerned
with municipally provided utilities and cultural-recreational activities,

whereas the regulated ones include a long list of functions extending from
welfare services to town plan- ning, local courts, and school administration.
As in Norway and England there is extensive use of committees of the
council for conduct of business. Finlands local governments have
somewhat less discretionary authority and are subject to closer
supervision, but the general pattern appears to be not markedly different
from that in other Scandinavian nations.[see Parliamentary government.
Napoleonic-prefect systems
The peculiarity of this style of local government is that the central
government places in sub-regions of the nation an agent of the national
government to oversee, and if necessary to counter-mand, suspend, or
replace local governments. The system is a direct survivor of the ancient
institutions by which France attempted to create a centralized nation out of
a scattered system of feudal fiefs, small cities, and ecclesiastical domains.
The office of intendant, conceived by Richelieu in the early seventeenth
century, was a means of extending the kings authority into the hinterland,
where the thirty intendants were known as the thirty tyrants. Animosity
toward the office resulted in its dissolution in the French Revolution, but
Napoleon restored it as the office of prefect, and it still flourishes in France
today. In varying forms the office is commonly found in southern Europe
and in Latin America, just as British forms are found in English-speaking
nations.
In France the basic unit of local government is the commune, of which
there are some 38,000, and each is under the supervision of a prefect of a
departement (of which there are 90) or under the intermediate control of a
subprefect of an arrondissement (more than 300). (In some areas
superprefects also provide regional supervision.) The commune is typically
a small community, since most of France is rural, although cities are also
organized as communes. There is a high degree of local interest in
commune politics, and council elections are often heatedly contested. The
mayor, who is chosen from the ranks of the council, has a wide range of
executive authority; and although he is legally accountable to the council,
he nevertheless is a powerful political force in the municipality. Initiative in
fiscal matters and other policy issues is in the mayors hands. The mayor
and the council operate under the eye of the prefect or subprefect,
however; and all commune actions are subject to review by the prefect,
who may refuse to approve or may even dissolve the local council or
remove the mayor. There are, on the average, some three hundred
dissolutions per year, although a major cause of this is irreconcilable
disagreement within the council rather than conflict with the prefect.
It should not be assumed, however, that French local government is
actually controlled from Paris. Prefects and subprefects have a
considerable area of discretion, and they often find it wise to strike a

political balance between themselves and the mayors, who are not entirely
without weapons to deploy against a demanding prefect, for national
political forces are often just barely beneath the surface of local politics.
Many mayors are influential national political figures, and local politics is a
common basis for a political career. Despite this countervailing force
against centralization, local government in France remains far more
subordinate and dependent than in such countries as the United States
and England. Police and education, for example, are largely beyond local
control; fiscal controls and subventions are deployed by prefects to bring
commune policy in line. Interest and participation, however, run high in
France. A British observer, granting that in England local government had
more autonomy than it does in France, nevertheless found in France more
interest in local matters and more vitality in local government (Chapman
1953, p. 221).
In other Mediterranean countries and in Latin America, where the
prefectoral system prevails, there are many variations on the French
pattern. In Spain and Italy, for example, there is considerably more
centralization than in France. In Spain central government controls are
rigorously applied to the more than nine thousand municipalities; the
mayor is appointed by the central government, and he is the strongest
force in local affairs. Portugal has a similar system of central control. In
Italy the prefectoral system was a convenient device for extending the
powers of the fascist system into the hinterland, and interestingly one of
the consequences of the fascist interlude is that the prefect has greater
power today than in the prefascist era (Fried 1963, p. 261). Local councils
are popularly elected, but the mayor and the councils are well aware of the
power of the prefect, who uses his position not only to provide general
administrative supervision but to pursue political objectives as well such
as the curbing of the power of communists when they take over a local
government. In rural areas particularly, local government is not a vital or
popular institution; it is often considered by the people to be an element of
nature to be endured like drought or diseasenot something from which
benefits are likely to be derived.
In Latin America extensive supervision of local government by officials
similar to the prefect is common. In some countries the local mayor is
appointed by the central government, and in others he is elected, but his
actions and those of locally elective councils are subjected to extremely
close control by the central government. Brazil, with its federal system,
does not conform to this, however, and it has relatively little central or state
government oversight of the details of local government operations. An
essentially prefectoral system is also used in Japan, where, significantly, a
large measure of the authority of the supervising administrator lies in his
discretionary authority to grant subsidies to local government.

Communist systems
The local governmental systems of communist nations are, in general,
examples of deconcentratiori of authority rather than decentralization. That
is, the local governmental unit is an agency of the central government, and
it functions as an integral element of the hierarchical administrative system
of the state. The area of local independence is narrow and extends only to
minor matters, whereas control devices are extensive and are rigorously
applied. Local officials are well aware that their decisions must conform to
an overall design of higher authorities, and they know, too, that to divert
budget funds to other purposes without permission may mean dismissal or
even imprisonment. These systems are unique in that local governments
are given a role in economic activities infinitely more extensive than in
capitalist nations. Finally the discipline of the Communist party is a means
of controlling policy in detail. As a supplement to and a check on the
administrative system, the Communist party with its rigid discipline controls
the key positions in government. Indeed, the Communist partys roleis
remarkably similar to that of the classic American local government party
machine. Where a classic American machine acquired complete control,
the formal distribution of authority was unimportant; what mattered was the
internal discipline of the party through which decisions were made from the
top to the bottom of the government (McKean 1940). The critical difference
between the two situations is that the American boss system depends
upon local insularity to maintain control, whereas the communist system
utilizes the local party to carry out the program of the national party
leaders.
Local government in the Soviet Union is subject to very intensive control,
but the minute and stifling controls of the Stalin era are no longer used.
The ponderous apparatus needed for detailed Supervision of local
operations from Moscow became so expensive and inefficient that in the
1950s efforts were made to decentralize to a limited extent. In the 1930s
the rigidity of controls was such that a local bakerys request for a
supplemental flour allotment was passed to higher and higher authority
until it finally reached the desk of the premier, and he approved the request
himself (Granick 1960, p. 162). Documents captured by the Germans in
1941, in the town of Smolensk, also reveal the manner in which the party
was used to assert tight control by Moscow over local operations (Fainsod
1958).
The decentralizing tendencies of the 1950s and 1960s did not necessarily
increase the degree of local self-government. As before, the locality elects
large local Soviets in which there is much discussion of local affairs, but
apparently the decision-making power remains with the executive
committee of the soviet rather than with the soviet members themselves.
Local leaders are, however, permitted a wider range of discretion for which

ultimately they are held responsible to their superiors. Evidence that the
new policies did not involve a total change is the story in Pravda following
the departure of Khrushchev from power. Khrushchev favored reinforced
concrete blocks over bricks for construction and, as word of his attitude
filtered down the hierarchy, local managers shut down brickworks
regardless of local demand. Khrushchevs successors promised in Pravda
to grant to local Soviets power to decide all local issues; if this becomes a
reality it will involve an enormous change in the traditional balance of
political power in the U.S.S.R.[see COMMUNISM,article on SOVIET
COMMUNISM.]
The Chinese commune is a striking experiment in devising local institutions
to serve the purposes of a dedicated communist regime. The communes
are at once instruments of economic planning, educational and cultural
activity, and governmental control. In order to increase manpower, women
are freed from child care and household work through provision of
nurseries, common eating facilities, and service centers for clothing
repair and other household chores. Millions of Chinese eat in public mess
halls in both agricultural and urban communes. Local marginal industries
are organized and operated by the commune. It is claimed that more than
500 million Chinese were in communes in 1960, but this probably includes
many paper organizations. Nevertheless, the commune is potentially an
impressive device in its totality of involvement of the citizens life, the
opportunities it offers for political control through propaganda, police, and
tight party discipline, and its potential for economic production where man
power so greatly exceeds all other forms of capital. It is an attempt to
resolve Chinas age-old problem of balancing local initiative and central
controlthis time consistent with the requirements of an industrial
revolution under rigid totalitarian control.
Yugoslavia offers a significantly different kind of communist local
governmental system. Although the party and its discipline remain an
important control factor, it is evident that a great degree of decentralization
has been introduced. The Yugoslav commune has a bicameral council,
one house being a political body elected by area and the other concerned
with economic matters and representative of workers and farmers in their
respective work units. The economic chamber is somewhat less powerful
than the political one, since it acts on a more restricted range of issues; but
on all basic economic questions, including the budget, the two chambers
must agree. The central government has basic responsibility for the
economic growth of the nation, and it grants funds for economic
investment; yet the locality has some discretion about the form of
development it desires and relative independence in the conduct of local
enterprises once established. The municipal council sets basic standards
of operation for all municipal economic organizations, and it appoints their

managers; but the workers in the enterprises and their elected

representatives have control over some aspects of operations. In addition
to the workers councils, numerous other elected bodies deal with a broad
range of subjects from education to social security. Periodic meetings of all
voters who wish to participate allow for discussion of current questions,
and under certain circumstances a referendum is possible, although it has
been little used. In comparison with other communist systems, Yugoslavia
has a high degree of decentralization and vitality. Local discretion and self
government are, however, circumscribed by the existence of the party as a
guide for local action. Yugoslavian leaders stress the importance of local
self-government but at the same time emphasize the importance of the
Leninist principle of democratic centralism, which holds that minority
views should give way to strict party discipline when basic decisions have
been made. [see COMMUNISM,article on NATIONAL COMMUNISM.]
Postcolonial systems
The creation of new nations from former colonies involves varying degrees
of change in local government. In some cases the imposition of a strong
single-party political system subverts old patterns almost entirely; in others,
where adjustment more than revolutionary change has been the theme,
local government patterns have not altered drastically. The legacy of
colonialism is omnipresent, however much the new leaders strive for
complete breaks with the colonial past[see COLONIALISM]. The preexisting systems of local government, closely supervised by colonial
officials and native subordinate administrators, have often remained as the
general pattern of local-central government relationships. The terminology
and basic structures of the colonial local government system frequently
persist for reasons of habituation and convenience, if no other. Some
leaders of postcolonial nations do not have a simple alternative of returning
to a precolonial local governmentsystem, both because the colonial
powers undermined or abolished the old ways and because the old
systems were incapable of dealing with the conditions of Westernized and
modernized life. The original tribal and village systems or bureaucratized
empires of the past were appropriate to a rural, self-sufficient, and isolated
kind of social life or to conditions of minimal central control; but as these
nations become urbanized and begin to develop integrated economies, the
simple forms of the past are inappropriate. Although some of the ancient
forms of tribal ruler ship were allowed to continue by some colonial
powers, it was apparent to local residents that the real authority rested not
with the traditional chiefs and elders councils but with the administrators,
both native and colonial, who supervised local operations. Not the least
important of the remnants of colonialism, then, is the simple continuance of
the great authority of the outside supervisor; the creation of active local
democracy is difficult under any circumstances but the more so when

habits of central supervision are generations old.

Local government in these nations is beset by staggering social and
economic problems. In the first place, many of the cities of Asia and Africa
are not cities in the European sense; they lack the technology,
organization, resources, and slowly developed institutions of the Western
city and are often massive accumulations of squatters. Also, as new
regimes the central governments tend to be politically unstable.
Extraordinary poverty, severe difficulties associated with economic growth,
and chronic overcrowding in the cities all produce a range of problems not
faced in more modernized nations. For example, many Indian cities face a
serious problem in dealing with the tens of thousands who perforce must
sleep in the streets at night, and a common problem of the local Indian city
corporation is the prevalence of beggars who are organized into selfprotective groups to defend their rights. Interestingly, in certain African
cities the analogue of the American boss system seems to have
developed, where local politicians cater to ethnic minorities and attempt to
provide assistance to the city newcomers in exchange for voting support.
Remoteness of local communities where transportation is difficult means
that many parts of the postcolonial nations have a high degree of local
independence through defaultthe central government being unable to
assert its potential authority. A few Near Eastern nations have suffered for
long periods from a breakdown in local and national bureaucracy so that
local services are not rendered and a semianarchic confusion prevails.
Although modernization is gradually prevailing over traditionalism
throughout the postcolonial world, conflict between modernists and
traditionalists is endemic[see MODERNIZATION]. Tradition in religion and
in social organization is the enemy of rational bureaucratization and the
extension of power by the new political parties of the developing nations; it
is a battle between an old man in a gilded chair (the tribal chieftain) and a
young man in a swivel chair (Cowan 1958, p. vi). The virtual elimination of
the tribal chief as a man of authority, as in Ghana, is one pattern; whereas
the retention of chiefs as significant factors, as in parts of Uganda, is
another (Burke 1964). Where political parties are extremely powerful, for
example, in Tunisia and Ghana, the forces of traditionalism have been
hardest hitalthough traditional forms have a way of surviving, partly
because they tend to rest on kinship relations that are basic elements of
the social fabric. In Morocco, for example, orders from the central
government to establish local councils to direct local affairs meant that a
few dominant families selected their leaders as the new ruling body.
Likewise, commands by the Israeli government to resident Arab
communities to create local governing councils produced a council of
family elders based on kinship patterns.
There is much conscious effort in the postcolonial nations to improve the

quality of local government performance, but much of this involves

assertion of controls from above to get local action. In Pakistan, for
example, the central government in its Basic Democracies Order of 1959
established a system of local government for all of Pakistan and, outwardly
at least, encouraged the growth of local democracy. Yet the control of local
operations by the central government is very close, and one observer has
found that in a given area no less than 85 per cent of all issues on local
council agendas were put there by communications from the central
government (Rahman 1962, p. 31). Inevitably the patterns of local
governmental development in the postcolonial societies differ greatly, but
the needs for economic growth and the extension of new national power to
the hinterlands and in the rapidly growing cities have the tendency to
produce as much central control as the regime finds possible. As a general
rule the patterns are more like those of Richelieus France than of
Jeffersons United States.
The role of local government
Paradoxically, local government in the twentieth century seems to expand
the number of functions it performs at the same time that it faces
increasing central government supervision and a narrowing of its
independence. As the problems of large and complicated cities and
metropolitan areas grow, at least to the extent that financial means to cope
with the problems exist, the city has greatly extended its role. Cultural
activities expand simultaneously with programs on housing,
redevelopment, air pollution control, and the recruitment of business
enterprises. Many of the most dramatic and important of these functions
are financed in good part by grants-in-aid from higher level governments,
thereby decreasing local discretion at least to some extent. Also the
expansion occurs simultaneously with a narrowing of distances between
the central government and the municipality as the means of
communication develop and as areas once isolated economically and
politically become an integral part of a national economy and political
system. It is therefore sometimes difficult to say whether local governments
in a particular nation are now more or less significant agencies of
government than they were in a simpler age.
In the case of the smaller communities there is not much doubt that
increasing centralization has affected their range of discretion negatively.
although the capacity of a central government to control tends to dwindle
with distance for the simple reason that remoteness prevents control, the
growth of rapid communication tends to undercut this source of
independence. Likewise, smaller communities caught up in the sprawl of
metropolitan growth suddenly cease to be independent units and become
entangled in the complications of overall metropolitan areas. This leads to
the development of regional institutions that in some degree may supplant

or at least supplement local government, and it also tends to force local

officials into governing in part through negotiation with officials from higher
levels of government and with those of neighboring municipalities (Wood &
Almendinger 1961).
Finally, it is important to note that the role of the municipal executive has
grown greatly in the present century, owing to the same forces that have
heightened the role of the executive in national government. The
technological complexity of the problems being dealt with increases the
power of the bureaucracy; and the diversity and diffusion of modern life
also tend to lead to a stronger executive since, especially in larger cities,
the chief executive seems to be the only functionary capable of controlling
the bureaucracy, focusing public attention on key issues, and pressuring
the various actors on the city scene to respond to the challenges a city
faces.
Duane Lockard
[Directly related are the entries Centralization AND Decentralization;
City,especially the article on Metropolitan Government; Local Finance;
Local Politics.Other relevant material may be found under Community.]
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adrian, Charles r. (1955) 1961 Governing Urban America. 2d ed. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Alderfer, Harold f. 1964 Local Government in Developing Countries. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Almond, Gahriel a.; and Verba, Sidney 1963 The Civic Culture: Political
Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton Univ. Press.
Banfield, Edward c. (1961) 1965 Political Influence. New York: Free Press.
Burke, FRED G. 1964 Local Government and Politics in Uganda. Syracuse
Univ. Press.
Chapman, Brian laing 1953 Introduction to French Local Government.
London: Allen & Unwin.
Chapman, Brian laing 1955 The Prefects and Provincial France. London:
Allen & Unwin.
Cowan, L. GRAY 1958 Local Government in West Africa. New York:
Columbia Univ. Press.
Dahl, Robert a. (1961) 1963 Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an
American City. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.
Dillon, John f. (1872) 1911 Commentaries on the Law of Municipal
Corporations. 5 vols., 5th ed. Boston: Little.
Fainsod, Merle 1958 Smolensk Under Soviet Rule. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard Univ. Press. - A paper-back edition was published in 1963 by
Random House.
Finer, Herman (1933) 1950 English Local Government. 4th ed. London:
Methuen.

Fried, Robert c. 1963 The Italian Prefects: A Study in Administrative

Politics. Yale Studies in Political Science, Vol. 6. New Haven: Yale Univ.
Press.
Gottmann, Jean (1961)1964 Megalopolis: The Urbanized Northeastern
Seaboard of the United States. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Press.
Granick, D,avid 1960 The Red Executive. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.
Greer, Scott a. 1962 Governing the Metropolis. New York: Wiley.
Humes, Samuel; and Martin, EileenM. 1961 The Structure of Local
Governments Throughout the World. The Hague: Nijhoff.
Lethbridge, HenryJ. 1961 Chinas Urban Communes. Hong Kong:
Dragonfly Books.
Local Government in the Twentieth Century. International Union of Local
Authorities, Publication No. 72. 1963 The Hague: Nijhoff.
Lockard, Duane 1963 The Politics of State and Local Government. New
York: Macmillan.
Mckean, Dayton D. 1940 The Boss: The Hague Machine in Action. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
The Municipal Yearbook. 1963 Chicago: International City Managers
Association.
Presthus, Robert V. 1964 Men at the Top: A Study in Community Power.
New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Rahman, A. T. RAFIQUR 1962 Basic Democracy at the Grass Roots.
Comilla: Pakistan Academy for Village Development.
Rao, V. VENKATA 1960 A Hundred Years of Local Self-government and
Administration in the Andhra and Madras States 1850 to 1950. Bombay:
Local Self-government Institute.
Robson, William A. 1954 Great Cities of the World: Their Government,
Politics, and Planning. 2d ed., rev. & enl. London: Allen & Unwin.
Sayre, Wallace S.; and Kaufman, Herbert 1960 Governing New York City:
Politics in the Metropolis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Tinker, Hugh 1954 The Foundations of Local Self-government in India,
Pakistan and Burma. London: Ath-lone.
Vidich, Arthur J.; and Bensman, Joseph 1958 Small Town in Mass Society:
Class, Power and Religion in a Rural Community. Princeton Univ. Press.
Vratusa, Anton et al. 1961 The Yugoslav Commune.International Social
Science Journal 13:379450.
Wood, Robert C.; and Almendinger, Vladimir V. 1961 1400 Governments:
The Political Economy of the New York Metropolitan Region. New York
Metropolitan Region Study, No. 8. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.
Wraith, Ronald E. 1964 Local Government in West Africa. London: Allen &
Unwin.

Cite this article

Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.
"Local Government." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. 1968.
Encyclopedia.com. (January 20, 2015). http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G23045000726.html

Site Index
Main Page
General Information

What is Decentralization?
Theterm"decentralization"embracesavarietyofconceptswhich
mustbecarefullyanalyzedinanyparticularcountrybefore
determiningifprojectsorprogramsshouldsupportreorganizationof
financial,administrative,orservicedeliverysystems.
Decentralizationthetransferofauthorityandresponsibilityfor
publicfunctionsfromthecentralgovernmenttosubordinateor
quasiindependentgovernmentorganizationsand/ortheprivate
sectorisacomplexmultifacetedconcept.Differenttypesof
decentralizationshouldbedistinguishedbecausetheyhavedifferent
characteristics,policyimplications,andconditionsforsuccess.
Types of Decentralization
Typesofdecentralizationincludepolitical,administrative,fiscal,
andmarketdecentralization.Drawingdistinctionsbetweenthese
variousconceptsisusefulforhighlightingthemanydimensionsto
successfuldecentralizationandtheneedforcoordinationamong
them.Nevertheless,thereisclearlyoverlapindefininganyofthese
termsandtheprecisedefinitionsarenotasimportantastheneedfor
acomprehensiveapproach.Political,administrative,fiscaland
marketdecentralizationcanalsoappearindifferentformsand
combinationsacrosscountries,withincountriesandevenwithin
sectors.
Political Decentralization
Politicaldecentralizationaimstogivecitizensortheirelected

Autho

representativesmorepowerinpublicdecisionmaking.Itisoften
associatedwithpluralisticpoliticsandrepresentativegovernment,
butitcanalsosupportdemocratizationbygivingcitizens,ortheir
representatives,moreinfluenceintheformulationand
implementationofpolicies.Advocatesofpoliticaldecentralization
assumethatdecisionsmadewithgreaterparticipationwillbebetter
informedandmorerelevanttodiverseinterestsinsocietythanthose
madeonlybynationalpoliticalauthorities.Theconceptimpliesthat
theselectionofrepresentativesfromlocalelectoraljurisdictions
allowscitizenstoknowbettertheirpoliticalrepresentativesand
allowselectedofficialstoknowbettertheneedsanddesiresoftheir
constituents.
Politicaldecentralizationoftenrequiresconstitutionalorstatutory
reforms,thedevelopmentofpluralisticpoliticalparties,the
strengtheningoflegislatures,creationoflocalpoliticalunits,andthe
encouragementofeffectivepublicinterestgroups.
Administrative Decentralization
Administrativedecentralizationseekstoredistributeauthority,
responsibilityandfinancialresourcesforprovidingpublicservices
amongdifferentlevelsofgovernment.Itisthetransferof
responsibilityfortheplanning,financingandmanagementof
certainpublicfunctionsfromthecentralgovernmentandits
agenciestofieldunitsofgovernmentagencies,subordinateunitsor
levelsofgovernment,semiautonomouspublicauthoritiesor
corporations,orareawide,regionalorfunctionalauthorities.
Thethreemajorformsofadministrativedecentralization
deconcentration,delegation,anddevolutioneachhavedifferent
characteristics.
Deconcentration.Deconcentrationwhichisoftenconsideredtobe
theweakestformofdecentralizationandisusedmostfrequentlyin
unitarystatesredistributesdecisionmakingauthorityandfinancial

andmanagementresponsibilitiesamongdifferentlevelsofthe
centralgovernment.Itcanmerelyshiftresponsibilitiesfromcentral
governmentofficialsinthecapitalcitytothoseworkinginregions,
provincesordistricts,oritcancreatestrongfieldadministrationor
localadministrativecapacityunderthesupervisionofcentral
governmentministries.
Delegation.Delegationisamoreextensiveformofdecentralization.
Throughdelegationcentralgovernmentstransferresponsibilityfor
decisionmakingandadministrationofpublicfunctionstosemi
autonomousorganizationsnotwhollycontrolledbythecentral
government,butultimatelyaccountabletoit.Governmentsdelegate
responsibilitieswhentheycreatepublicenterprisesorcorporations,
housingauthorities,transportationauthorities,specialservice
districts,semiautonomousschooldistricts,regionaldevelopment
corporations,orspecialprojectimplementationunits.Usuallythese
organizationshaveagreatdealofdiscretionindecisionmaking.
Theymaybeexemptfromconstraintsonregularcivilservice
personnelandmaybeabletochargeusersdirectlyforservices.
Devolution.Athirdtypeofadministrativedecentralizationis
devolution.Whengovernmentsdevolvefunctions,theytransfer
authorityfordecisionmaking,finance,andmanagementtoquasi
autonomousunitsoflocalgovernmentwithcorporatestatus.
Devolutionusuallytransfersresponsibilitiesforservicesto
municipalitiesthatelecttheirownmayorsandcouncils,raisetheir
ownrevenues,andhaveindependentauthoritytomakeinvestment
decisions.Inadevolvedsystem,localgovernmentshaveclearand
legallyrecognizedgeographicalboundariesoverwhichtheyexercise
authorityandwithinwhichtheyperformpublicfunctions.Itisthis
typeofadministrativedecentralizationthatunderliesmostpolitical
decentralization.
Fiscal Decentralization
Financialresponsibilityisacorecomponentofdecentralization.If
localgovernmentsandprivateorganizationsaretocarryout

decentralizedfunctionseffectively,theymusthaveanadequatelevel
ofrevenueseitherraisedlocallyortransferredfromthecentral
governmentaswellastheauthoritytomakedecisionsabout
expenditures.Fiscaldecentralizationcantakemanyforms,including
a)selffinancingorcostrecoverythroughusercharges,b)co
financingorcoproductionarrangementsthroughwhichtheusers
participateinprovidingservicesandinfrastructurethroughmonetary
orlaborcontributions;c)expansionoflocalrevenuesthrough
propertyorsalestaxes,orindirectcharges;d)intergovernmental
transfersthatshiftgeneralrevenuesfromtaxescollectedbythe
centralgovernmenttolocalgovernmentsforgeneralorspecific
uses;ande)authorizationofmunicipalborrowingandthe
mobilizationofeithernationalorlocalgovernmentresources
throughloanguarantees.Inmanydevelopingcountrieslocal
governmentsoradministrativeunitspossessthelegalauthorityto
imposetaxes,butthetaxbaseissoweakandthedependenceon
centralgovernmentsubsidiessoingrainedthatnoattemptismadeto
exercisethatauthority.
EconomicorMarketDecentralization
Themostcompleteformsofdecentralizationfromagovernment's
perspectiveareprivatizationandderegulationbecausetheyshift
responsibilityforfunctionsfromthepublictotheprivatesector.
Privatizationandderegulationareusually,butnotalways,
accompaniedbyeconomicliberalizationandmarketdevelopment
policies.Theyallowfunctionsthathadbeenprimarilyorexclusively
theresponsibilityofgovernmenttobecarriedoutbybusinesses,
communitygroups,cooperatives,privatevoluntaryassociations,and
othernongovernmentorganizations.
Privatization.Privatizationcanrangeinscopefromleavingthe
provisionofgoodsandservicesentirelytothefreeoperationofthe
marketto"publicprivatepartnerships"inwhichgovernmentandthe
privatesectorcooperatetoprovideservicesorinfrastructure.
Privatizationcaninclude:1)allowingprivateenterprisestoperform

functionsthathadpreviouslybeenmonopolizedbygovernment;2)
contractingouttheprovisionormanagementofpublicservicesor
facilitiestocommercialenterprisesindeed,thereisawiderangeof
possiblewaysinwhichfunctioncanbeorganizedandmany
examplesofwithinpublicsectorandpublicprivateinstitutional
forms,particularlyininfrastructure;3)financingpublicsector
programsthroughthecapitalmarket(withadequateregulationor
measurestopreventsituationswherethecentralgovernmentbears
theriskforthisborrowing)andallowingprivateorganizationsto
participate;and4)transferringresponsibilityforprovidingservices
fromthepublictotheprivatesectorthroughthedivestitureofstate
ownedenterprises.
Deregulation.Deregulationreducesthelegalconstraintsonprivate
participationinserviceprovisionorallowscompetitionamong
privatesuppliersforservicesthatinthepasthadbeenprovidedby
thegovernmentorbyregulatedmonopolies.Inrecentyears
privatizationandderegulationhavebecomemoreattractive
alternativestogovernmentsindevelopingcountries.Local
governmentsarealsoprivatizingbycontractingoutservice
provisionoradministration.
Choosing the Most Appropriate Form of Decentralization
Underappropriateconditions,alloftheseformsofdecentralization
canplayimportantrolesinbroadeningparticipationinpolitical,
economicandsocialactivitiesindevelopingcountries.Whereit
workseffectively,decentralizationhelpsalleviatethebottlenecksin
decisionmakingthatareoftencausedbycentralgovernment
planningandcontrolofimportanteconomicandsocialactivities.
Decentralizationcanhelpcutcomplexbureaucraticproceduresand
itcanincreasegovernmentofficials'sensitivitytolocalconditions
andneeds.Moreover,decentralizationcanhelpnationalgovernment
ministriesreachlargernumbersoflocalareaswithservices;allow
greaterpoliticalrepresentationfordiversepolitical,ethnic,religious,
andculturalgroupsindecisionmaking;andrelievetopmanagersin

centralministriesof"routine"taskstoconcentrateonpolicy.In
somecountries,decentralizationmaycreateageographicalfocusat
thelocallevelforcoordinatingnational,state,provincial,district,
andlocalprogramsmoreeffectivelyandcanprovidebetter
opportunitiesforparticipationbylocalresidentsindecisionmaking.
Decentralizationmayleadtomorecreative,innovativeand
responsiveprogramsbyallowinglocal"experimentation."Itcanalso
increasepoliticalstabilityandnationalunitybyallowingcitizensto
bettercontrolpublicprogramsatthelocallevel.
Butdecentralizationisnotapanacea,anditdoeshavepotential
disadvantages.Decentralizationmaynotalwaysbeefficient,
especiallyforstandardized,routine,networkbasedservices.Itcan
resultinthelossofeconomiesofscaleandcontroloverscarce
financialresourcesbythecentralgovernment.Weakadministrative
ortechnicalcapacityatlocallevelsmayresultinservicesbeing
deliveredlessefficientlyandeffectivelyinsomeareasofthe
country.Administrativeresponsibilitiesmaybetransferredtolocal
levelswithoutadequatefinancialresourcesandmakeequitable
distributionorprovisionofservicesmoredifficult.Decentralization
cansometimesmakecoordinationofnationalpoliciesmorecomplex
andmayallowfunctionstobecapturedbylocalelites.Also,distrust
betweenpublicandprivatesectorsmayunderminecooperationat
thelocallevel.
Projectandprogramplannersmustbeabletoassessthestrengths
andweaknessesofpublicandprivatesectororganizationsin
performingdifferenttypesoffunctions.Beforedevelopingelaborate
plansfordecentralization,theymustassessthelowestorganizational
levelofgovernmentatwhichfunctionscanbecarriedoutefficiently
andeffectivelyandforfunctionsthatdonothavetobeprovided
bygovernmentthemostappropriateformsofprivatization.Even
programplannerswhodonotseedecentralizationastheirprimary
motivemustcarefullyanalyzethetypesofdecentralizationalready
presentinacountryinordertotailorpolicyplanstoexisting

structures.
Centralizationanddecentralizationarenot"eitheror"conditions.In
mostcountriesanappropriatebalanceofcentralizationand
decentralizationisessentialtotheeffectiveandefficientfunctioning
ofgovernment.Notallfunctionscanorshouldbefinancedand
managedinadecentralizedfashion.Evenwhennational
governmentsdecentralizeresponsibilities,theyoftenretain
importantpolicyandsupervisoryroles.Theymustcreateormaintain
the"enablingconditions"thatallowlocalunitsofadministrationor
nongovernmentorganizationstotakeonmoreresponsibilities.
Centralministriesoftenhavecrucialrolesinpromotingand
sustainingdecentralizationbydevelopingappropriateandeffective
nationalpoliciesandregulationsfordecentralizationand
strengtheninglocalinstitutionalcapacitytoassumeresponsibilityfor
newfunctions.Thesuccessofdecentralizationfrequentlydepends
heavilyontrainingforbothnationalandlocalofficialsin
decentralizedadministration.Technicalassistanceisoftenrequired
forlocalgovernments,privateenterprisesandlocalnon
governmentalgroupsintheplanning,financing,andmanagementof
decentralizedfunctions.