Territorial Politics and Equality: Decentralization in the Modern State
| Published date | 01 March 1979 |
| Date | 01 March 1979 |
| Author | Douglas E. Ashford |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9248.1979.tb01188.x |
| Subject Matter | Article |
TERRITORIAL POLITICS AND
EQUALITY
:
DECENTRALIZATION IN
THE MODERN STATE
DOUGLAS
E.
ASHFORD
Cornell University
Abstracf.
The growth of the public sector over the past
two
decades has not eliminated the
importance of local government, and may have actually increased conflict over policies
affecting
local
government. To understand these changes a more articulated concept
of
centralization is needed which can encompass the reciprocal ‘relationships
of
various levels
of
government, and which takes into account their shared claim on national revenues. Using
national accounting data, the effect of the growth of public spending from
1963
to
1973
is
compared with the relative share allotted
to
local
government in five countries. These trends
in the distribution
of
resources are then compared with the fiscal and financial policies
affecting each
local
government system. The conclusion is that the alternative ways that
countries chose to provide resources to the local level may be a better way of gauging relative
degrees of centralization over time than the more commonly used absolute measures.
CONTRARY
to the expectations of many scholars, the development
of
the
modern democratic state has not diminished conflict between territorial
jurisdictions and policy formation by central government. Why we expected
that allocation of benefits and resources would be simplified rather than
complicated as the state expanded its role is mysterious. The dilemma has
always existed and is deeply rooted in the values
of
Western democracies.
Liberal democratic theory argued from its earliest forms that the territorial
subdivisions
of
the state enhanced political participation and protected citizens
against arbitrary government.2 Strong local government was consistent with
liberal economic thought. The small governments were presumably able to
respond readily to changing needs and preferences at the local level.
The point
of
departure for this essay is that the growth
of
the public sector
There are now a number
of
works linking the territorial choice to policy problems of the
modern state. The neo-Marxist view is put forward by J. O’Connor,
The Fiscal Crisis
of
the State
(New
York,
St. Martin’s Press,
1973).
especially Chs.
7
and
8;
also D. Harvey,
Social Justice and
rhe
Cify
(Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press,
1973).
The more standard view is held by
G.
Ionescu,
Cenrripetal Politics
(London, Hart-Davies, MacGibbon,
1975),
and
R.
Dahl and
E.
Tufte,
Size and Democracy
(Stanford, Stanford University Press,
1973).
For a fascinating
reformulation in terms of the types
of
goods
delivered in the modern state, see F. Hirsch,
Social
Limits
ro
Growth
(Harvard, Harvard University Press,
1976).
*
The most articulate advocate was surely Tocqueville. For some recent commentaries see M.
Reagen,
The New Federalism
(New York, Oxford University Press,
1972);
M. Derthick,
Befween
Sfare and Nation
(Washington, Brookings Institution,
1974);
D. Elazar,
American Federalism: A
View /rom the Stares
(New
York,
Crowell,
1972);
S.
Beer, ‘The Modernization of American
Federalism’,
Pu6lius.
4 (1974), 49-95.
On France see
R.
Nelson, ‘The Federal Idea in French
Political Thought,’
Publius,
5
(1975), 742;
and
S.
Hoffman, ‘An Area Division
of
Powers in the
Writings
of
French Political Thinkers,’ in A. Maas (ed.),
Area and Power
(New York, Free Press,
1959).
pp.
1
1349.
Political
Studies,
Vol.
XXVII,
No.
1
(71-83)
To continue reading
Request your trial