The Measurement of Decentralisation
| Date | 01 September 1979 |
| Author | Brian C. Smith |
| Published date | 01 September 1979 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002085237904500302 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
The
Measurement
of
Decentralisation
UDC
35.072.1
by
Brian
C.
SMITH,
University
of
Bath
INTRODUCTION
This
paper
is
concerned
with
one
way
of
analysing
decentralisation
within
the
con-
temporary
nation
state.
It
is
based
on
the
assumption
that
decentralisation
is
a
variable
and
that
the
effects
of
greater
or
less
decentral-
isation
need
to
be
identified
and
evaluated.
As a
preliminary
to
such
evaluation
it
is
necessary
to
devise
some
method
of
measuring
decentralisation
to
sub-national
areas :
regions,
provinces,
districts
or
localities.
What
is
in-
volved
in
saying
that
one
area
has
more
authority
delegated
to
it
than
another,
or
that
one
system
of
government
is
more
decentralised
than
another?
VARYING
DECENTALISATION
In
view
of
the
conflicting
reactions
which
are
produced
to
decentralisation
it
makes
sense
to
look
for
a
way
of
investigating
more
system-
atically
the
relationship
between
decentralisa-
tion
and
its
effects
on
political
life
and
public
policy.
We
need
to
ask
not
only
why
some
states
are
more
decentralised
than
others
but
also
what
the
political
and
administrative
con-
sequences
of
such
variations
are.
This
is
as
important
for
a
country
with
a
long
established
system
of
local
administration
as
it
is
for
new
states
faced
with
an
opportunity
to
create
new
systems
of
decentralisation
more
or
less
from
scratch.
Too
often
technical
advice
on
this
topic
to
developing
countries
consists
of
listing
all
the
alternative
arrangements
for
organising
the
state
at
the
local
level
as
if
they
are
all
value-neutral
and
equally
relevant
to
whatever
political
system
might
be
considering
them.
Comparative
analysis
of
variations
in
decentral-
isation
is
urgently
needed
(1).
Decentralisation
is
after
all
an
intrinsically
variable
process
within
an
administrative
sys-
tem.
It
is
not
unusual
to
compare
sys-
tems
of
local
administration
in
terms
of
de-
centralisation.
For
example,
it
is
said
that
British
local
government
has
become
less
auto-
nomous
as
a
consequence
of
the
1972
re-
organisation
(2).
It
is
usually
assumed
that
&dquo; the
balance
of
power
has
shifted&dquo;
in
the
UK
since
1945
and
that &dquo; the
centralising
for-
ces
have
tended
to
outweigh
the
others
in
determining
the
balance
of
power
between
central
and
local
government &dquo;
(3).
In
Scot-
land
the
&dquo; drift
towards
centralisation
&dquo;
is
said
to
have
been
even
more
marked
than
in
England
and
Wales.
There
is
great
variation
in
the
degree
of
autonomy
granted
to
local
government
among
European
countries.
Spain
and
Portugal
have
relatively
little
local
auto-
nomy.
Belgium
is
more
decentralised
than
France
but
less
than
Switzerland
(4).
Switzer-
land
is
more
decentralised
than
West
Germany
which
in
turn
is
more
decentralised
than
Austria
(5).
United
States
local
government
is
said
to
be
more
decentralised
than
English,
(6)
while
within the
USA
there
has
been
a
central-
izing
trend
in
state-local
relations.
The
south-
ern
states
are
characterized
as
highly
cen1ral-
ized
while
those
in
New
England
are
said
to
delegate
much
more
to
local
governments.
Most
states
are
thought
to
be
moving
from
less
to
more
centralised
positions
on
the
con-
tinuum
(7).
THE
MEASUREMENT
OF
DECENTRALISATION
If
we
wish
to
evaluate
the
political
and
administrative
consequences
of
more
or
less
decentralisation
we
need
to
recognise
that
we
(1)
M.
Aiken,
"
Comparative
cross-national
re-
search
on
sub-national
units
in
Western
Europe :
prob-
lems,
data
sources
and
a
proposal
",
Journal
of
Com-
parative
Administration,
vol.
4,
No.
4,
1973,
pp.
444.
(2)
L.J.
Sharpe,
" Reforming
the
grass
roots :
an
alternative
analyses "
in
D.
Butler
(ed.),
Politics,
Ad-
ministration
and
Policy,
Macmillan,
1978.
(3)
Committee
of
Inquiry
into
Local
Government
Finance
(the
Layfield
Committee)
Report,
HMSO,
1976,
p.
65.
(4)
Aiken,
op.
cit.,
p.
443.
(5)
R.C.
Fried,
"
Politics,
Economics
and
Federal-
ism :
Aspects
of
Urban
government
in
Austria,
Ger-
many
and
Switzerland "
in
T.N.
Clark
(ed.),
Com-
parative
Community
Politics,
Sage
Publications,
1973,
p. 315.
(6)
K.
Newton,
"
Community
décision
makers
and
community
décision
making
in
England
and
the
United
States
"
in
Clark,
ibid.
(7)
J.G.
Grumm
and
R.D.
Murphy,
"
Dillon’s
Rule
Reconsidered
",
Annals
of
the
American
Academy
of
Political
and
Social
Science,
vol.
36,
Feb.
1974,
pp.
45-
46.
To continue reading
Request your trial