Running the State, Making Policy and Policing the Constitution

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Running the State, Making Policy and Policing the Constitution Chapter 3 From government to governance – running the state, making policy and policing the constitution Passing power downwards – n Chapter 2, we looked at challenges to the supposed integrity and decentralization 78 impermeability of the traditional European nation state. We discovered that the latter was under pressure from both within and without. Not ‘More control over less’ – I central government every country was affected by minority nationalism, but all had conceded reform 85 important powers to the EU, not least in the economic and legal domains. Those worried by such developments can perhaps derive some comfort Policy making – sectors and styles 93 from the fact that, notwithstanding such concessions, each country still retains its unique constitution. This formal legal framework sets out the The booming third branch rules of the game for politicians, citizens and the institutions by which they of government – the judicialization of politics 100 govern and are governed. As well as defining the rights (and sometimes the duties) of the citizen, the fundamental feature of most constitutions is a so- called ‘separation of powers’ between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary (see Box 3.1). This chapter focuses primarily on the bureaucratic side and the policy making of the second of the ‘three branches’, the executive. This is the body that traditionally ‘runs the country’ or ‘governs’, albeit under the supposed direction of democratically elected politicians who form the government of the day and who are themselves meant to be under the watchful eye of par- liament (see Chapter 4). But this chapter also considers the increasing importance of the third branch – the judiciary and the courts. It has two main themes. The first is that, once again, we see some com- monalities, but also the persistence of national differences. The second main theme is that governing in Europe, inasmuch as it was ever easy, is not as easy – or as easy to describe – as it used to be. As with the nation state, the scope, and even the size, of the executive is everywhere questioned. Authority, even where it is accepted, is more diffuse or spread out. What we used to talk of simply as government, it seems, is giving way to what is now termed governance (see Peters and Pierre, 2000). The former conjures up an image of institutions run by or on behalf of the state delivering, in more or less top-down fashion, those public goods which citizens (and the groups we examine in Chapter 8) are presumed to need. The latter implies a more complex process by which executive institutions – public and private, central and local – combine more or less smoothly to deal with the demands of increasingly less deferential individuals and interests. In short, ‘[the] top- down use of authority which characterizes government has given way to persuasion, incentivization and other forms of mobilization characteristic of networks’ (Page and Wright, 2006: 4). It is this development, when com- bined with the growing impact of the EU, that has led political scientists to talk of the spread throughout Europe of the multilevel governance we defined in the Introduction – namely, the dispersal of power, a multiplica- 78 | European Politics gained in strength, via measures to improve coordi- BOX 3.1 nation between a formerly more fragmented bureaucratic machine. Have recent developments Separation of powers such as the establishment of arm’s-length ‘agencies’ (running things on behalf of government but not run The political philosopher Charles de Secondat, by government) helped to ‘hollow out’ the state Baron de la Brede et de Montesquieu (Rhodes, 1997) to a degree that undermines one of (1689–1755), known to us simply as Montesquieu, the key branches of government? Or have they published his On the Spirit of Laws in 1748. In it, simply allowed it ‘more control over less’? The he famously argued that the ‘checks and balances’ chapter then goes on to show how the authority of required to safeguard a country against tyranny the executive (and possibly parliament) is now con- were best embodied in the ‘separation of powers’ strained by the activism of the judiciary to such an between the following ‘three branches of govern- extent that we should perhaps see the latter, too, as a ment’. These were a legislature to pass laws and part of the multilevel governance emerging across agree taxation, an executive to administer those the continent. laws and take decisions where appropriate and a judiciary to broker disputes. In his time, Montesquieu believed that this division of labour Passing power downwards – was best exemplified by England. Since then it has become better entrenched – albeit with a rather decentralization more active executive than Montesquieu may have envisaged – in the USA. It also helps structure pol- In Chapter 2, we referred to the classical distinction itics in Continental Europe, and is an important between unitary and federal states (see Elazar, 1997) part of an ideal that emerged in German constitu- and noted that it was breaking down as some former tional theory but spread throughout the continent unitary states moved toward federalism. This move – namely, the Rechtsstaat, a state whose acts must between classical categories, however, has been made conform with laws enshrining fundamental rights. only by the handful of countries we discussed in Chapter 2 – namely, Belgium, Spain, the UK and (possibly) Italy. Apart from Germany, Austria and tion of sites of authority and policy competence, and Switzerland, all the others remain unitary states: no a mixture of cooperation and contestation between CEE state chose to become a federation or to stay in tiers of government that would formerly have been one. Yet that binary distinction between unitary and considered separate and hierarchically ordered. federal has always been as much analytical as real. In This chapter begins by looking at how and why ‘unitary’ Scandinavia (especially Denmark) local power has allegedly passed downward toward lower government has long collected (relative to other levels or tiers of government – a process often non-federal states) a large proportion of state rev- labelled ‘decentralization’ or, more specifically, enues (see Table 3.1). It has also been quite a big ‘devolution’ (see Chapter 2) or ‘regionalization’. It spender and runner of services, all of which has then returns to the topmost level – to the so-called allowed room for regional variation. And even core executive. It explores whether (and if so why) outside Scandinavia, local authorities in Europe are the core executive has shrunk, yet also possibly responsible for a raft of things that in some coun- tries would be the preserve of central government The core executive is a label given by political scien- (or private companies). These include public tists to the heart of government. It comprises both housing, public utilities, welfare and health. the political part of the executive – normally Cabinet Consequently, even if they do not collect much of and Prime Minister – and its bureaucratic support, as their country’s revenue, they account for quite a well as key civil servants from the most important departments, ministries and intelligence chiefs. The high proportion of its spending (Table 3.2). core executive normally operates out of the national Spain, as we saw in Chapter 2, is not a ‘normal’ capital. federal country, but even the supposedly more con- ventionally federal Switzerland and Germany are by From government to governance | 79 Table 3.1 The central/regional/local split of taxation, 2000 and 2009 2000 (%) 2009 (%) Central Regional Local Central Regional Local Spain 48.7 7.8 9.1 29.0 22.1 9.4 Germany 28.4 22.7 7.0 30.3 21.2 7.6 France 42.1 0.0 9.7 32.9 0.0 12.5 Poland 51.8 0.0 9.1 50.7 0.0 13.2 Italy 55.6 0.0 14.4 53.2 0.0 14.1 Sweden 60.6 0.0 28.9 57.6 0.0 35.6 EU-27 average 60.4 15.2 10.4 58.0 20.1 10.7 Netherlands 55.9 0.0 3.4 59.2 0.0 3.7 Czech Rep. 75.9 0.0 12.0 68.4 0.0 14.2 UK 94.3 0.0 4.0 94.0 0.0 5.2 Note: The remainder of taxes are taken by social security funds. Source: Data from Eurostat, Taxation Trends in the EU, 2011. Table 3.2 The central/regional/local split of spending, 2000 and 2009 2000 (%) 2009 (%) Central State/Region Local Central State/Region Local USA 48.4 51.6 0.0 53.5 46.5 0.0 Switzerland 20.1 31.7 20.9 14.0 36.9 19.1 Spain 25.8 28.3 12.6 20.8 35.7 13.7 Germany 14.2 23.6 15.5 19.2 21.0 15.7 Netherlands 31.3 0.0 35.4 30.5 0.0 34.0 Italy 34.2 0.0 30.0 31.9 0.0 31.1 Poland 41.3 0.0 24.1 33.0 0.0 32.5 France 38.1 0.0 18.3 34.0 0.0 20.7 Sweden 45.8 0.0 43.0 39.6 0.0 47.5 Czech Rep. 64.6 0.0 22.8 59.7 0.0 27.0 UK 71.6 0.0 28.4 72.3 0.0 27.7 Note: Remaining expenditure is accounted for by social security funds. Source: Data from OECD, Government at a Glance 2011. 80 | European Politics BOX 3.2 Alpine exceptionalism – the Swiss confederation Each of the 26 cantons that make up the Confoederatio Helvetica (CH), or Switzerland, is linguistically homogeneous.
Recommended publications
  • LOCAL GOVERNMENT Reform in KĀPITI – What Do You Think? 1
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM IN KĀPITI – WHAT DO YOU THINK? 1 LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM IN KĀPITI – WhaT DO YOU THINK? kapiticoast.govt.nz/reform 2 LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM IN KĀPITI – WHAT DO YOU THINK? WE WANT TO HEAR FROM AS MANY RESIDENTS AS POSSIBLE LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM IN KĀPITI – WHAT DO YOU THINK? 3 Introduction This discussion document has been released by the Kāpiti Coast District Council to help find out how residents want their district to be governed in the future. This document seeks to stimulate discussion and identify whether you want changes to how local government operates in Kāpiti and what you broadly want that change to look like. There are many ways that local government is affected in one way or another by the could be structured in the wider area. However services provided by local government, we in order to have a reasonably focussed debate have described the four options at a fairly high we have identified four options that represent level, without too much detail. We have also different degrees of change. Option 1 contains 2 consciously decided not to express either a sub-options. There is the opportunity for you to preferred option or any views on the advantages discuss other options if you choose. and disadvantages of each option – we are asking the public to do that for us at this stage. Our four options range from keeping the current councils in place but making formal It is not our role to tell other parts of the region arrangements to share services across councils how they should be governed.
    [Show full text]
  • Brief-To-Advise-Frome-Town-Council-In-The-Run-Up-To-And-Establishment-Of-Unitary-Authority.Pdf
    Unitary Adviser Brief Frame Town Council Brief to advise Frame Town Council in the run up to and establishment of unitary authority(ies) in Somerset 1. Scope Frame Town Council is recognised locally, nationally and internationally as a forward thinking and innovative Council. We are renowned for exploring how to expand the remit of town councils. Somerset is about to embark on local government reorganisation. The county council and the district councils will be replaced with one or two unitary councils in April 2023. FTC sees this as an opportunity to change the way local government in Somerset works towards a more community led approach where decisions are made at the appropriate level and with the appropriate engagement. Influencing how the new unitary is established and developed is a key project for the Council. We want to appoint an experienced advisor or small consultancy to work with FTC Cllrs and staff and other relevant organisations in and beyond Fro me. This work is likely to last at least until September or October 2021 and we anticipate 2 to 3 working days per week. We will be interested in someone who understands local government, has worked at a senior level in relevant organisations, who understands large scale change programmes and ideally also has recent experience of local government reorganisation. The ability to build excellent working relationships at all levels of local government and business will be essential. With other Somerset based parish sector organisations, FTC commissioned a report (here) last year which explores the possibilities of reorganisation. Its seven recommendations have been accepted by both proposals presented to the Government: One Somerset (here) promoted by the County Council, and Stronger Somerset (here) promoted by the four district Councils.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Government Collaboration in Surrey
    WAVERLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL COUNCIL 23 FEBRUARY 2021 Title: Local Government Collaboration in Surrey Portfolio Holder: Cllr J Ward, Leader Senior Officer: T Horwood, Chief Executive Key decision: No Access: Public 1. Purpose and summary 1.1 The purpose of this report is to update the Council on progress on local government collaboration since the Council and Executive discussions of 22 July and 8 September 2020 respectively, and to allow Council to debate opportunities for future collaboration among local authorities in the light of the KPMG report, and this report. 2. Recommendation The Executive has: 1. Noted the KPMG report on future opportunities for local government in Surrey; 2. Endorsed the development of an initial options appraisal for collaboration with Guildford Borough Council; and 3. Allocated the remaining £15,000 budget previously approved for “a unitary council proposal” to “exploring collaboration opportunities with other councils”. The Executive recommend to the Council that it debate opportunities for future collaboration among local authorities in the light of the KPMG report and this report. 3. Reason for the recommendation 3.1 This report updates councillors and the public on the progress made in the discussions on local government reorganisation and collaboration in Surrey. 3.2 At Executive meetings in 2020, £30,000 was allocated “to support preparatory work for a unitary council proposal”. It is now recommended to allocate the remaining £15,000 to support the development of proposals for council collaboration, to be reported back to the Executive in due course. 4. Background context 4.1 A detailed update was provided to the Executive at its meeting on 8 September 2020,1 and is summarised as follows.
    [Show full text]
  • IPPR | Empowering Counties: Unlocking County Devolution Deals ABOUT the AUTHORS
    REPORT EMPOWERING COUNTIES UNLOCKING COUNTY DEVOLUTION DEALS Ed Cox and Jack Hunter November 2015 © IPPR 2015 Institute for Public Policy Research ABOUT IPPR IPPR, the Institute for Public Policy Research, is the UK’s leading progressive thinktank. We are an independent charitable organisation with more than 40 staff members, paid interns and visiting fellows. Our main office is in London, with IPPR North, IPPR’s dedicated thinktank for the North of England, operating out of offices in Newcastle and Manchester. The purpose of our work is to conduct and publish the results of research into and promote public education in the economic, social and political sciences, and in science and technology, including the effect of moral, social, political and scientific factors on public policy and on the living standards of all sections of the community. IPPR 4th Floor 14 Buckingham Street London WC2N 6DF T: +44 (0)20 7470 6100 E: [email protected] www.ippr.org Registered charity no. 800065 This paper was first published in November 2015. © 2015 The contents and opinions in this paper are the authors ’ only. POSITIVE IDEAS for CHANGE CONTENTS Summary ............................................................................................................3 1. Devolution unleashed .....................................................................................9 2. Why devolve to counties? ............................................................................11 2.1 Counties and their economic opportunities ...................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Local Government Reorganisation in Nottinghamshire?: Report of Public
    Opinion Research Services | Dorset CCG – Improving Dorset’s Healthcare Consultation 2016/17: Report of Findings May 2017 Loc al Government Reorganisation in Nottinghamshire? Final Report Report of Public and Stakeholder Engagement Opinion Research Services December 2018 Opinion Research Services | The Strand • Swansea • SA1 1AF | 01792 535300 | www.ors.org.uk | [email protected] Opinion Research Services | Nottinghamshire Reorganisation Report – December 2018 Local Government Reorganisation in Nottinghamshire? Report of Public and Stakeholder Engagement December 2018 Opinion Research Services (ORS) The Strand Swansea SA1 1AF 01792 535300 | www.ors.org.uk | [email protected] As with all our studies, findings from this report are subject to Opinion Research Services’ Standard Terms and Conditions of Contract. Any press release or publication of the findings of this report requires the advance approval of ORS. Such approval will only be refused on the grounds of inaccuracy or misrepresentation This study was conducted in accordance with ISO 20252:2012 and ISO 9001:2008. © Copyright December 2018 2 Opinion Research Services | Nottinghamshire Reorganisation Report – December 2018 Table of Contents The ORS Project Team .................................................................................... 5 1. Introduction and Summary ........................................................................ 6 Background ........................................................................................................................... 6 The
    [Show full text]
  • A BORDERLAND and the LOCAL AUTHORITY by Ewa Ganowicz
    POLISH POLITICAL SCIENCE YEARBOOK VOL XLIII 2014 PL ISSN 0208-7375 A BORDERLAND AND THE LOCAL AUTHORITY by Ewa Ganowicz, Bożena Wroniszewska In the era of globalization, unifi cation and the disappearance of borders, paradoxically, increasingly important is their determination, stressing the diversity, regionalization eff orts to achieve autonomy. Th is is evident in the ongoing scientifi c discussion at the junction of many areas where there is the issue of the border is quite clearly marked. Th ese considerations place them in the context of politics, and therefore power, but located locally. Th is authority, its scope, instruments are determined by the nature of the border, which is analyzed in relation to the center. Th us, they are seen as places where all processes are either specifi c or autonomous in relation to those occurring in the centers, or (as they are parts of a greater whole) underlying causes of phenomena are searched beyond their borders1. In literature, the frontier is treated not as the periphery, located far away from the border territories, but diff erent in many ways, integral components of an organization, equipped with a certain degree of independence regarding the implementation of their own needs. 1 T. Zarycki, Peryferie czy pogranicza? Krytyczne spojrzenie na posługiwanie się pojęciem ‘pogranicza’, [in:] B. Jałowiecki, S. Kapralski (eds.) Peryferie i pogranicza: O potrzebie różnorodności, Warszawa 2011, p. 33 – 34. A Borderland and the Local Authority 85 Authority over the borderland, domination over its territory, has always been the subject of action of external forces, but the same border aimed (and this process continues) to a certain independence, articulating their own interests.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Rethinking the Changing Structures of Rural Local Government
    ORE Open Research Exeter TITLE Rethinking the changing structures of rural local government - state power, rural politics and local political strategies? AUTHORS Pemberton, S; Goodwin, Mark JOURNAL Journal of Rural Studies DEPOSITED IN ORE 18 November 2013 This version available at http://hdl.handle.net/10871/13967 COPYRIGHT AND REUSE Open Research Exeter makes this work available in accordance with publisher policies. A NOTE ON VERSIONS The version presented here may differ from the published version. If citing, you are advised to consult the published version for pagination, volume/issue and date of publication Rethinking the changing structures of rural local government - state power, rural politics and local political strategies? Abstract: There is a notable absence in contemporary rural studies - of both a theoretical and empirical nature - concerning the changing nature of rural local government. Despite the scale and significance of successive rounds of local government reorganisation in the UK, very little has been written on this topic from a rural perspective. Instead research on local political change has tended to concentrate on local governance and local partnerships – on the extra-governmental aspects of the governance system – rather than on local government itself. In contrast, this paper draws upon strategic relational state theory to explore the changing structures and institutions of rural local government, and analyse how these can be related to the changing state strategies of those groups which are politically powerful in rural areas. In this respect, the paper draws on current and previous rounds of local government reorganisation to illustrate how new objects of governance, new state strategies and new hegemonic projects are emerging as a consequence of such restructuring processes.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposition for Local Government Reorganisation in Lancashire
    Proposition for Local Government Reorganisation in Lancashire September 2020 Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 2 1 Case for change and our proposal .......................................................................................................... 6 2 Driving economic recovery and levelling up ................................................................................... 14 3 Innovative delivery in health and social care ................................................................................. 21 4 Better community services ..................................................................................................................... 24 5 Principles of working ................................................................................................................................ 28 6 Next steps and how to take this forward .......................................................................................... 31 Appendix 1 – Economic snapshot .................................................................................................................. 33 1 Executive Summary 2 Executive Summary Current context and the emerging proposal Lancashire is a £30.8bn polycentric economy with 1.5m residents, 732,000 jobs and 53,000 businesses. The county has significant strengths in advanced manufacturing and engineering with innovation assets and major companies. But
    [Show full text]
  • Local Government in England: Structures
    BRIEFING PAPER Number 07104, 1 December 2017 Local government in By Mark Sandford England: structures Inside: 1. Local government structures 2. Functions of local government 3. Elections to local government 4. Boundary changes and restructuring 5. Local government finance 6. Structures: history www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary Number 07104, 1 December 2017 2 Contents Summary 3 1. Local government structures 4 1.1 Local authorities in England 4 1.2 Fire and rescue authorities / Police and Crime Commissioners 4 1.3 Other authorities 5 2. Functions of local government 6 3. Elections to local government 7 3.1 Electoral systems and wards 7 3.2 Elections by halves and thirds 7 3.3 The franchise 8 3.4 Turnout 8 4. Boundary changes and restructuring 9 4.1 Becoming a unitary authority 9 4.2 Consent for structural change 9 4.3 District council mergers 10 4.4 Proposals for structural change 10 5. Local government finance 13 5.1 Sources of finance 13 Council tax 13 Business rates 13 Central government grants 13 Local fees and charges 13 5.2 The Local Government Finance Settlement 14 Funding included 14 Annual practice 14 6. Structures: history 16 6.1 Pre-1972 16 6.2 The 1972-74 reforms 16 6.3 Structural changes since 1972 17 Table: changes to local government structure in England since 1972 17 Appendix: functions of local authorities in England 18 Cover page image copyright: The Council Chamber by Tim Ellis. Licensed under CC BY 2.0 / image cropped.
    [Show full text]
  • A Vision for Local Government in Leicestershire: Strategic Business Case October 2019 Future Leicestershire
    DRAFT A Vision for Local Government in Leicestershire: Strategic Business Case October 2019 Future Leicestershire Foreword by the Leader of the Council The long-term financial situation facing councils is bleak. A one-year cash injection is welcome but with service demands and national funding reductions ramping up, it’s clear we must consider change. Across Leicestershire, local government is facing millions of pounds of savings, meaning we simply can’t go on paying for old fashioned bureaucracy and duplication. Simply put, the financial position of local government in Leicestershire is unsustainable. The time is right to explore the possible solutions to save money and protect residents from Council Tax rises. This must be about services for residents, not structures. This strategic business case demonstrates that a single unitary council would deliver £30 million savings per year, meaning we can put local government in Leicestershire onto a sustainable footing and protect vital front-line services. Residents want easy access to joined-up, effective services and the ability to shape decisions that affect their communities. Ambitious town and parish councils want greater responsibility to support their communities and to represent their views on decisions that affect them. Integrating and simplifying local government services would reduce confusion over who does what and improve services. Creating area committees and devolving services would empower communities, with local councillors responsible and accountable for all their decisions - speeding up work to join up health, social care and housing services would improve support for vulnerable and older people. Leicestershire is changing - with new homes, growing demand for social care and a rising population making planning for the future crucial.
    [Show full text]
  • BUILDING COMMUNITIES Parish and Town Councils in Unitary Northamptonshire
    Northamptonshire County Association of Local Councils BUILDING COMMUNITIES Parish and Town Councils in Unitary Northamptonshire 1 | Page Foreword by the Chairman of the National Association of Local Councils “Never doubt” said Margaret Mead, the US academic, “that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world.” This rings so true when I think about how England’s 10,000 councils and 100,000 councillors are building stronger communities. And when I think of their potential to do so much more. Our unique place-based role – local government bodies yet grassroots community organisations – is rapidly changing. We are doing more and increasingly innovating, from health and wellbeing to transport, housing to local economy, community assets to cohesion. And we’re a growing sector with more and more councils being set up across the country in urban areas, new super districts and unitary authorities. That’s why I’m confident parish and town councils are well placed to help government, principal authorities and communities tackle the challenges the country faces. A new way of delivering public services, empowering and strengthening local communities. I am very pleased as the Chairman of the National Association of Local Councils (NALC) to commend this document and wish you all the best in achieving the ambitions set out. Its central tenets: relationships, partnerships, trust, and investment in capacity building are key to fulfilling the sector’s potential: in Northamptonshire and across the country. NALC will watch with interest how you get on and share the lessons with others across England - to ignite and unleash the power of our communities to change not just themselves but the world too.
    [Show full text]
  • Geographical Identifiers in Understanding Society Version 1 Birgitta Rabe Institute for Social and Economic Research University of Essex
    Understanding Society Working Paper Series No. 2011 – 01 March 2011 Updated November 2011 Geographical identifiers in Understanding Society Version 1 Birgitta Rabe Institute for Social and Economic Research University of Essex Geographical identifiers in Understanding Society Version 1 Birgitta Rabe Non-Technical Summary Understanding Society opens a range of new opportunities for local area research. These arise because geographical identifiers are being made available at different geographical levels which enable researchers to merge a wealth of data on area characteristics to individual’s responses. Many of these are freely available for download from the internet. This paper provides a brief introduction to UK geography, gives an overview of the geo-codes available for use with Understanding Society and provides documentation of the available variables. Geographical identifiers in Understanding Society Version 1 Birgitta Rabe Abstract A range of geographical identifiers are being made available for Understanding Society which allow researchers to merge external data at different geographical levels to individual’s responses. Examples of geographical identifiers at higher level include country and Government Office Region; at medium level Local Authority Districts and Travel to Work Areas; at lower level Lower Layer Super Output Areas. This paper provides a brief introduction to UK geography, gives an overview of the geo-codes available for use with Understanding Society and provides documentation of the variables. Keywords: Geographical identifiers; Data linkage; Understanding Society JEL Classifications: C81, Y20 Contact: [email protected] Acknowledgements: The work reported in this paper is part of the Understanding Society programme, funded by the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).
    [Show full text]