6.6.2  Local and Regional Government

(The latest version of this page is at Pattern Descriptions.  An archived copy of this page is held at https://www.patternsofpower.org/edition02/662.htm)

Part of the role of politicians is to arrange for public services to be provided; they act as intermediaries between the public and the service-providers €“ whether the latter are permanent public servants, or are in civil society, or are employed by private companies.  There is a subsidiarity in political representation €“ such as regions, States, counties, cities and parishes €“ and another subsidiarity, not necessarily corresponding, in the management of service provision.  Negotiated governance depends upon how, and at what level of subsidiarity, the politicians interact with the service-providers.  As illustrated by the earlier example of policing (2.8), there is scope for political intervention at each level of management of every public service: deciding policy, allocating budgets, setting performance targets, regulating, choosing contractors or employing public servants. 

There are several arguments which can be put forward to make the case for centralisation of political power in public service delivery:

·      It can deliver equality of services, such as policing and education, across the whole country.

·      It can enable difficult decisions to be taken in the public interest, like selecting a location for unpopular but necessary services such as waste disposal facilities.

·      It can enable coherent policies to be implemented, so that a road network for example can serve everybody's needs.

There are also arguments against centralisation.  Localism may offer a better model of democracy, where power flows upwards rather than downwards.  The distribution of power has several advantages:

·      It is a safeguard against the State becoming oppressive or totalitarian.

·      Local control makes citizens more interested in politics and gives them pride in their community, as is the case with London€™s mayor.[1] 

·      Local control can allow public services to be more responsive to local needs.  Local government can be responsible to the people, without passing the buck, coordinating services and prioritising the budget.  In Britain, the government launched the €˜Total Place€™ initiative in 2009 to address this requirement,[2] and a local mayor in France for example already has these capabilities.

·      There is also an emerging trend towards allowing individuals to choose which options they would prefer, within an allocated budget;[3] this is perhaps the best possible guarantee of acceptability.

·      It is possible to largely depoliticise and decentralise some services by assigning greater roles to civil society and private companies, possibly with efficiency benefits (3.5.3.2 and 3.5.3.3 respectively).  This increases individual choice and can allow services to meet different requirements; China has recently recognised the value of civil society, for example.[4]

In practice, political control can be layered €“ reflecting the practical need for some aspects of service delivery to be co-ordinated on a regional or national basis.  National politicians may have a role in defining objectives and setting standards, as with an inspectorate for schools; local or regional decisions about schools, for example, might have to be constrained by national policy on the curriculum and examination standards. 

In this book it is argued that the acceptability of governance is increased if people have more choice and if they are able to participate in meaningful negotiations about decisions which affect them.  A layered approach enables negotiations to be conducted at the level most suited to achieving a balance between conflicting interests: national issues and regional issues should be negotiated at those levels of subsidiarity, whereas local decisions need not involve people outside the locality.  Acceptability can then be maximised across the body of people to whom each issue is relevant.  Where practicable, local control is preferable because it can offer increased choice €“ and therefore greater acceptability.

© PatternsofPower.org, 2014