bibliography - UCLG

bibliography - UCLG

POSTFACE304 United Cities and Local Governments

305POSTFACEEssay on the clarification of some key conceptsand problems of methodGérard Marcou 1The World Report offers for the first timethe possibility of clarifying the meaning ofwords used to address the term “local”. Viathe different situations and developmentsanalyzed, the words often seem closelyrelated but not accurately synonymous. Inaddition, the choice of linguistic equivalentswhen translating may involve nuancesof meaning or presuppose differenceswhich, in fact, are merely differences interminology. The interest of the WorldReport is that it puts key notions into contextby comparing political and legal discoursefrom many countries on allcontinents. The definitions arrived at couldthen acquire legitimacy from the fact thatthey are not self-centred. The convergenceswe have found are not alien to thesocio-political reality of each of the countriesconcerned, even though mimeticeffects may still exist, and at times arisefrom prescriptions imposed by internationalorganizations. These convergences canbe considered as positive effects of globalization.However, convergence at the level of ideasdoes not necessarily imply that thesame occurs at institutional or practicallevels. On the contrary, factors of differentiationremain, resulting from verydiverse socio-political and economic realities,which should not be overlooked.The very notion of “local” varies considerablyfrom one country and one continentto another and with it varies the definitionof the territories constituting the frameworkof local self-government, and theconcept of local-state relations. Thesociology of local institutions is dependenton the importance of the socialstructures. The role of local democracy indecentralization depends on the state’spolitical system. The scope of decentralizationdepends on the political weightand human and financial resources availableto local authorities. Decentralizationdoes not exist outside the statebut it ceases to exist even withinwhere local authorities are no morethan the executors of policies determinedby higher authorities. Theseare the extreme positions that limit thespace of local self-government; this is thespace within which the equilibrium ofdecentralization must be created in eachcountry depending on the conditions 2 .The World Report refers explicitly to twonotions: decentralization and local democracy.These two terms should be clarifiedtogether with their status in the politicaland legal systems of states. A distinctionshould also be made between them andsimilar or correlated notions. This clarificationmust be contextual and comparative,i.e., based as much as possible on theaccepted concepts used by states in thevarious regions of the world, depending ontheir history and institutions. But at thesame time, these notions are part of globaldebates fostered by international organizationsand a number of states, contributingto the convergence of ideas under discussionby providing terms of common reference.Firstly, a distinction can be made betweenthree separate semantic fields: decentralization,self-governance and democracy.1. The text below is apart of the synthesischapter submittedby the author toUCLG under thetitle:“Decentralizationand local democracyat the age ofglobalization”.2. In what follows, theinformation quotedcomes fromchapters in theWorld Report,unless other sourcesare indicated bynotes.

POSTFACE306 United Cities and Local GovernmentsThe first of these three terms refers torelations between the various levels ofpower, the second to the status of theauthorities and the third to the way inwhich power is exercised. We will notaddress the expressions of these semanticfields relating to federalism or to regionalautonomies. The comparison between thesethree fields shows a convergence at thelevel of political ideas and legal notions;even though some major states have remainedoutside this tendency.A) DecentralizationThe notion of decentralization is understoodtoday in very different ways dependingon the author and institution,which leads to misunderstanding andconfusion. Sometimes, overly broaddefinitions of decentralization becomeconfused with governance, a notionwhich in itself is already not very precise.This is the case in a report publishedby the UNDP on decentralized governanceà propos the services which ought tobe provided to poor populations: “Conceptually,decentralization relates to theroles of, and the relations between, centraland sub-national institutions, whetherthey are public, private or civic.Improved governance will require notonly strengthened central and localgovernments but also the involvement ofother actors from civil society organizationsand the private sector in partnershipswith government at all levels” 3 .According to this definition, the relationsbetween the state or local governmentand private companies or NGOs are partof the problem concerning decentralization.The report then distinguishes four types ofdecentralization: administrative decentralization,in which local authorities areaccountable to higher authorities; politicaldecentralization, in which local authoritiesare theoretically independent of the state,invested with powers and elected; budgetarydecentralization, which refers to thetransfer of the resources necessary for theexercise of the transferred powers and responsibilities;and lastly, divestment ormarket decentralization, which entails atransfer of functions to the private sector(companies, NGOs...), including planningand administration, previously held bypublic institutions. However, the argumentslips from decentralization to governance.We recognize that improved governancemight indeed call for the involvement ofprivate actors, but this applies to all levelsof government and not just to relationsbetween local powers and higher authorities.This view is also put forward by theWorld Bank in a recent paper, which examinesdecentralization in a broader perspective,seen as a consequence of globalizationand as part of a new concept of governance4 .This approach is not really all that new. Itcomes from a critique of the “Welfare state”,developed in particular in the 1980s.Such lines of thinking advocated marketcompetition as an alternative for the provisionof services that the public powerscould no longer provide, as well as decentralizationso that fiscal competition wouldexercise pressure to reduce public expenditureand so better satisfy the collectivepreferences of the electorate through competitionbetween local authorities 5 . Hence,a distinction could be made between “eco-3. Work, R. (2002), The Role of participation and partnership in decentralized governance: a brief synthesis of policy lessons andrecommendations of nine countries on service delivery for the poor, UNDP, New York, p.3.4. G. Shabbir Cheema / Dennis A. Rondinelli (2007), “From government decentralization to decentralized governance”, p.6 in: G. ShabbirCheema / Dennis A. Rondinelli (eds), Decentralizing governance, Brookings Institution Press / Ash Institute for Democratic Governanceand Innovation.5. See amongst basic texts on the subject: Tiebout, C.M. (1956), “A pure theory of local expenditure”, Journal of Political Economy,vol.64, p.416; Buchanan, J.M. / Tullock, G. (1962), The calculus of consent: Logical foundations of constitutional liberty, University ofMichigan Press, Ann Harbor.

307nomic”, “administrative” and “political” decentralization.“Economic decentralization”refers to economic decisions (decentralizedwhen they result diffusely from the play ofmarket forces, centralized if they are decisionsmade by the government); “administrativedecentralization” refers instead tothe degree of dispersion or concentrationof public decisions; and, finally, “politicaldecentralization” which refers to theauthorities with the capacity to make politicalchoices 6 .In this framework, it has been possible topropose a classification of all systems ofdecentralization based on two dimensions:the method of allocating resources (puremarket and state controlled economies representthe two extremes) and the levels ofpolitical and administrative organization towhich the resources are allocated (central,local or intermediate). Obviously, all realsystems are mixed systems but they aresituated somewhere between four extremetheoretical models as follows: the centralizedpublic model, the centralized marketmodel, the decentralized public model andthe decentralized market model 7 . Thesemodels make it possible to assess the characteristicsof real systems and to comparetheir relative positions.Despite its heuristic value, this global theoryof decentralization may be criticized for leadingto a degree of confusion. Firstly, therelations between the public powers and therelations between the public powers and theeconomy are not the same; unlike the publicpowers, the decisions of economicagents are not subject to democratic procedures.In addition, the fact of turning to themarket to produce or supply a good or aservice does not mean that the publicauthority, local or otherwise, is no longercompetent. If the responsibility of the publicauthority is to ensure that a good or a serviceis offered to the population and it is allowedby law to chose the method or form ofprovision, it can then assess whether it ispreferable to set up a public organization, toconclude public procurement contracts or toproceed to delegate the public service to theprivate. However, the public authority remainsresponsible in the eyes of the law andthe citizens for the provision of the serviceunder the conditions it has defined. Thecase would be different, of course, if privatizationis decided on by the state and theconsequences affect the local authorities, orif the law obliged them to resort to the privatesector, even when the local authoritycontinues to exercise powers of control andorganization. It is then paradoxical to usethe expression “decentralization” to characterizemeasures which result in a reductionof the role and responsibilities of the localauthorities.This is why it is preferable to reservethe notion of decentralization for therelations between the public powers,some of which are placed under thecontrol of others, and not for the relationsbetween the public powers andthe economy or society in general. Thisis not to ignore, for all that, the importanceof relations with the economy, and theymay be addressed in an analysis of governance,but they do not come under what isnormally called decentralization.Even within these boundaries, the notionof decentralization is still likely to beunderstood in two different ways: a broadmeaning, which relates to the public economyor to the sociology of organizations,or a narrow meaning, of a legal and politicalnature. The former has become thegeneral or commonplace meaning; the latter,more exact, is the only one, as we willsee, which has a normative scope. Decentralizationshould also be distinguishedfrom related notions: devolution, originallyan English concept, and deconcentration,which is of French origin and the notion ofdelegation.In its broadest sense, decentralizationexpresses a quality of the relations betweenlevels of authority one of which is under thecontrol of the other. We say that these relationsare more or less decentralized, depen-6. Wolman, H. (1990),“Decentralization:What it is and whywe should care”,p.29-42 in: Bennett,R.J. (ed),Decentralization,local governmentsand markets.Towards a postwelfareagenda,Oxford, Clarendon.7. Bennett, R.J.(1990),“Decentralization,intergovernmentalrelations andmarkets: towards apost-welfareagenda?”, pp.1-26in: Bennett, R.J.(ed), op. cit.;Bennett, R.J.(1994), “Anoverview ofdevelopments indecentralization”,pp.11-37 in:Bennett, R.J. (ed.),Local governmentand marketdecentralization.Experiences inindustrialized,developing andformer Eastern Bloccountries, UnitedNations UniversityPress.

POSTFACE308 United Cities and Local Governments8. Op. cit. p.4.ding on whether the inferior power benefitsmore or less from freedom of action in theexercise of its attributions under the controlof the superior power. The notion of decentralizationcan thus apply both to the relationsbetween the federal power and themember states (for example Austrian orAustralian types of federalism are said to bemore centralized than those in the USA orCanada) and to the relations between thestate and local authorities in a unitary state,or between the federated entities and thelocal authorities which they comprise, oreven to the internal relations in a companyor a group of companies considered as anorganization.In the narrow sense, decentralizationmeans that local authorities are establishedby the law, have a legal personalityand are administered by bodies throughwhich they exercise, with a degree ofliberty, the powers and responsibilitiesthey obtain from the law under the controlof the state. This notion was first assertedin France. According to an English variantfound in many countries influenced by Britishtradition, the law confers the legal personalityand powers not on thecommunities but on the bodies; since the90s, it is this concept which has been followed,with certain differences, by Russianlegislation and that of other former SovietUnion countries. Decentralization understoodin this way, depending on the variant,has resulted in quite different regimesfrom the point of view of local institutionsand the self-governance left to local authorities.But it still signifies, and this is thebasis of its unity, an institutional and politicaldifferentiation between the state andthe local authorities, and the legitimacy ofrepresentation at local level of public interestsdistinct from those for which the stateis responsible.From decentralization in its narrowest sense,we must compare and distinguish theEnglish notion of devolution, which onehesitates to translate as “dévolution” inFrench. It is a relatively imprecise notionwhich appeared at the end of the 19 th centuryas an attempt to respond to the Irishindependence movement through an internalregime of extensive self-government(Home Rule). Devolution corresponds tothe transfer of wide-ranging powers to apolitical assembly for the management ofinternal affairs. The word was used todesignate the projects in the 70s and thereforms of 1998, which transferred importantpowers and means to regional bodies.But it is also used, today, in a broader sense,particularly outside the UK, to designatetransfers of power to local or regionalcommunities.The meaning of the word devolution thusseems akin to a distinction commonly madetoday between political decentralizationand administrative decentralization. Butthe criterion of the distinction is far fromclear. In the typology of decentralizationproposed in the UNDP report referred toabove, administrative decentralization ischaracterized by the fact that the localauthorities are accountable to the higherauthority. This corresponds to what onecould call de-concentration or delegation(depending on the cases - cf. infra). Thiscontrol relation (accountability) withthe higher authority does not exist inpolitical decentralization nor in devolution,which implies a total transferof powers and responsibilities, decision-makingpower and resources,including the power to procure resources8 . However, devolution does not necessarilyimply that the local authority resultsfrom election, just as decentralization alsodoes not necessarily entail the election oflocal authorities.However, the distinction between politicaland administrative decentralization is morecurrently based on other criteria. A fewexamples follow. Political decentralizationcorresponds to the exercise of politicalpower, as in the case of federated governmentsin the framework of a federal state;whereas administrative decentralizationonly consists of the institutionalization of

309the legal entities responsible for managinglocal interests 9 . It is therefore the exerciseof legislative power by sub-national territorialunits which is considered as theexpression of political decentralization, incontrast with the classical case of the unitarystate in which the unity of legislationis the expression of the unity of power 10 .Or again, political decentralization presupposesthe dispersion of political decisionmakingpower, i.e., a degree of freedom ofaction as to the determination of policies,the capacity to mobilize resources and thefreedom to use them 11 . But some definitionsof administrative decentralization donot differ greatly from this latter concept:according to Maurice Hauriou, it is the needfor political freedom rather than administrativeneeds, which justifies decentralization12 ; according to Charles Eisenmann,administrative decentralization “consists ofgiving to locally competent authoritiespowers of action, therefore firstly of decision-making,independent of the centralauthorities” 13 .But today, over and above these theoreticalapproaches, another criterion must beadded, that of the election of local authorities.Although, from a theoretical point ofview, the notions of decentralization anddevolution do not necessarily imply theelection of local authorities, the fact is thattoday territorial decentralization is inseparablefrom the democratic legitimacy oflocal authorities, and in all countries theinstitution of locally elected councils is therule. Even in the Arab Gulf states, localelections have been held over the last fewyears with the exception of the United ArabEmirates. If the classical idea of decentralizationaccepts the autonomy oflocal authorities in the framework ofthe law, the modern view of decentralizationis today inseparable from thedemocratic norm, and no one disputesthis even if its transposition and implementationare often criticised.As soon as universal suffrage applies forthe designation of local authorities, it becomesinevitable that decentralization willtake on a political dimension, even though,in certain countries, political parties arenot allowed to participate in local elections,and even though the official vocabulary continuesto speak of “administrative” decentralization,or “administrative” elections àpropos local elections. This is so, given thatelections imply a form of responsibility ofthose elected vis-à-vis their electorateeven if the higher authority exercises aform of supervision. This is the meaning(the direction) of accountability whichmakes the difference, as shown in theUNDP report: no longer towards the statebut towards the electorate.In this case, devolution is not distinguishedfrom decentralization through its politicaldimension but by its possible scope. Inpoint of fact, the idea of devolution has nolimit on the transfers which may carried out,other than the point at which the transferswould mean independence; on the contrary,the idea of decentralization is inseparablefrom the idea of the unity of power. Decentralizedentities administer themselves withoutceasing to be an integrated part of the stateand without the state conceding to them partof its constitutional functions. Extended tothe transfer of legislative powers, politicaldecentralization corresponds in fact to adifferent notion of decentralization in itsstrictest sense. This results in the fact that,apart from this hypothesis, devolution anddecentralization may be considered assynonymous particularly for local authoritiesat municipal level for which there isnever a transfer of legislative powers.On the other hand, a clear distinction mustbe made between deconcentration anddecentralization and the former must not beassimilated to a restrictive application of theidea of decentralization as is proposed withina broad concept of decentralization. Deconcentrationis originally a French notion whichapplies to the relations between the centraladministration and their local-level officesthat depend on the delegation of powers tothe latter. Deconcentration is the opposi-9. Bourjol, M. (1975),La réformemunicipale, Paris,Berger-Levrault,pp.56-58.10. Aja, E. (1999), ElEstado autonómico.Federalismo yhechosdiferenciales,Madrid, AlianzaEditorial, pp.23 etsuiv.11. Wolman, H., op. cit.pp.29-30.12. Hauriou, M. (1919),Précis de droitadministratif, Paris,Sirey, preface.13. Eisenmann, Ch.(1982), Cours dedroit administratif,Paris, LGDJ, tome 1p.278 (cours de1966-1967).

POSTFACE310 United Cities and Local Governments14. Jalali, M. (2005),“Iran: unedécentralisation entrompe l’œil? Lesfondementsessentiels de ladécentralisation enIran”, Revueiranienne de Droitconstitutionnel,summer 2005, n°4,pp.74-86.te of decentralization in that it governsthe relations within an administrativehierarchy, whereas decentralizationexcludes any hierarchical relations betweenthe state and local authorities.Deconcentration comprises two elements:i) the existence of territorially competent serviceswithin the state administration;ii) delegation of powers to these services.But the term delegation may also be usedto designate an intermediate situation:state powers and responsibilities are delegatedto a decentralized authority (i.e.,resulting from an election and not fromnomination by a higher authority) and areexercised on behalf of the state and forwhich the decentralized authority isaccountable to the state. This situation ismost often designated by the expression:“delegated powers and responsibilities”.Depending on the case, it may be thatelective legitimacy weakens the control ofthe higher authority or, on the contrary,that the weight of the delegated powersand responsibilities weakens decentralizationbecause of the control exercised bythe higher authority.These distinctions lead to a preference fora strict definition of decentralization whichmarks the difference from related notions.Decentralization is thus characterizedby the existence of locally electedauthorities, distinct from the state’sadministrative authorities, and exercising,in the framework of the law,their own powers and responsibilitiesfor which they have a degree of selfgovernment,under the control of thestate. As understood in this way,decentralization in its modern meaningis inseparable from the idea oflocal self-government and the democraticprinciple. But the volume of responsibilitiesexercised is not sufficient toassess the level of decentralization in agiven country; that depends also on theregime under which the responsibilities areto be found and the control effectivelyexercised by the state.In its broadest sense, decentralizationexists in almost all countries although ithas very different characteristics. Butstrictly defined, decentralization is lackingin very many countries. Hence, when article96 of the constitution of the People’sRepublic of China states that “local congressesof the people at different levels arethe organs of the state’s power”, this is aform of decentralization in its broadest,and not strictest, sense. This was the conceptin the Soviet Union, abandoned todayunder article 12 of the constitution of theRussian Federation. But some states, formerlypart of the Soviet Union, still adheremore or less explicitly to this concept (ingeneral the states of Central Asia and Belarus).In Cuba, although assemblies of people’spower are characterized in theconstitution as the “higher local bodies ofstate power”, it is however recognized thatthey fulfil specific functions other than theassistance they provide in realizing theultimate goals of the state (art.102 and103). Other political concepts may alsolead to principles excluding decentralizationof the local administration. This is thecase in Saudi Arabia, in Oman and inQatar; in other Arab countries and in Iransome moves have been made towardsdecentralization in recent laws and constitutions.Yet the Iranian constitution, whichsets up locally elected councils, subjectsthem to the principles of the Islamic regimeand envisages their “subordination” tocentral government authority (article100) 14 . Despite this, there is a tendencytowards the diffusion of the model ofdecentralization and the recognition of asphere of responsibility specific to localauthorities, at least regarding the principles,even in countries which seem farremoved from these principles.B) Self-government (autonomy)Autonomy literally means the power to setfor oneself the rules by which one is

311governed. However, this notion may alsobe understood in at least two differentways. In the sense of political autonomy,it is a demand for sovereignty whichstops at the limit of independence, fromwhich it is distinct. Understood as administrativeself-government, it expressesthe possibility for the local authority togovern its own affairs and those whichthe law entrusts to it. It is in this secondsense that it is generally understood aslocal self-government. The regional autonomystatutes in different Europeancountries (e.g. in Spain or in the UK) andon other continents (for example theautonomy of Karakalpakstan in Uzbekistan,or that of Aceh in Indonesia) comeunder the first meaning. The Frenchconstitution today accepts both meaningsbut applies them to entities of a differentnature: the first to “overseas countries”(New Caledonia, French Polynesia)(art.74), and the second to territorialcommunities (art.72). The EuropeanCharter for Local Self-government as wellas the “Guidelines” recently adopted bythe Governing Council of UN Habitat bothrefer to the second meaning. This selfgovernmentalso has a political dimensionbut it results from elections not fromthe statute of the local authorities.Local self-government, as understoodabove, is more and more widelyrecognized on the different continents.The exceptions are states whichdo not refer to decentralization in thelegal meaning of the word and also a fewcountries which attribute a political statusto municipal self-government.Local self-government is expressed insometimes differently coined legalnotions but which are, in general, similarin content. In certain European countries,reference is formally made to the notionof “autonomy” in the constitutions (Italy:art.5; Spain: art.140; Portugal: art.6;Romania: art.120; Greece: art.102.2;“administrative autonomy”). In all theother European countries, the term usedcorresponds literally to the Germanexpression Selbstverwaltung (FundamentalLaw: art.28.2), defined as “the rightto govern, under one’s own responsibility,all the affairs of the local authority”,which corresponds to the notion of “libreadministration” in the French constitution(art.72), and the English notion of selfgovernment15 . This latter expressioncould however be distinguished insofar asits material content derives only from theprovisions of the law, but this limitation isreceding both in the United Kingdom andin the USA and Australia (constitution ofcertain federated states in the latter twocountries), and by the link with a degreeof freedom of organization at local level(home rule).This notion of “self-government” (“libreadministration” in French) is to be foundin the 1993 Russian constitution (mestnoesamoupravlenie, art.130 to 133),including the freedom of organization inlaw 131/2003), the Ukrainian constitutionof 1996 (mitzeve samovriaduvania,art.140) or the Polish constitution of1997 (samorzad terytorialny: art.163 etseq.). In Latin America, the word “autonomy”is usually preferred, both in unitarystates (Colombia: art.287) and infederal states (Argentina: art.123, ensuringmunicipal autonomy is a duty of theprovincial constitutions; see for examplethat of La Rioja: art.154). In Asia, countrieswhich were under British colonialrule have retained the British concept oflocal government and of local selfgovernment,including the restoration oftraditional methods of local organization(not only Australia and New Zealand, butalso India, Pakistan, Malaysia) but othercountries refer rather to the wording“local autonomy” (Japan, Indonesia,Republic of Korea, Philippines).One can see however that these differencesin terminology and sometimes conceptualizationhave no impact on the realcontent of “autonomy” or “self-government”.There is nothing that allows us to15. In this sense:Breuillard, M.(2000),L’administrationlocale en Grande-Bretagne, entrecentralisation etrégionalisation,L’Harmattan, coll. «GRALE » Paris.

POSTFACE312 United Cities and Local Governments16. Franck Moderne(2006), “Lemunicipio commeentité politique dansl’organisationterritoriale fédéraledu Brésil”, pp.347-363 in: Mélanges enl’honneur de Jean-Claude Douence. Laprofondeur du droitlocal, Paris, Dalloz.17. A renowned Frenchlegal expert, CharlesEisenmann, wrote:“decentralization isa system without agiven politicalcolour; it can beequallyundemocratic anddemocratic”; all thatis required is thatthe designation oflocal authority be“independent ofcentral authority”(op. cit. p.277).assert that the reference to “local autonomy”corresponds to a degree of decentralizationgreater than the reference tothe principle of “self-government”, if onecompares institutions, powers and responsibilities.Municipalities in Germany orFrance do not benefit from less extensivedecentralization than municipalities inItaly or Portugal; decentralization is nomore advanced in the Republic of Koreathan in India. But decentralization isessential as a reference standard for localgovernment. This standard is being developedby the European Charter for LocalSelf-government and the UN Habitat Guidelinesfor Decentralization.This general tendency has however a fewnuances. In African countries, the conceptswhich the constitutions and nationallaws reflect follow those of the formercolonial power. However, this conceptionhas been dominated since independenceby the wish to ensure the unity of thestate, which has upheld a centralized systemand an essentially instrumental visionof decentralization. However, for anumber of years, the reforms undertakenin a certain number of states bring themcloser to the general trend by giving todecentralization a more substantial contentof local self-government (for example:South Africa, Uganda, Zambia,Burkina Faso, Niger, Senegal).Lastly, a few countries stand out, conversely,by the affirmation of a concept ofmunicipality which makes it a componentof the state or the framework of an expressionof sovereignty. Sweden is theonly European country whose constitutiondeclares that “self-management oflocal communities” contributes to therealization of “national sovereignty”(1:1). The constitution of the Ukraine alsostates that the people’s sovereignty isexercised by the organs of power of thestate and by the bodies of local selfgovernment(art.5), but this formula recallsthe former adherence of local bodiesto the state power. In Brazil, the 1988constitution, in principle, confers on themunicipalities (municipio) political selfgovernment:the municipios, as withfederated states, are part of the componentswhose “indissoluble unity” formsthe Federal Republic of Brazil (art.1), andthe federal constitution defines the basesof their organization and their powersand responsibilities (art.29 to 31). Thepractical scope of this concept seems,however, limited 16 . In Indonesia, the introductionof the reference to “autonomy”in the laws of 1999 and laterlaws, corresponds on the other hand to achange of concept, with the transfer ofwide-ranging powers, responsibilities andresources and the direct election of thelocal executive.Local self-government is a constituentelement of decentralization.The terms “local autonomy”, “libreadministration” and “self-government”do indeed correspond to oneand the same notion. It presupposesfreedom of action and organizationfor the local authority in the contextof the laws; this freedom may bemore or less extensive but this doesnot affect the notion itself.C) DemocracyThe classical notion of decentralizationdoes not necessarily imply democracy;an organization may be decentralizedwithout being based on democratic principles17 . Conversely, an organization basedon democratic principles may becentralized.Now, the link between decentralizationand democracy has become narrower andmore direct, as in the past in Europe, thelink between parliamentary government,arising out of the census system, anddemocracy. Decentralization, understoodin its strictest sense as a methodof organization, today impliesdemocracy. It presupposes the self-

313government of local authorities inthe framework of the law, but it isdemocracy which is the basis forlocal self-government. Democracyeffectively allows citizens to expresscollective preferences which direct theexercise of power held by local authoritiesby law. This has not always been thecase: property ownership as a requirementfor voting or the recognized authorityof the traditional elite have in thepast constituted the basis, or the drivingforce, for decentralization.This has not completely disappeared. Onthe contrary, in certain countries, the institutionsgive community leaders or religiouschiefs a controlling role in civilsociety and the law sometimes givesthem a place in the representative bodiesexercising public powers (for example:Ghana, Uganda, Niger, South Africa...).In certain Middle Eastern countries, theauthority of members of the local aristocracyis influential even though there areelections (UAE, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain).Despite these surviving customs, the generaltrend is towards the election of localgovernment bodies and to the developmentof instituted forms of popular participation.Even if the election is notdisputed, it is considered to be essentialfor the authority and the legitimacy of thelocal authorities and one can see that legislationtends to introduce a degree ofpossibility of choice or influence for electors(Vietnam, 2004 local elections; Chinaat village or district committee level).In conclusion, it is obvious that a systemof reference for decentralization is beingconsolidated which includes recognizinglocal self-government and calls for representativeelected institutions and participatoryinstitutions by which the peoplemay express their collective preferencesand interests. We should underline thatthis system of reference is not foundeverywhere, but it is challenged by anyother reference system and continues tospread. Without question, its strengthlies in its ability to take form in a widevariety of institutional models.


BIBLIOGRAPHY316 United Cities and Local Governments

317AfricaBanque Mondiale, 2003, Résultats de recherchesmenées par la Banque Mondiale surl’expérience de décentralisation de 30 paysafricains,, N., 1999, Autonomie locale et mutationsrécentes dans les finances municipales,ENA-CREA, Tunis.Ben Salah, H. and Marcou G., (sous dir.),1998, Décentralisation et démocratie enTunisie, IORT, L'Harmattan, coll. Logiquesjuridiques. Paris, TunisBureau d’Appui à la Coopération Canadiennepour le Développement International(Bacdi), Avril 2005, Etat des lieux de ladécentralisation au Sénégal.Club du Sahel / Partenariat pour le DéveloppementMunicipal (PDM), 2000, Rapportsur le financement du développementlocale en Afrique de l’Ouest, par GagnonGérardCrook, R. and Manor J., 2001, Local Governmentand Decentralization in Zambia,Final Report to SNV, MoLGH and the DonorReference Group, Lusaka.Cordelier, S and Didiot B., 2005, Etat dumonde 2006 : annuaire économique géopolitiquemondiale ( 25 éme éd. Paris , laDécouverte).Momaniat, I., 2001, Fiscal Decentralizationin South Africa,, K.D.), (April 2006), TraditionalLeadership Factor in Modern Local GovernmentSystem in Ghana: Policy Implementation,Role Conflict and Marginalization.Journal of Science and Technology, KwameNkrumah University of Science and TechnologyKumasi, Ghana. Volume 26.Mémorandum Union des Associations desElus locaux, 2006, Union des Associationsdes Elus Locaux du Sénégal.Nach Mback, Ch., 2003, Démocratisationet décentralisation « Genèse et dynamiquescomparés des processus de décentralisationen Afrique subsaharienne »,Karthala-PDM, Paris.Ouazzani Chahdi, H., 2003, Droit administratif,imprimerie Najah el Jadida, Casablanca.Partenariat pour le Développement Municipal(PDM), 2003, Etat de la décentralisation,Karthala.Partenariat pour le Développement Municipal(PDM), “Observatoire des Financeslocales”, Données sur les finances locales2000 à 2004.Rapport du Comité Paritaire Etat/ Communes,2005, Suivi du transfert des compétencesaux Communes du Bénin,décembre.Roubaud, F., 2000, Identité et transition démocratique: l’exception malagasy ? L’Harmattan,Paris.Smoke, P., 2003, Decentralization in Africa:goods, dimensions, myths and challenge.Public administration and development, Volume23, P. 7-16.Steytler, N., 2005, Local Government inSouth Africa: Entrenching decentralizedgovernment.Yatta, F. P., 2006, Villes et développementéconomique en Afrique, Economica, Paris.

BIBLIOGRAPHY318United Cities and Local GovernmentsAsia PacificAhmad Jailani Muhamed Yunus, 2007, MalaysiaCountry Fact Sheet on the State ofDecentralization and Local Democracy in theAsia Pacific Region.Alatas, V., Pritchett, L., Wetterberg, A.,2002, Voice lessons: local governmentorganizations, social organizations and thequality of local governance, World BankPolicy Research Working Paper 2981,March, 49 pages.Asian Development Bank, 2006 Urbanizationand Sustainability: Case Studies ofGood Practice. Manila: Asian DevelopmentBank.Asian Development Bank, 2006 Indonesia2006 – 2009: Country Strategy and Program.Manila: Asian Development Bank.Asian Development Bank/DfID/WB, 2004,Devolution in Pakistan, World Bank, AsianDevelopment Bank, DfIDAsquith, A., 2007, New Zealand CountryFact Sheet on the State of Decentralizationand Local Democracy in the Asia PacificRegion.Bambang P. S. Brodjonegero and SwasonoF., 2007, Indonesia Country Fact Sheet onthe State of Decentralization and LocalDemocracy in the Asia Pacific Region.Blair, H., 2000, Participation and accountabilityat the periphery: Democratic localgovernance in six countries, World Development28(1): 21-39Boston, J. , 1996, The use of contracting inthe public sector: Recent New Zealand experience,Australian Journal of PublicAdministration 53 (Sept.): 105-110.Brillantes, A., 2001, Public Sector Reformand Poverty Reduction in Developing Asia.Manila: Economics and Development ResearchCenter, Asian Development Bank.Brillantes, A., 2006, Decentralization Imperatives:Lessons from some Asian Countries.Meiji University International ExchangePrograms Guest Lecture Series.Chandra-nuj M., 2007, Thailand Country FactSheet on the State of Decentralization andLocal Democracy in the Asia Pacific Region.Cheema, A., Khwaja, A. and Qadir, A., 2006,Local Government Reforms in Pakistan: Context,Content and Causes, in Bardhan, P. andMookherjee, D. (eds.) “Decentralization andLocal Governance in Developing Countries: ACountry Perspective”. Cambridge MA andLondon: MIT Press, (pp. 257-284).Citypopulation, List of metropolitan areas bypopulation, Local Government Forum(CLGF), 2005, Commonwealth Local GovernmentHandbook 2005. London: CommonwealthLocal Government Forum.Devas, N. and al., 2004 Urban Governance,Voice and Poverty in the Developing World.Earthscan, London.Devas, N., 2005, Metropolitan Governanceand Urban Poverty, Public Administrationand Development. Vol 25, (pp.351-361).Gao Xiao Ping., 2007, China Country FactSheet on the State of Decentralization andLocal Democracy in the Asia Pacific Region.Hairong, Lai, 2004), Semi-competitive electionsat township level in Sichuan province,China Perspectives n°51, January-February.Hofman, B. and Kaiser, K., 2006, Decentralization,Democratic Transition and LocalGovernance in Indonesia, in Bardhan, P. andMookherjee, D., (eds) “Decentralization andLocal Governance in Developing Countries:A Country Perspective”. Cambridge MA andLondon: MIT Press, (pp.81-124).

319International Monetary Fund, 2006, GovernmentFinance Statistics 2006. WashingtonDC: International Monetary Fund.Lee, Dalgon., 1998, Local Government Reformsin Korea: A Transition from a MarionnettePerformance Toward an ElementaryClass Day, in Nakamura, Akira (ed), “ReformingGovernment: New Concepts andPractices in Local Public Administration”,Tokyo: EROPA Local Government Center,(pp. 65-82).National Tax Service of the Republic of Korea,Korean Taxation 2006. http://:www.nta.go.-kr/engdefault.html>.Date accessed: 9 July 92007.Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment, 2001, Revenue Statistics ofMember Countries, 1965-2000. Paris: Organizationfor Economic Cooperation and Development.Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment, 2005, OECD in figures. Paris:Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment.Park In-Soo, 2007, Country fact sheet Republicof Korea.Qiao, Jingjing, 2005, La réforme de l’administrationchinoise face aux rites confucéens,thesis, University Paris 1, unpublished)Rakodi, C, 2004, Urban Politics: Exclusion orEmpowerment, in Devas, N and al: “UrbanGovernance, Voice and Poverty in the DevelopingWorld”, Earthscan, London.Rao, G. and Singh, N., 2000, How to think localgovernment reform in India? Incentivesand institutions, Berkeley.Sagawa, Y., 2007, Japan Country Fact Sheeton the State of Decentralization and LocalDemocracy in the Asia Pacifc Region.Schubert, G., 2003, Democracy under onepartyrule?, China perspectives n°46, March-April.Seong, Kyoung-Ryung, 1998, Delayed decentralizationand incomplete consolidationof democracy: The case of Koreanlocal autonomy, paper presented at theHoover Conference on Institutional Reformand Democratic Consolidation in Korea, 8-9 January 1998.Sethi, G. (ed.) (2004), Fiscal decentralizationto rural governments in India, WorldBank, Oxford University Press.Singh, A. and Matthew, J., 2007, IndiaCountry Fact Sheet on the State of Decentralizationand Local Democracy in the AsiaPacific Region.Sproats, K., 2003, Local Governments inAsia and the Pacific: A Comparative Analysisof Fifteen Countries, in Brillantes, A.and al. “Decentralization and Power Shift:An Imperative for Good Governance”. QuezonCity: Center for Local and Regional Governance,National College of PublicAdministration and Governance, Universityof the Philippines, (pp25-62).Teehankee, J., 2002, Electoral politics inthe Philippines, in Croissant, A. (ed.) Electoralpolitics in Southeast and East Asia.Singapore: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.UNDESA, 2006, Urban and Rural Areas2005. New York: United Nations Departmentof Economic and Social Affairs, PopulationDivision.UNDP, 2006, Human Development Report2006. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.UNDP, 2006,Local democracy in Asia: Representationin decentralized governance.Regional Centre in Bangkok.

BIBLIOGRAPHY320United Cities and Local GovernmentsUNESCAP, 2005, State of women in urbanlocal government in Australia htp://,United Nations Economic andSocial Commission for Asia and the Pacific.UNESCAP, 2005, State of women in urbanlocal government in New Zealand htp://, United Nations Economicand Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific.World Bank, 2005, East Asia decentralizes:Making local government work. Washington:IBRD.World Bank, 2006, World DevelopmentReport 2006. Oxford University Press.UNESCAP, Local Government in Asia andthe Pacific,,date accessed: 12 July 2007.UNESCAP, Country Reports on Local GovernmentSystems: Republic of Korea, pp.9-10,, date accessed:12 July 2007.Weist, D., 2001, Thailand’s Decentralization:Progress and Prospects (Paper preparedfor the KPI Annual congress III onDecentralization and Local Government inThailand held on 10-11 November 2001).,date accessed17 July 2007.Weist, Dana (ed), 2004), India. Urban financeand governance review, World Bank,Report n°32253-IN, vol. 1 (executive summaryand main report).Wettenhall, R. and Aulich, C., 2007, AustraliaCountry Fact Sheet on the State of Decentralizationand Local Democracy in theAsia Pacifc Region.World Bank, 2004, Village Justice in Indonesia.Case Studies on Access to Justice,Village Democracy and Governance, Washington,117 pages.

321Eurasia1. ĉÏËÌËÒÚ ‡Ú˂̇fl ÂÙÓ Ï‡ ‚êÓÒÒËË. å., 2006.2. ÄÍÒÂÌÂÌÍÓ û.ç åÛÌˈËԇθ̇flÒӈˇθ̇fl ÔÓÎËÚË͇:ÒÚ‡ÌÓ‚ÎÂÌËÂ, ÔÛÚË Ë Ù‡ÍÚÓ ˚‡ÎËÁ‡ˆËË. ë‡ ‡ÚÓ‚, 1999.3. Ň·Ë˜ Ä.å., 臂ÎÓ‚‡ ã.ç.ÉÓÒÛ‰‡ ÒÚ‚ÂÌÌ˚Â Ë ÏÛÌˈËԇθÌ˚ÂÙË̇ÌÒ˚. å., 2000.4. Ň·Ë˜Â‚ à.Ç. ëÛ·˙ÂÍÚ˚ ÏÂÒÚÌÓ„ÓÒ‡ÏÓÛÔ ‡‚ÎÂÌËfl Ë Ëı‚Á‡ËÏÓ‰ÂÈÒÚ‚ËÂ. å., 2000.5. Ň·ÛÌ ê.Ç., åÛη„‡Î‚‡ á.á.ÇÓÔ ÓÒ˚ ÏÛÌˈËԇθÌÓÈ ˝ÍÓÌÓÏËÍË.å., 2000.6. ŇÊËÌÓ‚ å.Ä. åÂÒÚÌÓÂÒ‡ÏÓÛÔ ‡‚ÎÂÌËÂ Í‡Í Ù‡ÍÚÓÒÚ‡ÌÓ‚ÎÂÌËfl „ ‡Ê‰‡ÌÒÍÓ„ÓÓ·˘ÂÒÚ‚‡ ‚ ÒÓ‚ ÂÏÂÌÌÓÈ êÓÒÒËË.å., 2004.7. ŇÈÏÛ ‡ÚÓ‚ å.Ä. Ö‚ ÓÔÂÈÒÍËÂÒڇ̉‡ Ú˚ ÎÓ͇θÌÓÈ ‰ÂÏÓÍ ‡ÚËË ËÏÂÒÚÌÓ ҇ÏÓÛÔ ‡‚ÎÂÌË ‚ìÍ ‡ËÌÂ. ï., 2000.8. Å Íӂ˘ Ö.î. á‡ÍÓÌÌÓÒÚ¸ ËÏÂÒÚÌÓ ҇ÏÓÛÔ ‡‚ÎÂÌË ‚êÓÒÒËÈÒÍÓÈ î‰ ‡ˆËË. å., 2005.9. LJÒËθ‚ Ç.à. á‡ÍÓÌÓ‰‡ÚÂθ̇flÓÒÌÓ‚‡ ÏÛÌˈËԇθÌÓÈ ÂÙÓ Ï˚.å., 2005.10. ÇÂÒÚÌËÍ ñÂÌÚ ‡Î¸ÌÓÈËÁ·Ë ‡ÚÂθÌÓÈ ÍÓÏËÒÒËËêÓÒÒËÈÒÍÓÈ î‰ ‡ˆËË. 2006. ? 2(193).11. ÇÓ ÓÌÂÌÍÓ Ä.å. åÂÒÚÌÓÂÒ‡ÏÓÛÔ ‡‚ÎÂÌË ‚ Í ÛÔÌ˚ı „Ó Ó‰‡ıÁ‡ Û·ÂÊÌ˚ı ÒÚ ‡Ì. å., 1990.12. É ‡Ê‰‡ÌËÌ, Á‡ÍÓÌ Ë ÔÛ·Î˘̇fl‚·ÒÚ¸. å., 2005.13. É Ë„Ó ¸Â‚ Ç.Ä. ëÚ‡ÌÓ‚ÎÂÌËÂÏÂÒÚÌÓ„Ó Ò‡ÏÓÛÔ ‡‚ÎÂÌËfl ‚ìÍ ‡ËÌÂ. é‰ÂÒÒ‡. 2000.14. ÑÂÏÂÌڸ‚ Ä.ç ìÒÚ‡ÌÓ‚ÎÂÌË„ ‡Ìˈ Ú ËÚÓ ËÈ ËÔ ÂÓ· ‡ÁÓ‚‡ÌË ÏÛÌˈËԇθÌ˚ıÓ· ‡ÁÓ‚‡ÌËÈ. å., 2004.15. Ö ÂÏËÌ Ä.ê. ê‡ÎËÁ‡ˆËfl Ô ‡‚‡˜ÂÎÓ‚Â͇ Ë „ ‡Ê‰‡ÌË̇ ̇ ÏÂÒÚÌÓÂÒ‡ÏÓÛÔ ‡‚ÎÂÌË ‚ êÓÒÒËÈÒÍÓÈ‡ˆËË: ÍÓÌÒÚËÚÛˆËÓÌÌ˚‚ÓÔ ÓÒ˚. ë‡ ‡ÚÓ‚, 2003.16. á‡Ò·‚Ò͇fl ã.Ç. Å˛‰ÊÂÚÌ˚ÈÔ ÓˆÂÒÒ ‚ ÏÛÌˈËԇθÌÓÏÓ· ‡ÁÓ‚‡ÌËË Í‡Í Ó‰Ì‡ ËÁ ÒÚ‡‰ËÈÛÔ ‡‚ÎÂÌËfl ÙË̇ÌÒ‡ÏË. å., 1999.17. à‚‡ÌÓ‚ Ñ.Ç. è ‡‚ÓÚ‚Ó ˜ÂÒÚ‚ÓÔ Â‰ÒÚ‡‚ËÚÂθÌ˚ı ËËÒÔÓÎÌËÚÂθÌ˚ı Ó „‡ÌÓ‚ ÏÂÒÚÌÓ„ÓÒ‡ÏÓÛÔ ‡‚ÎÂÌËfl: ̇ χÚ ˇ·ıì ‡Î¸ÒÍÓ„Ó Â„ËÓ̇. óÂÎfl·ËÌÒÍ,2004.18. à„Ì‡Ú˛Í ç.Ä., á‡ÏÓڇ‚ Ä.Ä.,臂ÎÛ¯ÍËÌ Ä.Ç. åÛÌˈËԇθÌÓÂÔ ‡‚Ó. ì˜Â·ÌËÍ. å., 2004.19. äӂ¯ÌËÍÓ‚ Ö.å. ÉÓÒÛ‰‡ ÒÚ‚Ó ËÏÂÒÚÌÓ ҇ÏÓÛÔ ‡‚ÎÂÌË ‚ êÓÒÒËË:ÚÂÓ ÂÚËÍÓ-Ô ‡‚Ó‚˚ ÓÒÌÓ‚˚‚Á‡ËÏÓ‰ÂÈÒÚ‚Ëfl. å., 2002.20. äÓÏÔÂÚÂ̈Ëfl Ó „‡ÌÓ‚„ÓÒÛ‰‡ ÒÚ‚ÂÌÌÓÈ ‚·ÒÚË ÒÛ·˙ÂÍÚÓ‚êÓÒÒËÈÒÍÓÈ î‰ ‡ˆËË. é ÂÌ·Û „,2000.21. äÛÚ‡ÙËÌ é.Ö., ‚ Ç.à.åÛÌˈËԇθÌÓÂ Ô ‡‚Ó êÓÒÒËÈÒÍÓÈ‡ˆËË. å., 2006.

BIBLIOGRAPHY322United Cities and Local Governments22. å‡Î˚ „Ó Ó‰‡ Ë ÏÂÒÚÌÓÂÒ‡ÏÓÛÔ ‡‚ÎÂÌË / Ä.å. ä‡Á‡ÌˆÂ‚,Ç.è. ãÂÌ˚¯ËÌ, Ä.Ö. åÛ ‡¯Ó‚, Ö.Ä.ëÛÒÎÓ‚‡; ÔÓ‰ ‰. Ö.Ä. ëÛÒÎÓ‚ÓÈ.å., 2004.23. å‡ıÏÛÚÓ‚‡ å. ëËÒÚÂχ ÏÂÒÚÌÓ„ÓÒ‡ÏÓÛÔ ‡‚ÎÂÌËfl ‚ êÂÒÔÛ·ÎËÍÂä‡Á‡ıÒÚ‡Ì //ê‡Á ‡·ÓÚ͇ ÌÓ‚˚ıÔ ‡‚ËÎ Ë„ ˚ ‚ ÒÚ‡ ˚ı ÛÒÎÓ‚Ëflı.èÓ‰ ‰. à. åÛÌÚflÌÛ Ë Ç. èÓÔ‡. –ÅÛ‰‡Ô¯Ú: àÌÒÚËÚÛÚ ÓÚÍ ˚ÚÓ„ÓÓ·˘ÂÒÚ‚‡, è Ó„ ‡ÏχÂÙÓ ÏË Ó‚‡ÌËfl ÏÂÒÚÌÓ„ÓÒ‡ÏÓÛÔ ‡‚ÎÂÌËfl Ë ÍÓÏÏÛ̇θÌÓ„ÓıÓÁflÈÒÚ‚‡, 2001.24. åÂÒÚÌÓ ҇ÏÓÛÔ ‡‚ÎÂÌË ‚ä‡Á‡ıÒÚ‡ÌÂ: ÓÒÓ·ÂÌÌÓÒÚË ÒËÚÛ‡ˆËËË Ô ÒÔÂÍÚË‚˚ ‡Á‚ËÚËfl.å‡Ú ˇÎ˚ ÏÂʉÛ̇ Ó‰ÌÓÈÍÓÌÙ Â̈ËË Ë ‡·Ó˜Â„Ó ÒÂÏË̇ ‡Â„ËÓ̇θÌ˚ı ˆÂÌÚ Ó‚ Ó·Û˜ÂÌËfl„ÓÒÛ‰‡ ÒÚ‚ÂÌÌ˚ı ÒÎÛʇ˘Ëı. å.,2003.25. åÂÒÚÌÓ ҇ÏÓÛÔ ‡‚ÎÂÌË ‚ êÓÒÒËË:Ô Ó·ÎÂÏ˚ ‡Á‚ËÚËfl, ÒÚ‡ÌÓ‚ÎÂÌËfl,ÙÛÌ͈ËÓÌË Ó‚‡ÌËfl. è ϸ. 1999.26. åÂÒÚÌÓ ҇ÏÓÛÔ ‡‚ÎÂÌËÂ:ÓÚ˜ÂÒÚ‚ÂÌÌ˚È Ë Á‡ Û·ÂÊÌ˚È ÓÔ˚Ú.ì˜Â·ÌÓ ÔÓÒÓ·Ë / èÓ‰ ‰. ë.û.ç‡ÛÏÓ‚‡. ë‡ ‡ÚÓ‚. 2001.27. åÂÒÚÌ˚ ÒÓÓ·˘ÂÒÚ‚‡ ‚ ÏÂÒÚÌÓÏÒ‡ÏÓÛÔ ‡‚ÎÂÌËË. å., 2000.28. åÓÍ ˚È Ç.ë. åÂÒÚÌÓÂÒ‡ÏÓÛÔ ‡‚ÎÂÌË ‚ êÓÒÒËÈÒÍÓÈ‡ˆËË Í‡Í ËÌÒÚËÚÛÚ ÔÛ·Î˘ÌÓȂ·ÒÚË ‚ „ ‡Ê‰‡ÌÒÍÓÏ Ó·˘ÂÒÚ‚Â.ë‡Ï‡ ‡, 2003.29. åÛÌˈËԇθÌÓÂ Ô ‡‚Ó êÂÒÔÛ·ÎËÍËÄ ÏÂÌËfl. ì˜Â·ÌÓ ÔÓÒÓ·Ë ‰Îfl‚ÛÁÓ‚. Ä ÛÚ˛ÌflÌ Ä. ò., Ö Â‚‡Ì,2004, - 359 ÒÚ.30. åÛÌˈËԇθÌ˚È ÏẨÊÏÂÌÚ ‚êÓÒÒËÈÒÍÓÈ î‰ ‡ˆËË å., 2001.31. ç‡ÛÏÓ‚ ë.û. åÂÒÚÌÓÂÒ‡ÏÓÛÔ ‡‚ÎÂÌË ‚ ÒËÒÚÂÏÂÔÛ·Î˘ÌÓÈ ‚·ÒÚË: ÓÒÒËÈÒÍËÈ ËÏË Ó‚ÓÈ ÓÔ˚Ú: Ò·. ̇ۘ. Ú .ë‡ ‡ÚÓ‚, 2004.32. 瘇‚ Ç.Ñ. í ËÚÓ Ë‡Î¸Ì‡flÓ „‡ÌËÁ‡ˆËfl ÏÂÒÚÌÓ„ÓÒ‡ÏÓÛÔ ‡‚ÎÂÌËfl ‚ „ËÓ̇ıêÓÒÒËË: „ÂÌÂÁËÒ ËËÌÒÚËÚÛˆËÓ̇θÌ˚ ˝ÙÙÂÍÚ˚.äÛ ÒÍ, 2004.33. éÒÌÓ‚˚ Ö‚ ÓÔÂÈÒÍÓÈ ï‡ ÚËËÏÂÒÚÌÓ„Ó Ò‡ÏÓÛÔ ‡‚ÎÂÌËfl:ÏÂÚӉ˘ÂÒÍÓ ÔÓÒÓ·Ë / ÓÚ‚. ‰.à.Ä. ÇÓÎÓ‰ËÌ. å., 1999.34. èÂÌÍÓ‚‡-ã˛ÂÈ è., ꇄÓÁË̇ ã.ëӈˇθ̇fl ÔÓÎËÚË͇ÏÛÌˈËԇθÌ˚ı Ó· ‡ÁÓ‚‡ÌËÈ:ÒӉ ʇÌËÂ, Ô ËÓ ËÚÂÚ˚,ÏÂı‡ÌËÁÏ˚ ÓÒÛ˘ÂÒÚ‚ÎÂÌËfl. å.,2000.35. è ‡‚Ó‚Ó ӷÂÒÔ˜ÂÌËÂ̇ˆËÓ̇θÌ˚ı ËÌÚ ÂÒÓ‚:χÚ ˇÎ˚ ÏÂʉÛ̇ Ó‰ÌÓÈ Ì‡Û˜ÌÓ-Ô ‡ÍÚ˘ÂÒÍÓÈ ÍÓÌÙ Â̈ËË(åÓÒÍ‚‡, 25-26 ÓÍÚfl· fl 2005 „.)/ ÔÓ‰ Ó·˘. ‰. í.ü.  Ë‚ÓÈ.å., 2005.36. è˚ÎËÌ Ç.Ç. ç‡ Ó‰Ó‚Î‡ÒÚË ‚ÒËÒÚÂÏ ÏÂÒÚÌÓ„Ó Ò‡ÏÓÛÔ ‡‚ÎÂÌËfl.ëè·, 1998.37. ꇄÛÎËÌ Ñ.Ñ. é·˘ËÂ Ô Ë̈ËÔ˚Ó „‡ÌËÁ‡ˆËË ÏÂÒÚÌÓ„ÓÒ‡ÏÓÛÔ ‡‚ÎÂÌËfl ‚ „ÓÒÛ‰‡ ÒÚ‚‡ıëÓ‰ ÛÊÂÒÚ‚‡ // û ËÒÚ. 1998. ? 9.38. ꇄÛÎËÌ Ñ.Ñ. í ËÚÓ Ë‡Î¸Ì˚ÂÓÒÌÓ‚˚ ÏÂÒÚÌÓ„Ó Ò‡ÏÓÛÔ ‡‚ÎÂÌËfl ‚Á‡ Û·ÂÊÌ˚ı ÒÚ ‡Ì‡ı ëçÉ Ë Å‡ÎÚËË// è ‡‚Ó Ë ÊËÁ̸. 1998. ? 14.

32339. ê„ÛÎË Ó‚‡ÌË ‚ÓÔ ÓÒÓ‚Ó „‡ÌËÁ‡ˆËË ÏÂÒÚÌÓ„ÓÒ‡ÏÓÛÔ ‡‚ÎÂÌËfl Á‡ÍÓ̇ÏËÒÛ·˙ÂÍÚÓ‚ êÓÒÒËÈÒÍÓÈ î‰ ‡ˆËË ËÏÛÌˈËԇθÌ˚ÏË Ô ‡‚Ó‚˚ÏË ‡ÍÚ‡ÏË.å., 2004.40. ë‡ÎÓχÚÍËÌ Ä.Ä. åÂÒÚÌÓÂÒ‡ÏÓÛÔ ‡‚ÎÂÌË ‚ ÒÂθÒÍËıÔÓÒÂÎÂÌËflı êÓÒÒËË: ‚ÓÔ ÓÒ˚ÚÂÓ ËË Ë Ô ‡ÍÚËÍË. óÂÎfl·ËÌÒÍ,1999.41. 렄‚ è.Ç. åÂÒÚÌÓÂÒ‡ÏÓÛÔ ‡‚ÎÂÌË ̇ ÒÂÎÂ: ‚ÓÔ ÓÒ˚ÚÂÓ ËË Ë Ô ‡ÍÚËÍË. äÛ ÒÍ, 2003.42. ë˂ˈÍËÈ Ç.Ä. ê„ÛÎË Ó‚‡ÌËÂÓÚ‚ÂÚÒÚ‚ÂÌÌÓÒÚË ‚ ÒÙ  ÏÂÒÚÌÓ„ÓÒ‡ÏÓÛÔ ‡‚ÎÂÌËfl //äÓÌÒÚËÚÛˆËÓÌÌ˚ ËÁ‡ÍÓÌÓ‰‡ÚÂθÌ˚ ÓÒÌÓ‚˚ ÏÂÒÚÌÓ„ÓÒ‡ÏÓÛÔ ‡‚ÎÂÌËfl ‚ êÓÒÒËÈÒÍÓÈ‡ˆËË. å., 2004.43. ëӈˇθÌÓ Á‡ÍÓÌÓ‰‡ÚÂθÒÚ‚Ó.ç‡Û˜ÌÓ-Ô ‡ÍÚ˘ÂÒÍÓ ÔÓÒÓ·ËÂ. å.,2005.44. ëӈˇθÌ˚ ÓÒÌÓ‚˚ ÏÂÒÚÌÓ„ÓÒ‡ÏÓÛÔ ‡‚ÎÂÌËfl. ÅÂÎ„Ó Ó‰, 2004.45. ë ‡‚ÌËÚÂθÌÓ ÍÓÌÒÚËÚÛˆËÓÌÌÓÂÔ ‡‚Ó / èÓ‰ ‰. óË ÍË̇ Ç.Ö. -å., 1996.46. ëۉ·̇fl Á‡˘ËÚ‡ Ó „‡ÌÓ‚ ÏÂÒÚÌÓ„ÓÒ‡ÏÓÛÔ ‡‚ÎÂÌËfl ‚ êÓÒÒËÈÒÍÓÈ‡ˆËË. å., 1998.47. ìÔ ‡‚ÎÂÌË ÏÛÌˈËԇθÌ˚ÏıÓÁflÈÒÚ‚ÓÏ Ë ÏÂÒÚÌ˚ÏË ÙË̇ÌÒ‡ÏË.å., 2004.49. îËÎËÔÔÓ‚ Ç.û., Ä‚‰Â‚‡ í.í.éÒÌÓ‚˚ ‡Á‚ËÚËfl ÏÂÒÚÌÓ„ÓıÓÁflÈÒÚ‚‡. å., 2000.50.  Ë‚‡ í.ü. ëÓ‚ ÂÏÂÌ̇flÍÓÌÒÚËÚÛˆËfl Ë ÏÂÒÚÌÓÂÒ‡ÏÓÛÔ ‡‚ÎÂÌË // ÜÛ Ì‡ÎÓÒÒËÈÒÍÓ„Ó Ô ‡‚‡. 2005. ? 4.51.  Ë‚‡ í.ü. é ‡Á„ ‡Ì˘ÂÌËËÔ Â‰ÏÂÚÓ‚ ‚‰ÂÌËfl Ë ÔÓÎÌÓÏÓ˜ËÈÏÂÊ‰Û „ÓÒÛ‰‡ ÒÚ‚ÂÌÌ˚ÏË Ó „‡Ì‡ÏËË Ó „‡Ì‡ÏË ÏÂÒÚÌÓ„ÓÒ‡ÏÓÛÔ ‡‚ÎÂÌËfl //ĉÏËÌËÒÚ ‡ÚË‚ÌÓÂ Ô ‡‚Ó: ÚÂÓ Ëfl ËÔ ‡ÍÚË͇. å., 2002.52. ó ͇ÒÓ‚ Ä. ë ‡‚ÌËÚÂθÌÓÂÏÂÒÚÌÓ ÛÔ ‡‚ÎÂÌËÂ: ÚÂÓ Ëfl ËÔ ‡ÍÚË͇. å., 1998.53. óËı·‰Á ã.í. åÂÒÚÌÓÂÒ‡ÏÓÛÔ ‡‚ÎÂÌËÂ Ë ÏÂÒÚÌÓÂÛÔ ‡‚ÎÂÌË ‚ É ÛÁËË: Ú ‡‰ËˆËË ËÓÔ˚Ú. å., 2005.54. ò‚ˆӂ Ä.Ä. ùÍÓÌÓÏ˘ÂÒÍËÂÂÒÛ Ò˚ ÏÛÌˈËԇθÌÓ„Ó ‡Á‚ËÚËfl:ÙË̇ÌÒ˚, ËÏÛ˘ÂÒÚ‚Ó, ÁÂÏÎfl. å.,2004.55. òË ÓÍÓ‚ Ä.ç., û ÍÓ‚‡ ë.ç.åÂÒÚÌÓ ҇ÏÓÛÔ ‡‚ÎÂÌË ‚êÓÒÒËÈÒÍÓÈ î‰ ‡ˆËË: ÓÒÌÓ‚Ì˚ÂÔÓÌflÚËfl, Ú ÏËÌ˚ Ë ÔÓÎÓÊÂÌËflÙ‰ ‡Î¸ÌÓ„Ó Á‡ÍÓÌÓ‰‡ÚÂθÒÚ‚‡.å., 2004.û¯ËÌÒ Ö.Ä. åÛÌˈËԇθÌÓ ÛÔ ‡‚ÎÂÌËÂ.å., 2003.48. 옇ÒÚË ̇ÒÂÎÂÌËfl ‚ÓÒÛ˘ÂÒÚ‚ÎÂÌËË ÏÂÒÚÌÓ„ÓÒ‡ÏÓÛÔ ‡‚ÎÂÌËfl. å., 2004.

BIBLIOGRAPHY324United Cities and Local GovernmentsEuropaBäck, H., Heinelt, H., Magnier, A. (eds),2006, The European mayor, VS Verlag “Urbanand Regional Research International”,Wiesbaden.Baldersheim, H., Illner, M., Wollmann, H.(eds.), 2003, Local Democracy in Post-Communist Europe, VS Verlag “Urban andRegional Research International”, Wiesbaden.Bennett, R. (ed.), 1989, Territory and Administrationin Europe, London.Berg, R., Rao, N. (eds.), Transforming localPolitical Leadership, 2005, Houndmills, Palgrave.Bloomfield, J., 2006, Counselling, Cajolingor Coordinating: Central Governments’ PolicyApproaches toward Local Governmenton the Issues of Performance and Cost-Effectiveness. Brussels, CCRE/CEMR.Comité des Régions [Committee of theRegions], 2002, Les pouvoirs locaux et régionauxen Europe [Local and regionalauthorities in Europe], volumes 1 et 2, Luxembourg.Comité des Régions, 2003, Le processus dedécentralisation dans les Etats membres etles pays candidats [The decentralizationprocess in the member states and applicantcountries], Luxembourg.Conseil de l’Europe (années diverses)[Council of Europe (various years)], La démocratielocale et régionale, collection debrochures par pays [Local and regional democracy,collection of brochures by country],Strasbourg.Coulson, A., Campbell, A. (eds.), 2006, LocalGovernment in Central and EasternEurope, Local Government Studies, Vol. 32No. 5, November, special edition.Council of Europe, Effective democraticgovernance at local and regional level,Budapest, Open Society Institute, 2005(reports by Gérard Marcou and Ken Daveyon the Stability Pact countries of South-East Europe).Centre National de la Fonction Publique Territoriale[National centre for territorial civilservice], 2005, Les fonctions publiques localesen Europe. Décentralisation et réformedes conditions d’emploi des agentspublics dans l’Europe élargie, Rapport final[Local civil service in Europe. Decentralizationand reform of the employment conditionsof civil servants in the widenedEurope, Final report], 195 pages, Paris.Dafflon, B., 2002, Local Public Finance inEurope, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.Delcamp, A., Loughlin, J. [dir. (ed.)], 2002,La décentralisation dans les Etats de l’Unioneuropéenne [Decentralization in the EuropeanUnion States], La Documentation française,Paris.Denters, B., Rose, L. E. (eds.), 2004, ComparingLocal Governance, Palgrave.Dexia, 2004, Les finances locales dans l’Europeà 25 [Local finances in the Europe ofthe 25], Dexia Editions, Paris.Gabriel, O. W., Hoffmann- Martinot, V.(eds.), 1999, Démocraties urbaines [Urbandemocracies], Paris, L’Harmattan.Goldsmith, M., 2002, Central Control overLocal Government – A Western EuropeanComparison, Local Government Studies,vol. 28 , no.3, 91-112.Goldsmith, M., Klausen, K. (eds.), 1997,European Integration and Local Government,London, Edward Elgar 1997.

325Guérin-Lavignotte, E., Kerrouche, E.,2006, Les élus locaux en Europe. Un statuten mutation [Local authority electedofficials in Europe. A changing status.],La Documentation Française « Etudes »,158 pages.Haus, M. and al, (ed.) 2005, Urban Governanceand Democracy, Routledge.Hesse, J.-J. (ed), 1991, Local Governmentand Urban Affairs in InternationalPerspective, Baden-Baden, Nomos.Hoffmann-Martinot, V. and Sellers, J.(eds), 2005, Metropolitanization andPolitical Change, VS Verlag “Urban andRegional Research International”, Wiesbaden.John, P., 2001, Local Governance in WesternEurope, London, Sage.Kandeva, E. (ed), 2001, Stabilization ofLocal Governments (2 vols). Local Governmentand Public Service Reform Initiative,Budapest.Kersting, N., Vetter, A. (eds.), 2003,Reforming Local Government in Europe.Closing the Gap between Democracyand Efficiency, VS Verlag “Urban andRegional Research International”, Wiesbaden.Lazijn , F. and al, (eds.), 2007, Local GovernmentReforms in Countries in Transition.A Global Perspective. LexingtonPress (forthcoming).Le Galès, P., 2002, European Cities, Oxford,Oxford University Press.Lorrain, D., Stoker, G. (eds.), 1996, The Privatizationof Urban Services, London, Pinter.Marcou, G., 2002, Les structures régionalesdans les pays candidats et leur compatibilitéavec les fonds structurels (Europe centraleet orientale) [Regional structures in theapplicant countries and their compatibilitywith the structural funds (central and easternEurope)], “Rapport au Parlement européen”[Report to the European Parliament],Luxembourg, Parlement européen, Directiongénérale des Etudes, STOA 105 FR, septembre2002, 150 pages.Marcou, G., 2003, Les régions entre l’Etat etles collectivités locales. Etude comparativede cinq Etats européens à autonomiesrégionales ou à constitution fédérale (Allemagne,Belgique, Espagne, Italie, Royaume-Uni)[The regions between state andlocal authorities. Comparative study of fiveEuropean states with self-governing regionsor a federal constitution (Germany, Belgium,Spain, Italy, UK)], Ministère de l’Intérieur[Ministry of the Interior], Travaux etRecherches du Center d’Etudes et de Prévision[Research and work of the Center forStudies and Forecasting], Ministère de l’Intérieur,Paris, 2003, 237 pages.Marcou, G., 2007, L’étendue et la nature descompétences des collectivités locales dansles Etats membres du Conseil de l’Europe[Scope and nature of the powers and responsibilitiesof local authorities in the memberstates of the Council of Europe], Rapportpour le CDLR (Comité directeur des pouvoirslocaux et régionaux) [Report for the SteeringCommittee on local and regional authorities],Conseil de l’Europe, Strasbourg, 102 pages(à paraître) [to be published].Marcou, G., Verebelyi, I. (eds), 1993, Newtrends in local government in Western andEastern Europe, International Institute ofAdministrative Science, Bruxelles.

BIBLIOGRAPHY326United Cities and Local GovernmentsLatin AmericaMarcou, G. and Wollman, H. (eds), Annuairedes Collectivités locales, éditions annuellesavec une chronique internationale thématique[Local authority yearbook with internationalthematic articles], CNRS EditionsParis.Meligrana, J. (ed.), Redrawing Local GovernmentBoundaries, 2004, UBC Press,Vancouver, Toronto.Norton, A., 1993, International Handbookon local and regional government. A comparativeanalysis of advanced democracies,Edward Elgar, Londres.Sellers, J. M., 2002, Governing from Below,Urban Regions and the Global Economy,Cambridge U Press.Szücs, S., Strömberg, L. (eds), 2006, LocalElites, Political Capital and DemocraticDevelopment. Governing Leaders in SevenEuropean Countries. VS Verlag “Urban andRegional Research International”, Wiesbaden.Travers, T., 2005, International Comparisonsof Local Government Finance : Propositionsand Analysis. London School ofEconomics and Political Science.A) Books and reviews:Aghón, G., Los retos pendientes de la descentralizaciónfiscales América Latina y elCaribe, 2000.Alburquerque, F., Desarrollo económico localy descentralización en América Latina,Revista de la CEPAL, núm. 82, abril de2004. !Desarrollo Económico Local y Distribucióndel Progreso Técnico!. ILPES/CE-PAL, Santiago de Chile, 2006.Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo, InformeSobre la Situación del Servicio en AméricaLatina, Washington, IADB, 2006.Burki, S. J. and others. La Descentralizacióndel Estado. World Bank, Washington,1999.Carbonell, M. (ed), Derecho constitucional(Memoria del Congreso Internacional deCulturas y Sistemas Jurídicos Comparados),México, UNAM, 2004.Cetrangolo, O., Descentralización y FederalismoFiscal: aspectos teóricos y prácticosen América Latina. Arequipa, Perú,2006.Conam GTZ Ecuador, Línea de ReferenciaDescentralización en Argentina, Bolivia,Brasil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Perú yVenezuela. Quito, 2000.European Commission, Informe EstratégicoRegional Sobre América Latina, april,2002.Espitia, G., Descentralización Fiscal en AméricaLatina. El Salvador. CONFEDELCA, Diputaciónde Barcelona, GTZ. Octubre 2004Finot, I., Descentralización en América Latina:teoría y práctica, Santiago de Chile,CEPAL-ILPES, 2001;

327––– Descentralización, transferencias territorialesy desarrollo local, Revista de la CE-PAL, núm. 86, agosto 2005.––– La descentralización fiscal y transferenciasintergubernamentales en AméricaLatina, CEPAL-ILPES, 2004. “Teoría económicade la descentralización y procesos latinoamericanos”,octubre de 2006.Fix Z., Carmona H. and V., Salvador, Derechoconstitucional y comparado, 4 ed.México, Porrúa, 2005.Foschiatto, P. and Stumpo, G. (ed.), Políticasmunicipales de micro crédito. Un instrumentopara la dinamización de lossistemas productivos locales. Estudios decaso en América Latina, Santiago de Chile,CEPAL-Cooperazione Italiana, 2006.Kliksberg, B., Más Ética, Más Desarrollo. EditorialTemas, Buenos Aires, 2004.Licha, I. (ed.), Citizens in charge. Managinglocal budgets in East Asia and Latin America,Inter-American Development Bank,2004.Lora, E. and Cárdenas, M., Reforma de lasinstituciones fiscales en América Latina,IADB, 2006.María Hernández, A., Derecho municipal,México, UNAM, 2003.Martín, J. and Martner, R. (ed.) El estadode las finanzas públicas: América Latina yEl Caribe, CEPAL-ILPES, 2004.United Nations (UNDP), Informe Sobre DesarrolloHumano 2005, Ediciones Multiprensa,2005.Nickson, A., Tendencias actuales de las finanzasen América Latina,, consulted:July 2006.Palomino Manchego, J., Regiones y municipiosdel Perú. Marco constitucional actual,in “El municipio en México y el mundo”,México, UNAM, 2005.Piazze, A. and Flaño, N., Diálogo Social enAmérica Latina, IADB, 2005.United Nations Development Programme(UNDP), La Democracia en América Latina.Hacia una democracia de ciudadanos y ciudadanas,2004. http://democracia.undp.-org/default.aspRodlauer, M. and Schipke, A., América Central:Integración mundial y cooperación regional,Washington, IMF, 2005.Rojas, E., Cuadrado, J. and Fernández, J.M., Gobernar las metrópolis, IADB-Universidadde Alcalá de Henares, 2005.Rosales, M., Los Secretos del Buen Alcalde.Universidad Virtual del Tecnológico deMonterrey, México, 2000.––– El Buen Gobierno Local, UniversidadBolivariana de Chile. Santiago, 2005.Rosas Aispuro, J.; Cienfuego, D. (ed.), ElMunicipio en Iberoamérica, México, Edit.Laguna, 2003.Rousset, M., L’action internnational descollectivités locales, Paris. Librerie Généralede Droit de jurisprudence. EJA, 1998.Serna de la Garza, J.M., La reforma del estadoen América Latina: Los casos de Argentina,Brasil y México, México, UNAM,1998.Valadés, D. and Serna, J. M. (Coord.) Elgobierno en América latina, México, UNAM;2000.

BIBLIOGRAPHY328United Cities and Local GovernmentsValencia Carmona, S., Derecho Municipal,México, Porrúa, 2003, El Municipio en Méxicoy en el mundo. “Primer Congreso Internacionalde Derecho Municipal”, México,UNAM; 2005.Varios autores, Los sistemas constitucionalesIberoamericanos, Madrid, Dykinson,1992.Vasquez Baquero, A., Desarrollo EconómicoLocal y Descentralización en AméricaLatina. CEPAL, Santiago de Chile. 2000.Wiesner, E., La descentralización, la estabilidadmacroeconómica y la integración económicaregional: Enlaces de política ymecanismos de transmisión, Bogotá BID-Instituto para la Integración de la Américay El Caribe, 2003.B) Latin American Constitutions:Cited constitutions, compiled by the Departmentof Legislation and Jurisprudence,UNAM Legal Research Institute: http://-www.juridicas.unam.mxC) Websites:Centro Latinoamericano de Administraciónpara el Desarrollo (CLAD); http://www.e-local.gob.-mx/wb2/;Economic Commission for Latin Americaand the Caribbean (ECLAC);Federación de mujeres municipalistas deAmérica Latina y el Caribe;Federación Latinoamericana de Ciudades,Municipios y Asociaciones;Fundación para el Desarrollo Local y el FortalecimientoMunicipal e Institucional deCentroamérica y el Caribe (DEMUCA);Human Development Reports;Inter-American Agency for Cooperationand Development (IACD);;Latin American Governance Network Informationand Knowledge System;Latinobarómetro;Municipium / Servicio de Asistencia y Capacitaciónpara el Desarrollo Local (SAC-DEL);Observatorio Latino Americano de la descentralización;PNUD Mexico - United Nations DevelopmentProgramme in Mexico;Political Data base of the Americas;Red de Investigación y Acción para el DesarrolloLoca (RIADEL) http://www.riadel.-cl/default.asp;Sistema Económico Latinoamericano y delCaribe – SELA;Transparency International;UCLG - Global Observatory on Local Democracyand Decentralization;

329Middle East and West AsiaUnited Cities and Local Governments;United States Agency for International Development(USAID) - Latin America UnitedStates Agency for International Development(USAID) - Latin America;Zevallos V., Micro, pequeñas y medianasempresas en América Latina;Zovatto, D. and Burdman, J., Balance ElectoralLatinoamericano 2003–2004, workingpaper of the Observatorio Electoral Arabia:• Saudi Constitution (Basic Law), 1992.• Law on the provinces (Saudi Arabia), 1March 1992.• Law on municipal elections, 2004.• Royal decree no. A/276 of 08 October1395 H 1 on the creation of the Ministryof Rural and Municipal Affairs. (SaudiArabia)Bahrain:• Bahraini Constitution, 2002.Iran:• Iranian Constitution, 1979.• Law of 25 June 1949 establishing municipalitiesand town and village councils;• Law of 2 July 1955 concerning municipalities;• Law of 5 July 1979 establishing localcouncils;• Law of 28 September 2003 amendingthe law on « les structures, les attributionset l'élection des conseils islamiquesdu pays et l’élection des maires »of 23 May 1996;• Implementing decree of 20 December1998 concerning the election of councilsin towns and small towns;• Implementing decree of 20 December1998 concerning the election of villageand district councils.Iraq:• Constitution du gouvernement intérimaireirakien, 1990;• Constitution proposée par les partisd’opposition, in Al-Mutamar no. 305 of23 May 2005, pp. 14-15. (Iraq)Jordan:• Jordanian Constitution.• Law on municipalities, 1995, and 2007.Kuwait:• Kuwaiti Constitution, 1962.1. Hegiric calendar.14 th October 1975 inthe Gregoriancalendar.

BIBLIOGRAPHY330United Cities and Local GovernmentsLebanon:• Lebanese Constitution;• Legislative decree no. 118, 1977 onmunicipalities;• Taëf Accords (Pacte national de Taëf),22 October 1989;• Law on administrative organization (décret-loin° 111 du 12/06/1960);• Law on the mokhtar of 27 November1947.Oman:• Omani Constitution, 1996 (Basic Law).Palestine:• Law on ‘Palestinian local council elections’,December 1996, partially amendedin 2005.• Law on local life, September 1997.Qatar:• Qatari Constitution, 2003.Imad, A., Municipal elections, Jarrous Press,p. 20.Municipalités et administration locale n°1,Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches sur leMoyen-Orient contemporain, 2000.SARROUH E., Decentralized Governance forDevelopment in the Arab States, report presentedduring a forum on the governance ofthe Arab states, Sana’a, 6-9 September 2003.Saudi Elections in Regional Perspective : TheShiite ‘Threat’ Theory, Policy Watch no. 970,9 March 2005, The Washington Institute forNear-East Policy.Zubai, K., 2006. Local Administration and itsintegrative relations with the central authoritiesof the modern state. The proceedings ofthe third conference of big cities administration.(June 4-6) Amman, Jordan.Syria:• Syrian Constitution, 1973.Main web-sites :Turkey:• Turkish Constitution, 1982, substantiallyamended in 2001.http://www.citymayors.comWorld Bank: http://www.worldbank.orgYemen:• Yemeni Constitution, 1991, amended in1994.Articles and reports:Al Jordi, H., Power and the municipalities,Centre National de Recherches, p. 20, 1998.Al Khalil, Y., The role of municipalities in economicand rural development, Id., in Municipalitéset administration locale, n°2, p. 45,Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches sur leMoyen-Orient contemporain.Bédar, S., The Greater Middle East: a worldwidepost-colonial project ?, Diplomatie n°3,May-June 2003.Programme on governance in the ArabRegion : http://www.pogar.orgUNDP: http://www.undp.orgTransparency International:http://www.transparency.comGovernment websitesLebanese Finance Ministry: Ministry of the Interior and of Municipalities:

331North AmericaSaudi Ministry of Rural and Municipal Affairs: Ministry of Rural and MunicipalAffairs and the Environment: Finance Ministry: Finance Ministry: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Agriculture: Ministry of the Economy and Finance:http://www.syrecon.orgAmmons, David N., 2003, Urban Services. InJohn P. Pelissero (Ed.), “Cities, Politics, andPolicy” (pp. 254-282).Washington D.C.: CQPress.Berner, M., 2001. Citizen Participation inLocal Government Budgeting. Popular Government,Spring 2001, 23-30.Berry, J. M., Portney, K. E., and Thomson, K.,1993. The Rebirth of Urban Democracy. Washington,D.C.: The Brookings Institution.Bibby, J. F., 1999. State and Local Parties ina Candidate-Centered Age. In R. E. Weberand P. Brace (Eds.), “American State andLocal Politics: Directions for the 21st Century”.New York: Seven Bridges Press.Blatter, J.K., 2001. De-bordering a world ofstates: towards a multi-level system in Europeand a multi-polity system in North-America?Insights from border regions. EuropeanJournal of International Relations 7, 2(2001): 175-209.Bureau of Indian Affairs, 2006, BIA Website.Retrieved June 28, 2006, 2006, Federation of Municipalities, 2004.Increasing Representation of Women in MunicipalDecision-making Processes. Ottawa:Canadian Federation of Municipalities. RetrievedJuly 3, 2007, for American Women and Politics,2006. New Brunswick, N.J.: Eagleton Instituteof Politics, Rutgers, The State Universityof New Jersey, Retrieved on August 10,2006, World Factbook, 2006. Retrieved July 4,2006,

BIBLIOGRAPHY332United Cities and Local GovernmentsCity Mayor, 2006, Canada Offers Its Peoplean Array of Local Governments, RetrievedJune 26, 2006 http://www.citymayors.-com/-canada/canada_locgov.htmlCommonwealth Local Government Forum,2002, Canada. Retrieved July 6, 2006, S. and Kalt, J. P, 2000, Sovereigntyand Nation-Building: The DevelopmentChallenge in Indian Country Today. Unpublishedpaper, John F. Kennedy School ofGovernment, Cambridge, MA.Coursey, D., 2005, E-Government: Trendsand Challenges. In The Municipal Year Book(pp. 14-21). Washington, D.C.: InternationalCity/County Management Association.ElectronicGovernment 2004. (2004).). WashingtonD.C.: International City/CountyManagement Association.Diaz, A., 2003, Shifting of service responsibilitiesbetween provincial and local governments.Ottawa: Statistics Canada.Elections Canada (n.d.), Retrieved July 25,2006, P. S., 1982, Regional Tax-Base Sharing:An Analysis and Simulation of AlternativeApproaches. Land Economics, 58(4),497-515.Freyss, S. F., 1995, Municipal GovernmentPersonnel Systems: A Test of Two ArchetypicalModels. Review of Public PersonnelAdministration 15:69-93.Gallup, 2006, Trust in Government. RetrievedJune 12, 2006, 2006,, H., 1968, Voting in Canadian Communities:A Taxonomy of Referendum Issues.Canadian Journal of Political Science 1(4):462-469.Hajnal, Z.L. and Trounstine, J., 2005, Whenturnout matters: The consequences of uneventurnout in city elections, Journal of Politics67(2): 515-535.Hajnal, Z. L., and Lewis, P. G., 2003, MunicipalInstitutions and Voter Turnout in LocalElections. Urban Affairs Review, 38(5), 645-668.Hajnal, Z. L., Lewis, P. G., and Louch, H.,2002, Municipal Elections in California: Turnout,Timing, and Competition. San Francisco:Public Policy Institute of California.Hesse, J.J. and Sharpe , L.J., 1991, Conclusions.In “Local Government and UrbanAffairs in International Perspective”, ed. J.J.Hesse. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 603-621.Hill, M. B. (n.d.), State Laws Governing LocalGovernment Structure and Administration,Institute of Government/University of Georgia.Infrastructure Canada, 2006, Public OpinionResearch. Ottawa: Government of Canada.Retrieved December 21, 2006 at City/County ManagementAssociation, 2001, Municipal Form of Government.Washington, D.C.: InternationalCity/County Management Association.International City/County Management Association,1997, Municipal Forms of Government,1996. Washington, D.C.: InternationalCity/County Management Association.Internet Center for Corruption Research. (n.d.)Retrieved July 25, 2006, D., and Swanstrom, T., 1994, City Politics:Private Power and Public Policy. NewYork: HarperCollins College Publishers.

333Laubach, T., 2005, Fiscal Relations AcrossLevels of Government in the United States.OECD Economics Department Working PaperNo. 462. Retrieved July 4, 2005,$FILE/JT00195165.PDFLeland, S.M. and Thurmaier, K. (eds.), 2004,Case Studies of City-County Consolidation.Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.McManus, S., 1999, The Resurgent CityCouncils. In Ronald E. Weber and Paul Brace(Eds.), “American State and Local Politics”(pp. 166-193). New York: Chatham HousePublishers.MacManus, S. A., and Bullock, C. S., 2003,The Form, Structure, and Composition ofAmerica's Municipalities in the New Millennium.In Municipal Year Book (Vol. 2003, pp.3-18). Washington, D.C.: International City/CountyManagement Association.Maher, M. and Jay S., 2005, Production MarketCompetition and Economic Performancein Canada. OECD Economic DepartmentWorking Papers No. 421. Retrieved August17, 2006,$FILE/JT00181345.PDF#search=%22eCO%2FWKP(2005)49%3A%208%22Meligrana, J.F., 2000, Toward a processmodel of local government restructuring:Evidence from Canada, Canadian Journal ofRegional Science 23(3).Morse, B. W., 2004, Indigenous-Settler TreatyMaking in Canada. In M. Langton, M. Tehan,L. Palmer and K. Shain (Eds.), “HonourAmong Nations?” Melbourne: MelbourneUniversity Press.Mouritzen, P. E. and Svara, J. H., 2002, Leadershipat the Apex: Politicians and Administratorsin Western Local Governments.Pittsburgh, PA: University of PittsburghPress.OECD, 2001, Revenue Statistics of MemberCountries, 1965-2000. Washington, D.C.:OECD.OECD, 2005, OECD in Figures-2005 Edition.August 1, 2006, from http://www.oecd.-org/document/62/0,2340,en_2649_37405_2345918_1_1_1_37405,00.htmlOECD, 2003, Public Governance and TerritorialDevelopment Directorate Country FactSheets. Retrieved July 19, 2006 fromhttp://www.oecd.orgOECD, 2006, Statistical Profile of Canada-2006. Retrieved July 25, 2006 from, 2006, Statistical Profile of United States-2006.Retrieved July 25, 2006 from, 2003, Metropolitan Governance inOECD Countries. Retrieved July 25, 2006from Observer, 2003, OECD Territorial Reviewof Montreal. Retrieved July 25, 2006from, S. S., 2005, Metropolitan Area Governanceand Institutional Collective Action. InFeiock, Richard C. (Ed.), “Metropolitan Governance:Conflict, Competition, and Cooperation”(67-92). Washington D.C.:Georgetown Press.

BIBLIOGRAPHY334United Cities and Local GovernmentsReece, B., 2006, E-Government Design andEquity. Ph.D. Dissertation, University ofSouthern California, Los Angeles.Richardson, J., Gough, M. and Puentes, R.,2003, Is Home Rule the Answer? Clarifyingthe Effect of Dillon’s Rule on Growth Management.Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.Rivard, M. and Collin, J.-P., 2006, Factsheet:Canada. Paris: Global Observatory on LocalDemocracy and Decentralization.Ross, B. H. and Levine, M. A., 2001, UrbanPolitics: Power in Metropolitan America.Itasca, Illinois: F.E. Peacock Publishers.Saffell, D. C. and Basehart, H., 1997, GoverningStates and Cities. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.Sbragia, A. 1988, Debt Wish. Pittsburgh,University of Pittsburgh Press. 20 Performance/NZ%20Reforms.pdfSellers, J.M., 2006, Comparing local governancein developed democracies: Selectedindicators. Working paper available online at, J.M. and Latner, M.L., 2006, The PoliticalEcology of the U.S. Metropolis: An InterimReport. Paper presented at InternationalPolitical Science Association and AmericanPolitical Science Association Annual Meetings,Fukuoka, Japan and Philadelphia, PA.Sellers, J.M., 2007, The Decentered State.Manuscript in process.Sellers, J.M. and Lidström, A.L., 2007,Decentralization, local government and thewelfare state. Governance (forthcoming).Simard, C., 2000, Ethnic Minority PoliticalRepresentation in Montreal. Paper presentedat National Metropolis Conference, Montreal.Simpson, D. M., 2005, Use of Web Technologyby U.S. Planning Agencies: Results froma National Benchmarking Survey. In MunicipalYear Book (Vol. 2005, pp. 22-26). WashingtonD.C.: International City/CountyManagement Association.United States Census Bureau, StatisticalAbstract of the United States. (Jan. 04,2006). Retrieved July 4, 2006 from Sector Statistics: Supplement 2006,Statistics Canada, 2006, Ottawa: Ministry ofIndustry.Stephens, G. R. and Wikstrom, N., 2000,Metropolitan Government and Governance:Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Analysis,and the Future. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.Svara, J. H., 2003, Two Decades of Continuityand Change in American City Councils,National League of Cities.Silva, L., 2005, Escaping from the Straightjacketthat Baffled Houdini: An Analysis of theMyths and Realities of Empowering TorontoThrough a City Charter, Master of Public Administration,University of Western Ontario.Anthony Center, 2006, Women Lag as LocalLeaders. Rochester, NY: Anthony Center. RetrievedDecember 12, 2006 at, G. K., 2002, Local Tax Sharing: AnIncentive for Intergovernmental Cooperation.Fiscal Research Program No. 75. AndrewYoung School of Policy Studies:Georgia State University.U.S. Advisory Commission on IntergovernmentalRelations (USACIR), 1993, StateLaws Governing Local Government Structureand Administration. DC: U.S. Advisory Commissionon Intergovernmental Relations.

335Metropolitan GovernanceU.S. Bureau of the Census, 1992, Census ofGovernments, 1(1) Government Organization.Retrieved July 28,2006 from Bureau of the Census, 1997, GovernmentOrganization. 1997 Census of Governments,Vol. 1 Government Organization.Retrieved July 28, 2006 from Bureau of the Census, 2002, GovernmentOrganization, 1(1) Government Organization.Retrieved July 28, 2006 from S. Bureau of the Census, 2002, GovernmentFinances. 2002 Census of Government 4(5).Retrieved July 4, 2006 from Bureau of the Census, 2006, 2005Public Employment, Data: Local Governments.In “Statistical Abstract of the UnitedStates”.World Bank, 2006, GRICS: Governance ResearchIndicator Country Snapshot Comparisonwithin Canada for all Six Governance Indicator.Governance and Anti-Corruption. RetrievedJuly 28,2006 from http://www.worldbank.-org/wbi/governance/World Bank, 2006, GRICS: Governance ResearchIndicator Country Snapshot Comparisonwithin United States for all Six GovernanceIndicator. Governance and Anti-Corruption.Retrieved July 28,2006 from, S.A. and al., 2000, Privatization and entrepreneurialtransformation: Emerging issuesand a future research agenda, The Academy ofManagement Review 35(3): pp 509-524.Abers, R. N. and Keck, M., 2006, MuddyWaters: The Political Construction of DeliberativeRiver Basin Governance in Brazil,International “Journal of Urban and RegionalResearch” 30(3): 601-622.Ades, A. F. and Glaeser, E. L., 1995, Tradeand Circuses: Explaining Urban Giants,“The Quarterly Journal of Economics”110(1): 195-227.Alesina, A., Baqir, R. and Easterly, W.,1999, Public Goods and Ethnic Divisions,“Quarterly Journal of Economics”, 114(4):243-84.Ascher, F., 1995, Metapolis ou l’avenir desvilles. Paris : Odile Jacob.Banfield, E. C. and Grodzins, M., 1958,Government and Housing in MetropolitanAreas, New York, McGraw-HillBlankart, C. B. and Pommerehne, W. W.,1979, Les économies d’échelle dans lesservices urbains, “Revue Économique”,vol. 30, n°2Cameron, R. G., 2005, Metropolitan restructuring(and more restructuring) inSouth Africa, “Public Administration andDevelopment” 25(4): 329-339Cameron, R. and Alvarez, A., 2005, Metropolitanisationand political change in SouthAfrica, in: Hoffmann-Martinot, V. and Sellers,J. (Eds), “Metropolitanization and PoliticalChange”, Wiesbaden : VS-Verlag(Urban Research International, 6): 373-394.Chernick, H. and Reschovsky, A., 2001,Lost in the Balance: How State PoliciesAffect the Fiscal Health of Cities, WorkingPaper, La Follette School of Public Affairs.Zimmerman, J. F., 1997, The Recall: Tribunalof the People. Westport, Connecticut.Praeger Publishers.

BIBLIOGRAPHY336United Cities and Local GovernmentsClark, T. N. and Goetz, E. G., 1994, The antigrowthmachine: Can city governments control,limit or manage growth? In Clark, TerryN. (ed.) “Urban innovation”, pp 105-145.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Cobridge, S. and Jones, G. A.,2005, TheContinuing Debate About Urban Bias. WorkingPaper, Department of Geography andEnvironment, London School of Economics.Dahl, R., 1969, The city in the future ofdemocracy, “American Political Science Review”61:953-970.Davis, M., 2006, Planet of Slums. London:Verso.Devas, N., 2005, Metropolitan Governanceand Poverty, “Public Administration andDevelopment”, 25: 351-361.Downs, A., 1994, New Visions for MetropolitanAmerica, Washington, D.C.: TheBrookings Institution.Dreier, P., Mollenkopf, J. and Swanstrom,T., 2004, Place Matters, Lawrence, KS: Universityof Kansas Press.Dupuy, G., 1997, Préface, in: Dubois-Taine,G. and Chalas, Y. (editors), “La ville émergente”,Paris, Editions de l’Aube, p. 5-9.Fainstein, S., 2001, Inequality in Global City-Regions,in: Allen J. Scott (ed.), “GlobalCity-Regions”, New York : Oxford UniversityPress, pp 285-98.Frederickson, H. G., 1999, The Repositioningof Public Administration, PS: “PoliticalScience and Politics”, 32(4): 701-711.Gilbert, A., 1998, The Latin American City,revised edition, London: Latin AmericanBureau.Glaser, E., Kolko, J. and Saiz, A., 2001,Consumer City, “Journal of Economic Geography”1, pp 27-50.Gottmann, J. 1961, Megalopolis: The UrbanizedNortheastern Seaboard of the UnitedStates. New York: The Twentieth CenturyFund.Haddad, L., Ruel, M.T. and Garrett, J.L.,1999, Are Urban Poverty and UndernutritionGrowing? Some Newly Assembled Evidence,“World Development” 27(11): pp1891-1904.Harloe M., 2003, Le nouveau gouvernementmétropolitain de Londres: vers laterre promise, “Revue Française d’AdministrationPublique”, n° 107: 319-332.Hoffmann-Martinot, V. and Sellers, J.(Eds.), 2005, Metropolitanization and PoliticalChange, Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag (UrbanResearch International, 6).Hoffmann-Martinot, V., 2005, Towards anAmericanization of French MetropolitanAreas?, in Hoffmann-Martinot, V. and Sellers,J. (Eds.) (2005), “Metropolitanizationand Political Change”, Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.Huang, Jingnan, Xi Xi Lu and Sellers, J.,2008, A Global Comparative Analysis ofUrban Form, “Landscape and Urban Planning”(forthcoming).Ingram, G., 1997, Patterns of MetropolitanDevelopment: What Have We Learned?Washington, D.C.: World Bank.Jouve, B. and Lefèvre, C. (Eds.), 2002,Local power, territory, and institutions inEuropean metropolitan regions, London:Frank Cass.Kennedy, L. 2007, Regional Industrial PoliciesDriving Peri-Urban Dynamics in Hyderabad,India, “Cities” 24(2): 95-109.

337Kübler, D., 2005, Problems and prospects ofmetropolitan governance in Sydney: towards‘old’ or ‘new’ regionalism?, City FuturesResearch Centre, University of NewSouth Wales, 43 p.Laquian Aprodicio A., 2001, Metro Manila:Participation and Inclusion in A City of Villages,in: Blair A. Ruble, Richard E. Stren, JosephS. Tulchin and Diana H. Varat (Eds.),“Urban Governance Around the World”, Washington,D.C.: Woodrow Wilson InternationalCenter for Scholars: 74-110.Laquian, Aprodicio A., 2005, Beyond Metropolis:The Planning and Governance of Asia’sMega-Urban Regions, Baltimore, MD: JohnsHopkins University Press.Lipton, M. 1977, Why Poor People Stay Poor:Urban Bias and World Development, Avebury,UK: Aldershot.Marcuse, P. and Van Kempen, R. (eds.),2000, Globalizing Cities: A New Spatial Order,London: Blackwell.Marks, G. and Hooghe, L., 2003, Unravelingthe Central State, But How? Types of Multi-Level Governance, “American Political ScienceReview” 97(2): 233-43.Markusen, Ann R., Lee, Y. S. and Dibiovanna,S. (eds.), 1999, Second Tier Cities(Minneapolis, MN: University of MinnesotaPress).Martinotti, G., 1997, The New Social Morphologyof Cities, UNESCO-MOST, DiscussionPaper Series No.16, Paris, UNESCO.METROPOLIS, 2005, Politique-cadre pourles régions métropolitaines proposée par lesecrétariat régional Métropolis-Amériquedu Nord, Montréal, April 2005.METROPOLIS, 2005, Rapport de la Commissionpermanente présenté au 8èmeCongrès de Metropolis, Berlin, 11-15 May.METROPOLIS, 2007, Information on Metropolises,retrieved June 15, 2007 at, J., 1983, The Contested City.Princeton: Princeton University Press.Mongin, O., 1998, La Ville émergeante. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Ostrom, E., 2000, The Danger of Self-EvidentTruths, PS: “Political Science and Politics”,Vol. 33, No. 1 (March): 33-44.Ostrom, V., Bish, V. and Ostrom, E.,1988,Local Government in the United States,San Francisco, ICS (Institute for ContemporaryStudies) Press.Overman, H.G. and Venables, A. J., 2005,Cities in the Developing World, Centre forEconomic Performance Discussion PaperNo. 695. London: Centre for Economic Performance,London School of Economicsand Political Science.Pack, J. R., 1998, Poverty and Urban PublicExpenditures, “Urban Studies” 35(11):1995-2019.Rakodi, C. with Lloyd-Jones, T. (Eds),2002, Urban Livelihoods: A People-CentredApproach to Reducing Poverty, London:Earthscan.Razin, E. and Hazan, A., 2005, Metropolitanizationand Political Change inIsrael, in: Hoffmann-Martinot, V. andSellers, J. (Eds.), 2005, “Metropolitanizationand Political Change”, Wiesbaden : VS-Verlag (Urban Research International, 6):395-423.Sancton A., 2005, The Governance of MetropolitanAreas in Canada, “Public Administrationand Development”, Vol. 25, No.4, October: pp 317-327.

BIBLIOGRAPHY338United Cities and Local GovernmentsSancton A., 2001, Canadian Cities and theNew Regionalism, “Journal of UrbanAffairs”, Vol. 23, No. 5: 543-555.Sassen, S., 1991, The Global City. Oxford:Oxford University Press.Satterthwaite, D., 2004, The Underestimationof Urban Poverty in Low and MiddleincomeNations. IIED Poverty Reduction inUrban Areas Series Working Paper 14. London:IIED.Segbers, K. (ed.), 2007, The Making ofGlobal City Regions. Baltimore: Johns HopkinsUniversity Press.Sellers, J., 2002, Governing From Below:Urban Regions and the Global Economy.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Sellers, J., 2005, Metropolitanization and Politicsin the United States: From Single Modelto Multiple Patterns, Hoffmann-Martinot, V.and Sellers, J., “Metroplitanization and PoliticalChange”, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Sellers, J. and Lidström, A., 2007, Decentralization,Local Government and the WelfareState, Governance (forthcoming).Souza C., 2005, Brazilian Metropolitan Regions:Regime Change and GovernanceVacuum, “Public Administration and Development”,Vol. 25, No. 4, October: pp341-350.UNCHS, 2005, World Urbanization Prospects:The 2005 Edition. New York: UnitedNations Economic and Social Division. Retrievedonline January 20, 2007 at http:-//, P. 1996, Mondialisation, villes etterritoires, Paris : Presses Universitaires deFranceVogel R. K., 2001, Reforming Tokyo MetropolitanGovernment, in: Ruble, B. A.,Stren, R. E., Tulchin, J. S. and Varat , D. H.(Eds.), “Urban Governance Around theWorld”, Washington, D.C.: Woodrow WilsonInternational Center for Scholars: pp 114-148.Wirth, L., 1942, Proceedings, National Conferenceon Planning, 1942. Chicago: AmericanSociety of Planning Officials: pp 141-151.Wood, R. C., 1964, 1,400 Governments:The Political Economy of the New York Region,Garden City: Doubleday Anchor.Zeigler, D. J. and Brunn, S. D., 1980, GeopoliticalFragmentation and the Pattern ofGrowth and Need, in Brunn, S. D. andWheeler, J. O. (Eds.), The American MetropolitanSystem: Present and Future, NewYork: John Wiley, Scripta Series in Geography(with Don J. Zeigler) : pp 77-92.Stren R. and Cameron, R., 2005, MetropolitanGovernance Reform: An Introduction,“Public Administration and Development”,Vol. 25, No. 4, October: 275-284.Taylor, P. J., 2003, World City Network,New York: Routledge.UNCHS, 2003, The Challenge of Slums.Global Report on Human Settlements2003. Earthscan : London.

339ConclusionAalborg C., 1994, Charter of EuropeanCities and Towns Towards Sustainability,Agreement approved by the participants atthe European Conference on SustainableCities and Towns in Aalborg, Denmark on27 May 1994Amin, A. and Tomaney, J., 1995, The RegionalDilemma in a Neo-liberal Europe, in“European Urban and Regional Studies”,No. 2: 171-188.Shlomo, A., Sheppard, S. and Civico, D.,2005, The Dynamics of Global Urban Expansion.Transport and Urban DevelopmentDepartment. The World Bank.Washington D.C., September.Annez, P., 2006, Urban Infrastructure Financefrom Private Operators: What havewe learned from recent experience?, WorldBank Research Working Paper 4045,Beaverstock, J, Smith, R. and Taylor, P.,1999, A Roster of World Cities, “Cities” 16(6): 445-458.Boadway, R. and Shah, A. (ed.), 2007, IntergovernmentalFiscal Transfers. Principlesand Practice. Public Sector Governance andAccountability Series. Washington, DC:World Bank. 572 pCabrero, E., 2007, Government Decentralizationand Decentralized Governance inLatin America: The Silent Revolution at theLocal Level? pp 156-169 in Cheema, S. andRondinelli, D., “Decentralizing Governance.Emerging Concepts and Practices”.Campbell, T., 2003, Decentralization andthe Rise of Political Participation in LatinAmerican Cities. “The Quiet Revolution”.Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Cheema, G. S. and Rondinelli, D. A, (eds.),2007, Decentralizing Governance. EmergingConcepts and Practices. Washington,DC: Brookings Institution Press and theAsh Institute for Democratic Governanceand Innovation. 326pp.Cohen, J. and Peterson, S., 1999, AdministrativeDecentralization. Strategies for DevelopingCountries. West Hartford (Conn):Kumarian Press. 207 pCouncil of Europe, 1985, European Charterof Local Self-Government. Strasbourg,France. October.Crook, R. and Manor, J-, 1998, Democracyand Decentralization in South Asia andWest Africa. Participation, Accountabilityand Performance. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. 348 p.Devas, N. and Grant, U., 2003, LocalGovernment Decision-Making - Citizen ParticipationAnd Local Accountability: SomeEvidence From Kenya And Uganda, “PublicAdministration and Development” 23 (4):307 - 316Edralin, J. S., (ed.) 1998, Metropolitan Governancein Asia and the Pacific. Tokyo: UNCenter for Regional Development, Nagoya,Japan.Ehtisham, A. and Tanzi, V. (eds.), 2002,Managing Fiscal Decentralization. London:Routledge.Friedmann, J., 2001, Intercity Networks ina Globalizing Era. Pp 119-136 in Scott, A.(ed.) “Global City Regions: Trends, Theory,Policy”. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Government of Bolivia, 2006, Strategy ofFiscal Decentralization. Framework for Action.Office of the President and Ministry ofHacienda. La Paz, Bolivia.

BIBLIOGRAPHY340United Cities and Local GovernmentsHarris, N., 2003, The Return of CosmopolitanCapital. Globalization, the State, andWar. London: I.B. Tauris.Haggard, S. and Webb, S., 1994, Voting forReform. Democracy, Political Liberalization,and Economic Adjustment. Washington,DC: World Bank.Hickey, S. and Mohan, G., 2005, RelocatingParticipation within Radical Politics of Development,Development and Change 36(2): 237–262.InterAmerican Development Bank, 2002,Making Decentralization work in LatinAmerica and the Caribbean. A backgroundpaper for the subnational developmentstrategy. Sustainable Development Department,Inter-American DevelopmentBank. Washington, DC: IDB.— 1996, Frame of Reference for IDB Actionin Programs for Modernization of the Stateand Strengthening of Civil Society. GN-1883-5. Strategic Planning and Operationalpolicy department. Washington, DC:IDBJohnson, C., Priya, D. and Start, D., 2005,Grounding the State: Devolution and Developmentin India's Panchayats, “Journalof Development Studies” 41 (6): 937–970.Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A. and Mastruzzi, M.,2007, Governance Matters VI: GovernanceIndicators for 1996-2006, July 2007, WorldBank Policy Research Working Paper No.4280 Available at SSRN:, T., Ercado, S., Sami, M., Havermann,K. and Iwao, S., 2007, AchievingHealth Equity in Urban Settings, “Journalof Urban Health” 84 (3): 1-6.Laquian, A., 2005, Beyond Metropolis. ThePlanning and Governance of Asia’s Mega-Urban Regions. Washington, DC: WoodrowWilson Center. 488 p.National Research Council, 2003, CitiesTransformed. Demographic Change and ItsImplications in the Developing World. Washington,DC: US National Academies ofScience. 529 p.Nelson C. A. and Foster, K. A., 1999, MetropolitanGovernance Structure and IncomeGrowth “Journal of Urban Affairs”, 21(3): 309-324Nickson, A., 1995, Local Government in LatinAmerica. London: Lynn Reiner Publishers.315 p.Oates, W., 1972, Fiscal Federalism. NewYork: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Panniza, U. and Yanezs, M., 2006, Why areLatin Americans so unhappy about Reforms?,IDB Research Department WorkingPaper No. 567. Inter-American DevelopmentBank. Washington, DCPeterson, G., 1997, Learning by Doing: Decentralizationand Policy in Latin Americaand the Caribbean. Discussion Series, LatinAmerica Technical Department. Washington,DC: World Bank.Rodden, J., Eskeland, G. and Litvack, J.,2003, Fiscal Decentralization and the Challengeof Hard Budget Constraints. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press. 476 p.Rojas, E., Cuadrado-Roura, J. and FernándezGüell, J. M. (eds.), 2005, Gobernar lasmetrópolis. Washington, DC: Inter-AmericanDevelopment Bank.

341Rothblatt, D. N. and Sancton A. (eds.),1993, Metropolitan Governance-American/CanadianIntergovernmental Perspectives.Volume One, North AmericanFederalism Project. Institute of GovernmentalStudies, University of California,BerkeleySalmon, P., 2002, Decentralization andSupranationality: the Case of the EuropeanUnion, in Ehtisham, H. and Tanzi, V., “ManagingFiscal Decentralization”. London:Routledge.Smoke, P., 2007, Fiscal Decentralization andIntergovernmental Relations in DevelopingCountries: Navigating a Viable Path to Reform.In Decentralized Governance: EmergingConcepts and Practice. In Cheema, G.S. and Rondinelli, D. (eds.), Washington,DC: The Brookings Institution.— 2003, Decentralization and Local Governancein Africa, Special Issue. “PublicAdministration and Development23” (4): 7 – 16.Tendler, J., 1997, Good Governance in theTropics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UniversityPress.Wescott, C., 2005, Fiscal Devolution in EastAsia. Asian Development Bank - Regionaland Sustainable Development Department.Manila: ADBWescott, C. and Porter, D., 2002, Fiscal Decentralizationand Citizen Participation inEast Asia, Paper prepared for the Asian DevelopmentBank INDES workshop on FiscalDecentralization and Citizen Participationin East Asia.World Bank, 2003, Making Services Workfor Poor People. World Development Report2004. London: World Bank and OxfordUniversity pressWorld Bank, 1997, World DevelopmentReport 1997: The State in a ChangingWorld. Oxford: Oxford University Press.354 pages.Spink, P. K., 2005, Growing Use of Conveniosin Metropolitan Governance of Brazil.Paper presented at University of Texas,Austin Conference on Metropolitan Governance.March.Stren, R. and Cameron, R., 2005, MetropolitanGovernance Reform: An Introductionin “Public Administration andDevelopment 25” (4): 275 – 284. SpecialIssue: Metropolitan Governance Reform.Swyngedouw, E. A., 1992, The MammonQuest. ‘Globalization’, interspatial Competition,and the Monetary Order: The Constructionof New Scales pp 39-67 inDunford, M. and Kafkalas, G. (eds.) “Citiesand Regions in the New Europe” London:Belhaven Press.

United Cities and Local GovernmentsCités et Gouvernements Locaux UnisCiudades y Gobiernos Locales UnidosGeneralitatde Catalunya

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines