GOLD Report I - UCLG

EUROPE132United Cities and Local GovernmentsNational capitalssometimes have aparticular statuspositioning them ina direct relationshipwith their country’scentral authority5. E.g with thepurpose to fulfilspecific functions.6. This means that itaims at answeringdemands related tothe implementationof competences.The United Kingdom has moved to anasymmetrical organization with regionalautonomies for Scotland, and NorthernIreland, a unitary regime for England andto a lesser extent for Wales. (Wales hasno proper legislative power after theWales Act 2006). Meanwhile, in Francethe region is a third-tier local authority–a model that Poland has followed. Furthermore,those countries that did notundergo territorial reforms developedinstitutions for inter-municipal cooperationto take on the tasks that small localcouncils could not manage. This hasresulted in further differentiation of themunicipal level (the first tier). At thesame time the new institutions havebecome closer to the second tier, andhave begun to compete with traditionallocal authorities at that level. Analyzingauthorities in terms of two-tier localgovernment is thus no longer enough togive a proper account of the current reality.Asymmetric patterns are more frequentand the number and the nature oflocal governments may vary from onepart of the country to another one. Thisnew complexity means that we have toconsider on the one hand, the differentgovernment levels of the territorial organizationof the state as a whole and onthe other the differences in the status ofthe institutions that we find at each ofthese levels.In an effort to present territorial structuresin simplified form while still accountingfor the new complexity, the tablebelow classifies states by the number oflevels of territorial organization for whichlocal governments have been established,and also according to whether theyare unitary or composite states. Here theterm composite states follows the definitionprovided by the Spanish ConstitutionalCourt: federal states and states withregional self-government, which sharethe following features:1) a plurality of legislative authority atthe center, with the constituent membersas a major expression of theirpolitical autonomy;2) the constitution sets out and guaranteesthe division of powers and responsibilitiesbetween the competenceof the central authority and the competenceof the constituent members.By convention, two of the table’s cellsshow those states that have an asymmetricstructure; that is, regional autonomyin only part of the territory, or local councilsnot included in second-tier administrativedivisions, or disappearance of theprovince when the region merges with itsadministrative area. Inter- or supramunicipalstructures (including those ofhighly integrated inter-municipalities,such as in France or Hungary) will be treatedas being part of the municipal level,as will infra-municipal bodies (e.g., thefreguesias in Portugal or the “town councils”in Bulgaria).Note that territorial reform is once againon the agenda, though this time based moreon functional criteria 5 . Also, there is ageneral trend toward strengthening politicallylocal governments at the basic levelof the community as well as the guaranteesfor their self-governance; the intermediatelevels typically show a tendency toregionalization, although only a minority ofstates is establishing strong politicalregions. Setting up such regions can haveundermining effects on municipalities.National capitals sometimes have a particularstatus positioning them in a directrelationship with their country’s centralauthority (i.e., Berlin, Bucharest, Budapest,Paris, Prague and Vienna).II.2. Basic community-level localgovernment (the local council)In all countries, it is at the level of the localcouncil that the issue of trying to balancepolitical space with functional 6 space becomesparticularly critical, especially in the