GOLD Report I - UCLG

243reflect the consequences of systematic policiesthat have contracted out more of infrastructureand local services.The growth of local government in the UnitedStates has outstripped that at otherlevels. While the federal government hasdeclined as a proportion of all governmentpersonnel, and the state governmentshave maintained essentially the same proportion,local governments now hire fourpercent more government employees thanin the 1980s (U.S. Department of Commerce2006). In Canada, local governmentemployment declined along with publicemployment over the course of the 1990s.It has been rising again since 2002 (StatisticsCanada 2006: pp. 6-7), roughly intandem with growth in provincial governmentemployment.Public service rules and guaranteesfor employees. A distinguishing characteristicof local government in both countriesis the absence of a national civil service forlocal government. In most other developedcountries, either a national civil service ora national local civil service dominateslocal government staffing. But in NorthAmerica, municipal hiring is by individual,private law contract. Although there arecivil service systems in many local governments,the character of these varies widely(e.g., Freyss 1995). Partly as a consequence,many local government employees arerecruited locally. Within specific domains oflocal government activity, professional credentialingand certification often provide apartial substitute for civil service standards.This is notably true in the UnitedStates, where public school teachers, policeofficers, firefighters and financial officialsmust have professional accreditationand associated training.Mechanisms for enforcement of public integrityare present in each country. Most U.S.states and Canadian provinces have enactedcodes of conduct for public ethics thatinclude openness and proper resolution ofconflicts of interest. Often provisions forethics in local government are part of amore general system of norms applied toall public employees within a state or province.Measures of this kind have helped toassure comparatively high standing forpublic officials in these countries (WorldBank 2006).A distinguishing characteristic of local governmentin both countries is the absence of a national civil servicefor local governmentReforms and management initiatives.Efforts to improve quality and efficiencyhave proceeded steadily at the local levelin the United States and Canada, though itis difficult to assess how much difference theseefforts have made. Professional organizationslike the International City/CountyManagers Association have sought to providebenchmarking studies and best practicesguidelines for these local efforts.E-government. A growing majority oflocal governments in both countries haveadopted “e-government” practices. Mostlocal governments now have websites; largermunicipalities use these to distributeincreasing volumes of public information.Local e-government varies widely in scopeand amount. Studies in the United Statesshow that it is most extensive and widespreadamong wealthier communities whereresidents can easily afford computers,and are apt to be highly educated (Reece2006). Several municipalities and somestate and provincial governments havemoved beyond passive online content. InCanada, Nunavet and Yukon have “introducedlegislation which allows council andcommittee meetings to be held electronically.”(UNESCAP 2005).Gender equality policies. In both countries,an array of general workplace guaranteesof civil rights extend protections ongender equality to local governments.