GOLD Report I - UCLG

305POSTFACEEssay on the clarification of some key conceptsand methodical problemsGérard Marcou 1The World Report offers, for the first time,the 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-centered. 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.