European Regions, 1870 – 2020: A Geographic and Historical Insight into the Process of European Integration 3030615367, 9783030615369

Citation preview

Jordi Martí-Henneberg Editor

European Regions,

1870 –2020

A Geographic and Historical Insight into the Process of European Integration

European Regions, 1870 – 2020

Jordi Martí-Henneberg Editor

European Regions, 1870 – 2020 A Geographic and Historical Insight into the Process of European Integration

Editor Jordi Martí-Henneberg Department of Geography and Sociology University of Lleida Lleida, Spain

ISBN 978-3-030-61536-9    ISBN 978-3-030-61537-6 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61537-6 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover credits: Bennet Schulte. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Regions of Europe

Introduction Jordi Martí-Henneberg University of Lleida Lleida Spain [email protected] I would like to express my feelings on putting the finishing touches to this book, which I think its readers will share with me. These relate to this verification of the extent to which changes in international frontiers have reflected the traumatic times experienced by European society throughout its history, and, in particular, since 1870 (Figs. A1 and A2 Annex). Although we shall not make a direct study of the military conflicts, the chapters included in this book do make reference to their consequences, particularly in the case of areas lying between rival states. Changes in frontiers have always been the result of devastating wars or intense political tensions. However, despite recent episodes of war, such as that in Yugoslavia (1991–2001),1 I think that we should all be relatively happy about the period in which we have lived in Europe. This stability has no doubt owed much to the formation and extension of the European Union (EU), which was founded to guarantee peace between countries that had traditionally been rivals, based on territorial stability (Fig. A3 Annex). For the institutions that were subsequently founded  – the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), in 1951, and the European Economic Community (EEC), in 1958 – economic cooperation was the instrument that guaranteed peace after the Second World War. In this book, we will develop two themes related to frontiers. On the one hand, we shall examine elements for interpreting the logic of today’s frontiers based on the process of state-­ building in each of the countries of Central and Western Europe.2 On the other hand, we shall analyse the typologies and transformations of the internal divisions of each of these states. All European states have carried out internal territorial reforms, yet, unlike in the case of those between states, these have generally taken place during periods of peace. We observe that the conception and implementation of new territorial divisions have essentially been a manifestation of a stable political regime seeking to consolidate itself. The new point of view contributed by this book is the treatment of these two aspects in a complementary way, as they only realise their full potential when analysed together. The scope of the present study is to analyse the shape of the administrative map of each country in its historical context. Most authors will also refer to the competences as it is an important aspect to understand the administration geography of each state. Within the scope of administrative history, other authors have studied the formation, evolution and powers of the bureaucratic structures which sustain modern states (Bauer and Trondal 1  Apart from numerous other conflicts, such as the Hungarian Revolution, or the invasion of Czechoslovakia and Crimea by the Warsaw Pact. 2  We shall study European territory as far as its frontiers with the states that used to form part of the former USSR, with the exception of the three Baltic republics, which have been included as members of the EU.

v

vi

2015; Gladden 2019). Attention has also been given to the results of fiscal policies which have been used as the bases for the public policies that have made it possible to establish a balance between people and territories, through either the direct action of the state (Cardoso and Lains 2010) or legislative mechanisms.3 However, no previous studies have examined their territorial impact or, in other words, the way in which state management has been put into practice across a whole country and on how this has been coordinated with local powers. Such a perspective has also been present in other works that have directly focused on the intermediate formation of the regional or meso-tier of government (Bennett 1989; Vandelli 1990), but they don’t include a specific geographic analysis of regional boundaries. There are also a great number of historical atlases available (Sellier 1995; Sellier and Sellier 2014) which are very useful to get a detailed overview of boundary changes. In parallel, an intellectual project was developed in the field of sociology and political science based on continuity between the works of Rokkan (1999), Flora et al. (1983) and other researchers, such as Caramani (2017). Their contributions have given us a better insight into the historical process of state-building, linked to political, sociological and cultural factors, amongst others. To be more specific, Flora et al. (1999) and Caramani (2004) began to construct an empirical dataset at the regional level for the whole of Europe, which has made it possible to work with official data and to study territorial contrasts in greater detail. More recently, there has been some relevant progress in studies into how ideology has conditioned decisions relating to how and why one type of regional administration or another should be adopted. In this area, Faragó (2013, p.  163) put forward a relevant proposal that helped us to interpret the different models of regional administration used in European states. This led us to make a distinction between two types of approach when it came to ‘creating’ regions: (1) the ‘rationalist approach’, which considers that regions are a manifestation of human intellect and the use of space can be the most appropriate at every period; and (2) what Faragó refers to as an ‘empirical approach’, which seeks to identify spaces in which economic and social relations take place. It is possible to consider as members of this second group both Marxist approaches and those whose divisions are based on historical tradition and that have long served as spaces of cooperation. This classification is in line with one that I previously established (Martí-Henneberg 2005) and which I have developed in Part 2, distinguishing between administrative divisions based on rationalism and those that I have referred to as ‘historicist’. This book is divided into seven parts, with various country-specific chapters in each one, grouping together the countries of Central and Western Europe. Each chapter consists of a first part in which there is a presentation of the process of state-building involved and an explanation of the establishment of the current boundaries. To achieve this, the authors have delved into the respective historical antecedents, which often date from much earlier than 1870. Then, there is an explanation of how the administrative geography within each country has been organised and evolved. These two themes structure each of the country-based chapters and thereby facilitate comparisons and make it possible to offer an overview for the whole of Europe. Our analysis therefore integrates two complementary aspects, albeit with different trajectories: the external frontiers and internal boundaries of each country. The seven parts of the book group together countries according to common historical and geographic characteristics. This is not, however, a strict classification, because what is relevant is the comparison between all of the countries in Europe. This global vision is what has enabled us to establish the fact that the development of events in each country has been unique and responsible for providing characteristics that depend on its own political, social and historical evolution. The interest, but also the difficulty, of thinking in terms of the whole of Europe is that this involves trying to put together a puzzle made up of numerous small pieces and, furThese were applied following a redistributive perspective between the regions of Europe, such as in the field of transport infrastructure (Martí-Henneberg 2017). In the present work, we carried out a geographical analysis at the regional scale.

3 

Regions of Europe

Regions of Europe

vii

thermore, many different layers: languages, religions, natural environments, cultures and economic dynamism (Fig. A4, Annex), among other factors. If we combine the diversity of these factors, the result is not only a Europe that is characterised by marked contrasts, but also by changes over time. The transformations of the frontiers of these states clearly highlight this complex reality. The frontiers are, in fact, arbitrary elements that express how tensions between states have crystallised within the territory. As a result, the current map of Europe is the result of power games, but the main objective of this book is not to speak about such situations. The creation of state frontiers only provides our general framework, in the sense that they make it possible to interpret the organisation of internal administrative boundaries. To describe and analyse them from a geographic point of view, in the following parts, I present a series of maps that will help to guide readers and provide explanations. Part 1 is dedicated to describing the changes that have taken place in state frontiers and regional boundaries across the whole of Europe. Part 2 explains the similarities and differences between the countries studied. Then, Part 3 focuses on the potential of the tools that we offer for carrying out a territorial analysis from a historical perspective.

Description of the Changes in State Frontiers and Regional Boundaries If we start by comparing the changes that have taken place in state frontiers and regional boundaries in Europe between 1870 and 2020, the most striking factor is that the continent can be divided into two very different parts (Fig. 1)4. To interpret this contrast, it is relevant to take into account the fact that international frontiers essentially coincide with the area of Napoleonic influence, as will be explained in the following part. Suffice to say, this is the model of territorial division that was adopted during the French Revolution and that was subsequently spread to other countries that received Napoleonic influence. These states are characterised for having made a radical break with the model of the Ancien Régime; as a consequence, they established an administrative geography adapted to the new times (Ongaro 2009). In contrast, other states introduced much more superficial reforms. Although this may seem contradictory, the reality is that the states that broke away from their traditional divisions in a rather drastic way introduced a system that has stood the test of time. Meanwhile the states in which liberal regimes accepted greater continuity in their traditional boundaries have since modified them and, in some cases, even done so various times between 1870 and 2020. This duality is reflected on the map in Fig. 1. If we take the Western area, which includes a continuous territory from Italy, Spain and Portugal in the south to the Scandinavian countries in the north, we find that their state and regional boundaries have remained stable since 1870. In Table 1, it is possible to observe that the years of administrative reform that were reflected in these divisions occurred even earlier. France was the pioneer in contributing a proposal for rational reform, which met both the needs of public administration and the lives of citizens. Having seen these regional patterns, we shall now check their similarity with the building and stability of the states. Figure 2 shows changes in state frontiers in Europe, comparing 1871 to 2020. The 1871 frontiers are shown by thicker black lines. This makes it possible to highlight two important things. The first is the continuity of states along Europe’s Atlantic seaboard and the deep divisions in the territories that formed part of the Russian, German, Austro-­Hungarian and Ottoman empires in 1871 (Caramani 2015). If we consider that, in reality, an empire is a group of countries, it is not surprising that their successive falls have given rise to a wide range of small states, particularly in Central Europe and, especially, in the Balkans. The second thing to highlight is that today’s frontiers are shown by the finer lines, which enables us to identify the areas where new states have been constituted. If we compare Fig. 2 with Fig. 1, we note that again stability has basically been maintained in the countries along the Atlantic seaboard of In this map, the regions are constituted by the traditional administrative units of each country, which basically correspond to the L2 and L3 levels of our classification, as I will detail later. 4 

viii

Fig. 1  Continuity and change of administrative European borders between 1871 and 2000

Regions of Europe

Regions of Europe

ix Table 1  Origin of current divisions and main breaking changes Country Austria Belgium Bosnia-Herzegovina Bulgaria Croatia Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Montenegro Netherlands Norway Poland

First modern division 1848 1794 1908 1878 1848 1842

First main change 1920s I WW

Second main change 1940s II WW

1920s I WW 1920s I WW 1920s I WW 1920s I WW

1940s II WW 1940s II WW 1940s II WW 1949 and 1960 1960s reform

1920s I WW 1634 1790 1870 1850 1848 1872 1836 1871

1940s II WW and reform in 1950s 1920s I WW 1920s I WW 1920s I WW

1940 II WW and 1970s reform 1940s II WW 1940s II WW

1920s reform 1920s I WW 1920s I WW 1920s I WW

1940s II WW

1813 1837 1920s I WW

Portugal

1835

Romania Serbia Slovak Republic Slovenia Spain

1866

1822–23

Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom

1862 1803 1832/5

1848

1940s II WW and reform in 1950s and 1960s 2011 (extinction of the districts)

1976 (creation of the regions of Madeira and Azores) 1920s I WW 1920s I WW 1940s II WW 1920s I WW 1949 and 1960 1920s I WW 1940s II WW 1833 (definitive approval)

1970s reform

Western Europe. On the other hand, from Fig. 2, it is possible to appreciate a phenomenon that has been relevant to the long-term permanence of the frontiers in certain parts of Central Europe: the stability of the majority of the frontiers of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. To be more precise, these are the ones corresponding to the frontiers between modern-­day Austria and the Czech Republic and, further south, between Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Finally, in Fig. 3, we provide an evolutionary series of maps at 10-year intervals that show during which periods these regions have undergone some form of change. Once again, this has allowed us to verify how, over the last 150 years, stability has been the predominant factor with respect to the evolution of internal administrative boundaries in most of northern and western Europe, including Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Spain, Italy and Portugal. On the other hand, there have been numerous, and often important, internal boundary changes in the rest of Europe. Some states, such as Germany, have experienced several sets of changes in their recent history. The reasons for such modifications in their administrative boundaries have varied from state to state. As previously mentioned, some have occurred as a consequence of wars, while others have resulted from attempts to modernise previous administrative systems. Figure 3 shows that most of these changes have taken place in Central Europe and that they were mainly associated with military conflicts or programmes to modify internal administrative divisions. The following map series reveals the times at which these changes occurred. It is possible to distinguish a period of relative stability between 1870 and 1910, with the exception of the expansion of Greece and several other minor changes. This was followed by a period of major

x

Fig. 2  Changes in state frontiers

Regions of Europe

Regions of Europe

xi

Fig. 3  Changes in regional frontiers

xii

Fig. 3 (continued)

Regions of Europe

Regions of Europe

Fig.3 (continued)

xiii

xiv

transformation, which was particularly associated with the two world wars, and then one of more recent changes, linked to processes of far-reaching administrative reorganisation. Using different cartographical approaches, it is clear that there is a contrast between the states whose administrative boundaries have remained stable and those whose internal divisions have been subject to major modifications. The main aim of this book is to explore the forces and processes responsible for these two patterns and to gain a better understanding of the size, nature and functions of the different regions within the states of Western and Central Europe. The maps presented here are intended to contribute to this research. However, we see this work as just the first stage of a much larger programme based on the use of our maps as instruments for an analysis of data referring to total population, urbanisation, transportation and GDP, among other social and economic phenomena. One of this document’s main contributions is the preparation of a digital cartographic resource that charts the changes that have taken place in Europe’s basic administrative structure over the last 150 years and that could subsequently be used to explore other aspects of Europe’s social and economic history during the same period. A digital map is a tool for cartographical analysis, but one that must be correctly understood and interpreted when used in research. In order to help achieve this, the next part provides an explanation of the different patterns of regional administrative geography found in Europe.

The Different Systems of Territorial Administration in Europe The political system of each country is structured according to a particular administrative geography. The political context of reference for understanding the regional structure in Europe is that of liberalism, which was already established in the majority of European states by 1870. This form of state organisation had gradually become consolidated during the course of the nineteenth century, within the framework of constitutionalist political systems. Their central objectives involved the organisation of society under new principles and the promotion of economic activity. Within this context, they required a form of territorial organisation that differed from that of the Ancien Régime and therefore a new way of structuring and organising power. Reforming the territorial administration was one of the key elements in the new, liberal project. Other related innovations included: carrying out periodic and comparable censuses after an agreement by the International Statistical Society (Elden 2007), mapping the ­topography of the whole territory, organising fiscal policy and consolidating a democratic constitutional system. This political change implied two complementary reforms: that of the regional or meso-­ level tier system and the introduction of a new way of collecting comparable data through censuses. These took place at different times in each state but they had been established by 1870 in most countries. Table 1 indicates the year in which the first modern territorial reform was passed in each country. Although this generally occurred prior to 1870, this date was chosen as the base year for the comparative study presented in this book for two reasons. Firstly, this was when the possibility of making general comparisons really began, after Germany and Italy had completed their respective unification processes. The second reason relates to the use of maps in geographic information system (GIS) format5 and the possibility of mapping the data that each country was then able to supply, in parallel with the new censuses. As we can see from Table  2, by 1870, official censuses were already being carried out in the majority of European states and had continuity. One common denominator of the liberal policies was that they established a new territorial organisation, although very different forms were adopted in each country. This transformation was reflected in the creation of regional structures which, to a large extent, are still in place today. Their function was to operate at the confluence between the competences of the state and those of the local level. In this sense, regions became entities that both channelled the Schweikart J, Martí-Henneberg J, Pieper J, Schulte B, Morillas-Torné M. forthcoming.

5 

Regions of Europe

71

20

Netherlands Norway

Lithuania

01

01

Ireland Italy

Latvia

01

Iceland

Hungary

Germany (GDR) Greece

15

11

28

25

21

38

80

35

31

35

31 36 90

46

40 45 41

41 46 00

55

50 57 50 55 51

51 55 10

69 66

63

79 76

71 71

60 61 61

70

61

75 72

70

33 39 70 79 70

61 64 25

60

80

90

81

89

81 81

91

97

91

90

96

89

80

50

90 91

97

90

91

90

90

46

80 81

01 06 12– 33

50 55

70

80 81 88 81

Finland France

43 46 40 45

76

81

01

31 34 34

66

80

Estonia

Denmark

Czechoslovakia

56

69

99 00

01 01

01

00

61 (64) 07

00 01

01

01

00 00

00

20 23 20 20

09 10

14

11 11

10

10

70 (71)

10 11

11

20 20

20 25 23

26 21

20

(81) 87 20 28 20

20 21

22

21

1911 21

10 10

10

1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 23

Belgium Bulgaria

1820

57

1800 1810

Austria

Countries Albania

Table 2  Census years

30 30

36 31 36 30 35

30

30

30 31 36 93

34

30

30

30 34

34

1930 30

47 46

43

46

41 49 40

40

40 46

41

40

47 46

50

50 59 59

51 51

50

51

50 54

59

50

50

56

60 60

61 61

60

60

61

60 62 68

60

61

61 65

1940 1950 1960 60 69 51 61

70 79 70 79 71 70

71 71

70

70

71

70 79 70 75

70

70

70 75

71

80 80

89

89

81 81

80

80

81

80 82

89

81

80

81 85

81

90* 90

91 91

90

91

90 90

91

91

91 92

91

1970 1980 1990 79 89

01

01

00

01 01

01

01

00 01

00

00

01

01 01

01

2000 01

11 11

11

11

11 11

11

11

11

11

11 11

11

11

11

11 11

11

2011 11

Regions of Europe xv

01 01 01 01

11 11 11 11

10

01

Portugal Romania

Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom England Wales Scotland Northern Ireland Yugoslavia

1800 1810

Countries Poland

21 21 21 21

20

1820

31 31 31 31

41 41 43

51 51 51 51

61 61 61 61

71 71 71 71

81 81 81 81

91 91 91 91

1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 58 72 93 77 97 49 64 78 90 60 90 99 42 57 77 87 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 50 70 88 01 01 01 01

00 00 00

00

11 11 11 11

10 10 10

11 12

21 21 21 26 21

20 20 20

20

1900 1910 1920 13 21

31 31 31 37

30 30 30

30 30

1930 31

48

40 41 48 40 40 41 51 51 51 51

50 50 50

50 56

61 61 61 61

60 60 60

60 66

1940 1950 1960 50 60

71 71 71 71

70 70 70 81 81 81 81

81 80 80 91 91 91 91 91

91 90 90

1970 1980 1990 70 88 78 70 81 91 77 92

01 01 01 01

01 05 00

01 02

2000 02

11 11 11 11

11 11 10

11 11

2011 11

xvi Regions of Europe

Counties/Megyék 19 + Budapest All country Regioni (20) Rajone (7) Statistiko regionu/statistical region (6) – Apskritys (County) (10) – – – Provincies (12) Fylke/County (11) Województwo (16)

Hungary Ireland Italy Kosovo Latvia Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Monaco Netherlands Norway Poland

Greece

Lääni/Län/Province (6) Région (collectivité territorial) Region (territorail entity) (22) Groups of Peripheries, NUTS 1 (5)

Level 1 Rreth (26) – Bundesland (9) Regions (3) Distrikt/District (special governing area) Federacija/Federation (entitiy) Republika/Republic (entity) (3) Rayon (6) Žubanija (21) Kraj (14) Region/Regioner (5) Maakonnad (County) (15) Länder/States (16)

Finland France

Bulgaria Croatia Czechia Denmark Estonia Germany

Country Albania Andorra Austria Belgium Bosnia

Table 3  Regional levels by countries, 2020. Indications on historical units Level 2 – – – Province (11) Distrikt/District (special governing area) Kanton/Canton Republika/Republic (entity) (12) Oblast/Области (28) – – – – Regierungsbezirk or Bundesland (38) Regierungsbezirke 19 in 4 states Maakunta/Landskap/Region (19) Département Department (96) Peripheries, NUTS 2 (13) + Autonomous Monastic State (Athos) (1) – Regions Province (103) – – – – – – – – – –

26 counties, 3 cities 2 cities & counties – – – – – – – – – – –

Nomoi/Department, NUTS 3 (51) + Autonomous Monastic State (Athos) (1)

– –

– – – –

Level 3 – – – – –

Regions of Europe xvii

Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom

Country Portugal + Azores + Madeira Romania Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Spain + Canary Islands

Level 1 Distrito/District (20) Região Autónoma/Autonomous Region (2) Development region (8) Statistical Region (2) Kraj (8) Statisticne regije (12) Comunidad Autónoma/Autonomous community (17) Län/County (21) Canton/Kanton/Cantone (26) Countries (4) England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland – – – – –

Judetul/Counties (42) Okrug/District (25) – – Provincia/Province (50) – – – Two-Tier Country System (25) Counties and town (123) Unitary Authority (32) County (Unitary Authority) (22) Unitary districts (11) – –

Level 3 –

Level 2 –

xviii Regions of Europe

Regions of Europe

xix

power of the state throughout their territory and also coordinating bodies at the municipal level. In Spain, for example, these regional entities, which were called provincias, were the meeting point between the gobiernos civiles (agents of central power) and the diputaciones, which managed the common competences of the municipalities (see the Chap. 16). Thus, in modern Europe, countries have organised themselves using three levels of administration: the state level, the local level and an intermediary tier, or meso-level, corresponding to the region, which has received a different denomination in each state (Table 3). Not only the denominations and the shapes of the regions have varied from state to state, but also their competences, which is a subject that we shall examine in each chapter. More recently, states had to adapt to a new context that has transformed their geographical administrations. From the 1950s onwards, we have seen the need to strengthen the competences of the municipalities and regions due to two interrelated circumstances. Firstly, the introduction of the welfare state has required the decentralisation of the management of certain competences. Secondly, the application of the principle of subsidiarity has created a tendency to give greater protagonism to the regions of Europe. Subsidiarity involves transferring as much of the decision-making and management process as possible to the lowest administrative level. Such needs have forced states to endow their meso-level structures with greater powers and, on occasions, even to create a second meso-level that embraces a variable number of these previously cited regions. Within this context, what were once centralised states with a variety of culturally and linguistically diverse communities (in countries such as Spain, the UK and Belgium) embarked upon processes of devolution. All of these factors help explain the consolidation of the meso-level of administration. However, the domestic political circumstances and historical characteristics of each state are often very different. In general terms, the largest European states have therefore required, and adopted, a two-tier meso-level administration, whereas the smaller ones have tended to adopt simpler structures. These questions shall be discussed in each chapter, in greater or lesser detail, according to the importance of these phenomena in each country. In the following sub-sections, I present a proposal for the classification of the different causalities found in each state into two groups. Of course, any classification that we attempt will be subject to debate and criticism given that each country has followed its own dynamic. The combined map presented in Fig. 1 should, however, help explain why I have opted for a classification based on two groups of countries. The first group contains states whose administrative organisations have remained stable over the past 150 years. I call this the ‘rationalist’ (see comments above on Faragó 2013) group because its administrative organisation was decided for reasons that we could regard as being rational. In other words, they were inspired by political practices that, at their time, broke with the established order and, as a consequence, with the previous forms of administration. The second group combines a wide and highly varied group of logics, which are more difficult to define and categorise. Their common denominator is that they conserved most of the historical boundaries that had already existed in these territories before the liberal revolutions of the nineteenth century. With this in mind, I have referred to them as ‘historicist’, as they have maintained traditional (historic) boundaries and are essentially based on age-old prerogatives that are still present in the contemporary organisation of territorial administration (Fig. A5 Annex).

The Rationalist Model As I pointed out at the beginning, it is necessary to jointly take into account both the elements that make it possible to interpret the map of territorial administration: the geography and the content (powers of the meso-level). In other words, we need to study both the form and the attributes of these territorial entities. These two aspects coexist in harmony and the clearest example of this can be seen in the system thought up by France’s first revolutionary government. Back in 1790 it approved an administration based on départements of very similar size and the same powers, putting into practice the principles of Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité

xx

(Liberty, Equality, Fraternity). When designing the départements, the new government erased not only the previous historical boundaries but also what had been known as natural regions. The new system started from the principle that illustrated reason should be used to domesticate nature and remove any traces of previous forms of government. The egalitarian attributes afforded to each territorial unit meant that they were in harmony with their size and very similar power throughout what was in fact a very varied country. Given its conceptual relevance, much attention and study has been dedicated to establishing the extent to which the division into départements broke with the old demarcations (Ozouf-­ Marignier 1990). It is clear that the French Revolution established amongst its priorities the objective of expressing the democratic principle of equality within its territory.6 The départements also grouped together all the electoral constituencies of a power that emanated from their citizens. Napoleon Bonaparte, who had already become the First Consul in 1799, conserved the form of this structure, but reformed its content by reinforcing the central power of the state. From that time, the départements became the necessary elements for facilitating the smooth transmission of policies decided in Paris throughout the whole nation. In fact, the figure of the prefect, the maximum representative of civil power, has continued to perform the same function through until our time. The centralism which is so much criticised today, then represented modernity in the territorial administration of the state. As a result, the French Revolution, like other later liberal revolutions, opposed the Ancien Régime not only in its political and judicial spheres, but also in the territorial expression of the power of the church and nobility. The new administrative division supposed a watershed with respect to the previous historical dynamics. The advantages of this system for a modern form of government were revealed by the fact that the reactionary powers, which grew in strength after the Congress of Vienna (1815), did not subsequently modify this administrative geography. This neither occurred in France nor in any of the other states that had adopted these administrative divisions: particularly Belgium, the Netherlands and Bavaria. While in other states, such as Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal, they later adopted the same principles. Of these, we will briefly comment on the cases of the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal, which are explained in greater detail in their respective chapters. I have chosen them based on their significance for the various subtle differences that can be observed between the countries in this group. During the period of Napoleonic control (1795–1813), the Netherlands exchanged its confederal model with strong subnational autonomy for a much more centralised and uniform model of administration, with hardly any local autonomy. After 1814, the principle of the uniformity of powers was maintained at three levels in the reform shepherded in by the liberal prime minister Johan R. Thorbecke between 1848 and 1851. In 1851, the number of districts was increased to 11 and wide powers were granted to the central and municipal administrations. At the intermediate level, power was therefore lost, but its representatives became elected by direct suffrage. Despite the depth of the municipal reform carried out in the 1970s, this three-layered structure has been maintained until the modern day. In the Netherlands, as in other states with Napoleonic influences, the fundamental consideration has not been to keep stable boundaries for the regions but rather to maintain their hierarchical and functional organisation. In this way, the power of each administrative unit has remained the same despite differences in their size and relevance. Spain and Portugal present two cases in which the rationalist model was applied after 1815. In 1833, Spain was divided into provinces which have subsequently been maintained unaltered. The reform was introduced in that same year because the death of Fernando VII finally opened the door to a liberal system. Although the influence of the French model was crucial, in Spain, the demarcations are larger due to two interrelated factors. One the one hand, the financial weakness of the Spanish state meant that it was not in a position to maintain a system with the representation of too large a number of provinces. On the other, the country’s lower population density also meant that this was not necessary. In Spain, historic entities, such as the Basque foral territories, which have existed since the end of the medieval period, and what had once De Tocqueville (1856) offers a reformist version of the Revolution, pointing out that it led to a series of reforms that were very much needed by the country as a whole. 6 

Regions of Europe

Regions of Europe

xxi

been the border between the territories belonging to the crowns of Castile and Aragon, were respected to a greater extent than in France. In general, the provincial division was made in line with the urban structure of the country. As a result, the denomination of each province tends to correspond to that of its capital city. All these aspects were markedly different from what happened in France. In that country, the names of the majority of the départements correspond to rivers or geographical features of their respective territories. The objective in France was to deliberately establish neutral denominations in order to avoid any historical references, even to cities. As a result, the administrative reform in Spain was applied less expeditiously and was, to a greater degree, the result of pacts between different sensitivities and historical territories. Portugal has the peculiarity of having been the most centralised of all the states studied in this part. This view has somehow to be mitigated not only by the inefficiencies of State apparatus, which limited its ability to impose its power over the territory, but also by the relative autonomy of the municipalities that the liberal State recognised. Historically Portugal had no form of regional government of the types found in Spain and France at the end of the eighteenth century, nor did it have any regional laws, or even different currencies. In this case, we cannot therefore speak of there being any clear regional identities in Portugal, although there is a marked contrast between the north and south of the country. It has even been said that the concept of natural internal boundaries has never existed (Silveira 1997). The country’s administrative division dates from 1835 and remained unaltered until the late twentieth century with the sole exception of Setubal, whose district was created in 1926. The democratic revolution of April 1974 constituted a turning point in the territorial organisation of the country. In fact, the constitution of 1976 established autonomous regions in the archipelagos of Madeira and Azores. However, in the referendum of 1998, the country rejected the possibility of a more decentralised state model in the mainland territory and of thereby consolidating regional power. Recently (2011), the districts were supressed and a new intermediate administrative level was created based on the association of municipalities. The revolution of 1974 opened up the opportunity for the latter to resume and strengthen their former moderate autonomy and to consolidate their position as the main territorial interlocutors of the central government.

The Historicist Model This group of countries share with rationalism the fact that their territorial meso-level also gave priority to the practical function of organising the power of the modern state. As previously mentioned, this group covers a much more diverse range of realities which shares a will to conserve the continuity of its borders and historical territories. For this reason, I propose calling this second group of countries ‘historicist’. As a consequence, this group inevitably presents a greater degree of heterogeneity amongst its administrative units.7 It includes countries that were constituted on the basis of pacts between different societies in countries where there was already a very well-marked pattern of historical settlement. To illustrate this, I will refer to the cases of Switzerland and Germany, and also to the United Kingdom, although their characteristics are very different. The countries of Central Europe that were once within the communist orbit (Jordan 2007, 2009) have their own particular casuistry, which will be examined in each of the country chapters. Switzerland is, in itself, quite an enigma and a rara avis (rare species) within the context of Europe. It has integrated elements of the French rationalist model into its medieval structures. In fact, the denomination Helvetic Republic (nowadays Helvetic Confederation) dates from the period of Napoleonic control (1798–1803) over the country. That said, Switzerland presents a regional map that is very much in line with its historical tradition and cultural diversity, which had given rise to its confederate model originally. The Swiss state is organised into three tiers of power, each with their own and fairly broad competencies. The top tier is that of the The differences between the territories are very marked, see analysis in tables (Martí-Henneberg 2012): https:// repositori.udl.cat/handle/10459.1/60196.

7 

xxii

federation, the second is that of the cantons, while the third corresponds to the municipalities, which enjoy a high degree of decision-making power, notably over the granting of Swiss nationality. All three levels raise their own taxes. The symmetry among the 26 different cantons is of Napoleonic origin (before there were subject territories, colonies and allies) but has been conserved. What may seem strange is that this organisation is combined with a model that safeguards the country’s ancestral traditions. This is clearly expressed in the differences in dimension between Geneva (only 282  km2) and Berne (5960  km2). Accordingly, the state’s administrative map reflects the age-old roots of some of its cantons, on the one hand, but also more recent regional borders such as those drawn under Napoleon in 1803. On the other hand, the case of Germany is the most complex, as it has suffered various rapid changes to both its external borders and its internal organisation. This has not only been a result of war but because, during the period of Nazi rule, a new internal division was introduced which sought to introduce a highly centralised system. In doing this, the previous system was not repealed but merely left without any competences. Furthermore, a number of different traditions have coexisted in Germany. One of these is that of Prussia, which was solidly based on the kreis: a supramunicipal organ that was controlled by the rural aristocracy (junker) until 1872. In the case of Prussia, the provinces were territories gradually incorporated into the state during the course of its expansion from its initial nucleus of Brandenburg. The Napoleonic influence in Germany was expressed itself in the drastic reduction in the number of independent states in its western territories. However, where it enjoyed most influence was in Bavaria, from 1806 onwards. There, the division into departments was adopted as a way to consolidate central power and as a strategy for maintaining the country’s independence against the Prussian colossus to the north. Its partial modifications of 1810 and 1817 were the last changes to a territorial structure that has been maintained through until the modern day. Finally, there is the case of the city-states, whose origins date back to when the imperial cities were freed from the sovereignty of their princes. They form part of the city-belt, which since medieval times has formed a chain of industrial and commercial cities, extending from the Netherlands to the north of Italy. They have always been surrounded by quite large territories which, in the past, ensured them a supply of provisions. In 1815, with the formation of the League of German states, only four of them were maintained, along with 39 other states.8 As a result, in modern-day Germany, the Länder associated with a city coexist with other much larger units. Even so, Germany’s current state boundaries are reminiscent of the age-old divisions, but to a higher degree reflect the limits of the areas of occupation and of self-­ administration established (taking old provinces) by the allied powers at the end of the Second World War. The lower tier of its division into provinces (Regierungsbezrkei) is the one which the states of Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria, Hesse and North Rhine-Westphalia decided on their internal organisation. The smallest ones, excluding the city states, do not have them, however, and are, to all effects and purposes, unitary provinces; this is the case of Thuringia and Sarre, for example.9 Meanwhile others, like Bavaria, enjoy a long tradition of executive powers, mainly related to maintaining public order. The peculiarity in the case of Germany is therefore that both the size of its federal states and the internal organisation of its territorial administration are highly varied. The case of the United Kingdom merits a separate chapter given its different legal tradition, Common Law (Meyer-Sahling 2011), which has contributed to complex and often frequently changing administrative geography. In the UK, there are two elements of administrative law that make its territorial organisation different from the rest of Europe. One is that the concept of self-government, applicable to local power, is not vested in the constitution so that central government can readily change local structures. Second, local government has a ‘dual’ structure where public services and administration are jointly the responsibility of elected councils Thus, only Hamburg and Bremen survived, which were joined by Berlin, as the federal capital. These were small territories but also federal states with all their associated rights. 9  Baden-Württemberg and North Rhine-Westphalia have recently reinforced their Regierungsbezrkei, whereas others have decided to abolish them: Rhineland-Palatinate in 2000, Saxony-Anhalt in 2003, Lower Saxony in 2005 and Saxony in 2012. 8 

Regions of Europe

Regions of Europe

xxiii

and the executive; until recently there have been no executive mayors. The UK is also distinct in now having, on average, the largest local government territories of any major European nation. As a union of four countries (England, Wales, Scotland, and N. Ireland) the UK has different structures in each, with the powers for the countries significantly increased by new laws of devolution from central government since 1999. This constitutes a new constitutional settlement in some ways towards European-style ‘regions’. Within each country the main local unit is historically the county, which is similar to many European provinces and smaller regions, although its position within the administrative hierarchy may vary enormously. A two-tier structure of districts within counties was most common after 1964, but this was replaced by unitary counties in N. Ireland in 1973, in Scotland in 1994, in Wales in 1996, and in a progressive way in England after 1995. This reduced English two-tier counties from 46 in the late 1980s to 25 in 2020, with unitary powers now applied to 58 cities and county units. The UK has had little or no tradition of implementing the continental idea of a hierarchised administration; instead, the system has tended to evolve based on the objective of efficiency: … local entities are not, therefore, conceived as an institutional complex (local administration) integrated within the general administrative structure of the state, but rather as centres of decision-making and management which are perfectly separated and well-differentiated from central government and its administrative structure (Cuchillo 1989, p. 17–18).

As a result, central government does not have a stable peripheral organisation. For this reason, sub-national government needs to create specific organisms for the management of its competences relating to roads, education, social welfare, etc. It is therefore necessary for ­central government to ensure the efficiency of local bodies and to make sure that its policies are applied across the whole national territory. The peculiarity of this system, compared to that of the continent, is clearly evident: it is anchored in the uses and customs of each UK country, but it has also had to adapt to meet the new challenges implicit in trying to have an equality of national treatment across different localities. For this reason, thorough territorial administrative reforms have been carried out at various points. This has led to a progressive and spectacular reduction in the number of municipalities: from many thousands of general- and special-purpose local bodies in the nineteenth century, to about 3000 general-purpose bodies in the 1930s, to about 600 in the 1980s, to only 430 local government units in 2020. Intermediate-­ level entities, such as county boroughs, urban districts, rural districts and municipal boroughs, which had been abolished in the 1960s and 1970s, were re-established for the major cities and larger rural areas as unitary councils replacing counties in some areas. These changes resulted in the number of UK two-tier counties passing from 89 in the 1980s to 148 counties and unitary bodies with ‘county’ powers by 2020, which has produced a notable change in the country’s administrative map.

A New Historical GIS of the Administrative Geography of Europe This book forms part of a project that has made it possible to identify all of the border changes in the different regions of Europe. The regions studied are all still officially operative in each country and have been identified year by year. In this way, we have empirically studied each of the states in Central and Western Europe from the perspective of its formation and territorial administrative evolution. This has made it possible to create a GIS that includes maps of all of the regional and national border changes, year by year, from 1871 to 2020. This material will be included in a specific book which will be published (note 5). In this part, we shall list the applications that this material shall offer. The aim of this book is to provide a historical narrative that will make it possible to interpret the administrative changes that have taken place and to enable people to use the GIS with full knowledge of its potential.

xxiv

The digital map of Europe that we have produced contributes an instrument of analysis which will be useful for all studies that contain data at the regional level for any group of administrative units that people may wish to examine. This type of exercise will not present any difficulties to the user when they seek to represent information relating to a specific point in time. However, the challenge that will arise concerns how to compare information relating to territorial units that change in shape over time. Although this is not the subject of this introduction, we can offer references to previous works in which we have already discussed some possible solutions (Gregory et al. 2010). With this in mind, we have sought to make our map series both real in historical terms and useful for geographical analysis. The book that we are preparing will explain the technical preparation of this material, which will be available online. To guarantee its analytical utility, we have included what were the current, official, territorial units for each country, during each period, doing so for all levels of administration when there was more than one. As a result, we can offer different options for its use and sufficiently detailed levels to identify contrasts in any theme that the user may wish to examine. We have not reached the local level of analysis because that would require a map that would be extremely difficult to manage if the exercise was undertaken for the whole of Europe; furthermore, at present, historical municipal boundaries have only been digitised for a limited number of countries (Finland, England and Wales). There is also another important reason for working with the intermediate, or regional, tier: the databases associated with the map must be manageable. To give a comparative idea, our GIS will provide the most detailed regional level data about each country. As a result, we have in our GIS database 377 L1, 559 L2 and 52 L3 units with which to cover the whole of Europe in 2020. While, at the municipal level, France alone has over 36,000 municipalities, England and Wales have 1,900 and 15,391 civil parishes. The advantage that this GIS offers is that the user will be able to use different administrative levels in a manageable way in each of its applications. As a guide to the user, we shall facilitate information about which of the administrative levels have been most stable in each country over time. In this way, it will be possible to use a combination of what have been the most homogeneous regions between countries over time. In other words, it will be possible to use unit sizes which are as similar as possible when comparing different countries and therefore the resulting general regional analysis should make more sense. Another important aspect concerns what this mapping tool can be used for. Its main function is for the geographic analysis of data obtained from primary sources or indicators based upon them. The sources are mainly the censuses that different countries began to compile at different dates in the nineteenth century. In Table 2, it is possible to observe in which years these censuses began to be carried out on a continuous basis. The data are only provided until 2011 because Europe then decided to move on to a new counting system. They all provide aggregated data at the regional scale relating to different characteristics of population and economic activity. Each one indicates the year for which the data were obtained. It is therefore necessary to have a flexible and detailed mapping instrument that is capable of registering changes on an annual basis. These data have made it possible to construct datasets with the objective of interpreting the evolution of territorial contrasts in Europe covering all of those aspects for which information is available for one or more countries. In the territorial analysis, it is also necessary to take into account the evolution of the factors that have determined this. We have already carried out this type of research when studying the impact of the railway network on regional disparities in Europe (Martí-Henneberg 2017). It will therefore be possible to continue carrying out studies based on real regional units relating to each historical period. With this in mind, our cartographic database is designed to express any subject about which sufficient information is available. As a conclusion to this introduction, it can be stated that the casuistry of territorial administration is highly diverse in Europe. Each state has its own historical logic and it is therefore risky to establish classifications. Even so, the diffusion of the Napoleonic model is clear. It is based on a practical administrative organisation which has endured. However, it has been demonstrated that countries with a less static structure have been able to practice a culture of

Regions of Europe

Regions of Europe

xxv

change and to adapt their administrative geography. This contrast has been particularly evident in France, Italy and Spain, which have shown great resistance to updating their old regional levels of government, including the need to unify municipalities. On the other hand, the group of countries that we have come to call ‘historicist’ is highly varied and includes cases which are very different. Even so, they share their territorial heterogeneity, precisely because they have not had a totally new structure imposed upon their previous one. The field of administrative geography is a very open one and in this book we offer new paths for future research.

Annex

Fig. A1  Europe and its cultural regions

xxvi

Fig. A2  Europe (political) 1871

Regions of Europe

Regions of Europe

xxvii

Fig. A3  Europe (political) 2020

xxviii

Fig. A4  European Union, 2000–2020

Regions of Europe

Regions of Europe

xxix

Fig. A5  Europe (system of government) 2020

xxx

Maps were produced by Bennet Schulte. Maps of introduction were produced by Jonas Pieper. Bibliography Bauer M, Trondal J (eds) (2015) The Palgrave handbook of the European administrative system. Springer, New York Bennett RJ (ed) (1989) Territory and Administration in Europe. Pinter Publishers, London and New York Caramani D (2004) The nationalization of politics: The formation of national electorates and party systems in Western Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Caramani D (2015) The Europeanization of politics: The formation of a European electorate and party system in historical perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Caramani D (2017) Elections in Western Europe 1815–1996. Springer, New-York Cardoso JL, Lains P (eds) (2010) Paying for the liberal state: the rise of public finance in nineteenth-century Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge De Tocqueville A (2008) Ancien regime and the revolution. Penguin. First published in French in 1856 Elden S (2007) Governmentality, calculation, territory. Environ Plann D: Soc Space 25(3):562–580 Faragó L (2013) Basic principles of the constructivist theory of space and the creation of regions. In: Kovác P, Scott JW, Gál Z (eds) Territorial cohesion in Europe: for the 70th anniversary of Transdanubian. Institute for Regional Studies Centre for Economic and Regional Studies Hungarian Academy of Sciences, pp 155–167 Flora P (1983) State, economy, and society in Western Europe 1815–1975: the growth of industrial societies and capitalist economies, vol 2. St James Press, Chicago Flora P, Kuhnle S, Urwin D (1999) State formation nation-building and mass politics in Europe. The theory of Stein Rokkan. Clarendon Press, Oxford Gladden, E N (2019) A history of public administration. Volume II: from the eleventh century to the present day. Routledge Gregory IN, Marti-Henneberg J, Tapiador FJ (2010) Modelling long-term pan-European population change from 1870 to 2000 by using geographical information systems. J R Stat Soc 173(1):31–50 Jordan P (2004) National and regional atlases as an expression of National/regional identities: New Examples from post-communist Europe. Cartographic J 41(2):150–166 Jordan P (2007) Geopolitical developments in South East Europe: the political-geographical rearrangement of South East Europe. Europa Reg 15(2):87–98 Jordan P (2009) Administrative Subdivision of Central and Southeast Europe 2007. In: Jordan P (ed) Atlas of eastern and southeastern Europe. Borntraeger, Sttutgart, pp 5.4–G10 Martí-Henneberg J (2002) El mapa administrativo de Europa. Continuidad y cambio (1850– 2000), Scripta nova. Electron J 6:113 Martí-Henneberg J (2005) The map of Europe: continuity and change in administrative boundaries (1850–2000). Geopolitics 10(4):791–815 Martí-Henneberg J (2017) The influence of the railway network on territorial integration in Europe (1870–1950). J Transp Geogr 62(C):160–171 Meyer-Sahling JH, Yesilkagit K (2011) Differential legacy effects: three propositions on the impact of administrative traditions on public administration reform in Europe East and West. J Eur Public Policy 18(2):311–322 Ongaro E (2009) Public management reform and modernization: Trajectories of administrative change in Italy, France, Greece, Portugal and Spain. Edward Elgar Publishing Ozouf-Marignier MV (1990) La formation des départements. Géographes Associés 8(1):11–14

Regions of Europe

Regions of Europe

xxxi

Rokkan S (1999) State formation, nation-building, and mass politics in Europe: the theory of Stein Rokkan: based on his collected works. Clarendon Press Sellier A (1995) Atlas des peuples d’Europe occidentale. La Découverte Sellier J, Sellier A (2014) Atlas des peuples d’Europe centrale. La Découverte Silveira L (1997) Território e Poder. Nas origens do Estado Contemporâneo em Portugal, Patrimonia Vandelli L (1990) Poteri locali: le origini nella Francia rivoluzionaria, le prospettive nell’Europa delle regioni, vol. 274, Il mulino

The Regional European Geographic Information System (REGIS): An Ongoing Database Project

Introduction Jürgen Schweikart Jonas Pieper Jordi Martí-Henneberg Mateu Morillas-Torné Europe’s history is marked by never-ending changes to the borders of its states and regions. Disagreements over the creation of these borders were a major cause of armed conflict before the nineteenth century. Improvements in surveying methods and cartographic techniques have resulted in the increased use of maps in diplomacy. Only since the second half of the nineteenth century onwards that state borders can be seen as a legally binding expression of the spatial limitation and organisation of the power of the state (Ther 2003). The regional systems of European countries are very different, and spatial units of different size and structure can only be compared to a limited extent. Furthermore, regional borders, in contrast to state frontiers, are subject to ongoing changes, which can be studied using time series analysis. A first approach to solve this challenge of comparative research was provided by Quick (1994). This working paper presents the territorial basis for the published statistics of all censuses of 16 European countries since 1945. The individual regional levels are presented in their hierarchical structure including the number of territorial units of each country. From this basis we developed The Regional European Geographic Information System (REGIS), a complete set of geodata of the administrative borders at the European scale, including external and internal state borders for several levels of territorial organisation. There have not been any previous European-wide databases of this type, even in paper format (Pieper et al. 2007). REGIS and the generalised small-scale version Regional European Thematic Maps (REThM) are digital databases which will be developed in an ongoing project for a wide range of applications in social, economic and historical sciences, etc. Both can be used for thematic mapping and analytical purposes and therefore will be of general relevance for a wide range of applications and people, starting with education purposes in schools, students at universities, and researchers. The objective is to trace all changes in regional borders in Europe for the period of 1870 to 2020 at a yearly basis. The development of the database is near the finalisation and is expected to be published in 2022.

The Methodological Approach to Capture the Border Geometries First, there are two essential choices to make: the choice of a suitable tool to process the geospatial data and the choice of a data-storage system. These decisions took in account the different potential uses. The users will not have been necessarily experts in Geoinformatics, but pupils, students and scientists from different fields of study. On the one hand, it is important to find a solution that is as flexible as possible regarding the tools used. This relates not only to the use of the data, but also to the further development and extension of the tool. We know that xxxiii

xxxiv

The Regional European Geographic Information System (REGIS): An Ongoing Database Project

not all users will use the entire database, i.e. it is possible to freely select both the region and the period and to, a large extent, combine these entries as required. On the other hand, the system should be easy to use. As a starting point for the creation of dynamic geodata, we used a 1993 dataset from GISCO (Geographic Information System of the European COmmission) with a free re-use approval from EUROSTAT. Taking this dataset as our base reference, our work consisted of tracing all boundary changes back to earlier years and on to 2020.

Software Solution The formulated conditions will be fulfilled using a Geographical Information System, conventionally called GIS. A GIS is a system of hardware, software and staff for collecting, managing, analysing and presenting spatial data (Bill 2016); this is the so-called IMAP principle. Essentially, the advantage is that a GIS can realise the two most important tasks of the project: the construction of the geometric dataset and the graphical representation of the data as a map. In the present application, polygons, namely the administrative units composed of borderlines, are in the focus. They must be surveyed, evaluated and analysed; digital data have to be imported and analogue data must be scanned, geo-referenced and digitised. In this context, GIS is not only to be understood as an application to process data, but also as a scientific approach that deals with broader questions from geography, historical sciences, sociology, political science, etc. (Longley et al. 2005).

Geospatial Data Format Besides having the ability to store the geometries as vector data, the data format for the database needs to be able to link the polygons of the administrative units with descriptive attribute-­ data. For example, this could be the names of the respective units, data on the population or area size of the units. In 2014, the US Library of Congress Format Description Documents database contained 334 formats, 34 of which have geospatial references (Pons and Maso 2016). This number increases if metadata and symbolisation instructions are contained in separate files (Kraak and Ormeling 2003). Out of this multitude of possibilities, it is important to find the ones that have the widest distributions, that can be used without in-depth knowledge of computer science and that will keep offering support in future. Among the numerous proprietary and open geodata formats, the ESRI shapefile format is used for this application. The shapefile was originally developed as a proprietary file format for the GIS software ArcView from ESRI. Due to the continuous market-leading position of ESRI, this format has become very widespread. It is no longer only supported by ESRI software but can be read by almost every commercial or free and open-source software. Shapefiles can save the geometries of objects, such as administrative units, as vector graphics, linked to attribute data. They require less processing power than many comparable formats in terms of storage space and read-and-write speed. This format is relatively simple. Even users who are not familiar with GIS can quickly learn how to use shapefiles.

Definition of Change Our goal is to record all boundary changes in every European country from 1870 to 2020, whether they were the result of armed conflicts or of internal administrative reforms. Prior to the data acquisition it must be determined which changes are to be displayed in the database. A pragmatic approach has been applied, including the following aspects: • The percentage change in the area size is selected as the indicator to identify and date the shapefiles. The aim was to record every area change of more than a 5 percent.

The Regional European Geographic Information System (REGIS): An Ongoing Database Project

xxxv

• Additionally, border changes must be verified using historical maps. Especially at the beginning of the data acquisition period, changes in the area size of the units could also be caused by improvements in the measurement methods. • The changes during war times were generally not recorded.

Sources of the Database Based on our basic dataset, that represents the boundary situation of 1993 at administrative Level 2, dynamic shapefiles were digitised with the help of information from databases on the lifetimes of administrative units by the Mannheim Centre for European Social Research, Germany (MZES), and matching historical maps and atlases. A shapefile represents the boundary situation for one period at one administrative level. Most boundary changes could be recreated for all administrative levels by merging or splitting up units based on the starting dataset. For major changes, additional historical map sources had to be used. From these, individual borders were digitised. A large number of cartographic documents and files have been checked in different archives and libraries worldwide. A detailed source documentation will be provided together with the online publication of the geodata. Examples of important and frequently used sources are: • Stieler’s Handatlas über alle Theile der Erde und das Weltengebäude (Stieler & Vogel 1873) • Andrees Allgemeiner Handatlas, 5th Edition (Scobel 1906) (see Fig. 1)

Fig. 1  Georeferenced sheet from Scobel (1906) with digitised shapefiles

xxxvi

The Regional European Geographic Information System (REGIS): An Ongoing Database Project

Structure of the Database The datasets were developed for two scale ranges. On the one hand, REGIS was developed for large scales, i.e. for scales between 1:1  million and 1:10  million. For scales smaller than 1:10 million the database REThM is available, which ensures that both regional partial maps and the maps of Europe up to a scale of 1:25 millions can be visualised. To enable the user to access the data as individually as possible, the Shapefiles are divided into two different datasets, each organised according to three features: national affiliation, administrative level and time period. The two different data sets have a different generalisation, i.e. accuracy of the boundary geometries, and are therefore suitable for different map scales.

Generalisation The extent of the European continent from the Scandinavian Peninsula to its southern most point in Sicily reaches approx. 4000 km. The area treated in this book is, however, restricted to a West to East extent of about 3350 km. In order to display this area by means of maps, it must be scaled down. The visualisation of the whole of Europe in poster format (DIN A0) is possible at a scale of about 1: 4.5 Mio. For its visualisation in A4 format, a scale of 1:17 Mio is necessary. This can only be achieved if the map is simplified. The required procedure is referred to as cartographic generalisation. The result (REThM) is intended for the display of thematic contents (see Fig. 2). It does not have the structural properties of REGIS, i.e. it is not representative in a tangible way. Those users who are familiar with GIS as a tool for geographical analysis, know the restricting factors when using generalised data sets which, however, on the other hand, also display advantageous features. Using the relevant data, many categories of thematic maps can be produced, displaying the whole of Europe in a small-scale format. It is possible to reduce the map of Europe to a scale of 1:25 million. At the same time, all options of a GIS can still be used.

Attributes of the Shapefiles A shapefile consists of several files. One file is a table in .dbf format, which contains attribute information. It can be opened and edited in a spreadsheet-processing program as well as in any GIS software. The link between attribute information and polygon geometries is apparent in the GIS. For each spatial unit, there is an associated entry in the attribute table. In Fig. 3, for example, the units Waldeck and Neckarkreis are selected in the chart and in the map view. The name of a unit is shown in the column ‘Name’ and is given in the local language. The designation of the administrative level is displayed under the column ‘Unit’ and is usually given in the national language and sometimes also in English. In most cases, these designations are identical within a shapefile. For example, in France only the ‘départements’ are displayed at Level 2. However, there are some exceptions, where different names of units exist within one administrative level, or one level is not defined for the entire nation. The corresponding level of a unit can be seen in the attribute table under the column ‘Level’. The attribute table is supplemented by unique IDs. They are composed of a front part that identifies the country and a rear part that identifies the administrative level and the individual unit. Both parts are connected with a hyphen (see an example in Fig. 4).

The Regional European Geographic Information System (REGIS): An Ongoing Database Project

Fig. 2  Comparison of a section of the two data sets in the scale of approx. 1:17 million

xxxvii

xxxviii

The Regional European Geographic Information System (REGIS): An Ongoing Database Project

Fig. 3  Except from the attribute table of the shapefile ‘REGIS_Germany_L3_1874–1876’

Fig. 4  Composition of the ID’s

Conclusion With the two new databases, it will be for the first time, possible to select any European countries at any time between 1870 and 2020 to analyse the data and to create maps relating to any topic on the basis of administrative geometrics. One can also choose between two scale ranges with different degrees of accuracy. For the entire period, administrative border changes were sought and recorded in a database based on old or historical maps. The selected file format enables any geographic information system (GIS) to be used. This also ensures that the user can further develop the system. The changes recorded in the database are subject to defined rules, such as the percentage change in surface, and are therefore not tracked in detail. The idea was always to develop a European data set that was as comprehensive as possible. However, it is desirable and hoped for that further

The Regional European Geographic Information System (REGIS): An Ongoing Database Project

xxxix

additions will be made on this base by researchers. There are lots of ways to volunteer in this project, including mapping, validation, etc. The researcher community could actively develop this database further. Literature Bill R (2016) Fundamentals of geographic information systems, 6th edn. Wichmann, Heidelberg Eurostat (2007) Regions in the European Union. Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics. NUTS 2006/EU27. Eurostat methodologies and working papers. Luxembourg Kraak MJ, Ormeling F (2003) Cartography: visualization of geospatial data, 2nd edn. Longman Group, United Kingdom Longley P, Goodchild M, Maguire D, Rhind D (2005) Geographic information systems and science, 2nd edn. John Wiley, West Sussex, England Pieper J, Schweikart J, Kraus F (2007) Generation and visualization of historical-­administrative borders of Europe (1870–2000). In: Tzschaschel S, Wild H, Lentz S (eds.) Visualization of the room. Making cards – the power of cards, forum ifl, issue 6, pp 161–172 Pons X, Maso J (2016) A comprehensive open package format for preservation and distribution of geospatial data and metadata. Comput Geosci 97:89–97. ­https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cageo.2016.09.001 Quick M (1994) Regional Territorial Units in Western Europe since 1945. Research archive EURODATA, Working Paper, no. 5. Mannheim: MZES Scobel A (1906) Andree’s General Hand Atlas, 5th edn. Velhagen & Klasing, Bielefeld Stieler A, Vogel C (1873) Stieler’s hand atlas on all parts of the earth and on the world building. Composite. Justus Perthes, Gotha, Germany Ther P (2003) Foreword. In: Ther P, Sundhaussen H (eds) Regional movements and regionalisms in European spaces since the middle of the 19th century. Herder Institute, Marburg, pp VII–VIII Jürgen Schweikart & Jonas Pieper Beuth Hochschule für Technik Berlin Berlin, Germany Jordi Martí-Henneberg & Mateu Morillas-Torné University of Lleida Lleida, Spain

Acknowledgements

This book has been the result of a long process which was initially also undertaken by the researchers Peter Flora, Daniele Caramani and Franz Kraus, head of archives at the MZES (Mannheimer Zentrum für Europäische Sozialforschung), at the University of Mannheim. It also includes an invaluable contribution of empirical work by Jürgen Schweikart and Jonas Pieper, Beuth University of Applied Sciences Berlin; Mateu Morillas-Torné, University of Lleida; and Bennet Schulte. Bennet Schulte is also the author of the maps of the book and has been updating them with much care over a decade. All of them have made outstanding contributions, under the leadership of Franz Kraus, who has always been most generous, welcoming the entire group not only to his university but also to his own home, which has been the most endearing of meeting points for all of us. Within the academic field, we would like to acknowledge the Erasmus+  – Jean Monnet programme and the Spanish Ministry of Science for supporting this research.

xli

Contents

Part I Federal States 1 Germany ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   3 Klaus-Jürgen Nagel 2 Switzerland �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  13 Sean Mueller 3 Belgium �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  21 Jurgen Goossens and Frank Hendriks 4 The Netherlands ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  31 Frank Hendriks and Jurgen Goossens 5 Luxembourg ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  39 Frank Hendriks and Jurgen Goossens Part II British Isles 6 The United Kingdom �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  47 Robert J. Bennett 7 Republic of Ireland�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  65 Proinnsias Breathnach, Chris Van Egeraat, and Eoin O’Mahony Part III Nordic Countries 8 Sweden�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  83 Anders Lidström 9 Finland�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  89 Jari Stenvall, Päivikki Kuoppakangas, and Antti Talonen 10 Norway�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  99 Jan Erik Grindheim 11 Denmark ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 115 Per Grau Møller 12 Iceland������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 121 Gunnar Helgi Kristinsson Part IV The Napoleonic Model 13 France��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 129 Claude Motte

xliii

xliv

14 Italy������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 157 Giuseppe Bettoni 15 Portugal����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 167 Luís Nuno Espinha da Silveira 16 Spain����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 175 Jesús Burgueño Part V The Habsburg Influence 17 Austria���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   189 Peter Jordan 18 Czechoslovakia, Czech and Slovak Republic����������������������������������������������������������� 219 Martin Brusis 19 Hungary����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 229 Zoltán Hajdú 20 Poland��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 247 Bennet Schulte Part VI The Balkans 21 Bulgaria����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 279 Margarita Ilieva 22 Greece�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   289 Seraphim Alvanides and Nicolaos Nostratos 23 Romania����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 297 Ionel Muntele 24 Yugoslavia and Successor States������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 311 Peter Jordan 25 Albania������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 345 Kaloyan Stanev Part VII Small Countries 26 The Baltic States��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 357 Sulev Mäeltsemees 27 Cyprus, Malta and Microstates: Andorra, Lichtenstein, Monaco, San Marino ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 371 Jordi Domingo Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385

Contents

List of Maps/Figures

Fig. 1.1 Fig. 1.2 Fig. 1.3 Fig. 2.1 Fig. 2.2 Fig. 3.1 Fig. 3.2 Fig. 3.3 Fig. 4.1 Fig. 4.2 Fig. 5.1 Fig. 5.2 Fig. 6.1 Fig. 6.2 Fig. 7.1 Fig. 7.2 Fig. 7.3 Fig. 7.4 Fig. 7.5 Fig. 8.1 Fig. 8.2 Fig. 9.1 Fig. 9.2 Fig. 10.1 Fig. 10.2 Fig. 11.1 Fig. 11.2 Fig. 12.1 Fig. 12.2 Fig. 13.1 Fig. 13.2 Fig. 13.3 Fig. 13.4 Fig. 14.1 Fig. 14.2 Fig. 15.1 Fig. 15.2 Fig. 16.1 Fig. 16.2

Germany and its federal states��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 3 Germany, 1867–1919����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 5 Germany, 1920–2020����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 6 Switzerland and its cantons������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 13 Switzerland, 1291–2020���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 14 Belgium and its communities�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 21 Belgium and its regions����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 22 Benelux, 1870–2020���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 24 The Netherlands and its provinces������������������������������������������������������������������������� 31 Benelux, 1870–2020���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 32 Luxembourg����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 39 Benelux, 1870–2020���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 40 The United Kingdom and its countries within the union��������������������������������������� 47 The United Kingdom and Ireland�������������������������������������������������������������������������� 50 Ireland and its counties and cities�������������������������������������������������������������������������� 65 Ireland, 1660–1922������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 67 Ireland and its planning regions, 1964–1987��������������������������������������������������������� 71 Ireland and its regional authorities (1994) & regional assemblies (2000)������������� 72 Ireland and its regional assemblies������������������������������������������������������������������������ 75 Sweden and its counties����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 83 Scandinavia and Baltic states, 1918–2020 ������������������������������������������������������������ 84 Finland and its regions������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 89 Scandinavia and Baltic states, 1918–2020 ������������������������������������������������������������ 97 Norway and its counties����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 99 Scandinavia and Baltic states, 1918–2020 ���������������������������������������������������������� 101 Denmark and its regions�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 115 Scandinavia and Baltic states, 1918–2020 ���������������������������������������������������������� 116 Iceland and its constituencies������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 121 Scandinavia and Baltic states, 1918–2020 ���������������������������������������������������������� 122 France and its regions������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 129 France, 987–1180������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 131 France, 1515–1610����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 132 France, 1860–2020����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 133 Italy and its regions ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 157 Italy and surroundings, 1860–2020 ��������������������������������������������������������������������� 158 Portugal and its districts and autonomous regions����������������������������������������������� 167 The Iberian Peninsula, 1700–2020���������������������������������������������������������������������� 168 Spain and its autonomous communities��������������������������������������������������������������� 175 The Iberian Peninsula, 1700–2020���������������������������������������������������������������������� 177

xlv

xlvi

Fig. 17.1 Austria and its federal states����������������������������������������������������������������������� 189 Fig. 17.2 Political system around 1650: First common institutions in addition to personal union by the Habsburg ruler����������������������������������� 207 Fig. 17.3 Austria, 1647–1749 ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 208 Fig. 17.4 Political system of Austria in the later 18th and early 19th century����������� 209 Fig. 17.5 Political system after the Pillersdorf Constitution of 1848������������������������� 210 Fig. 17.6 Political system of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy – the Hungarian view������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 211 Fig. 17.7 Austria-Hungary 1870�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 212 Fig. 17.8 Austria-Hungary 1910 ������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 213 Fig. 17.9 Austria, 1918–2020������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 214 Fig. 17.10 Political system of modern Austria������������������������������������������������������������� 215 Fig. 17.11 Austria and its NUTS-0 to 3����������������������������������������������������������������������� 216 Fig. 17.12 German dialects in Austria�������������������������������������������������������������������������� 217 Fig. 18.1 The Czech Republic and its regions������������������������������������������������������������ 219 Fig. 18.2 Slovakia and its regions������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 220 Fig. 18.3 Austria, 1647–1749������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 221 Fig. 18.4 Map of Austria-Hungary 1910�������������������������������������������������������������������� 222 Fig. 18.5 Czechoslovakia, 1920–1992����������������������������������������������������������������������� 223 Fig. 19.1 Hungary and its counties����������������������������������������������������������������������������� 229 Fig. 19.2 Hungary, 1918–2020 ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 230 Fig. 19.3 Austria-Hungary 1870 ������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 232 Fig. 19.4 Austria-Hungary 1910 ������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 233 Fig. 20.1 Poland and its provinces ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 247 Fig. 20.2 Poland, 960–1360��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 248 Fig. 20.3 Poland, 1432–1772������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 249 Fig. 20.4 Poland, 1795–1912������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 252 Fig. 20.5 Poland, 1916–2020������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 253 Fig. 20.6 Poland, level-1 to 6 adm. units 1768����������������������������������������������������������� 259 Fig. 20.7 Poland, level-1 to 2 adm. units, 1807–1815������������������������������������������������ 261 Fig. 20.8 Poland, level-1 to 4 adm. units, 1816–1867������������������������������������������������ 262 Fig. 20.9 Poland, level-1 to 3 adm. units, 1867–1912������������������������������������������������ 263 Fig. 20.10 Poland, level-1 to 3 adm. units, 1912–1918������������������������������������������������ 264 Fig. 20.11 Poland, level-1 to 2 adm. units 1926����������������������������������������������������������� 265 Fig. 20.12 Poland, level-1 to 2 adm. units 1939����������������������������������������������������������� 266 Fig. 20.13 Poland, level-1 to 2 adm. units 1945����������������������������������������������������������� 267 Fig. 20.14 Poland, level-1 to 2 adm. units 1946����������������������������������������������������������� 268 Fig. 20.15 Poland, level-1 to 2 adm. units 1951����������������������������������������������������������� 269 Fig. 20.16 Poland, level-1 adm. units 1976������������������������������������������������������������������ 270 Fig. 20.17 Poland, level-1 to 2 adm. units 1999����������������������������������������������������������� 272 Fig. 20.18 Poland and its NUTS-0 to 2, 2005 and 2019���������������������������������������������� 273 Fig. 21.1 Bulgaria and its districts������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 279 Fig. 21.2 The Balkans 1878 �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 281 Fig. 22.1 Greece and its regions��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 289 Fig. 22.2 The Balkans 1878 �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 291 Fig. 22.3 Former provinces of Greece������������������������������������������������������������������������ 294 Fig. 22.4 Greece and its geographic regions�������������������������������������������������������������� 295 Fig. 23.1 Romania and its counties���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 297 Fig. 23.2 Romania, 1878–2020���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 299 Fig. 23.3 The Balkans 1878 �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 300 Fig. 23.4 Romania and its NUTS-0 to 3��������������������������������������������������������������������� 305 Synopsis 23.2 Continuity of territorial-administrative structure (1860–2002)������������������ 306 Fig. 24.1 Yugoslavian successor states����������������������������������������������������������������������� 311

List of Maps/Figures

List of Maps/Figures

xlvii

Fig. 24.2 Formation of the State of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (SHS)��������������������� 312 Fig. 24.3 Desintegration of Yugoslavia���������������������������������������������������������������������� 313 Fig. 24.4 Slovenia������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 316 Fig. 24.5 Political system of the Republic of Slovenia���������������������������������������������� 318 Fig. 24.6 Slovenia and its NUTS-0 to 3��������������������������������������������������������������������� 319 Fig. 24.7 Croatia and its counties������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 320 Fig. 24.8 Political system of the Republic of Croatia������������������������������������������������ 323 Fig. 24.9 Croatia and its NUTS-0 to 3 ���������������������������������������������������������������������� 323 Fig. 24.10 Bosnia and Herzegovina and its entities����������������������������������������������������� 324 Fig. 24.11 Bosnia and Herzegovina and its cantons and regions��������������������������������� 327 Fig. 24.12 Political system of Bosnia and Herzegovina����������������������������������������������� 328 Fig. 24.13 Serbia and its autonomous provinces���������������������������������������������������������� 330 Fig. 24.14 Political system of the Republic of Serbia�������������������������������������������������� 332 Fig. 24.15 Serbia and its NUTS-0 to 3������������������������������������������������������������������������� 333 Fig. 24.16 Kosovo and its districts������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 334 Fig. 24.17 Montenegro������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 336 Fig. 24.18 Political system of Montenegro������������������������������������������������������������������ 337 Fig. 24.19 North Macedonia���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 339 Fig. 24.20 Political system of the Republic of North Macedonia�������������������������������� 341 Fig. 24.21 North Macedonia and its NUTS-0 to 3������������������������������������������������������� 343 Fig. 25.1 Albania and its counties������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 345 Fig. 25.2 Population of Albania (Number of inhabitants in thousands): 1918–2018���� 348 Fig. 25.3 Albania before World War II����������������������������������������������������������������������� 350 Fig. 25.4 Albania, 1949–1992������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 351 Fig. 25.5 The Balkans 1878��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 352 Fig. 26.1 Estonia and its counties������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 357 Fig. 26.2 Latvia���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 358 Fig. 26.3 Lithuania and its counties��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 359 Fig. 26.4 Scandinavia and Baltic states, 1918–2020�������������������������������������������������� 360 Fig. 27.1 Cyprus and its districts�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 371 Fig. 27.2 Cyprus, 1960–2020������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 380 Fig. 27.3 The Iberian Peninsula, 1700–2020������������������������������������������������������������� 381 Fig. 27.4 Italy and surroundings, 1860–2020 ������������������������������������������������������������ 382

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Number of territorial units by level, 1870–2020��������������������������������������������� 16 Table 2.2 Area and land use in the Swiss cantons, 2004/09�������������������������������������������� 18 Table 2.3 Resident population in the Swiss cantons and Greater Regions, 1850–2019���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 18 Table 3.1 Synopsis: main state reforms��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 25 Table 3.2 Competences of the regions, communities and the federal state (simplified overview)��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 27 Table 6.1 Population of the different countries of the UK in 2001��������������������������������� 53 Table 6.2 Population of the administrative regions of England 2001������������������������������ 56 Table 6.3 Unitary local authorities established in England 1995–2021�������������������������� 61 Table 6.4 Numbers of counties, districts and unitary local government units in the UK, 1970–2020����������������������������������������������������������������������������� 61 Table 7.1 Republic of Ireland population������������������������������������������������������������������������ 78 Table 7.2 Area, population and per capital disposable income by Regional Assembly and Regional Authority 2002�������������������������������������� 78 Table 7.3 Area, population and per capita disposable income by Regional Assembly (RA) and County 2016���������������������������������������������������� 78 Table 9.1 Territorial state administrative units at the sub-national level, 1809–2019�����������92 Table 9.2 The structure of local self-government in 1809–2019������������������������������������� 92 Table 10.1 Main territorial units of official statistics in Norway equivalent to EU NUTS 2020����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 103 Table 10.2 Number of territorial units in Norway by level, 1870–2020������������������������� 103 Table 12.1 Communes in Iceland 1901–2018����������������������������������������������������������������� 124 Table 13.1 Overall number of regions, departments, arrondissements, cantons and municipalities, 1800, 1876, 1968, 2011, 2019 (Metropolitan France, overseas departments)������������������������������������������������ 135 Table 13.2 Areas of central government (deconcentrated services), electoral constituencies and local authorities������������������������������������������������ 135 Table 13.3 Number of arrondissements, cantons, municipalities and population of departments according to the 2008 census����������������������� 142 Table 13.4 Municipalities by population size as on 1 January 2006������������������������������� 148 Table 13.5 Correspondence between new and old regions���������������������������������������������� 152 Table 15.1 Number of territorial units by level, 1864–2013������������������������������������������� 172 Table 16.1 Main territorial units for official statistics in 2020���������������������������������������� 184 Table 17.1 Federal states, provinces or lands [Länder]��������������������������������������������������� 196 Table 17.2 Political districts [Politische Bezirke] and towns by statute [Städte mit eigenem Statut] in Lower Austria����������������������������������������������� 197 Table 17.3 Communal districts [Gemeindebezirke] of Vienna���������������������������������������� 198 Table 17.4 Political districts [Politische Bezirke] and cities/towns by statute [Städte mit eigenem Statut] in Upper Austria������������������������������������������������ 199 Table 17.5 Political districts [Politische Bezirke] and towns by statute [Städte mit eigenem Statut] in Burgenland���������������������������������������������������������������������� 200 xlix

l

Table 17.6 Political districts [Politische Bezirke] and cities/towns by statute [Städte mit eigenem Statut] in Carinthia������������������������������������������������������� 202 Table 17.7 Political districts [Politische Bezirke] and city by statute [Stadt mit eigenem Statut] in Styria��������������������������������������������������������������� 203 Table 17.8 Political districts [Politische Bezirke] and city by statute [Stadt mit eigenem Statut] in Tyrol���������������������������������������������������������������� 204 Table 17.9 Political districts [Politische Bezirke] in Vorarlberg�������������������������������������� 205 Table 17.10 Political districts [Politische Bezirke] and city by statute [Stadt mit eigenem Statut] in Salzburg���������������������������������������������������������� 206 Table 18.1 Evolution of territorial-administrative units�������������������������������������������������� 220 Table 19.1 Territory, population and population density on the territory of prevailing Hungary������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 233 Table 19.2 Political and administrative division of countries of Hungarian Crown, 31 December 1869���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 237 Table 19.3 Consequences of Trianon Peace Treaty on administrative division��������������� 240 Table 20.1 The partitioning of Poland in the eighteenth century (Davies 2005)������������� 251 Table 20.2 Voivodeships of the Kingdom of Poland in 1768������������������������������������������ 260 Table 20.3 Departments of the Duchy of Warsaw 1807–15�������������������������������������������� 261 Table 20.4 Voivodeships/Governorates 1816–67������������������������������������������������������������ 262 Table 20.5 Governorates 1867–1911 (Zinkus 1988)������������������������������������������������������� 263 Table 20.6 Voivodeships 1926–1939������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 265 Table 20.7 Voivodeships 1950–1975������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 269 Table 20.8 Voivodeships 1975–1999������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 270 Table 20.9 Administrative units 1999������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 272 Table 20.10 Administrative units 2019������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 273 Table 20.11 NUTS 1–3 of Poland 2003 (EuroStat 2012)�������������������������������������������������� 274 Table 20.12 NUTS 1–3 of Poland since 2016 (EuroStat 2019)����������������������������������������� 274 Table 21.1 Administrative units’ number in Bulgaria in the period 1878–2019������������� 284 Table 21.2 Bulgaria population number by censuses������������������������������������������������������ 284 Table 21.3 Planning regions in Bulgaria������������������������������������������������������������������������� 285 Table 22.1 Administrative levels, units & country area (1850–2001)����������������������������� 293 Synopsis 23.1 Evolution of competences of levels of government��������������������������������������� 301 Table 23.1 Number of territorial units by level, 1870–2000������������������������������������������� 302 Table 23.2 Area in the Romanian counties (regions), 1860–2002 (km2)������������������������ 303 Table 23.3 Resident population in the Romanian counties, 1860–2011������������������������� 307 Table 23.4 Main territorial units of official statistics in 2011����������������������������������������� 309 Table 24.1 Statistical regions [statistične regije]������������������������������������������������������������� 319 Table 24.2 Counties [županje]����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 321 Table 24.3 Cantons [kantoni] and their national majorities, the latter as of 31 December 2013�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 328 Table 24.4 Districts [okruzi] in the Republic of Serbia (Serbian perspective)���������������� 332 Table 24.5 Communes [opštine] in Montenegro������������������������������������������������������������� 338 Table 25.1 Number of territorial units by level, 1914–2018������������������������������������������� 350 Table 25.2 Area and population of main territorial units (census 2011)������������������������� 352 Table 26.1 The size of Estonian rural municipalities before and after the reform in 1939����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 364 Table 26.2 The administrative-territorial division of the Estonian SSR, the Latvian SSR and the Lithuanian SSR in 1960–1990������������������������������� 366 Table 26.3 Changes in the local self-government system in the Baltic countries it the 1990s������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 366 Table 26.4 NUTS III regions in Estonia�������������������������������������������������������������������������� 367 Table 26.5 NUTS III regions in Latvia���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 368 Table 26.6 Counties and NUTS III regions in Lithuania������������������������������������������������� 368 Table 27.1 Microstates: surface area (km2) and population (2019)�������������������������������� 373

List of Tables

Contributors

Seraphim Alvanides  Nortumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK Robert J. Bennett  University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK Giuseppe Bettoni  Department of History, Humanities and Society, Università di “Roma Tor Vergata”, Roma, Italy Proinnsias  Breathnach  Department of Geography, Maynooth University, County Kildare, Ireland Martin Brusis  Deutsches Jugendinstitut, Munich, Germany Jesús Burgueño  University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain Jordi Domingo  Universitat de Lleida, Lleida, Spain Chris Van Egeraat  Department of Geography, Maynooth University, County Kildare, Ireland Jurgen Goossens  Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands Jan  Erik  Grindheim  School of Business, University of South-Eastern Norway, Grønland, Drammen, Norway Zoltán Hajdú  Research Centre for Economic and Regional Studies, Eötvös Loránd Research Network, Budapest, Hungary Frank Hendriks  Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands Margarita Ilieva  Kazimierz Wielki University, Bydgoszcz, Poland Peter  Jordan Austrian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Urban and Regional Research, Vienna, Austria University of the Free State, Faculty of the Humanities, Bloemfontein, South Africa Gunnar Helgi Kristinsson  University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland Päivikki Kuoppakangas  Tampere University, Tampere, Finland Anders Lidström  Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden Sulev Mäeltsemees  Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia Per Grau Møller  Institute of History, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark Claude Motte  Ingénieure de Recherche at CRH/Laboratoire de Démographie et d’Histoire sociale (LaDéHiS), CNRS/EHESS, Paris, France Sean Mueller  University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland Ionel Muntele  Universitatea Alexandru Ioan Cuza, Iaşi, Romania Klaus-Jürgen Nagel  Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain

li

lii

Nicolaos Nostratos  Independent Researcher, Athens, Greece Eoin O’Mahony  Independent Researcher, Dublin, Ireland Jonas Pieper  Beuth University of Applied Sciences, Berlin, Germany Bennet Schulte  Beuth University of Applied Sciences, Berlin, Germany Jürgen Schweikart  Beuth University of Applied Sciences, Berlin, Germany Luís Nuno Espinha da Silveira  Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Kaloyan Stanev  Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain Jari Stenvall  University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland Antti Talonen  University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

Contributors

Part I Federal States

This section includes the federal countries. However, it does not include Austria—formally a federal state—as we decided to insert it in Part IV devoted to territories under the influence of the former Habsburg Empire. Part I includes a country that only recently has become federal, Belgium, even if since its creation in 1830 has been a centralised country following the model of the Napoleonic state. Under the City-Belt States, we include also the Netherlands and Luxembourg due to their historical ties with Belgium. These three countries formed the Low Countries or former United Kingdom of the Netherlands and had close ties with the German Union (Deutscher Bund). In addition, a large number of border modifications occurred between these countries in particu-

2

Part I  Federal States

lar during the Belgian and Luxembourg’s independence process from the Netherlands in the nineteenth century. The inclusion of these cases in the same section is therefore justified as they belonged to a confederation. This section includes also Switzerland and Germany as the two paradigmatic cases of federalism in Europe. All these countries belong to a certain extent to the ‘city-belt’ of Europe, a highly dense network of cities, communication and trade routes running from the North of Italy up to the Flanders. This area was the core of the German Holy Roman Empire and developed a strong tradition of decentralised territorial and administrative structures. The confederal tradition of the Germanic Holy Roman Empire and the strong local autonomy explains the ties between the cantons, cities and principalities located in this trade-route belt. By contrast, there was the centralised administrative structure of Prussia—a military centre which emerged at the eastern edge of the city-belt. This situation changed when Napoleon marched across the Rhine in 1806, de facto ending the Holy Roman Empire. The French new regime was confronted to a confederal tradition. Their territorial administration was reorganized, but the city-belt countries witnessed a series of federalising experiences which maintained the administrative autonomy of their territories. The German-Roman Empire was from the outset a federation of four Stämme, and the Habsburgs had for centuries been the most important dynasty within the Empire until the defeat in the war against Prussia in 1866. Still today, the Germanic system is based on the principle of subsidiarity in which subnational units enjoy an extensive autonomy with strong executives. This decentralised structure survived even though the occupation of Prussia by Napoleonic troops in 1807 was the spur to major constitutional and administrative reforms. The radical Stein-Hardenbergische Reformen carried out by Baron von Stein and Hardenberg in 1808 and the Preußische Städteordnung abolished all feudal legacies from the past, reshaped local government around provinces, and professionalised the civil service. After unification in 1871, the Stein-­ Hardenberg reforms and the accompanying city ordonnances were extended to the whole of the new Reich’s territory: each of the 25 Staaten was generally based on a two-tier Napoleonic structure (Kreis and commune). In Switzerland, too, the decentralised structure based on 25 (then 26) cantons survived the centralising and standardising reforms of the Napoleonic République helvétique. And, after 1815, the Swiss Confederation returned to its former organisation based on sovereign cantons until 1848.

1

Germany Klaus-Jürgen Nagel

Fig. 1.1  Germany and its federal states

1.1

State Formation

In comparison with its western neighbours, Germany’s history as a nation-state is only short (Fig. 1.1). Its external and internal boundaries have changed many times in history. Its

K.-J. Nagel (*) Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain e-mail: [email protected]

basic communication grid can be described as an inclined letter ‘E’, with the Rhine representing the stem and its affluents the legs of the letter (Deutsch and Foltz 1963). Roads were added to this grid, which joined the Rhine system with the other river systems in the south, the north and the east, but without defining clear frontiers. Since the days of the Romans, the Rhine valley was an area with many cities, which rivalled in importance; but no city could claim to be the capital. Some of the coastal towns

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. Martí-Henneberg (ed.), European Regions, 1870 – 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61537-6_1

3

4

of the medieval Hanse were seaward bound, but they did not possess a state that backed them. But in the agricultural east, landward orientated Empires developed, with few cities and outstanding capitals: Berlin in protestant Prussia and Vienna in catholic Austria (Flora and Rokkan 2000). The dominating elites of those states included big land owners. German modernisation started with industrialisation in some regions and with bureaucratisation in some of the states, above all Prussia. The development of a social state started early, but mass democracy, at least in the big states, came later. German as well as French historians have found the origins of their respective nation-states in the Empire of Charlemagne (and its aftermath). But during the Middle Ages, what is now the territory of Germany formed part of the decentralised Holy Roman Empire, characterised by changing frontiers and internal rivalries. The Emperor, claiming a universal role, also rivalled with the Pope; his relations with the worldly and ecclesiastic princes and dukes were originally of personal character. Only with time, the princes and dukes gained the political power to establish dynasties and relate them to particular territories. Curiously, the religious schisms and specially Lutheranism with its stress on obedience to the holder of the worldly power and its territorial churches helped the regional dukes and princes in their struggle against the supremacy of Emperor and Pope. The Peace of Augsburg (1555) recognised the power of the territorial rulers to decide the religion of their subjects (cuius regio, eius religio). Curiously, the religious propaganda and Luther’s bible translation, reproduced by the new Gutenberg printing press, standardised written German and contributed to define a common linguistic space. At the end of the wars of religions, the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 recognised the territorial rulers as sovereigns. During the last century of its existence, the old Reich became the battleground for rivalling states from inside and outside its borders. Prussia, the emerging power second only to Austria, fought for the Empire and against (Mitteis and Lieberich 1992, 411), depending on circumstances. In 1792, the Holy Roman Empire had 294 sovereign Reichsstände (princes and dignitaries of the Imperial Diet) and a big number of Reichsunmittelbare (subjects to the Emperor only). Although this Empire cannot be described as a Federation, it was a political entity with political administrations of different status and powers, and each was related to the Empire individually. Under the impact of Napoleon’s rule, the Reichsdeputationshauptschluß of 1803 reduced the number of sovereign entities considerably: 112 Reichsstände on the right bank of Rhine, 19 sovereign dioceses, 44 sovereign abbacies and 41 sovereign cities were incorporated into the remaining territories. Specially in the south of Germany, middle states emerged, which were the allies of Napoleonic France, which fixed the Rhine as its frontier. In 1804, breaking the “constitu-

K.-J. Nagel

tion”, the title of Emperor was transferred to Austria. In 1806, 16 German states, under the Protectorate of Napoleon, formed the Rheinbund, a confederation of sovereign states. The Holy Roman Empire, where intergovernmental relations had been determined by privileges of rank (ständisch), was over. Many of the newly formed middle states reformed (and centralised) their regional and local administrations, copying (like Montgelas in Bavaria) the French system. Prussia introduced municipal self-administration. After the Napoleonic wars, 39 sovereign monarchs and free cities (Mitteis and Lieberich 1992, 419) formed the German Confederation (Deutscher Bund). Not all of them were equal: they were grouped in 4 classes with 1–4 votes, according to population (all together 69 votes). In its executive, the inner council, only 11 members held a vote of their own right, while the other states were distributed among 6 groups with 1 vote each. Austria held the permanent presidency of the Confederation. Many territories of the Austrian Emperor and the Prussian king were not included (e.g. the provinces East Prussia, West Prussia and Posnania; Schleswig and Alsace-­Lorraine were left outside, too). On the other hand, Bohemia, Moravia, Luxembourg, Limburg and Liechtenstein formed part of the Confederation, and, therefore, the rulers of Great Britain, Denmark and the Netherlands, as rulers of confederated territories, participated in its decisions. The rivalry between Prussia and Austria proved an insurmountable burden for the Confederation, which was attacked as well by the German nationalist movement and the liberals because it defended the old dynastic system, which did not respect national frontiers. But the attempt of a national and liberal revolution miscarried in 1848/49, though its federal constitution had been accepted by 28 governments. But the Prussian king rejected the Emperor’s crown offered to him by the Paulskirche Parliament, as it was ‘stained’ with popular sovereignty. The German War of 1866 brought the German Confederation to its end. Prussia seceded, alleging that Austria had broken the founding treaty (Huber 1988, 543–554). The rivalry in the administration of Sleswig-Holstein, which had been won from Denmark in 1864, triggered a new war that ended with the kleindeutsche Lösung, Austria’s political exclusion from Germany. Austria’s territory was respected by the victorious Prussians, but Bismarck annexed German middle and small states that had fought on Austria’s side: Hanover, Nassau, Electorate of Hesse, Frankfurt and a part of Hesse-Darmstadt. Sleswig-Holstein was incorporated, too. Prussia had connected its different German possessions, and Austria’s expansionism was diverted to non-German territories. Under the leadership of Bismarck, a Northern German Federation was set up in 1867 (Norddeutscher Bund). France declared war on Prussia in 1870, but the remaining independent states in the south of Germany took Prussia’s side.

1 Germany

5

Fig. 1.2  Germany, 1867–1919

The common war ended with setting up a Federation; the Deutsches Reich (German Empire) was founded. The Reich of 1871 can be classified as the first German nation-state. According to its Constitution, though, it was a (con)federation of 22 sovereign rulers (4 kings, 6 grand dukes, 5 dukes, 7 princes), and 3 free cities. Its head was not named Kaiser von Deutschland (Emperor of Germany), but Deutscher Kaiser (German Emperor). The king of Prussia, as head of the ‘Confederation’, now accepted the crown, but sovereignty remained with the community of the monarchs and cities. No member state was any more ruled by an outside sovereign; Austria, Luxembourg, Limburg, Liechtenstein did not join. Nor did any ruler possess territory outside the Reich. Alsace-Lorraine, the booty of the 1870/71 war, was initially treated and administered as a Reich territory, not as a member. After 1884, the Reich started to participate in the scramble for Africa and acquired colonies there and in the Pacific. The colonial administration was part of the small (but growing) imperial bureaucracy. In Europe, the frontiers of the Reich remained unchanged till World War I, with the exception of the incorporation of the island of Helgoland in 1890, acquired from Great Britain in exchange for colonial territories and claims (Fig. 1.2).

The Reich was no parliamentary monarchy—it had a democratically elected parliament, but the Imperial chancellor (there were no other ministers at first) was only responsible to the monarch. Nevertheless, the elections to the Reichstag, the lower house, were an important element of federal and not confederal unity. As the electoral system was majoritarian and there was no need to form a government, regional political forces could gain representation in the Reichstag. That included regionalists (from Hannover and Bavaria for example) and members of national minorities (Poles, French, Danes). The upper house of the Parliament, the Bundesrat, was the chamber of the territories, and, more particularly, of their executives. Prussia, with 65% of the area and 62% of the population, nevertheless held ‘only’ 17 of the 58 votes, but was the only power to hold a blocking minority in case of constitutional amendments. Prussia was the permanent president of the Federation, and the Prussian king was the Emperor, of course. With the consent of the Emperor, the Bundesrat could dissolve the Reichstag. Usually, the chancellor was at the same time the prime minister of Prussia. After World War I, most of the territories with a presence of national minorities (including a majority of native German

6

K.-J. Nagel

Fig. 1.3  Germany, 1920–2020

speakers) had to be abandoned, as well as all the colonies. Alsace-Lorraine returned to France. Prussia lost Danzig, which became an independent city-state; the north of Sleswig became Danish and Eupen-Malmédy Belgian after referendums, while the small country of Hultschin became a part of new Czechoslovakia. Most of the territories of the Prussian provinces of Posnania and Western Prussia were transferred to newly established Poland, which, after a conflictive referendum with an a posteriori redefinition of boundaries, also received the eastern part of Upper Silesia. In 1923, Lithuanian militia occupied the Memelland, which was annexed by the new Lithuanian state. The Saar area was also separated from Prussia and Bavaria and placed under a League-of-Nations administration (Fig. 1.3). The Weimar Republic, still called Deutsches Reich, had, therefore, to suffer a considerable loss of territory. The Allies denied the German Austrians their expressed will to form part of it. The Weimar constitution established the first democratically elected government of Germany, responsible to Parliament. At the same time, a President directly elected by the people was endowed with considerable decree powers. In the last years of the Republic, he, in practice, took over legislation. The first chamber of the Parliament, called still

Reichsrat, was elected by popular suffrage (now including women), using a proportional electoral system. But as there was no minimum hurdle to prevent the multiplication of parties; even regional and regionalist parties (particularly from Bavaria and Hannover) could still manage to achieve some parliamentary presence. The relations between the Reichstag and the Reichsrat were strongly asymmetrical, but now the territorial chamber got the lesser share. The eventual veto of the Reichsrat (17 Länder governments) could be outvoted by a two-thirds majority of the Reichstag. It was excluded from financial decisions, and suffered under the decree power of the president—in 1932, he successfully dissolved a Prussian government. While it can be said that under the Kaiser, the Reich was ‘prussianised’, the Weimar Republic was characterised by a dualism between the administrations of the Reich and Prussia. Prussia, in spite of its territorial losses, still was by far the most important Land and was often governed by political majorities different to the Reich’s. Nazi dictatorship abolished democracy and, on the way of establishing the totalitarian system, the Länder were brought into line as well. Power was concentrated on top of the administration, and especially in the hand of the Führer

1 Germany

and Reichskanzler Hitler. The party administration often rivalled with the bureaucracies of the Reich and the Länder; the party was organised in 32 districts (Parteigaue), which cut across Länder frontiers. International frontiers changed for the first time when in the 1935 referendum, the population of the Saar territory decided to ‘return’ to the Reich. In March 1938, Austria was integrated, too, and the Deutsches Reich called itself, after that, großdeutsch. Several more territories were integrated into the Reich: the Sudeten area, in October 1938, the Memelland in March 1939, and, with the beginning of World War II, Danzig (1 September 1939), a part of Poland (26 October 1939) and Eupen, Malmédy and Moresnet (18 May 1940). Other conquered territories were treated as protectorates (Bohemia and Moravia in March 1939) or similar: Generalgouvernement—part of Poland— October 1939, Alsace and Lorraine and Luxembourg, July 1940, and the so-called territories of Carniola Superior and Styria Inferior (former Yugoslav territories) in May 1941. Other conquered territories were administered by the military as long as the conquest lasted. They were not included into the Reich. Obviously, all these territories were returned after World War II. To compensate Poland for its losses (the Soviet Union did not give back the Polish territories it had occupied in accordance with the Hitler-Stalin Pact), all German territory east of the Oder-Neiße-Line was given to Poland with the exception of part of East Prussia, which became Soviet in 1945 and was incorporated into the Russian Federative Socialist Republic in 1946. Therefore, current Germany is 24% smaller than the German Reich in 1937. After the war, the rest of Germany was administered by the four most important Allies (the two Western Allies had carved out a zone for France). Zonal frontiers were sometimes arbitrarily drawn. The capital, Berlin, was divided into four sectors as well. Saarland, again, received a special treatment, as France tried to establish it as a political country of its own, but economically united to France. With the beginning of the Cold War, the part of Germany occupied by the Western Allies accepted the offer to constitute a state, the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG). In response, the Soviet military administration helped to set up a second German state, the German Democratic Republic (GDR). Berlin, which according to the Western Allies was a separate entity, was in fact divided under Soviet influence, and its eastern part was proclaimed to be the capital of the GDR, while the western parts of the city were not integrated into the FRG. They sent members to the FRG parliament, but only with consultative status. Before unification took place in 1990, only two changes in international borders had to be registered. In 1952, the tiny and on the occasion not populated island of Helgoland was handed back by the British. And when the relations between France and the FRG improved, the Saarland was allowed to

7

hold a referendum, and, again, decided in favour of reintegration into Germany, which took place in 1957 (admission as the 11th Land of the FRG) and was completed in 1959 (economic and monetary integration). The constitution of West Germany establishes a liberal-­ democratic and federal state of ten Länder (including Berlin). Drawing lessons from the Weimar experience, the fathers and mothers of the Grundgesetz abandoned the presidential and plebiscitary elements of the Weimar constitution. The powers of the Länder and the role of the second chamber were enhanced, but in many respects the powers of the territorial chamber, the Bundesrat, were lesser than those of the Bundestag. The FRG passed electoral and party laws, which put high stakes to new and radical contenders, but which showed some concern for regional parties. Nevertheless, the finally established party system had few regional components, and the parties of the German refugees and repatriates, once strong, dwindled away when their voters became more integrated into West German society. The gigantic migrations caused by World War II and its aftermath (arrival of more than 10 milions of refugees and expelled persons) have blurred and sometimes nearly eliminated traditional borders marked by religious confession and dialect. Later migrations (‘guest workers’ and other labour migrants, war refugees, asylum seekers, German ethnic immigrants who came after the breakdown of the Soviet Union, all eventually with family members) have contributed to this further. With the partial exception of Bavaria and, to a lesser degree, of the party of the Sleswig Danes and Frisians, no regionalist forces of importance had survived, when in 1990 the accession of the five Länder of the GDR and of Berlin brought a new regional cleavage. The Constitution, though, was not changed accordingly. Since 1990, no changes in Länder frontiers have taken place. The same is true for Germany’s international boundaries now. The famous Oder-Neisse line, drawn by the Allies after World War II, was recognised by the GDR in 1950 and by the FRG as ‘unverletztlich’ (invulnerable) in the Treaty of Warsaw (1970). The (theoretical) German reserve for a new boundary by a definitive peace treaty has been waived by the 2 plus 4 Treaty also signed in Warsaw in 1990 (Fig. 1.1).

1.2

Levels of Government

The three different constitutional regimes of the German twentieth-century history have established different levels of government. According to the Constitution of the Kaiserreich (1871–1918), the Reich had important legislative powers (civil right, penal right, regulation of proceedings, social security etc.). But the bulk of the executive power and (to a lesser degree) the jurisdiction remained in the hands of the member states. Financially, the Reich depended upon the States who paid ‘membership fees’. Federal powers were of

8

course exercised with the (at least) symmetrical participation of the Bundesrat. With the time, the growing military costs, the acquisition of a colonial empire and the expensive construction of a navy enhanced the role of the Reich, and with the financial reforms at the beginning of the century, its financial sources were improved though no categorical constitutional change took place. The states remained important. Their status was not equal. Not only did they have different number of votes in the second chamber, but also they had different powers. In fact, Prussia could never be controlled by the Reich. On the occasion of their accession, some of the southern states, especially Bavaria and to a lesser degree Württemberg, had made sure to keep some reserved rights (e.g. postal and railway systems, and their own armies in times of peace). All members enjoyed the right of organising their territorial administration and their municipal regime. Therefore, the denominations and the number of the territorial administrations of the states were different. Prussia was organised in 12 provinces and the capital territory, all with their own parliaments. Some of these provinces had frontiers and denominations taken from former independent states. The next level was that of Regierungsbezirke, purely administrative units of decentralisation. Kreise and municipalities, and in some parts districts of manorial administration, completed the scheme. While bourgeoisie and upward mobile classes accessed city self-administration, the higher levels of territorial administration, in Prussia, remained in the hands of aristocrats. But each member state was differently administered. It should be remembered that many of the member states included far-away enclaves. The grand duchy of Oldenburg possessed the small principalities of Lübeck (not to be confounded with the sovereign city of Lübeck situated nearby) and Birkenfeld (in the Rhineland). Small states like Brunswick, Anhalt and especially the Thuringian states Saxe-Altenburg, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Saxe-Meiningen, Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt, and Schwarzburg-Sonderhausen, and the two principalities of Reuß (the younger and the older line of the same dynasty) consisted of several (up to a dozen) small territories each. The maps of the Thuringian region looked like a Swiss cheese, and were seen as symbols of German Kleinstaaterei (particularism). Member states of the Reich were different in territory, population and status, and their constitutions and institutions differed, too. Electoral laws covered a range between equal male suffrage and censitarian, class and/or property-based suffrages, which weighed the vote (between two and eight categories). The two Mecklenburgs even conserved their common feudal ständisch ‘parliament’ till 1918, where only the lords and the cities were represented. In these cases, the inner administration still reflected feudal rights and privileges (crown-lands, manors of the noblemen, estates belong-

K.-J. Nagel

ing to the monasteries, and 40 townships). Meanwhile, French-style administered Bavaria was already divided in eight départements-like Regierungsbezirke. The Weimar Republic conserved most of the states, but their status was more equal now. All were (and, under the constitution, had to be) Freistaaten (republics), and all had parliaments elected by general suffrage and proportional representation. But their territorial administrations remained different, although three-tier systems prevailed. The Reichsrat, the territorial chamber, had lost importance in comparison with the Bundesrat of the Kaiserreich. The number of votes now depended on the population size, but even the smallest Länder got at least one vote. At the same time, the Constitution prescribed that no Land could hold more than two-fifths of the votes of the chamber. In order to reduce Prussian influence even further, half of the Prussian votes were given to the Prussian provinces, and, therefore, could be split. The Reich had gained legislative and even executive power from the Länder; it could enlarge its executive powers by simple law and made use of this right. In regard to money, the Länder were downgraded from financiers of the Reich to mere boarders, which depended on the Reich’s taxes and financial administration. After Hitler had been nominated Chancellor in 1933, the Länder were ‘synchronised’. Their laws could be made by their governments (31 March 1933), who were quickly put under the tutelage of the Reich (7 April 1933). Imperial governors (Reichsstatthalter) were nominated. On 30 January 1934, the Länder governments were formally subordinated to the Reich administration; they were stripped of their sovereignty rights (Hoheitsrechte) and lost their legislative and jurisdictional powers. By a constitutional law dated 14 February 1934, the second chamber was abolished. Nearly all Länder survived, but as purely administrative units. After the World War II, the Allied powers dissolved Prussia and created new German territorial administrations. Beginning with American occupied Bavaria, new Länder were set up and endowed with elected parliaments. Nearly all of these Länder got new frontiers. After considerable debate, the federal design of the FRG constitution looked like a half-way house between Kaiserreich and Weimar. According to the majority of constitutional lawyers, a federal state was created. But whether the eventual veto of the Bundesrat is absolute (Kaiserreich) or only suspensive (Weimar), depends on the legislative issue. Taxes (later, tax incomes) were divided between the Federation and the Länder (and in some case, the municipalities), but the normative power remained at the centre. The constitutions, institutions and electoral systems of the Länder can be different, but the federal constitution sets minimal standards. The number of votes in the Bundesrat is still different, and bears some relation to the size of its population, but no single member state dominates. The Länder were given the residual power,

1 Germany

but most of the important issues are concurrent powers, which meant that they could easily be grasped by the Federation. In consequence, the Federation is strong in legislative powers, but the executive power was left to the Länder, as well as the lower courts. Since 1949, a strongly cooperative federalism has emerged. Horizontal and vertical cooperation and the new system of sharing the most important taxes have diminished the autonomy of the Länder and particularly of their parliaments. On the other hand, the Bundesrat enhanced the area of its absolute veto, and now even interferes in some aspects of European policy (Scharpf 1994). Reforms, above all the constitutional amendments of 2006, destinated to ‘disentangle’ competences, had only limited success. In 1990, unification brought five new Länder into the Federation, and reunified Berlin got full member-state status. The five eastern Länder, created by the Soviet military administration in 1947, had been replaced by 14 administrative Bezirke (and East Berlin as ‘capital’) in 1952. Since then, the GDR had been organised as a centralist socialist state. The first (and last) freely elected parliament of the GDR decided to re-establish Länder, but only just before unification and Länder had no share in the negotiation of the Treaty of Unity. They had no time to develop a new identity, and are still depending heavily on federal money, and, to a lesser degree, on inter-territorial compensation (until 2020). Their integration has reinforced inner tensions in German federalism (Jeffery 1999). While some strong member states would like to stop the trend of losing autonomy (with the compensation of more co-decision and usually federal money), others have reasons to fear that more autonomy would leave them in a difficult position to compete (Nagel 2002). They may be willing to trade it away for more money and/or more influence for the Bundesrat. The federal constitution guarantees local self-government and sets some general standards for its financing, but the issue is almost entirely left to Länder legislation. In consonance and continuing German tradition, the powers and the institutions of municipal and other local administration (Gemeinden, Kreise) are very dissimilar. To put an example, the Bürgermeister (head of municipal self-government) and the Landräte (head of the Landkreis) are often elected directly (in the South, for example), but in some northern Länder, are chosen by parliamentary assemblies. There is a tendency favouring direct elections and plebiscitarian elements.

1.3

Territorial Units

Once established, the member states of the Empire of 1871 were territorially stable. Although the duchy of Brunswick was temporarily ruled by a Prussian prince, and Waldeck was

9

administered during the whole period by Prussia, these states were not abolished. The two Mecklenburgs (Schwerin and Strelitz) shared a common assembly, and the two Schwarzburgs, between 1909 and 1918, were ruled by the same prince. But the territories continued. In 1888, Hamburg and Bremen, already political members of the Reich, became parts of its customs area as well. In 1911, Alsace-Lorraine achieved member-state status—too late to win the loyalty of many of its French-identifying citizens. Many Länder saw changes in organising the lower-ranked administrative units, which depended on the states. The number of Prussian provinces, as we have already seen, grew, but only by division. Even the Weimar Republic conserved most of the states, though a tendency to ‘rationalise’ frontiers cannot be overlooked. In some cases, the people were asked in referendums to change borders. The major event was the fusion of seven formerly independent states (many of them with enclaves) to the new Land of Thuringia in 1920. But Erfurt, the biggest city of the region, and other Prussian enclaves were not included in the reform. The Kreis of Coburg, by referendum, decided to form part of Bavaria. Other, less important changes took place when the principality of Pyrmont, belonging to Waldeck, in 1922 became part of Prussia, after a referendum. The rest of Waldeck, in fact already administered by Prussia since 1867, followed suit in 1929. During the Weimar Republic, several Länder reformed their territorial administrations, for example, the small Land of Lippe on two occasions (1928 and 1932). Big Prussia had to adapt its inner frontiers to the loss of a part of its territory. Silesia divided into two provinces in 1919. But Sigmaringen, the Prussian catholic enclave in the southwest, was maintained, for example, as a Prussian Regierungsbezirk and part of the far-away province of Rhineland. Major reform projects of the Weimar territorial administration were presented, but as the republic faced other problems, none was realised. Nazi administration had less respect for old state frontiers, but, nevertheless, most of the Länder frontiers were left untouched. Some rationalisation took place. Small Länder were ruled together by one and the same Reichsstatthalter (Bremen and Oldenburg after 1933) and the two Mecklenburgs were even unified in 1934. On the other hand, Saarland, originally carved out of Prussia and Bavaria by the Allies after World War I, was maintained as a territorial unit of its own when it decided to reintegrate in 1935. A major territorial exchange took place in 1937, when the far-away enclaves of Oldenburg (the principalities of Birkenfeld and Lübeck) were integrated into Prussia, and Oldenburg got the town of Wilhelmshaven in exchange. In a similar way, Hamburg received Prussian towns like Altona, Wandsbek, Harburg and 27 Landkreise more (Greater Hamburg), while Prussia received only Cuxhaven in return. Finally, in 1944, the Prussian enclaves of Erfurt and Schmalkalden were integrated into Thuringia. Inside Prussia, provincial borders

10

changed in 1938 (partition of Grenzmark province between its neighbours) and 1944 (division of Prussian Saxony into two provinces, Magdeburg and Halle). Curiously, even the Nazis, who did not respect Länder autonomy, generally maintained the territorial boundaries. Much more important were the changes that took place under Allied rule after the World War II. In fact, according to first federal president Heuss, the resulting Länder were more originell (odd) than original (genuine) (Nagel 2000, 130). The Allies had decided to dissolve Prussia; on the other hand, the arbitrary frontiers of the occupation zones had to be respected. The coats-of-arms of many of the German Länder reflect old territorial structures (Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung 1990). The Bavarian coat-of-arms is divided into five parts, Mecklenburg-Lower Pomerania and even tiny Saarland have four, North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate and Saxe-Anhalt have three and Sleswig-Holstein has two. BadenWürttemberg, in the uppermost part of its coat-of-arms, bears no less than six arms of older territories. The hyphenated names of no less than 6 of the current 16 Länder reflect this historical reality, too. The US occupation forces started with Bavaria. Together with Bremen and Hamburg, the two remaining Hanseatic cities, Bavaria is the only Land that maintained more or less its old form. The old Land of Hesse ‘won’ the former Prussian province of Hesse-Nassau, but lost four Landkreise, which happened to be in the French zone. The north of the Länder Baden and Württemberg, arbitrarily divided between the USA and France in a way that allowed the US troops to keep the Karlsruhe-Stuttgart-Ulm highway, formed the Land of Württemberg-Baden. In 1947, Bremen, initially assigned to the British zone, was passed to the Americans, so that the troops could have a harbour of their own. Thereby Bremen finally returned to the status of an independent Land, which it had practically lost under fascism. In the British zone, four Länder were established, sometimes after considerable debate with and among the Germans. Sleswig-Holstein grew with the inclusion of the formerly free city of Lübeck. Hamburg maintained its Greater Hamburg frontiers drawn by the Nazis. The new Land of Lower Saxony, territorially second only to Bavaria, was created by the union of the Prussian province of Hannover with the former Länder of Oldenburg, Brunswick and Schaumburg-Lippe. North Rhine-Westphalia united the former Prussian province of Westphalia with the upper part of the equally Prussian Rhineland province (the lower part was occupied by the French), and included the tiny Land of Lippe-Detmold. Länder administrations in the French zone were created belatedly. The Saarland was kept apart; initially it was to become an autonomous entity, economically integrated into France. Three Länder were set up: (1) Rhineland-Palatinate (the southern part of Prussian Rhineland, small parts of the

K.-J. Nagel

Prussian province of Nassau and of Hesse, and the Bavarian Palatinate), (2) (South-) Baden, the part of the Land of Baden ceded to the French, and (3) Württemberg-Hohenzollern, the southern part of Württemberg, including formerly Prussian Hohenzollern and—temporarily—Bavarian Lindau. Under the Soviet military administration, the following Länder were created: • Saxony, which continued the tradition of the old Land, but—as consequence of the new frontier with Poland (the Oder-Neiße line)—lost a small part of its territory to Poland and gained what was left of Prussian Western Silesia. • Thuringia was re-established in its 1944 frontiers, including the new capital of Erfurt. • Mecklenburg gained Prussian Lower Pomerania (left of River Oder, the new frontier with Poland). • The Prussian province of Brandenburg got Land status. • The former Prussian province of Saxony was reunited in order to form, with Anhalt and several Brunswick and Thuringian enclaves, new Saxonian Thuringia. After creation, in the West, these sometimes-odd frontiers have been maintained. The new Länder survived against many odds. Economic regions cut across many Länder frontiers (e.g. the Rhine-Main-Region, which covers parts of Hesse, Bavaria, Rhineland-Palatinate and Baden-­ Württemberg). Even Länder, which structurally do not seem able to sustain themselves, continue to exist (Bremen, Saarland). Many reform projects were presented, in order to form regions better suited to economic necessities. But the new Länder had established their institutions successfully, had integrated the refugees of the aftermath of World War II and had found their place in the federal system. A kind of Länder identity developed, at least to a degree. Party interests had crystallised, whose mutual compensation in case of a territorial reform is very difficult. The ever more complicated system of financial inter-territorial compensation created privileges (e.g. for citystates, harbour states, sparsely populated states), and a territorial reform may put them in question. Therefore, and in spite of the Articles of the Constitution that demonstrate the will of the ‘parents’ of the Grundgesetz to render such a reform possible until now (2020), only one big change took place: the creation of the big southwest-state of Baden-Württemberg in 1952, after a tedious process of referendums. Although (with this exception) the frontiers of the Länder did not change, the Länder reformed their inner administration. Many Länder renounce the decentralised tier of the Regierungsbezirk and maintain only the Kreise and cities, both units of local self-government. City-states apart, the number of Kreise and municipalities (Gemeinden) has been considerably reduced in all Länder, though to a different extent.

1 Germany

In the GDR, the Länder were short-lived (1947–1952). Their successors, the Bezirke, were units of decentralisation, but with assemblies elected by popular (one-list) vote. Their territories cut across previous frontiers: They united pieces of up to three former Länder (Cottbus from Brandenburg, Saxony and Saxe-Anhalt; Leipzig from Saxony, Thuringia and SaxeAnhalt). When the Länder were finally re-­established in 1990, the process had to be quick, as unification was already on the way. Therefore, alternatives were not widely discussed (accession of the GDR as only one Land, creation of Länder including western and eastern territories, or the fusion of the former five Länder into two, three or four new units; Laufer and Münch 1997, 78). The only retouchings of frontiers that took place (e.g. after local referenda, Dielitzsch and Torgau passed from Saxe-Anhalt to Saxony) were insignificant. The smallness of the former GDR Länder grants them over-proportional representation in the Bundesrat, but the viability of these Länder is still not definitively solved as they still depend on federal money. Strong western Länder therefore sometimes criticise that the federal government may ‘buy’ their votes in the Bundesrat, which of course may be true for poorer western Länder as well (Bremen, in particular). Notwithstanding these weaknesses, propositions of fusion have been rejected so far (2020). In the case of Brandenburg and Berlin, the Treaty of Union had already paved the way for a merger, and both governments were in favour. But the Brandenburg population rejected the project, fearing to be dominated by the (West-) Berliners. The new Länder have inherited from the GDR a big number of lower-tier units, Kreise and Gemeinden. Reforms started, but in 2020 the number of administrative units in relation to the population is still considerably higher than in the western Länder.

1.4

Main Levels of Official Statistics

Since 1871, member states were the units used by the official statistics. But as Prussia was so big, its provinces, often of the size of an average Land, were also used in Reich statistics. The same happened to Bavarian Palatinate, the big enclave on the left of the Rhine. In the case of the small, subdivided states of Thuringia, statistics often sum them up, as they also formed a common juridical district. Waldeck, administered by Prussia, is sometimes included in Prussian numbers. Colonies, as they were not formal part of the Reich, were treated separately. In the Weimar Republic, those rules where maintained where possible. Sometimes, data for the old territories are recalculated to adapt to the new frontiers, to facilitate comparison. Data for Bavaria, for example, are sometimes given with and without Coburg. A problem is Saarland, as it was

11

carved out from Prussia and Bavaria and put under League-­ of-­Nations administration, but which the German statistics included, often as a separate entity. Weimar population statistics can also be found on Regierungsbezirk level: 35 units in Prussia (including the city of Berlin), 8  in Bavaria, 5 (called Kreishauptmannschaften) in Saxony, 4  in Württemberg (the former Kreise), 4  in Baden (called Landeskreisbezirke) and 3 in Hesse (called provinces). In the case of Oldenburg, the enclaves of Birkenfeld and Lübeck were counted separately. On the other hand, some statistical data were already presented for six big Reich regions, which cut across Prussian and Bavarian frontiers. After the war, statistics used the Länder level, but increasingly also one of the Regierungsbezirke, which are considered NUTS 2—Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics—units of European statistics. In the case of Länder that do not have this tier, numbers for the whole Land are given as NUTS 2. It sometimes can be problematic to compare purely administrative units like Regierungsbezirke, generally without identity and always without elected assemblies, with Länder or other European regions, which may have democratic legitimacy, constitutional status and an identity shared by important parts of their population.

References and Further Reading Abromeit H (1992) Der verkappte Einheitsstaat. Leske + Budrich, Opladen Bausinger H, Eschenburg T (1996) Baden-Württemberg. Eine politische Landeskunde, 4th edn. LpB (Landeszentrale für politische Bildung), Kohlhammer, Stuttgart Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (1990) Wappen und Flaggen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und ihrer Länder. Heymanns, Bonn Deuerlein E (1972) Föderalismus. Die historischen und philosophischen Grundlagen des föderativen Prinzips. Paul List Verlag, München Deutsch K, Foltz WJ (eds) (1963) Nation-building. Atherton Press, New York Erk J (2008) Explaining federalism. State, society and congruence in Austria, Belgium, Canada, Germany and Switzerland. Routledge, London/New York Flora P, Rokkan S (2000) Staat, Nation und Demokratie in Europa. Die Theorie Stein Rokkans aus seinen gesammelten Werken rekonstruiert. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main Funk A (2010) Föderalismus in Deutschland. Vom Fürstenbund zur Bundesrepublik. Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung, Bonn Gunlicks AB (2003) The Länder and German federalism. Manchester University Press, Manchester Hartung F (1969) Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte vom 15. Jahrhundert bis zur Gegenwart, 9th edn. Koehler, Stuttgart Huber ER (1982) Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte seit 1789. Vol. 4. Struktur und Krisen des Kaiserreichs, 2nd edn. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart Huber ER (1988) Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte seit 1789. Vol. 3. Bismarck und das Reich, 3rd edn. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart Jähnig B, Biewer L, Spieler S (1991) Kleiner Atlas zur deutschen Territorialgeschichte. Kulturstiftung der Deutschen Vertriebenen, Bonn

12 Jeffery C (ed) (1999) Recasting German Federalism. Pinter, London, New York Köbler G (2017) Historisches Lexikon der deutschen Territorien vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart. Beck, München Landeszentrale für Politische Bildung Baden-Württemberg (1999) Die Bundesländer. 50 Jahre Bundesrepublik, Der Bürger im Staat 49, 1–2. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart Laufer H, Münch U (1997) Das föderative System der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. BpP (Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung), Bonn Lehmbruch G (2000) Parteienwettbewerb im Bundesstaat, 3rd edn. Westdeutscher Verlag, Wiesbaden Mitteis H, Lieberich H (1992) Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte. Ein Studienbuch, 19th edn. Beck, München Nagel KJ (2000) Problemes i tendències del federalisme alemany des de 1945. Entre la “unitarització” de l’estat federal i l’Europa de les regions. Afers 35:127–156 Nagel KJ (2002) El federalismo alemán. Más cooperación o nueva asimetría? Revista de Estudios Políticos 118:65–99 Petzina D, Abelshauser W, Faust A (1982) Sozialgeschichtliches Arbeitsbuch. Vol. 3. Materialien zur Statistik des Deutschen Reiches. Beck, München, pp 1914–1945 Scharpf F (1994) Optionen des Föderalismus in Deutschland und Europa. Campus, Frankfurt am Main Sturm R (2001) Föderalismus in Deutschland. Leske + Budrich, Opladen Umbach M (ed) (2002) German federalism. Past, present, and future. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills Wheare K (1963) Federal Government, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, London

K.-J. Nagel Wolfram F, Jochen K, Jutta W (1975) Sozialgeschichtliches Arbeitsbuch. Vol. 1. Materialien zur Statistik des Deutschen Bundes. Beck, München, pp 1815–1870

Sources Freeman MJ (1987) Atlas of Nazi Germany. A political, economic and social anatomy of the third reich, 2nd edn. Croom Helm, London Hohorst G, Kocka J, Ritter GA (1978) Sozialgeschichtliches Arbeitsbuch. Vol. 2. Materialien zur Statistik des Kaiserreichs. pp 1870–1914. Beck, München Institut für Länderkunde (2000–2003) Nationalatlas Bundesrepublik Deutschland [13 volumes]. Spektrum Akademischer Verlag, Heidelberg, Berlin Kaiserliches Statistisches Amt (1880–1918) Statistisches Jahrbuch für das Deutsche Reich. Puttkammer & Mühlbrecht, Berlin Staatliche Zentralverwaltung für Statistik (1955–1990) Statistisches Jahrbuch der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik. Deutscher Zentralverlag, Berlin Statistisches Bundesamt (1952) Statistisches Jahrbuch für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart, Köln Statistisches Bundesamt (2000) Atlas zur Regionalstatistik. Gesellschaft, Wirtschaft und Umwelt in Deutschland. Statistisches Bundesamt, Wiesbaden Statistisches Reichsamt (1919–1942) Statistisches Jahrbuch für das Deutsche Reich. Puttkammer & Muhlbrecht, Berlin

2

Switzerland Sean Mueller

Fig. 2.1  Switzerland and its cantons

2.1

I am grateful to Daniele Caramani for letting me use some of the text originally written by him. S. Mueller (*) University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected]

State Formation

Switzerland as we know it today was created by, through and in many ways also for the cantons, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln (1863) (Fig. 2.1). In what is almost a textbook case of ‘coming-together federalism’ (Stepan 1999), originally three cantons agreed to common defence and mutual arbitration. By 1315, one of their members—Schwyz—defeated

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. Martí-Henneberg (ed.), European Regions, 1870 – 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61537-6_2

13

14

S. Mueller

Fig. 2.2  Switzerland, 1291–2020

the forces of the Habsburg Empire and subsequently tightened its alliance with Uri and Unterwalden (Wiget 2015). The web of treaties between autonomous valley communities (Talschaften) and cities then gradually grew to cover a total of 8 units (plus Lucerne, Zürich, Glarus, Zug and Bern) by 1352, and 13 (plus Fribourg, Solothurn, Basel, Schaffhausen and Appenzell) by 1513. The 13 cantons or Orte, as they called themselves back then, formed a loose Confederation until 1798, that is, for almost 300  years. Although characterised by great levels of internal diversity—seven were Catholic, four reformed and two bi-confessional; five rural, four urban-patrician, three urban with a guild system and one both rural and urban; some very large, some very small; and two further divided internally—each canton had one vote in the Tagsatzung, the assembly of cantonal delegates (Würgler 2008, 30ff.). The Confederation served the cantons not only militarily but also economically, via allies and subject territories (Church and Head 2013, 74ff.). Most allies (Zugewandte Orte) would later become cantons in their own right, notably Geneva, Neuchâtel, Valais (in 1815) to the South-West and St. Gall and Grisons (in 1803) in the East. Socio-political diversity extended to these allies, too: Valais and Grisons

were Alpine communal confederations of their own, St. Gallen an abbey and city, Geneva a Republic. The subject territories, in turn, were ruled as condominiums (Gemeine Herrschaften) by between 2 and 12 (but never all 13) cantons (Würgler 2008, 31). Some of these lands, too, would later acquire the status of cantons, notably Thurgau to the North and Ticino to the South (both in 1803; Holenstein 2005) (Fig. 2.2). The first of two major events that was to significantly affect the Swiss cantons was the French Revolution—or, more particularly, the French invasion and reorganisation of Switzerland into the Helvetic Republic (1798–1803) (Vatter 2018, 14ff.; Church and Head 2013, chap. 5). The French revolutionary armies invaded Switzerland but did not occupy it permanently, instead creating what many felt was an artificial construct. Due to widespread opposition to the centralising and secularising efforts of a liberal minority, however, Switzerland already returned in 1803—with the blessing of Napoleon—to a confederation of sovereign cantons. But the elevation of former allies and subject territories to the status of cantons remained in place, making this a union of 19 members (next to those already mentioned came Aargau, which had partly been a condominium, and Vaud, which

2 Switzerland

had been a colony of Bern since 1536). In adding Geneva, Neuchâtel and Valais, which Napoleon had kept outside of Switzerland, the 1815 Federal Pact then established the number of cantons to 22, which was to remain unaltered until 1979. The external boundaries of the Swiss Confederation were thus consolidated, but the cantons remained sovereign entities. The second major event, and the one that was to lead to the creation of modern Switzerland in its constitutional sense, was the civil war of 1847. It pitted the urban, Protestant and trade-oriented polities of Zürich and Bern against the rural, Catholic and agriculture-dependent lands of Central Switzerland, Fribourg and Valais. The name of the civil war, Sonderbundskrieg, comes from the ‘special alliance’ concluded secretly among the latter seven cantons (Church and Head 2013, 159). The Protestant cities, acting in the name of Confederation where they formed the majority, won the war and proceeded to restructure the entire political edifice. They did so by including delegates from the defeated cantons, however, and agreed to a compromise solution that would create a federation with only weak, mainly economic powers. Until today, the basic political structure of 1848 remains in place: parliament consists of two chambers with perfectly equal legislative powers, one representing the nation (National Council) and the other the cantons (Council of States); the government (Federal Council) is composed of seven equally powerful members, elected by the two chambers in joint session; and the Federal Supreme Court acts as a court of last instance throughout Switzerland for both federal and cantonal law. Each of the seven members of the Federal Council heads one of the seven ministries. Although one of the seven acts as President, s/he is merely chairing the Council meetings during one year and the role rotates according to seniority. Towards the outside, it is always the Council that has decided and acts in a certain way (Vatter 2018, 20). Since 1959, seats are distributed to the main political parties roughly according to their electoral strength (‘magic ­formula’). The precise formula was adjusted in 2003, and confirmed after some discussions in 2015, to give the Conservative right two seats, the same as for the Socialists and Liberals, and one for the Christian-Democrats. Since 1848, the Federal Constitution has been fully revised only twice, in 1874 and 1999. Much more frequent were the partial revisions, which are due to Switzerland’s strongly federal and direct-democratic character: the federation can only act if it is expressly empowered to do so, and citizens themselves can, since 1891, propose partial constitutional revisions. Of the over 200 popular initiatives voted since then, however, only 22 have been accepted (Linder and Mueller 2021,130). The extension of federal powers at the expense of cantons took place gradually and is strongest in

15

the legislating domain, with implementation and especially taxation remaining predominantly cantonal tasks (Dardanelli and Mueller 2019).

2.2

Levels of Government

In 1848, the powers of the federation were limited to a few essential areas, mainly foreign relations, customs and currency. Although federal powers were extended in 1874, especially regarding the military, the preference for extensive cantonal autonomy was preserved. According to the Constitution, all (future) powers were to be invested in the cantons, unless the Swiss people and the cantons expressly agreed—by constitutional referendum—to give them to the federation. Any proposal for revising the Constitution in any way (usually, but not always, in favour of more extensive federal powers) must be put to a popular vote and win a so-­ called double majority, that is, more than 50% of the popular vote and a majority of votes in a majority of cantons. For that latter purpose, the six half-cantons count only half (next to Nid- and Obwalden composing Unterwalden, divided since ever, and Appenzell Inner- and Outer-Rhodes, which split in the Reformation period, this also concerns Basel City and Countryside, which separated in 1833). The crucial constitutional role of the cantons is explained by the history of Swiss state formation (see preceding section). Contrary to other cases of federalism, the cantons have not been created by the central government, but were for centuries largely independent political units that, by contrast, themselves formed the Confederation. Until today, Article 3 of Federal Constitution states that ‘The Cantons are sovereign except to the extent that their sovereignty is limited by the Federal Constitution. They exercise all rights that are not vested in the Confederation’. All 26 cantons have retained their own constitutions, parliaments, governments, administrations and courts. All 26 cantonal parliaments and executives are popularly elected. Also, some of the most visible institutions are run (albeit often with federal co-financing) by the cantons, namely hospitals, police forces, prisons or universities. Income taxes are equally collected by the cantons for themselves and on behalf of the federation. Also, each canton gets to keep 17% of the proceeds destined for the federation for itself. In parliament, each full canton is allocated two seats in the Council of States, and half-cantons one, bringing the total to 46 representatives. But the cantons also form the undivided constituencies for National Council elections, and political parties are equally federal in nature. Moreover, although the number of National Council seats allocated to cantons varies with population size, each canton receives at least one. The largest canton currently has 35 seats, while the smallest 6 cantons 1 each. Informal territorial representation and

16

S. Mueller

proportionality also governs the allocation of executive and judicial seats, on top of partisan, linguistic and, of late, gender considerations (e.g. Giudici and Stojanović 2016). Below the cantonal level we find the municipalities, the lowest territorial level of government. Their powers vary greatly from canton to canton, with French-speaking communes being less autonomous than German-speaking Gemeinden (Mueller 2015). Local powers usually include local taxation and administration of communal finances, primary schools and day-care centres, garbage collection, local roads and public transport, culture and sports, waste and drinking water, gas and electricity supply, old age homes and mobile care (Linder and Mueller 2021, 63). Communes are also in charge of approving naturalisation demands, unless the person is applying for a Swiss passport through marriage with a Swiss, when communes (and cantons) can merely object. Swiss communes have legislative, executive and sometimes also judicial functions, depending on size and political organisation. In most communes, which are small and German-speaking, the legislative function is exercised by the electorate itself at least once a year at citizen assemblies. Most francophone as well as larger communes (including cities, which lack special legal status) possess an elected local parliament (Ladner and Fiechter 2012). Throughout Switzerland, local executives are collegial, composed of between 3 and 30, but mostly 5 or 7 members, just like at cantonal level (Ladner 2019).

2.3

Territorial Units

Since 1848, the territorial structure of Switzerland has been highly stable. The federation, the cantons and the communes are the three main territorial levels and their constitutional position has hardly changed. The numbers of cantons and even of communes have remained almost identical until the twenty-first century, when (voluntary but often financially incentivised) local mergers began to take off. All attempts at cantonal mergers, however, have failed to date. As shown in Table  2.1, there are in Switzerland some 2000 communes and 26 cantons (Kantone in German and cantons in French; but also called Stände and Etats). This includes the six former ‘half-cantons’, the term itself (but not the status) having been abolished in 1999. In most cantons, as intermediary level between the communes and the canton, there are the Bezirke (districts), which may have different names according to the canton. The Bezirke, with the exception of the canton of Schwyz where it can raise its own taxes, are administrative entities without judicial and financial autonomy. Some have prefects, some not, and some pre-

Table 2.1  Number of territorial units by level, 1870–2020 Date of population census 1 December 1870 1 December 1880 1 December 1888 1 December 1900 1 December 1910 1 December 1920 1 December 1930 1 December 1941 1 December 1950 1 December 1960 1 December 1970 2 December 1980 4 December 1990 5 December 2000 1 January 2010 1 January 2020

Cantons 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 26 26 26 26 26

Districts 182 182 182 187 187 186 183 183 183 183 181 184 185 184 150 143

Municipalities 3190 3189 3187 3164 3157 3136 3118 3107 3101 3095 3072 3029 2915 2880 2598 2202

Note: Not all cantons are subdivided into districts. In those cases, cantons were counted also as districts. The 2000 census was the last of its kind; since then data are based on survey and registry data. Jura part of Bern until 1978

fects (e.g. in Fribourg and Bern) are even popularly elected. The Bezirke show great stability in number, though not necessarily in territorial size. They are a legacy of Napoleonic rule, which survived the Mediation in 1803 (Bundesamt für Statistik 1997). At the cantonal level, virtually no change occurred until the late 1970s. Absence of war—Switzerland managed to remain neutral in both World Wars—and historical legacies (see above) are major reasons for this. The only addition to the number of cantons occurred in 1978, when the Swiss people and cantons approved the creation a new canton, Jura, out of three districts of the canton of Bern. The separatist movement of Jura can be traced back to the 1940s, when the population of Jura opposed the acquisition from the Department of Military of 197 km2 for military practice. The opposition developed into a separation movement that during the 1960s resorted to some violent acts. Despite the creation of their own canton, remnants of the movement survive: followers of the Rassemblement jurassien have claimed the incorporation also of Southern Jura, where district and local majorities chose to remain with Bern in the 1970s. In 2013, after lengthy negotiations between Jura and Bern, the population of both Jura canton and Southern (or ‘Bernese’) Jura voted anew on whether to begin proceedings to form a joint unit. While Jura canton approved enthusiastically, the South rejected with equal force. Only the city of Moutier returned a majority in favour, confirmed in a separate local referendum held in summer 2017. However, because the (Bernese) courts subsequently annulled the result of that vote for reasons of propaganda and electoral

2 Switzerland

irregularities, the cantonal belonging of Moutier is as yet undecided. In terms of population and area size, large differences exist between the cantons (see Appendix Tables 2.2 and 2.3). Two out of 26 cantons—Zürich and Bern—together unite almost a third of the whole Swiss population. On the other hand, 8 have less than 100,000 inhabitants. Nevertheless, in the Council of States (Ständerat) all cantons (half-cantons are counted as one) have equal power. The ratio between the smallest (Uri) and the largest (Zürich) full canton is 1:42. In 1850, by contrast, the ratio between Uri and Bern, which then was almost twice the size of Zürich, was only 1:32. In terms of population density and land use, variations across cantons have been large and persistent over time. Appendix Table 2.3 also shows that, in general, the Swiss population has grown steadily since 1850. With the exception of the cantons of Glarus and the two Appenzell, where the population remained basically constant, all cantons have grown massively. The population growth of Canton Geneva even amounts to a staggering 1155%, from some 65,000 in 1850 to over 800,000 in 2019.

2.4

 ain Territorial Level in Official M Statistics

Cantons have been the most important territorial units in Swiss official statistics until now. Given the large differences in size of population and area at this level, the Bezirke (districts) played a crucial role in statistical reporting from the very beginning. In population censuses, they have traditionally been the lowest level of reporting until the post-World War II period. The communes are the basis for all spatial official statistics. As of late, population information at commune level is available for the entire period since 1850. Since the 1950s, however, other and more analytically oriented units were required—particularly in the context of rising regional planning activities. Among those not limited to specific policy fields, the 106 so-called MS-Regions (mobilité spatiale), specified the first time in 1982 for the purpose of analysing spatial mobility, became the most important units for micro-regional reporting and analysis in official statistics (Bundesamt für Statistik 1997). They were replaced in 2018 by 101 ‘job market regions’ (Arbeitsmarktregionen/bassins d’emploi), grouped further into 16 ‘greater job market regions’ (Arbeitsmarktgrossregionen/grands bassins d’emploi).

17

More recently, in the context of statistical cooperation with the European Union (EU), seven Grossregionen (Greater Regions) have been defined (see Appendix Table  2.3). They aggregate cantons in a way to achieve comparability with the statistical regions used by European Statistical Office (EUROSTAT) at NUTS 2— Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics—level (Bundesamt für Statistik 1999; European Commission 1999) as well as with the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD’s) TL2-regions (OECD 2020). The cantons correspond to NUTS 3. Within the EU, NUTS 2 is of immediate political relevance, for it is the spatial level that is used for the purposes of appraisal of eligibility for aid from the Structural Funds for regions whose development is l­agging behind (Objective 1 of the Structural Fund). For Switzerland, the Greater Regions are increasingly used for regional policy making, focusing on regional cohesion (Bundesamt für Statistik 1999). Over the history of modern Switzerland, especially the Region lémanique (with Geneva) and Zürich have become more important in relative terms, at the expense of the Espace Mittelland (with Bern) and Eastern Switzerland. The North-West, Central Switzerland and Ticino have remained relatively stable. Sprachgebiete (language regions) are the oldest non-­ institutional division of Switzerland in official statistics. They address to a basic cleavage of Swiss society, although no political party has ever tried to mobilise along those divisions. Four languages are distinguished: German, French, Italian and Romansh. By 2017, the German-speaking areas mustered a population of ca. 6 million (71%), French covered an area of 2 million inhabitants (25%), Italian 360,000 (4%) and Romansh 23,000 (0.3%). These regions are entirely analytic and based on the majority rule at commune level. Language regions are used since a long time by the Federal Statistical Office, particularly in the realm of census and popular vote analyses. Official statistics in Switzerland is functionally diversified (besides the Federal Statistical Office many other public bodies such as cantons and cities produce official statistics in specific domains). Contrary to Germany, production and dissemination of regional statistics is not divided across the different political-administrative levels of the federation. In Switzerland, all country-wide regional statistics are maintained by the Federal Statistical Office. The office operates a comprehensive database on spatial statistics (based on a Geographical Information System), covering all kinds of spatial units.

18

S. Mueller

Appendix Table 2.2  Area and land use in the Swiss cantons, 2004/09 Canton Zürich Bern Luzern Uri Schwyz Obwalden Nidwalden Glarus Zug Fribourg Solothurn Basel-Stadt Basel-Landschaft Schaffhausen Appenzell A.Rh. Appenzell I.Rh. St. Gallen Graubünden Aargau Thurgau Ticino Vaud Valais Neuchâtel Genève Jura total

Total area (ha) 172,889 595,907 149,342 107,640 90,809 49,055 27,606 68,540 23,872 167,084 79,051 3707 51,752 29,850 24,294 17,250 202,545 710,515 140,379 99,087 281,246 321,205 522,442 80,306 28,244 83,881 4,128,498

Settled (%) 22 7 10 2 6 4 5 3 14 8 14 71 17 11 9 5 10 2 17 12 6 9 4 8 33 7 7

Agriculture (%) 42 43 53 24 41 37 37 30 43 56 42 12 41 44 55 54 47 29 44 52 13 42 19 42 40 49 36

Forests (%) 30 31 30 20 34 41 33 31 27 27 43 12 41 43 34 32 31 28 36 21 51 32 24 38 12 44 31

Unproductive (%) 6 19 7 54 20 19 24 36 15 8 1 5 1 1 2 10 13 42 3 14 31 16 54 12 15 1 25

Source: Federal Statistical Office (2020, file T 02.02.02.08)

Table 2.3  Resident population in the Swiss cantons and Greater Regions, 1850–2019 Switzerland *Région lémanique *Genève *Valais *Vaud + Espace Mittelland + Bern + Fribourg + Jura + Neuchâtel + Solothurn & Nordwestschweiz & Aargau & Basel-Landschaft & Basel-Stadt Zürich ^Ostschweiz ^Appenzell A.Rh. ^Appenzell I.Rh. ^Glarus ^Graubünden

1850 2,392,740 345,280 64,146 81,559 199,575 693,004 452,686 99,891 n.a. 70,753 69,674 283,050 199,852 53,500 29,698 250,698 468,834 43,621 11,272 30,213 89,895

100% 14% 3% 3% 8% 29% 19% 4% n.a. 3% 3% 12% 8% 2% 1% 10% 20% 2% 0% 1% 4%

1900 3,315,443 528,426 132,609 114,438 281,379 936,659 581,667 127,951 n.a. 126,279 100,762 394,988 206,498 76,263 112,227 431,036 610,669 55,281 13,499 32,349 104,520

100% 16% 4% 3% 8% 28% 18% 4% n.a. 4% 3% 12% 6% 2% 3% 13% 18% 2% 0% 1% 3%

1950 4,714,992 739,681 202,918 159,178 377,585 1,248,459 791,104 158,695 n.a. 128,152 170,508 615,668 300,782 118,388 196,498 777,002 752,487 47,938 13,427 37,663 137,100

100% 16% 4% 3% 8% 26% 17% 3% n.a. 3% 4% 13% 6% 3% 4% 16% 16% 1% 0% 1% 3%

2000 7,288,010 1,326,729 413,673 272,399 640,657 1,679,417 957,197 241,706 68,224 167,949 244,341 994,946 547,493 259,374 188,079 1,247,906 1,048,467 53,504 14,618 38,183 187,058

100% 18% 6% 4% 9% 23% 13% 3% 1% 2% 3% 14% 8% 4% 3% 17% 14% 1% 0% 1% 3%

31.12.2019 8,603,899 1,654,286 804,861 345,394 504,031 1,886,025 1,039,101 321,717 73,563 176,467 275,177 1,170,829 685,642 289,404 195,783 1,538,848 1,183,629 55,432 16,127 40,582 198,988

100% 19% 9% 4% 6% 22% 12% 4% 1% 2% 3% 14% 8% 3% 2% 18% 14% 1% 0% 0% 2%

2 Switzerland

19

Table 2.3 (continued) Switzerland ^St. Gallen ^Schaffhausen ^Thurgau ç Zentralschweiz ç Luzern ç Nidwalden ç Obwalden ç Schwyz ç Uri ç Zug Ticino

1850 2,392,740 169,625 35,300 88,908 234,115 132,843 11,339 13,799 44,168 14,505 17,461 117,759

100% 7% 1% 4% 10% 6% 0% 1% 2% 1% 1% 5%

1900 3,315,443 250,285 41,514 113,221 275,027 146,519 13,070 15,260 55,385 19,700 25,093 138,638

100% 8% 1% 3% 8% 4% 0% 0% 2% 1% 1% 4%

1950 4,714,992 309,106 57,515 149,738 406,640 223,249 19,389 22,125 71,082 28,556 42,239 175,055

100% 7% 1% 3% 9% 5% 0% 0% 2% 1% 1% 4%

2000 7,288,010 452,837 73,392 228,875 683,699 350,504 37,235 32,427 128,704 34,777 100,052 306,846

100% 6% 1% 3% 9% 5% 1% 0% 2% 0% 1% 4%

31.12.2019 8,603,899 510,670 82,337 279,493 818,811 413,048 43,076 37,924 160,457 36,694 127,612 351,471

100% 6% 1% 3% 10% 5% 1% 0% 2% 0% 1% 4%

Source: Federal Statistical Office (2020, files Volkszählung 2000: Bevölkerungsentwicklung 1850–2000 and cc-d-01.02.04.06) Note: Greater Regions in bold; Jura included in Bern until 1978. Superscripts indicate to which Greater Region a canton belongs.

References Literature Church C, Head R (2013) A concise history of Switzerland. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Dardanelli P, Mueller S (2019) Dynamic de/centralisation in Switzerland, 1848–2010. Publius 49(1):138–165 Giudici A, Stojanović N (2016) Die Zusammensetzung des Schweizerischen Bundesrates nach Partei, Region, Sprache und Religion, 1848–2015. Swiss Polit Sci Rev 22(2):288–307 Holenstein A (2005) Gemeine Herrschaften. https://hls-­dhs-­dss.ch/de. Accessed 1 Apr 2020 Ladner A (2019) Regieren auf Gemeindeebene  – die Gemeindeexekutiven. https://www.defacto.expert/2019/06/07/ regieren-­auf-­gemeindeebene-­die-­gemeindeexekutiven/. Accessed 1 Apr 2020 Ladner A, Fiechter J (2012) The influence of direct democracy on political interest, electoral turnout and other forms of citizens’ participation in Swiss municipalities. Local Gov Stud 38(4):437–459 Lincoln A (1863) The Gettysburg Address. http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm. Accessed 1 Apr 2020 Linder W, Mueller S (2021) Swiss democracy: possible solutions to conflict in multicultural societies. Palgrave, London Mueller S (2015) Theorising decentralisation: comparative evidence from sub-national Switzerland. ECPR Press, Colchester OECD (2020) Territorial grids, March 2020. http://www.oecd.org/governance/regional-­policy/42392313.pdf. Accessed 18 Apr 2020

Stepan A (1999) Federalism and democracy: beyond the U.S. model. J Democr 10(4):19–34 Wiget J (2015) Morgartenkrieg. https://hls-­dhs-­dss.ch/de. Accessed 1 Apr 2020 Würgler A (2008) “The league of the discordant members” or how the old Swiss confederation operated and how it managed to survive for so long. In: Holenstein A, Maissen T, Prak M (eds) The republican alternative: the Netherlands and Switzerland compared. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, pp 29–50

Sources Bundesamt für Statistik (1997) Eidgenössische Volkszählung 1990. Die Raumgliederung der Schweiz/Recensement fédéral de la population 1990. Les niveaux géographiques de la Suisse, Bern Bundesamt für Statistik (1999) Die Grossregionen der Schweiz. Die Schweiz im NUTS-Regionalsystem. Les grandes régions de la Suisse. La Suisse dans le système des régions NUTS, Neuchâtel European Commission, Eurostat (1999) Statistical regions in the EFTA countries and the Centreal European Countries (CEC), 1999th edn, Luxembourg Federal Statistical Office (2020) Various data. https://www.bfs.admin. ch/bfs/en/home.html. Accessed 1 Apr 2020 Vatter A (2018) Swiss Federalism: The Transformation of a Federal Model. London, Routledge

3

Belgium Jurgen Goossens and Frank Hendriks

Fig. 3.1  Belgium and its communities

3.1

State Formation

Since 1970, Belgium has evolved from a decentralised unitary state (like the Netherlands) into a federal state through six substantial state reforms. As of the state reform of 1993, J. Goossens (*) · F. Hendriks Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

the first Article of the Belgian Constitution also symbolically expresses this evolution by stating: ‘Belgium is a federation, consisting of communities and regions’. Belgium has a particular twofold structure of its federated entities: three culturally structured communities (Fig.  3.1) competent for so-called person-related matters and three territorially structured regions (Fig. 3.2) competent for place-related and economic matters.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. Martí-Henneberg (ed.), European Regions, 1870 – 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61537-6_3

21

22

J. Goossens and F. Hendriks

Fig. 3.2  Belgium and its regions

In the eighteenth century until 1797, the territories of what today is known as Belgium, consisted of the Austrian Low Countries (ruled by the Habsburg house), the Diocese of Liège and the Duchy of Luxembourg. Previously, these territories belonged to the Spanish Habsburg but were transferred to Austria in 1715. When the Habsburg Low Countries were annexed by revolutionary France in 1795, Metternich (Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Habsburg state) avoided any confrontation with France. During this period, the country was divided into nine départements based on the French model disregarding linguistic homogeneity within these units. As for the French departments, they were created in order to make it possible to reach the chef-lieu (administrative centre) within 1 day of travel. The Congress of Vienna of 1815 unified the United Kingdom of the Netherlands with these territories, including Luxembourg. Under Dutch rule the departments were renamed into provinces, which is still their current name. Furthermore, 41 arrondissements were established, mainly serving as electoral constituencies. In 1836, municipalities were established as the smallest level of regional government. In Belgium, opposition to the union with the Dutch crown came mainly from the liberal and Catholic groups, who fought against the regime of William I and against Protestantism. In 1830, the Belgian revolutionaries declared independence and

the Conference of London of the following year acknowledged the independence of the new state. King Leopold I became ‘King of the Belgians’. The Netherlands kept control over Luxembourg, bound by personal union to the Dutch crown but part of the German Union (Deutscher Bund), and over the province of Limburg. On 19 April 1839, the Treaty of London established that Belgium annexed the Frenchspeaking western part of Luxembourg and the southern half of the province of Limburg. In the aftermath of World War I (Treaty of Versailles), Belgium annexed the mostly Germanspeaking territories Moresnet (1919), Eupen, Sankt Vith and Malmédy (1925) from the German Empire. During World War II, these German-­speaking territories returned temporarily to Germany (1940–1944). The name ‘Belgium’ was given to the new state in 1830 and was derived from the Celtic people that once inhabited the area. The figure of the king as well as the Catholic religion worked as unifying factors of a linguistically and ethnically divided population. Belgium is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system. The executive power is shared by the king and the federal government. The federal government is held responsible by the Parliament, which is composed of two chambers: the Chamber of the Representatives, elected by universal suffrage for 5 years (since the sixth state reform of 2011, before which it was 4 years), and the

3 Belgium

Senate, which is—in addition to the ten so-­called ‘co-opted’ Senators—mainly composed by members of the federated parliaments (since the sixth state reform of 2011, before which it was partly elected by direct suffrage and partly composed of members of the federated parliaments). An important factor in Belgium’s state reform process has always been the language cleavage between Dutchspeaking Flanders in the northern half of the country and ­French-­speaking Wallonia in the southern half. Furthermore, there is a German-speaking minority located nearby the German border in the German-speaking community. There are now three official languages, but at the time of the creation of the centralised Belgian state the single official language was French, since the French-speaking bourgeoisie dominated the area—socially, economically and culturally. Belgium, therefore, seemed to be on the way to become a French-­speaking country as French was used as teaching language in the schools and as official language in the administration, the courts and the army. Furthermore, the Constitution and the laws were originally written in French only. The Flemish population, however, built up to around 60% of the Belgians. During the nineteenth century, these were mainly Dutch-­speaking farmers and workers while the elite of Flanders spoke French. A Flemish minority movement did rise in the second half of the nineteenth century and progressively obtained that Dutch was used in courthouses and in the administration through language legislation.

23

• The German-speaking area includes nine municipalities located in the province of Liège (arrondissement of Verviers). The territories of Malmédy and Waimes were attributed to the French-speaking area even though a minority uses German. • The fourth linguistic area is constituted by the Brussels-­ Capital Region, which is both Dutch- and French-speaking.

It is important to mention that the provinces (in 2019, 10), arrondissements (in 2019, 43) and the municipalities as the smallest administrative level (in 2019, 581) were preserved within these four linguistic regions. During the 1960s and 1970s, the three main political parties split along the linguistic line. Flemish parties are present in Flanders and the Brussels-Capital Region; Francophone parties in Wallonia and the Brussels-Capital Region. Moreover, there are a few parties present in German-speaking community. In 1968, the Catholic party split into the Parti social-chrétien (PSC; since 2002 called Centre démocrate humaniste [cdH]) and the Christelijke Volkspartij (CVP; since 2001 called ChristenDemocratisch en Vlaams [CD&V]). In 1972, the Liberal party became the Parti de la liberté et du progrès (PLP; the main Francophone liberal party is now the Mouvement Réformateur [MR]) and the Partij voor Vrijheid en Vooruitgang (PVV; since 2007 called Open VLD). The Socialist party divided in 1978 into the Parti socialiste belge (since 1978 called Parti socialiste [PS]) and the Belgische Socialistische Partij (since 2002 called Socialistische Partij Anders [SP.a]). The Ecological party is divided into two linguistic branches: Flemish party 3.2 Continuity and Change Agalev (since 2012 called GROEN) and Walloon party Ecolo (Walloon). Moreover, regionalist parties emerged with the main The origin of Belgium’s transformation into a federation lies in aim to defend the interests of one of the linguistic groups in the ancient boundary between Germanic and Roman languages the Belgian society, such as the former Flemish Volksunie (VU) and the cultural pluralism that is characteristic for the country. and Spirit, and currently the nationalist parties Nieuw-Vlaamse The language cleavage continuously became deeper after World Alliantie (N-VA) and Vlaams Belang (VB) aiming for Flemish War II and the call for a reform of the mainly centralised state independence, as well as the Brussels French-speaking party became stronger. The Act of 2 August 1963 (adding Article 3bis Fédéralistes Démocrates Francophones (FDF). In addition, the to the Constitution in 1970) subdivided Belgium into four lin- Workers’ Party of Belgium (PVDA-PTB) is currently the largguistic areas that, however, did not yet have any institutional est communist party. or significant political function. The so-called territoriality prinAnother important element of the emancipation of the Flemish ciple was established that within the linguistic area the adminis- population was the Netherlandising of the University of Gent tration would only use the language of the area. This reform was in 1930 and the division along linguistic lines of the Catholic the first one in a series of reforms that transformed the language University of Leuven in 1968 after a period of civil unrest. The border into an institutional administrative border. French section has been relocated to a town in Wallonia, called The following linguistic areas were distinguished: ‘New Leuven’ (Louvain-la-Neuve). Ever since, two new universities have been established: Université catholique de Louvain • The Dutch-speaking area comprises the provinces of (UCL) and Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (KUL). Antwerpen, Limburg, Oost-Vlaanderen and West-­ The linguistic areas progressively transformed into effecVlaanderen. It also includes the arrondissements of tive administrative bodies. With the first main state reform in Leuven and Halle-­Vilvoorde (the area surrounding the 1970, the four linguistic areas were constitutionalised and it capital Brussels). was established that Belgium is composed of three communi• The French-speaking area includes the provinces of ties (Flemish, French and German-speaking) and three regions Hainaut, Liège (with the exception of nine communes of (Flemish, Walloon and Brussels-Capital Region). The establishthe German-speaking area), Namur and Luxembourg. ment of the communities (mainly concerned with person-related Furthermore, it includes the arrondissement of Nivelles. matters) can be considered as an answer to the claim of the

24

J. Goossens and F. Hendriks

Fig. 3.3  Benelux, 1870–2020

Flemish population for more cultural and linguistic autonomy. This claim was backed by the strong economic development that characterised the northern half of the country. By contrast, the South has in the last decades undergone a period of economic crisis, partly due to the de-­industrialisation process, most importantly the closing of coal mines. The establishment of the regions (mainly concerned with economic and place-related matters) was an answer to the call for more economic autonomy of the French-speaking population. The two largest communities (Flemish and French) created their own parliaments and executive bodies in 1971. The German community created its own Parliament in 1973. The competences of the communities were defined clearly in the matters of culture, some parts of education and linguistic affairs. By contrast, the competences of the regions were less clearly defined and only in 1980, with the second main state reform, the legislative and executive institutions were created also at the level of the regions (but not yet for the region of Brussels-Capital, where this occurred in 1988). This reform also enlarged the scope of the competences of the ‘communities’ (until the actually called ‘cultural communities’) and established the ‘Referee Court’ (since 2007 called ‘Constitutional Court’, reflecting the gradual extension of its tasks towards constitutional review of legislation)

for the resolution of conflicts of competences between the regions, communities and federal level. Thus, the subnational structure of Belgium is twofold. On the one hand there are three communities and on the other three regions: • The three communities (gemeenschappen or communtautés or Gemeinschaften) are the Flemish (Vlaamse Gemeenschap), the French (Communauté française) and the German-speaking (Deutschsprachige Gemeinschaft) communities (Articles 3ter, 59bis and 59ter of the Constitution). • The three regions (gewesten or régions) are the Flemish Region (Vlaams Gewest), the Walloon Region (Région Wallonne), both created in 1980, and the Region of Brussels-­Capital (Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest or Région Bruxelles-Capitale) created in 1989 (Article 107quater of the Constitution). A figure of the Belgian state, its Regions and Communities can be consulted here: https://nfp.irceline.be/soer-­2010/ country-­i ntroduction-­s oer-­2 010/country-­i ntroduction-­ soer-­2 010/fig1-­M ap_BE_Regions_Communities.PNG/ image_view_fullscreen (Fig. 3.3).

3 Belgium

Since Brussels includes the Flemish and the Walloon populations, no specific community has been created. While the regions are a territorial structure, the communities are an a-territorial (cultural) structure. Communities, however, are not totally a-territorial since their decrees have a spatially delimited implementation. Nevertheless, the Flemish and French communities are competent also in Brussels, while the German-speaking community is competent only in the German-speaking area. In the bilingual area of Brussels, however, the decrees of the Flemish and French communities are valid only insofar as they concern only one of the two communities. The Flemish region covers the Dutchspeaking area of Belgium. The Walloon region covers both the French- and the German-speaking areas. In 1980, in contrast to Wallonia, Flanders merged the two parliaments and executives of the Flemish Community and Flemish Region into one parliament and executive. The six members of Flemish Parliament elected in Brussels, however, cannot vote on issues relating to matters of the Region, only the Community. By the end of the 1980s the reforms appeared as still incomplete: • The Brussels-Capital Region still did not have its own institutions. • The distribution of competences was not sufficiently homogenous and further transfers of powers seemed unavoidable. By 1980, the regional and community budgets represented only 10% of the total state budget. • Conflicts between the different levels needed mechanisms for cooperation in order to guarantee the equilibrium of the system. • The regions and the communities did not have their own financial resources to carry out their tasks. Therefore, in 1988, another series of reforms was carried out. They entered into force on 1 January 1989. The region of Brussels-Capital was provided with its own institutions and a financial reform was carried out. Accompanying further transfers of competences, the budgets of the regions and the communities build up to around 40% of the total state budget. Moreover, the Special Financing Act of 1989 was adopted to regulate the financing of the national and subnational levels of government. Finally, the competences of the ‘Referee Court’ were extended to constitutional review of (federal, regional and communal) legislation on matters of equality, discrimination and freedom of education. In 1993, the fourth state reform was carried out. It turned Belgium into a full-fledged federation by changing Article 1 of the Constitution from ‘Belgium consists of provinces’ to ‘Belgium is a federation, consisting of communities and

25 Table 3.1  Synopsis: main state reforms 1970

First state reform

1980

Second state reform Third state reform

1988

1993

2001 2011– 2014

Settlement of the basic principles of the new structure: Belgium consists of three communities and three regions Official establishment of the Flemish and the Walloon regions

Official establishment of the Brussels-Capital Region; more competences for the communities Belgium’s transformation into a full-fledged Fourth federation; direct elections of federated state parliaments reform Fifth state Transfer of powers in various domains to reform regions and communities Sixth State Reform of the Senate; substantial fiscal Reform autonomy for the Regions

regions’ besides additional transfers of powers. Moreover, it introduced direct elections of the federated parliaments. In the fifth state reform of 2001, the competences of the regions and communities have expanded, including most importantly agricultural policy, foreign trade and organic legislations for municipalities and provinces. Moreover, the regions acquire limited fiscal autonomy. The sixth state reform (2011–2014) led to: the split of the infamous constituency Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde; a reform of the Senate; the introduction of the principle of coincidental European, federal and subnational elections; further transfer of competences (e.g. labour market policy); and substantial fiscal autonomy for the Regions through a reform of the Special Financing Act (Table 3.1).

3.3

Political–Administrative Organisation of Territory

Political and administrative functions in Belgium can be found on the national (federal) level and on the subnational level. The subnational level consists of communities and regions, as well as subregional levels of government (provinces and municipalities).

3.3.1 Federal Government At the federal level, legislative power is exercised by the head of state (i.e. the King; the de facto federal government) and the two houses of the Parliament. The federal legislative branch operates through a controlled bicameral system and is exercised by the House of Representatives (Lower House) and the Senate (Upper House) jointly with the King. With regard to the distribution of duties between the House and the Senate, the Lower House exercises political control over

26

the government and monitors public finances. Both houses are responsible, on an equal footing, for institutional law-­ making and relations between the federal government and the communities and the regions. The Senate can be seen as a forum for reflection and is also the meeting place between federal government and the federal states. The Senate had 71 members, of whom 40 were directly elected. Since the reform of the Senate in the most recent state reform, law-­making is almost always only done by the House of Representatives without involvement of the Senate, which now counts 60 Senators (10 ‘co-opted’ Senators and 50 members of the federated parliaments). The Lower House consists of 150 members, who are directly elected for 5 years. The executive power on the federal level consists of the ministers, who are responsible to the Lower House, and the head of state who cannot be held responsible to anyone. In this regard it is worth mentioning that, given political realities, the primacy of the legislature has given way to a de facto ascendancy of the executive. Most of the draft laws are initiated by the federal government instead of the legislature. Legislative initiatives of the government almost always succeed as the government is usually backed by a parliamentary majority. In spite of a series of state reforms and the transformation of Belgium into a federation, Belgium is still a hereditary, constitutional and parliamentary monarchy. The monarchy is regulated and limited by the Constitution, as the King possesses no other powers than those specifically vested in him by the Constitution and special legislation. The monarchy is thus also anchored in the parliamentary system.

3.3.2 Subnational Government Regions and communities can be seen as a subnational reconstruction of national government. Regions and communities are situated on the same level as the federal government instead of being structured hierarchically. This is opposed to Germany for instance, where federal legislation supersedes legislation of the Länder in case of (the various) concurrent competences. Both communities and regions have a directly elected Parliament with legislative power and an executive body. The Flemish Parliament (Vlaams Parlement) is the legislative body of both the Flemish region (118 members elected in Flanders) and the Flemish Community (6 members elected in Brussels in addition to the 118 members elected in Flanders). By contrast, the Parliaments of the Walloon Region and of the French Community are still two distinct bodies. The Parliament of the French Community (Parlement de la Communauté française) is composed of the 75 members of the Parliament of the Walloon Region (Parlement de la Région wallonne) and 19 additional mem-

J. Goossens and F. Hendriks

bers elected in Brussels. In the Parliament of the BrusselsCapital Region, there are 89 members and two linguistic groups. Seventy-­two members belong to the French linguistic group and 17 to the Dutch one. Moreover, Brussels also has three other legislative institutions: the Flemish, the French and the Joint Community Commission. The Parliament of the German-­speaking Community is composed of 25 members. As for the Flemish Parliament, the Flemish government (Vlaamse Regering) is the same for the community and the region. The Walloon Region and the French Community each have a distinct executive body (Gouvernement de la Région wallonne and Gouvernement de la Communauté française), which is the case for their Parliament as well. At least one of the members of the Flemish or the Walloon government must belong to the bilingual area of Brussels. This is not the case for the government of the Germanspeaking Community (Ministerium der Deutschsprachigen Gemeinschaft). In the case of the government of the Brussels-­ Capital Region (Brusselse Hoofdstedelijke Regering or Gouvernement de la Région de BruxellesCapitale), two members are Dutch-speaking and two French-speaking. Every regional or community executive has a president elected by the councils. The twofold subnational structure with regions and communities is guaranteed by the Constitution and in the Special Acts of 8 August 1980 and 8 August 1988. Constitutional amendments occur only through qualified majorities of two-­thirds in both federal chambers. The modification of the special legislation is even more rigid since, additionally, an absolute majority within the two main linguistic groups in each chamber is required. Nonetheless, before a constitutional amendment can be adopted with a two-thirds majority, an intervening election is required. Only those constitutional Articles can be amended that were included in a list of Articles susceptible to amendment adopted by the federal government and both chambers with a simple majority. After adoption of such a joint list, the House of Representatives is dissolved and elections are held within 40 days, after which an amendment can be approved with a two-thirds majority. The distribution of competences among the federal level, the regions and the communities is based on a series of principles among which the most important are the following: • Communities, regions and the federal level have an equivalent legislative power; there is no hierarchical relation. • The legislative competences of the federal level, the communities and the regions are mutually exclusive. This principle lies at the basis of the distribution of competences among administrative units. This means that only one of these units is competent to legislate on a given matter on a certain territory.

3 Belgium

27

• Communities and regions can produce legislation only in those domains that are explicitly attributed to them by the Constitution or the Special Acts. Furthermore, the Special Acts of 8 August 1980 and 8 August 1988 mention the ‘implicit competences’ of regions and communities, which are competences that are not attributed to them but that they can nonetheless exercise insofar as they are necessary to exercise another explicitly attributed competence. There are two types of federal competences: (1) the competences that the Constitution and the Special Acts explicitly attribute to the federal level, (2) the residual competences, namely the competences that are not explicitly attributed to any administrative unit. • The so-called principle of verticality establishes that the level that is competent for the legislation in a given domain is also competent for its implementation if nothing different is specified in the Constitution or in the Special Acts. The competences of the federal level have been substantially reduced after the six state reforms. The competences of the regions are concerned with matters that relate to the

management of the territory and with economic matters. The competences of the communities are concerned with person-­ related matters (e.g. education, culture and linguistic matters; Table 3.2). In practice, however, this division of competences is blurred and there are hardly really homogeneous competence packages. Notwithstanding the dual-federal basic structure, there is a growing practice of ‘cooperative federalism’, similar to the German federal system. This consociationalism is expressed among others in numerous compulsory and optional cooperation agreements. The former Belgian Prime Minister Deheane called the Belgian government a form of ‘federal cooperative’, where cooperation across administrative borders is of great importance. Nonetheless, Flanders is constantly striving for more autonomy and some parties pursue Flemish independence. There are different types of financial resources for the regions and communities. • First, there are the non-taxation sources of income. For the communities these sources are school costs and fees for

Table 3.2  Competences of the regions, communities and the federal state (simplified overview)

Central state Defence

Regions Management of territory and economic matters Management of the land and urban areas

Protection of the environment and agriculture

Foreign policy (with the exception of those matters reserved for the regions and the communities) Police and public order

Housing

Economic (and monetary) policy

Energy policy and cleansing and distribution of water

Justice

Economic matters with the exception of those competences reserved for the federal level Administration: supervision and control of the communes, inter-municipal cooperation and provinces Employment policies

Matters that are not explicitly reserved for other administrative levels

Infrastructures and transportation: harbours, roads, canals (but not railways, national air company and Zaventem airport, which remain competences of the federal level) Source: Empirical materials provided by editors

Communities Person-related matters Cultural: cultural education, protection of the language, artistic activities, museums, libraries, radio and television, press, tourism, sport, leisure activities Education: includes the formation of researchers and youth policies; scholarly age, diplomas and the pension system for teachers remain competences of the federal level Cooperation: cooperation between communities but also between a community and foreign states; in the cultural and educational matters, communities can conclude international agreements; furthermore, the communities have the option of whether to accept or not the treaties concluded by the federal level on those matters Language: use of language in the administration; the central state remains competent for the language of the communes, of Brussels and of the German-­speaking areas Personal matters: matters that concern single citizens (health policy, family policy, social aid etc.)

28

•

•

•

•

J. Goossens and F. Hendriks

other cultural and educational services (museums, libraries etc.). Besides, communities receive money for the financing of foreign students. For the regions, on the other hand, this type of sources are fees for administrative services, driving and fishing licences etc. Regions also receive money for given categories of unemployed people. Second, regions and communities have a general taxation competence. They cannot, however, levy taxes on items that are already under taxation by the central state. Regions can, for instance, levy taxes on gambling and stakes. More recently, in the sixth state reform, the regions obtained substantial fiscal autonomy. Third, regions and communities participate in the distribution of general state resources. Communities have access to the so-called shared taxes. These are taxes collected at the national level and then partly or totally distributed to the communities (taxes on radio and television, income, value-added tax [VAT]). The distribution occurs in two steps: first, the federal level and the communities establish the amount of resources to be transferred to the communities and, second, the distribution among communities themselves is carried out. This distribution follows the principle of juste retour, that is, the part received by each area (for those taxes that can be localised) is proportional to the share of income taxation coming from each area. This means that each area profits from its own economic development. Regions have access to the so-­ called combined taxes. Part of the taxation on income is transferred to the regions. Communities and regions can dispose of these shares freely. Fourth, regions and communities can issue public bonds in the private capital market as well as private bonds. This is however done in collaboration with the Council of the Ministers and, in particular, the Ministry of Finances to avoid the increase in the interest rates. Fifth, for a period of 10 years (1989–1998), compensation mechanisms have been foreseen in order to avoid too large financial inequalities among regions. The solidarity intervention is carried out for those regions whose income per capita is inferior to the national average. This can however be retroactive (for example, a rich region that becomes poor). In the sixth state reform, a new solidarity mechanism for a 20-year period has been established to ensure that no region becomes substantially more poor or rich due to the substantial new regional fiscal autonomy.

3.3.3 Decentralised Government Despite federalisation, the traditional decentralised systems of government in Belgium, consisting of provincial and local

authorities, has remained largely unchanged, although the context has drastically changed. The most obvious change is that the responsibility for the municipalities and provinces, as well as the specific payments to them have been transferred from the federal level to the new regional authorities. For the provincial level, the provincial council (provincieraad or conseil provincial) is the legislative body and is directly elected by universal suffrage for a period of 6 years. The council elects the Deputatie or Collège provincial, which, together with the gouverneur, composes the executive body of the province. As far as municipalities are concerned their autonomy, guaranteed by the Constitution and the basic legislation, was safeguarded already in 1836 shortly after independence. Their legislative institution (the gemeenteraad or conseil communal) is directly elected for a period of 6 years. The municipal council elects the aldermen (schepenen or échevins) who, together with the mayor (burgemeester or bourgmestre), compose the executive body of the communes. Like the provinces, the municipalities are decentralised agencies. Municipalities are competent for personal registration, municipal police, garbage, provision of gas, water and electricity, as well as for social aid. In this respect, municipalities run the social welfare centres that are in charge of the assistance to those in great need, of social services and of public hospitals. The administrative activity of both municipalities and provinces is controlled by the three regions. Financial resources of the communes come from grants and from own sources (mainly additional taxation on property, income and roads). Finally, arrondissements (or, since 1900, groups of arrondissements) have served mainly as electoral constituencies. This unit is also used to compile statistics.

3.4

Territory in Official Statistics

Statistics about Belgium are issued by the National Institute of Statistics (NIS) , the National Belgian Bank and the Planning Bureau. Furthermore, the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) issues statistics about (among others) Belgium. In 1994, the Institute of National Balances was established, in which the three big institutes—NIS, Belgian Bank and the Planning Bureau—were united with regard to the National balance. The Flemish and the Walloon region also each have their own bureaus of statistics. Since the outside world tends to look to Belgium as one country from a statistic point of view, these different statistics often have to be integrated by the National Institute of Statistics. Since the methodologies (like the moment of data collecting) might vary, this is sometimes problematic. Some of the different subnational and decentralised levels of government might be translated into NUTS—

3 Belgium

Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics—categories (created by the European Bureau of Statistics in order to compare different European regions). The NUTS I category is formed by the regions. NUTS II are the provinces and NUTS III are the arrondissements. Municipalities are considered as the smaller administrative units. The communities are not an official level of statistics, since they are culturally, and not territorially, structured.

Sources and Further Reading As general sources of empirical data, the following works have been used, most notably the papers by Hendriks and Goossens referred to below. Quite useful were also the documents and materials provided by the editors of this volume. General references are used in this section, as almost each of the following works touches on each of the paragraphs presented above

29 Hendriks F (2000) Het Vlaams openbaar bestuur vanuit Nederlands perspectief. Overheid in Beweging 13(3):1–20 Hendriks F (2001) Belgium: federalism and subnational democracy in a divided country. In: Loughlin J (ed) Subnational democracy in the European Union: challenges and opportunities. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 289–319 Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap (1993) Verder met Vlaanderen: Informatie van en over de Vlaamse overheid. In: Brussels de Ridder C (1994) Portret van de Belgische staat. In: Weerdt MD, Ridder CD, Dillemans R (eds) Wegwijs Politiek. Davidsfonds, Leuven, pp 27–33 Scheuch M (1992) Atlas zur Zeitgeschichte: Europa im 20. Jahrhundert, Chapter 'Belgien'. Wien, Verlag Christian Brandstätter, pp 160–161 Sevrin R (1989) Belgium. In: Bennett R (ed) Territory and Administration in Europe. Pinter, London, New York, pp 284–302 Suetens LP (1990) Landesbericht Belgien. In: Ossenbühl F (ed) Föderalismus und Regionalismus in Europa, Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 263–306

Quantitative and Statistical Materials Supplementary material Belgisches Institut für Information und Dokumentation (1989) Blick auf den Bundesstaat Belgien. Brussels Delmartino F (1993) Belgium: In Search of the Meso-Level. In: Sharpe LJ (ed) . The rise of Meso-Government in Europe, Sage, London, pp 40–60 Faculté de Droit de l’Université Libre de Bruxelles. Centre de Droit Public (1994) Les Réformes Institutionelles de 1993. Vers un Fédéralisme Achevé?, Collection de la Faculté de Droit de l’Université Libre de Bruxelles. Bruylant, Bruxelles Goossens J (2017) Electoral reforms in Belgium's sixth state reform: historic Split of electoral constituency BHV, reform of the senate, and coincident elections. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy 16(2):316–324 Goossens J, Cannoot P (2015) Belgian federalism after the sixth state reform. Perspectives on Federalism 7(2):29–55 Harloff EM (1987) The structure of local government in Europe: survey of 29 countries, chapter 'Belgium'. International Union of Local Authorities, Den Haag, pp 17–21

Institut National de Statistique (1948) Recensement général de la population au 31 décembre 1947. Relevé du nombre des habitants du Royaume par province, par arrondissement administratif et par commune. Brussels Institut National de Statistique (1963) Recensement général de la population au 31 décembre 1961. Relevé du nombre des habitants du Royaume par province, par arrondissement administratif et par commune. Brussels Institut National de Statistique (1973) Recensement de la Population, 31 décembre 1970. Tome 1: Chiffres de la Population. Brussels Institut National de Statistique (1983) Recensement de la Population et des Logements au 1er mars 81. Tome 1: Chiffres de la Population. Brussels Institut National de Statistique (annual) Annuaire des Statistiques Regionales. Brussels Institut National de Statistique (annual). Annuaire Statistique de la Belgique. Brussels

4

The Netherlands Frank Hendriks and Jurgen Goossens

Fig. 4.1  The Netherlands and its provinces

4.1

State Formation

The Netherlands is a unitary state consisting of three layers (Fig. 4.1): national, provincial and municipal. Although currently the central state and the municipalities are the most F. Hendriks · J. Goossens (*) Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

important players, the Dutch provinces have always played a key role in the state formation of the Netherlands. Historically, they can be called the building blocks of the Dutch state. The Dutch provinces originate from the autonomous territories that emerged in the Middle Ages: duchies (Brabant, Gelderland), counties (Holland, Zeeland, Flanders), bishoprics (Utrecht) and so forth. In the fourteenth century an attempt to unify the provinces was made by creating a Grand Council, but without much success. Under Charles V, since

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. Martí-Henneberg (ed.), European Regions, 1870 – 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61537-6_4

31

32

F. Hendriks and J. Goossens

Fig. 4.2  Benelux, 1870–2020

1543, the 17 provinces were supervised by a Governor and by the Council of State (Raad van State). Furthermore, each province was ruled by the Stadhouder and was represented at the Staten-Generaal (the General-States). The Eighty Years War for independence fought against Spain lasted from 1568 until 1648. In the course of the war, in 1579, seven Dutch provinces united themselves in the Union of Utrecht. In 1581, the United Provinces of the Netherlands (Republiek der Verenigde Nederlanden) declared independence from Spain (Fig. 4.2). Similarly to Switzerland (see Chap. 2), the binding elements of the Union were very loose and each province remained sovereign within the Union. After 1648, when the unifying threat of Spain lost significance, the provinces were characterised by differentiated developments and Holland became the dominating province. Until the French Revolution, the provinces were the ruling entities in Dutch political life. During the Batavian Republic (1795–1806), the loose confederation was transformed into a relatively centralised, unitary state. In 1798, the provinces were replaced by administrative districts based on the French model, headed by a commissioner, equivalent to the French prefect. After

a brief interruption of the centralising strains between 1801 and 1806, when the provinces were re-installed, the centralised structure was again imposed upon the provinces with the constitution of the Kingdom of Holland in 1806—notice that the name of the leading province, Holland, was used for the whole country—and its incorporation in the French Empire in 1810. Although the power of the provinces was radically curtailed and the provinces were forced into the straightjacket of the unitary state after the French model, it was more difficult to reform the administrative culture than the administrative structure. Even the Napoleonic system could not eliminate the administrative concepts of diffusion of power, power sharing, decentralisation and improvisation. After the Napoleonic occupation that ended in November 1813, the Congress of Vienna offered the Belgian Low Countries (belonging to Austria from 1713 until 1797) to the United Kingdom of the Netherlands in 1815. This included also the province Luxembourg that became a Grand Duchy and the 18th province of the Netherlands. Unlike Switzerland, however, the new Constitution of 1815 maintained the centralised structure of the state inherited from the French occupation. It is a Constitution with a rigid amendment procedure.

4  The Netherlands

The Belgian revolution of 1830 and the following Conference of London in January 1831 established an independent territory of Belgium that included the province of Luxembourg (see also Chap. 3). The German Union (Deutsches Bund), however, kept control of the city of Luxembourg and, after the Treaty of London in 19 April 1839, it was formally established that the Walloon part of Luxembourg was Belgian and the eastern half controlled by Germany would become part of the Deutsches Bund. The Grand-Duke of the latter part, however, remained the Dutch king and only in 1889 Luxembourg became totally independent, as well from the dynastic point of view. In 1839, furthermore, half of the province of Limburg was transferred to Belgium. After World War II, Elten and Tuddern were acquired from Germany by the Netherlands, but were given back into German hands again in 1963. Under the kingdom that was built on the foundations of the Batavian-French system, there was little change at first in inter-administrative relations. The kingdom was a unitary state that kept a relatively decentralised administrative culture, but had structurally acquired hierarchical features under the influence of the French model. The authorities were able to resist reform for a long time, until in 1848, a year of political upheavals and a liberal democratic revolutionary wave throughout Europe, King William II rather suddenly decided to commission the drawing up of a new Constitution. The task was entrusted to J. R. Thorbecke, who had been influenced by the German historical school of law and its organic theory of the state. Thorbecke’s political and constitutional work of 1848–1851 had a crucial impact on Dutch government and on the role and position of its local authorities. Most importantly, direct elections of the Second Chamber and provincial and municipal councils were introduced. Moreover, the position of the Second Chamber was ­strengthened with the acquisition of a right of survey and amendment, a reinforcement of its budgetary power and the introduction of full ministerial responsibility. During this period, Thorbecke sketched the outlines of the state system that still exists today.

4.2

Continuity and Change

There have been some territorial changes throughout the years. It is important to mention that the Netherlands is among the most populated and urbanised countries of Europe. One of the main peculiarities of the Dutch territory is the conquest of new land from the sea through the construction of polders that actually led to the birth of a new province (Flevoland). The area within the barrier of the Friesland islands was flooded by the North Sea in the Middle Ages and since then it has been a constant struggle against the sea for the re-conquest of land. The name itself of Low Countries (Nederland) bears the idea of a territory situated at

33

the level of the sea (or even below) since the confederation of seven states, the ‘United Provinces of the Netherlands’ (1581–1795). With the end of the colonial empire, in the twentieth century, a source of extra land capital got lost. In 1941, during World War II, the largest Dutch colony Indonesia was occupied by Japan. After the declaration of independence in 1945, the Netherlands fought during several years but in 1949 the Netherlands acknowledged the Indonesian independence. In 1963, the Netherlands lost New Guinea and in 1975 Suriname became fully independent. Today, what remains of the empire are the Antillean islands in the Caribbean Sea. Since 1830, therefore, the only border changes are those against the North Sea. The Netherlands Antilles was a former constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. It consisted of six Caribbean islands, also known as the Dutch Antilles: Aruba, Bonaire, Curaçao, Saba, Sint Eustatius and Sint Maarten. The country was the successor of the Dutch colony of Curaçao and Dependencies. The former Dutch colony of Surinam became a constituent country of the Kingdom in 1954. The Netherlands Antilles saw the light on 15 December 1954 and was dissolved on 10 October 2010. The legal status of the islands differs. Saba, Sint Eustatius and Bonaire have become a special municipality of the Netherlands. On 2 November 2006, Sint Maarten and Curacao became countries within the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Aruba has already been a separate country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands since 1 January 1986. The Charter (Statuut) for the Kingdom of the Netherlands embeds the relationship between the four countries constituting the Kingdom of the Netherlands: the Constitution of the Netherlands and the Basic Laws of Aruba, Curacao and Sint Maarten are hierarchically subordinate to the Charter. The basic outlines of the Dutch System of government have remained in place for more than a century and a half. Thorbecke laid the foundations of the current Dutch system of government between 1848 and 1851 as a system comprising central, provincial and municipal layers of government. This three-layered structure is still referred to as ‘the house of Thorbecke’. By comparison with other countries, it is striking how few institutional reforms have actually been carried out in the Netherlands, even though there has never been a lack of planned reform. Recent proposals included a redesign into 5 national areas, 44 socio-economic regions, 37 newstyle provinces and 7 city provinces. None of these proposed institutional reforms has actually been implemented, although some changes have been made in the system of Dutch regional and local governments. The recent change in the Municipal Act in 2002, in order to create a more dualistic local government system with a more strict separation between the municipal council and the college of mayor and aldermen, is, for example, worth mentioning.

34

F. Hendriks and J. Goossens

The number of Dutch provinces (provincies) raised from 11 to 12 with the creation of the Flevoland province. The number of municipalities (gemeenten), by contrast, has constantly decreased. At the time of the adoption of Thorbecke’s Municipal Act in 1851, 1209 municipalities existed. In 2019, there are only 355 municipalities. This reduction has taken place in the form of a step-wise amalgamation of municipalities due to the increasing demand to adapt the scope of decisions. At the time of World War II, the scale of the municipal level was considered to be inadequate with respect to the implementation of certain policies, and the creation of larger units was advocated. Instead of creating an intermediary level between provinces and communes to fill the so-called ‘regional gap’, inter-municipal cooperation was improved by homogenising the legislation on intermunicipal affairs in a unique Joint Provisions Act in 1950. The issue of an intermediary level between municipalities and provinces was raised again in the mid-1970s following a coalition change, but resulted—as in the aftermath of World War II—in the adoption of a second Joint Provision Act in 1985 regulating inter-­municipal cooperation. As a result, the municipal level has remained the main actor at the local government level.

4.3

Political–Administrative Organisation of Territory

The current Dutch state system is generally classified as a ‘decentralised unitary state’. It is a unitary system, but one with a history and tradition of federalism and decentralisation. In formal terms, the Dutch state structure is unitary, though ‘unity’ is not so much sought through hierarchical steering, but rather through mutual adjustment between the three levels of comprehensive and interconnected territorial government: national, provincial and local governments. The national system of government is a parliamentary system. The Netherlands has a party and voting system without thresholds and with straightforward proportional representation. In a country like the Netherlands that is socially and culturally pluralistic, this results in a fragmented and pluralistic party system with coalition agreements. The legislative power on the national level is exercised by both houses of Parliament (Staten Generaal) and the executive body (regering; Article 89 of the Constitution). In practice, however, the executive branch is the most important actor. The Trias Politica in the Netherlands therefore does not encompass a very strict separation of powers, but rather a system of ‘checks and balances’ with interdependency, cooperation and control between the three branches. The Staten Generaal consists of a House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer) and a Senate (Eerste Kamer). The House of Representatives is elected by universal suffrage for a period

of 4 years. The Senate is elected by the members of the provincial assemblies (Provinciale Staten), also for a period of 4 years. The House of Representatives consists of 150 members; the Senate consists of 75 members. The executive power is exercised by the council of ministers and the King, although in practice the King only exercises a ceremonial function. The executive is usually a majority coalition of parties from the House of Representatives. The system of government is embedded in the Constitution: a substantial change to the established system must take place through an amendment of the Constitution, which requires a qualified political majority of two-thirds of the Members of both houses of Parliament (Article 137 of the Constitution). The procedure contains two readings: a first reading proposing an amendment of certain Articles of the Constitution. The adoption of such a Bill with a regular majority leads to dissolution of the House of Representatives and new elections, after which a two-thirds majority in both houses of Parliament is required to adopt the suggested changes. The rigid character of the Constitution makes it hard to implement major changes to the national system of government. As a result, there has been a lot of political struggle over the decentralised unitary state design by Thorbecke since 1848, yet only incremental changes have been made. Power sharing has remained an important feature of national government. It is virtually impossible for one party to accede power in the Netherlands. The political system is set up in such a way that power is usually exercised by a coalition of parties. The relationship between government and Parliament is in theory relatively dualistic. In practice, however, there is tradition of majority governments and an unwritten constitutional rule of confidence, which means that the national government must be supported by a majority in Parliament, at least in the House of Representatives. Compared to the regional level, dualism always used to be more institutionalised on the national level. In 2002, however, without a constitutional change, the Municipal Act has been amended in order to create a more dualistic municipal government system. In practice, the municipalities still struggle with this new dualistic structure between the municipal council and the board of mayor and alderman. On the subnational level, there are currently (in 2019) 12 provinces and 355 municipalities. The Constitution prescribes that municipalities and provinces are created by law (these are the Provincial Act and Municipal Act). The Constitution also establishes that provinces and municipalities autonomously ‘administrate their own household’, as long as they stay within the rules and regulations laid down by a higher authority. Since the 1887 Amendment, the Constitution indicates that municipal and provincial organs are expected to collaborate with the central state for the implementation of legislation. This task is named medebewind (co-governance).

4  The Netherlands

At the provincial level, legislative power is exercised by the provincial assembly (provinciale staten). The provincial assembly is elected directly by universal suffrage for 4 years. An executive (Gedeputeerde Staten) is elected from the assembly, but since the Dualisation of Provincial Government Act of 2003 the executive’s members are no longer part of the assembly. In line with the Dutch political tradition, the executive board is usually a coalition of political parties, sharing power in a ‘collegial’ structure. The executive is responsible for the day-to-day management of the province. A certain type and amount of activities of the provincial assembly may be delegated to committees through functional decentralisation. The head of the executive body is the Queen’s Commissioner (Commissaris van de Koningin). The Queen’s Commissioner is, like the municipal mayor, appointed by the national government, and chairs both the assembly and the executive. He is expected to be impartial. He assesses and controls the implications of subnational government from a broader perspective. In addition to specific powers and duties, for instance, regarding spatial planning, environmental protection and culture, provinces are charged with administrative supervision and coordination of municipal activities. The Royal Commissioner functions both as a representative of the central government and, increasingly, as an independent provincial official chairing the provincial council and the provincial executive board. The provincial council elects the members of the Senate (Eerste Kamer der Staten-Generaal). The election of the Senate bears a federal element since it suggests territorial representation. Nonetheless, Article 50 of the Constitution clearly states that the Staten-Generaal (Parliament) represents the whole of the people of the Netherlands, as opposed to the historical confederate representation of the provinces. Another task of the province is to identify and determine the areas of cooperation. By 1986, 62 cooperation areas had been established by the provinces. In South Holland there were, for instance, 12 such cooperation areas while in the province of Flevoland there were none. This type of cooperation area can be defined as a functional local area that does not correspond to the administrative division of the Dutch territory. For special purposes, the country is divided into various other spatial units as well. Apart from the provinces, the joint provisions and the municipalities, there are several other decentralised subnational units. The most important ones are the water control boards (waterschappen). Compared to the central state and to the municipalities, provinces are often considered as less important units in the Dutch state structure. In this respect, it has often been said that there is a ‘regional gap’ to be filled by a new level of government instead of the inter-municipal cooperation. The relative marginality of the provinces in government functioning seems to reverberate in expenditures. Subnational expen-

35

ditures are mainly municipal expenditures (approximately 9% of the total of subnational expenditures compared to 5% of the provinces and 5% of the joint provisions). These figures, however, stress the meaning of the provinces as coordinating and organisational actors of activities that fall under the competence of other units of government. Low turnout rates in the provincial elections show the low appeal of this level to the citizens. One should realise that government in the Netherlands is often a matter of co-government between different administrative layers. There is much emphasis on deliberation and consensus. The struggle against the sea, as half of the country is below sea level, and the revolt against centralisation under Spanish-Hapsburg rule, contributed to a relatively horizontal, communicative political culture based on deliberation and consultation (the so-called ‘polder’ model, referring to ‘polders’, namely areas that could flood so that distinct groups had to work together to keep their feet dry). At times this leads to creative solutions that satisfy all parties, but it may also lead to unsolvable deadlock in decision-­making. The power relations between regional authorities (provinces) and local authorities (municipalities) are complex. Generally speaking, provincial policies hold a bigger sway over the rural and semi-rural municipalities in the countryside than over the cities, although the spatial relationships between the cities will be influenced by the overall planning decisions of the province. At the municipal level, the municipal council (gemeenteraad) is elected directly by universal suffrage for 4 years. The municipal council is the legislative body of the municipality. The municipal executive, namely the board of mayor and alderman (college van burgemeester en wethouders), is usually a coalition of political parties. The mayor (burgemeester) is appointed by the King, after consultation with the municipal council, for a period of 6 years. However, in 2018 a constitutional amendment removed the appointment of the mayor from the Constitution, so that in the future an ordinary law could change it and potentially introduce a direct election by the people. Traditionally, the municipal council nominates, choosing among its members, the aldermen. However, with the changes in the Municipal Act (2002), seeking a more dualistic local government, this practice has changed. The municipal council still nominates the alderman but has to find external candidates. This means that the positions of member of the municipal council and member of the board of mayor and alderman are no longer reconcilable. The mayor chairs the meetings of the council, implements the decisions of the council and the executive board, maintains public order, and is the formal chief of the fire brigade. The head of the municipal administration is the municipal secretary (gemeentesecretaris) appointed by the council. The heads of both the municipal and provincial executive bodies are appointed by the central state. Furthermore,

36

F. Hendriks and J. Goossens

the budgets and the taxation decrees must be submitted and approved by the higher level (province for the communes and state for the provinces). Similarly, the decisions by local governments can be suspended and abolished by Royal decree. Two funds exist for the financing of local government activity: the Municipal Fund and the Provincial Fund. Almost 90% of municipal resources comes from central grants and are distributed by the Municipal Fund constituted by centrally collected taxes. The sum that municipalities receive is determined according to various criteria such as surface, population and waters. Other municipal resources come from the property of houses and grounds, from taxation on tourism, housing, land, pets, alcohol and so forth. The Minister ensures that the budget of the province is structurally and realistically in balance through the instrument of approval (the provincial executive body has the same task as regards the municipal budget). The resources come mainly from the grants issued by the Provincial Fund (constituted of centrally collected taxes), from a special grant focused on the maintenance of roads, from the fees for administrative services and from provincial properties (rents and so forth). At the financial level, the Netherlands seems to be an extremely centralised country. Since World War II, the share of taxation by the central state has always been above 97% of the total taxation. Nevertheless, as outlined above, behind apparently clear-cut financial arrangement, intricate, mutually binding and constraining administrative relations can be observed.

NUTS III are the so-called COROP areas. The COROP areas were designed in 1970. The COROP areas are considered as a statistical level between municipalities and provinces. The NUTS IV category is not used. Another division that affects the official statistics is the division into cooperation areas. This division is a result of the increasing value of inter-municipal cooperation. The Joint Provision Act, by which the cooperation areas have been created, attempts to organise the patterns of common municipal rules and promotes a bundling and integration of these rules. Creating cooperation areas is a task of the provinces. The Joint Provision Act, however, also offers the possibility to create cooperation areas that cross the provincial borders, which is currently the case for some areas. Therefore, the cooperation areas should, unlike the COROP areas, not be considered as a level between the provincial government and the municipal government.

Sources and Further Reading As general sources of empirical data, the following works have been used, most notably the papers by Hendriks referred to below. Quite useful were also the documents and materials provided by the editors of this volume. General references are used in this section, as almost each of the following works touches on each of the paragraphs presented above.

References

4.4

Territory in Official Statistics

The Dutch Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) uses four out of the five NUTS—Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics—categories for its statistical reports. NUTS categories are created by Eurostat, the bureau of statistics for the European Union, for the presentation of regional statistics within the European Union. NUTS I are the regions, consisting of different municipalities and provinces. The Netherlands has been divided into four regions: • The Northern Netherlands: Groningen, Friesland, Drenthe • The Eastern Netherlands: Overijssel, Flevoland, Gelderland • The Western Netherlands: Utrecht, Noord-Holland, Zuid-­ Holland, Zeeland • The Southern Netherlands: Noord-Brabant, Limburg NUTS II are the provinces and NUTS V are the municipalities, of whom we have already discussed change and continuity.

Blaas H, Dostál P (1989) The Netherlands: changing administrative structures. In: Bennett R (ed) Territory and Administration in Europe. Pinter, London, New York, pp 230–241 van Deth J, Vis J (1995) Regeren in Nederland. Het politieke bestuurlijke bestel in vergelijkend perspectief. Van Gorcum, Assen Harloff EM (1987) The structure of local government in Europe: survey of 29 countries, Chapter ‘The Netherlands’. International Union of Local Authorities, Den Haag, pp 96–102 Hendriks F (2001) The Netherlands: reinventing tradition in  local and regional democracy. In: Loughlin J (ed) Subnational democracy in the European Union: challenges and opportunities. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 143–173 Hendriks F, Tops PW (2003) Local public management reforms in the Netherlands: fads, fashions and winds of change. Public Administration 81(2):301–323 Scheuch M (1992) Atlas zur Zeitgeschichte: Europa im 20. Jahrhundert, Chapter 'Niederlande'. Wien, Verlag Christian Brandstätter, pp 162–163 van Stipdonk V, Hendriks F, Tops PW (2001) Getting it together: a study of innovative forms of cooperation between local and regional authorities. Provincie Noord-Brabant, Den Bosch Toonen T (1990) The unitary state as a system of co-governance: the case of the Netherlands. Public Adm 68:281–296 Toonen T (1993) Dutch Provinces and the Struggle for the Meso. In: Sharpe LJ (ed) The rise of Meso-Government in Europe. Sage, London, pp 117–153 Toonen T, Hoetjes B, Hendriks F (1994) Federalism in the Netherlands, The Federal Approach to Unitarism or the Unitary Approach to

4  The Netherlands Federalism? In: Knipping F (ed) Federalist traditions and perspectives in EC member states. Nomos, Baden-Baden

Sources Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (1950) 12e Volkstelling, annex woningtelling, 31 mei 1947. Serie B, Deel. Plaatselijke indeling, Utrecht, Zeist, p 1

37 Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (1964) 13e algemene volkstelling, 31 mei 1960. Deel. Bevolking van gemeenten en onderdelen van gemeenten, Utrecht, Zeist, p 2 Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (annual). Bevolking der gemeenten van Nederland op 1 januari [This publication annually provides lists and maps of Dutch municipalities and regional units]

5

Luxembourg Frank Hendriks and Jurgen Goossens

Fig. 5.1 Luxembourg

5.1

State Formation

Luxembourg was founded in 963  AD.  In 1060, the nation came under the rule of Count Conrad, founder of the house of Luxemburg, which provided the Holy Roman Empire with F. Hendriks · J. Goossens (*) Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

four emperors in the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries before being superseded in 1437 by the Habsburg dynasty. For the next four centuries, Spain and Austria alternately controlled the nation. At the close of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815, the territories of present-day Belgium and Luxembourg were united with the Kingdom of the Netherlands in order to create a buffer state against France. The Congress of Vienna settled the destiny of the country, by raising it to the rank of Grand Duchy, and by giving it as personal prop-

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. Martí-Henneberg (ed.), European Regions, 1870 – 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61537-6_5

39

40

F. Hendriks and J. Goossens

Fig. 5.2  Benelux, 1870–2020

erty to the King of the Netherlands (William I of OrangeNassau). In 1830, the Belgian provinces of the Netherlands revolted, and the Grand Duchy joined them. By the end of that year, Belgium had become an autonomous Kingdom, and Luxembourg remained a part of the new nation until 1839, when its western portion was ceded to Belgium and the remainder was recognised as a sovereign and independent state. The personal union with the Dutch crown, however, lasted until 1890, although Luxembourg was officially recognised as an independent state. In this regard, the 11th of May 1867 is one of the most important dates in national history. The Treaty of London reaffirmed Luxembourg’s territorial integrity, and the political autonomy that had already been granted by the Treaty of London in 1839. Furthermore, Luxembourg was declared perpetually neutral, and the great powers agreed to guarantee and to protect the neutrality of the Grand Duchy. In 1890, the Dutch King William III died without leaving a male heir in Luxembourg and succession passed to the present Luxembourg dynasty. This furthered the eastward orientation of Luxembourg, which had been boosted earlier by the inclusion of Luxembourg in the German Zollverein (Customs Union) in 1842, which lasted until 1918.

Notwithstanding the unmistakable eastward orientation, Luxembourg has always made an effort to create and strengthen economic and political ties in all directions. Overrun by Germany in both World Wars, it ended its neutrality in 1948 when it entered into the Benelux Customs Union and when it joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) the following year. It has wholeheartedly supported cooperation with other European countries in the context of the European integration process. In 1957, Luxembourg became one of the six founding countries of the European Economic Community (later the European Union), and in 1999 it joined the euro currency area (Figs. 5.1 and 5.2).

5.2

Continuity and Change

On a continuum with institutional stability on one end and institutional change on another end, the Luxembourg system of local democracy would certainly tend towards continuity. Continuity is a core element of the Luxembourg system in general and of the local political system in particular. On the local level, Luxembourg has always followed a rather cautious policy of local government fusion and upscaling,

5 Luxembourg

in contrast to, for example, the Netherlands and Belgium. Between 1950 and 1992, the total number of municipalities in Luxembourg was reduced by only 7%, while in the Netherlands and in Belgium this number was reduced by 36% and 78%, respectively. Speaking about stability and continuity does not necessarily mean that nothing has changed at all. Compared to previous decades, some interesting processes of ‘stabilised innovation’ can be discerned in the Luxembourg system. In this respect a few items should be mentioned. In the first place did the 1988 Municipal Act make central government control over municipalities less extensive. The Municipal Act gives municipalities the right to bring central government decisions concerning local government before the court. The Municipal Act coincides with a growing awareness of the importance of administrative decentralisation and local self-government. Luxembourg was the first country to ratify the Charter of Local Self-Government of the Council of Europe (Committee of the Regions, 1996). Another interesting innovation is the intensifying of links among municipalities, in order to compensate, in some way, for the absence of local government fusion. This leads to inter-municipal cooperation, which takes form within so-­ called syndicats communaux. These syndicats may deal with all kinds of matters—including transport, waste, education, social programmes—that a single municipality is not able to administer. Another change that should be mentioned is the possibility of organising consultative local referendums, which has been opened by the 1988 Local Government Act. The referendum is only advisory, but there is compulsory participation for all persons registered on the electoral rolls for the communal elections. Under this Act, a referendum has to be organised when a particular number of inhabitants ask for it. The quorum is 25% of the electorate for municipalities with less than 3000 inhabitants; the quorum is 20% of the electorate for municipalities with more than 3000 inhabitants. The Act of 4 February 2005 on the national referendum establishes the framework for organising a national (consultative) referendum as provided in Article 51 of the Constitution as of 1919. Since 1919, four national consultative referendums have been held in Luxembourg. The consultative referendum should be distinguished from a binding referendum on constitutional amendment (Article 114 of the Constitution). Finally, it should be mentioned that the Luxembourg political landscape changed by the end of the twentieth century with the growth of single-issue parties. For instance, in 1994, two green parties combined and subsequently won 5 of the 60 seats in the Chamber of Deputies, while the ‘Five-­ Sixths Pensioners Action Committee’—now known as the ADR or Action for Democracy and Fair Pensions—also won 5 seats.

41

5.3

Political–Administrative Organisation of Government

Luxembourg covers only 2586 square kilometres and has approximately only 615,000 inhabitants (in 2019). Thus, local democracy in Luxembourg can only be understood in connection with central government. Central government is in many ways close to local government—not only in terms of size but also on the institutional level. Luxembourg is often considered to be the ideal type of the centralised unitary state.

5.3.1 Central Government The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is a constitutional hereditary monarchy. The Grand Duke of Luxembourg is the head of state. Unlike the Netherlands and Belgium, the role played by the Grand Duke of Luxembourg is more than strictly ceremonial. Together with the government the Grand Duke forms the constitutional organ of the executive. All of his governmental acts require the countersignature of a responsible minister. Within the limits set by representative democracy, the Grand Duke, however, has substantial room for manoeuvre. He has the right of initiative in legislative matters. Furthermore, traditionally no Bill can be enacted and become binding unless he signifies his assent to it and orders it to be promulgated and carried into effect. However, following a constitutional amendment to Article 34 of the Constitution in 2008 resulting from the Grand Duke’s refusal to assent to a law legalising euthanasia (even though the assent had actually become more and more of a formality over the years), legislation no longer requires the Grand Duke’s formal assent. The Grand Duke may still adjourn the Chamber, but not for a period exceeding 1 month. He is allowed to make the regulations and orders necessary for carrying laws into effect, but he may at no time suspend the laws themselves or dispense with their enforcement. He is also authorised to organise and supervise administrative services. This comprises the army, the gendarmerie and the police. His role in public administration must, however, always be linked up with the executive power. The Luxembourg Constitution, proclaimed in 1868 and later amended (particularly in 1919), provides for a democratic government, with legislative power of a unicameral chamber of deputies composed of 60 members elected at least every 5 years by universal suffrage. Seats in the Chamber of Deputies are allocated according to the rules of proportional representation and the principle of the smallest electoral quota. The country is divided into four electoral districts. The number of deputies is determined by the Constitution, which prescribes 60 deputies: 23 from the South; 21 from the Centre; 9 from the North; and 7 from the East.

42

Each Luxembourg voter has as many votes as there are deputies to be elected in his constituency. The vote can be cast either under the party-list system or on a name basis. The elector who votes under the party-list system may not cast any other vote under pain of cancellation of his ballot paper, unless the chosen list comprises a smaller number of candidates than the number of deputies to be elected in the given constituency. Electors who vote on a name basis may select their candidates from the same list or from different lists, but must take care not to cast more votes than there are seats available. Like Belgium, but unlike the Netherlands, traditionally Luxembourg allows more than one office to be held by the same person (cumul des mandats). More than half of the members of the Chamber are also mayors or members of municipal councils. The Grand Duke has the constitutional right to organise the government, which consists of a prime minister, who is head of the government, and at least three other ministers. Although the Grand Duke has the constitutional right to organise all of the government, in practice he only chooses the prime minister, who in turn selects the other members. This shows that, although constitutionally speaking the Grand Duke is the most prominent figure in government, in practice the prime minister holds the stronger cards. For instance, the other members of government must enjoy the confidence of the Grand Duke, but also, as could be expected in a parliamentary democracy, of the Chamber of Deputies. In theory, the Grand Duke can dissolve government at any moment, but in practice he only dissolves government when it ceases to enjoy parliamentary support. The legislative power of the Grand Duke is shared with the Chamber of Deputies. Luxembourg has a multi-party system with three major political parties: the Chrëstlech-­ Sozial Vollekspartei (Christian Social People’s Party), Parti Ouvrier Socialiste (Socialist Workers’ Party), and the Parti Démocratique (Democratic Party). The Chrëstlech-Sozial Vollekspartei can be called the backbone of almost all governing coalitions since 1915. Exceptions to the rule are the years 1925–1926 and 1974–1979. Except for 6 years, therefore, the Christian Social People’s Party has always provided the prime minister since then. As a result, Luxembourg resembles a dominant-party system to a certain extent, but usually coalition governments are established. The Chamber, like the Grand Duke, has the right of initiative in legislative matters. The Constitution assigns to the Chamber of Deputies certain powers in financial matters and invests it with the right to supervise the acts of the government. In international affairs,

F. Hendriks and J. Goossens

the consent of the Chamber is required before a treaty can come into effect on the territory of the Grand Duchy. In order for Bills to become law, a majority of 50% +1 votes is necessary in the Chamber of Deputies. The ­moderating influence of a second assembly, or senate, is absent. The authors of the Constitution were aware of this and therefore introduced a so-called ‘cooling-off period’. After voting on a Bill as a whole, the Chamber is in principle required to vote a second time on the same Bill within a specified interval providing time for further reflection. Besides the cooling-off period, another safeguard against immature legislation is provided by the consistency of the Council of State. The Council of State consists of 22 councillors of state, appointed for life by the Grand Duke, who deliberate over government Bills and any amendments proposed to them. No Bill is to be submitted to the Grand Duke or presented to the Chamber of Deputies before the Council of State’s opinion has been heard. If, however, the government considers the presentation of a Bill to be a matter of urgency, it may consult the Chamber directly. If the Chamber shares the government’s view about the urgency of the matter, discussion may even be opened without the Council of State having to give its opinion first. On no account, however, may the Chamber proceed to final voting on the Bill before it has heard the Council’s opinion.

5.3.2 Local Government The subnational system of Luxembourg has neither provinces, nor departments or counties. In the Luxembourg state structure, the municipality is the only form of territorial decentralisation. From the administrative point of view the municipality is an autonomous territorial authority, possessing legal personality. It is administered through local representatives, but under the supervision and control of central government. At present (2019), there are 102 municipalities in Luxembourg. An important role in the supervision and control of local government is played by the district commissioner, who is supposed to act as hierarchical intermediary between the central government and the municipal authorities. There are three administrative districts for which commissioners are appointed: Luxembourg, Diekirch, and Grevenmacher. Each municipal authority, with the exception of that of the city of Luxembourg, is placed under the immediate supervision of district commissioners and may deal with the

5 Luxembourg

higher authority only through this commissioner. District commissioners are appointed by the central government. They are civil servants under the direct authority of the Minister for Home Affairs in particular and the government more generally. Each municipality has its own municipal council elected by all inhabitants who are qualified to vote. Local elections are held under the absolute-majority system. However, in municipalities that have 3500 or more inhabitants or whose sections include at least one section comprising 3000 inhabitants, elections are held on a party-list system with proportional representation, like for the legislative elections. Members of the municipal council are elected for a 6-year term, commencing from the first day of January following their election. Their number varies with the population of the municipality, but it is always an odd number. Voting is compulsory in Luxembourg. The municipal council corresponds on the local level to what the Chamber of Deputies is on the national level. Municipal authority is exercised by the municipal council and by the board of mayor and aldermen. The relation between these two bodies is also similar to that between parliament and government on the national level. The municipal council draws up regulation with regard to internal administration and the maintenance of law and order in the municipality. The competence of the municipal council is unlimited with respect to the internal administration of the municipality, municipal property, revenue and expenditure, work to be done, the public establishments of the municipalities and the appointment of the municipal secretary, municipal collector and municipal employees. The board of mayor and aldermen is chosen from among the municipal councillors. This board is the executive and administrative body of the municipality’s day-to-day affairs. It corresponds at the local level to the government at the national level. As an executive body, the board of mayor and aldermen is responsible for publishing and implementing the resolutions of the municipal council, administering the municipality’s property, handling revenue and authorising expenditure, keeping a check on the municipal treasury and accounts, governing municipal establishments, administering rural police work and exercising supervision over municipal employees, the fire brigade, the keeping of records, etc. Furthermore, the board of mayor and aldermen is responsible for supervising municipal works and judicial

43

proceedings at the local level. The issuing of birth, marriage and death certificates and the keeping of their registers fall exclusively within the domain of executive local authority. Besides performing the typically municipal tasks, the board of mayor and alderman in certain cases also acts as an organ of central authority. In this capacity, the board of mayor and aldermen is responsible for enforcing laws and regulations and decisions of the central government on the municipality’s territory. The mayor is furthermore responsible for enforcing laws and police regulations under the supervision of the district commissioner. As has been shown above, local government in Luxembourg closely resembles the ideal type of the centralised unitary state. Compared to a (decentralised) unitary state, such as the Netherlands, central government in the Luxembourg unitary state operates remarkably close to local government, both in a physical (the state operates on a smaller scale, with a total population not exceeding that of a medium-size city) and in an institutional sense. Remarkably significant in this respect is the fact that the Grand Duke, as head of state, has been given the right to dissolve the municipal council. No less significant is the fact that communal charges cannot be imposed when the Grand Duke withholds his authorisation. To prevent the municipal autonomy from constituting a threat to the national interests, the Constitution requires the legislator to regulate the composition and organisation of the municipal council and has equipped the higher authority with the right to exercise continuous administrative supervision over municipal affairs. Lines of control between national and local government are therefore relatively short and well organised. Although the municipal council may draw up regulations concerning internal administration and maintenance of law and order in the municipality, such regulations may on no account conflict with general administrative laws and regulations.

5.4

Territory in Official Statistics

Statistics about Luxembourg are issued by Statec, the national statistical bureau. With regard to the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS), issued by Eurostat, all the Luxembourg regions are on the NUTS I level, which is the level of the central state. Furthermore, the Organisation

44

of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) issues statistics about, among others, Luxembourg.

Sources and Further Reading As general sources of empirical data, the following works have been used, most notably the papers by Hendriks referred to below. General references are used in this section, as almost each of the following works touches on each of the paragraphs presented above.

References Barteau HC (1996) Historical dictionary of Luxembourg. Scarecrow Press

F. Hendriks and J. Goossens European Commission. Committee of the Regions (1996) Regional and local government in the European Union. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg Hendriks F (2001) Luxembourg: change and continuities in the local state. In: Loughlin J (ed) Subnational democracy in the European Union: challenges and opportunities. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 173–185 Majerus P, Goerens J M (1995) The institutions of the grand duchy of Luxembourg. Luxembourg Margue P (1974) A short history of Luxembourg. Ministry of State Information and Press Department, Luxembourg Statec (Service central de la statistique et des études économiques) (1996) Le Luxembourg en chiffres. Statec, Luxembourg Thill J, Frieden L (1993) Het Groothertogdom Luxemburg. In: Prakke L, Kortmann CA, Burkens MC (eds) Het staatsrecht van de landen der Europese Gemeenschappen. Kluwer, Deventer

Part II British Isles

46

Part II  British Isles

Fig. II.1  The United Kingdom and Ireland, 1889–2020

This section includes the United Kingdom and Ireland both before its independence in 1922 from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (formally established in 1800) and after when it first ­constituted the Irish Free State and, in 1948, the Republic of Ireland by leaving the British Commonwealth (Fig. II.1). The system that characterises the United Kingdom is known as ‘dual system’, and most of its features are unique in Europe. For this reason, Great Britain and Ireland constitute a separate section. Local government is dominated by committees and a wide range of special-purpose authorities. The committees have the function of preparing the decisions and of administration and management, and the local council, in most cases, limits itself to the approval. In this respect, the system is similar to the Scandinavian one (see Part III). In addition, however, the mayor lacks real executive power, and the system emphasises the collective responsibility of the committees. The council is a corporate body without a separate chief executive. The various officers, committees, and authorities serve the council as a whole. The development of an independent model of local government in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland was made possible by the independence from foreign invasions since the Middle Ages. Namely, both Great Britain and Ireland have been impermeable with respect to the Napoleonic reforms.

6

The United Kingdom Robert J. Bennett

Fig. 6.1  The United Kingdom and its countries within the union

6.1

Introduction

The United Kingdom (UK) is a union of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Until 1922, the union included the whole of Ireland. In addition to the formal union, there are also the associated islands

of the Channel Islands and Isle of Man, which are Crown Dependencies.1 The UK is a constitutional monarchy with a Other more distant Crown Dependencies with similar, but differing, status are not included in this chapter: Hong Kong (until ceded to China), and the Caribbean states of Antigua, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts-Nevis, St. Lucia and St. Vincent. 1 

R. J. Bennett (*) University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. Martí-Henneberg (ed.), European Regions, 1870 – 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61537-6_6

47

48

R. J. Bennett

parliament, which is bicameral, with an elected lower House of Commons (the main executive and legislative branch), and a part-appointed/part-hereditary upper House of Lords (which is chiefly an amending body). A key characteristic is that (apart from the border with the Republic of Ireland since 1922) the UK is surrounded by sea. This has had profound influence on its history, society and economy, and also on the territorial structure. The UK is also distinguished from much of continental Europe by being governed by a common law system, which has significant influence on some administrative structures. It is also unique in Europe (together with Ireland) in having a so-called ‘dual’ structure of local and devolved country governments, where public services and administration are jointly the responsibility of elected bodies and the executive (Fig. 6.1).

6.2

State Formation

Roman occupation from A.D. 78 to c. 409 integrated most of England into a single legal and administrative province, called ‘Britannia’. Outside this area, Roman rule was more ephemeral and its administrative impact more limited. This allowed the Celtic fringes of Cornwall and much of Devon, Wales, Cumberland and most of the land north of York, Scotland and Ireland to maintain some or all of their former structures. This has influenced the modern day, since Celtic traditions and languages have survived, and are now being encouraged (Haigh 1990; Pittock 1999). By 700, the Roman province of ‘Britain’ had disintegrated into smaller kingdoms and principalities, mostly invaded and settled by Angles, Saxons and Jutes. England took its name from the Angles. Some of these principalities became more stable, and the kingdom of Wessex, as a result of its successful resistance to Viking invasions, eventually established a wide influence across much of England, with a capital in Winchester. Athelstan King of Wessex used the title ‘King of all Britain’ and after 954 there was a single Kingdom of England. This forged some sense of the political identity of England. However, there were significant regional revolts, most notably in the Wars of the Roses that resulted in the Tudor Dynasty from 1485, and the Civil War 1642–1649, when the king was executed and replaced by direct administration first by parliament and then by Cromwell (the ‘Protectorate’). The monarchy was re-established in 1660, but with a parliament that was now much stronger. The Protestant succession established during the Reformation under the Tudors was challenged several times. An attempt to reassert Catholicism by James II resulted in the flight of the king and replacement by the Hanoverian line of William of Orange in the largely peaceful ‘Glorious Revolution’ of 1688. Civil rights under the monarchy were first laid out in Magna Carta in 1215, though were limited in practice until modern times. The Reforms Acts

of 1832–1835 extended the electoral franchise, which was extended further in 1867 and 1884. In 1918 women over 30 who were householders, householder’s wives and graduates were enfranchised, and in 1928 all adults over 21 were given full voting rights; this was reduced to age 18 in 1969. The UK as an entity was formed by successive expansions of authority of the English monarchy through marriage, succession and conquest. England as a political entity was consolidated by the Norman Conquest in 1066, which imposed a feudal administrative structure on almost the whole area now known as England (excluding Cumbria), including undertaking the first systematic Census: the Doomsday Book. The accession of William of Normandy brought with it the Channel Islands (as well as much of France until 1204), which have continued under the Crown. Wales had achieved a level of political consolidation by the seventh century, but remained governed by individual principalities in different isolated valleys and territories, the most powerful usually being the Princes of Deheubarth and Gwynedd, both of whom claimed to be ‘Prince of Wales’. However, the influence of the Norman Crown advanced in the borders (Welsh Marches) and progressively established marriage alliances and English administration in many of the borderlands. Edward I imposed a union with England on the whole of Wales after English conquest in 1282, which was enforced through a chain of fortresses. Edward’s son became the first modern Prince of Wales in 1301. Many of the feudal structures remained under the Prince of Wales and Welsh lords, with a mix of language, laws and political allegiances. There was an unsuccessful revolt in the early 1400s led by Owain Glydŵr, who established the first Welsh parliament. However, the accession of the Tudors, who originated from Wales, led to the full integration of Wales with English administrative structures following Tudor Acts of 1536 and 1542, which were de facto Acts of Union. This established the Kingdom of England and Wales. Thirteen counties were set up (inclusive of Monmouthshire).2 Some individual Welsh aspects remained after 1542, but these were steadily overwhelmed, and the legal system was fully assimilated under English law in 1830 (Davies 1994; Davies et al. 2009; Handbook of the UK 2010). Scotland as a modern entity emerged from Pictish kingdoms. From these the kingdom of Argyll expanded by annexation and marriage to cover most of the Lowlands by 1035. The Highlands and Hebrides, which had been under the Norse since 800, were ceded to the Scottish Crown by Norway in 1266, and the Orkney and Shetland Islands ceded

2  Monmouth had always been a Welsh county, but it had been shown ambiguously on many maps. Its ambiguous status came from being under a different legal circuit in England. The ambiguity was finally resolved under the Local Government Act (1972) that renamed it the Welsh county of Gwent.

6  The United Kingdom

in the fifteenth century. The Scottish kings developed strong feudal ties with England after 1066, and adopted English law and developed similar administrative structures. However, there were continuous wars between the two countries covering c. 1000–1328. When Edward I of England tried to impose English rule on Scotland in 1296, a revolt broke out, which ended in 1328 when Robert the Bruce was recognised as King Robert I of Scotland. This conflict led to asserting a strong independent tradition, including the abandonment of Anglo-Norman law in favour of independent Scottish legal procedures based on Roman law. Scotland remained an independent kingdom until 1603, when King James VI of Scotland succeeded to the throne of England and Wales (as James I). This established the Stuart line and the Kingdom of Great Britain. This peacefully unified the crowns of the two countries, but Scotland retained separate political institutions and its own parliament until 1707 (except during the 1650s under the Protectorate). The Acts of Union in 1707 were voluntary unifications by the two parliaments, but with pressure from England to accept the Hanoverian succession following the Glorious Revolution of 1688 that brought the Tudor-Stuart lineage to an end. The two parliaments were integrated after 1707 and based at Westminster, but many separate structures at the economic, social and administrative levels remained. Most important of these was a separate Scottish church and legal system (Ross 2000; Hearn 2002; Trevor-Roper 2008; Handbook of the UK 2010). Ireland, discussed more fully in a separate chapter, had an independent parliament from the late thirteenth century, but independence was limited by ‘Poynings’ Law’: that all Irish legislation had to be approved by the Westminster parliament. However, under pressures following the American Rebellion in 1775–1783, an independent parliament was ceded to Ireland in 1782, but an Act of Union of 1800 dissolved the Irish parliament and enlarged the Westminster parliament to include Irish representation in both Houses. This established the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. However, Irish nationalist interests resisted this from the outset, culminating in Home Rule Bills for Ireland dominating much of Westminster politics after 1885. A Home Rule Bill was passed in 1914 (Government of Ireland Act) when the UK Liberal government depended on Irish Members of Parliament (MPs), but the Act was suspended during World War I. In 1918, the nationalist Sinn Féin Party won most Irish seats in the UK General Election. They did not attend Westminster but formed their own Assembly (the Dáil Éirreann). In 1919, the Irish Republican Army (IRA) was formed. Under continued nationalist pressure, a Westminster Act of 1920 sought to establish two separate parliaments, for Northern and Southern Ireland, but both were to continue within the UK. This was unacceptable to Irish nationalists but led to a parliament being established in Northern Ireland from 1921 and the current title of the state

49

as United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Connolly 2002; Coogan 2003; Handbook of the UK 2010). In 1922, the Irish Free State was established in the south. The Crown Dependencies have entirely different administrative and constitutional structures from the rest of the UK.  The Channel Islands remained under the Crown after the loss of continental Normandy in 1204, the constitutional principle being that allegiance was given ‘as if the King of England continued to be the Duke of Normandy’. The full formal title of the monarch’s power is currently specified as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and other Realms and Territories. There are two Channel Islands territories (or Bailiwicks), of Jersey and Guernsey (which covers several other Islands), each formally under a Crown appointee (the Lieutenant Governor) and the Privy Council. Each Bailiwick has an independent parliament (the States) and legal system; there are no constitutional ties between the two Bailiwicks, though the Islands often coordinate activities. The Isle of Man had been under the kings of Norway until 1266, when it was ceded to Scotland. From 1405, it was under a feudal structure of the Earls of Derby and then the Dukes of Athol, who called themselves ‘Kings’ or ‘Lords of Man’. It was purchased by the Crown for £70,000 in 1765 (largely to stamp out smuggling), with Acts of 1825 abolishing the Lordship and returning all feudal rights to the Crown. Subsequent Acts of 1866 and 1958 vested most of the Crown’s powers in the Island, though formally under a Crown appointee, the Lieutenant Governor and the Privy Council. Unlike the Channel Islands, however, the Lieutenant Governor is head of the executive. There is an independent parliament (Tynwald), which is the oldest legislature in continuous existence in the world. It is composed of three chambers: the House of Keys with its own elected Speaker, Legislative Council and Court of Tynwald. The Tynwald is the supreme body formed of the Lieutenant Governor, and members of the Legislative Council and the House of Keys. Much administration of departments falls under an Executive Council formed from members of the Tynwald who advise the Lieutenant Governor (Fig. 6.2).

6.3

 ational and Devolved Governments N for the Countries of the UK

The administrative differences between Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Crown Dependencies derive from their asymmetric history. This has influenced subsequent developments that are also in many ways asymmetric. As a union, the main political and administrative entities below the UK as a whole are the historic nations/countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, (which were all NUTS level 1—Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics, Level 1—regions within the European Union

50

R. J. Bennett

Fig. 6.2  The United Kingdom and Ireland

[EU]). The Crown Dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man were treated as ‘Extra-Regio’ in the EU: they were not members of the EU, nor part of the UK as an EU member state, though EU rules generally applied except for the free movement of services and persons (Powell 1972). The boundaries of the UK territories have not significantly changed since 1536, except for the division of Ireland. As well as asymmetric administrative structures, there are also major differences in traditions, languages and culture, which have recently been re-encouraged (Haigh 1990; Pittock 1999). The responsibilities and powers of the country level had remained largely unchanged after the secession of the Irish Republic. Until 1999, the only formally devolved government in the UK (apart from Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man) was in Northern Ireland, which had its own provincial Parliament or Assembly from 1921 (after 1932 this was based at Stormont). This had two houses, mirroring Westminster: a 52-member House of Commons and a 26-member Senate. However, this had a number of drawbacks, particularly as a result of being dominated by the Unionist Party that aligned policies very closely with Westminster and resisted any significant efforts to develop separate policies for the province

that might encourage further nationalist hopes. The nationalist minority was effectively excluded. There were also major questions about sectarian biases in public services, especially housing and policing. In 1969, as a result of distrust, inter-community civil unrest broke out, and IRA activities were revived. The army was deployed to assist the police. With no concessions from Unionists on the political front, law and order was taken back by the UK parliament from the N. Ireland parliament in 1972. The N. Ireland Unionist government resigned, the parliament was abolished and direct rule from Westminster began. Various efforts were made to revive N.  Ireland government after 1972, with three devolved Assemblies attempted in 1974, 1982–1986 and 1998. Because of complex disputes between leaders and sectarian tensions, these were not long lived. The 1998 attempt was the beginning of the current system, which followed a 1998 ‘Belfast Agreement’ (or ‘Good Friday Agreement’) between the Unionist and other parties, of which the most significant has always been Sinn Féin (the political wing of the IRA). The 1998 Agreement was followed by a referendum that received 71% support in favour of an Assembly (with a simultaneous poll gaining 94% support in the Irish Republic). There is also a North/South Ministerial

6  The United Kingdom

Council to promote harmonious and mutual benefits. The Assembly was established with the first election in June 1998. It had 108 members elected by proportional representation. However, this Assembly also suffered uncompromising sectarianism that prevented formation of an inclusive powersharing executive. It was suspended in 2002, and elections due in 2003 were postponed. Direct rule from Westminster continued over the period 1972–2007, with the short-lived Assemblies implementing some important changes when they were active. However, little progress was made in the most difficult fields of policing and the constitutional relations with the Irish Republic (which still claimed jurisdiction over the whole of Ireland). This period of instability was brought to an end in May 2007 by the establishment of a modified form of the 1998 Assembly structure and police reforms, with the political momentum of a historic ‘AngloIrish Agreement’ (Bardon 2005; Northern Ireland Yearbook 2009; Handbook of the UK 2010). However, power-sharing collapsed in January 2017, leaving the Assembly suspended until re-established in January 2020. In the rest of the UK, devolution of greater powers to the national/country level made little progress until the Labour government in 1969 established a Royal Commission on the Constitution (Kilbrandon Commission). This reported in 1973 with its key recommendation of returning legislative powers to Scotland, with some level of independent taxation, improved regional structures in England and some greater administrative freedoms for Wales. However, the structures proposed were hybrids and compromises that were controversial and cumbersome. After the 1974 General Election, progress by the Labour government was also limited by many rebels in the Labour Party who aligned with the Conservative opposition in order to resist reforms. A White Paper in 1975, Our Changing Democracy (H. M. Government 1975), set out legislation for workable procedures for a dual structure of Assembly and Executive for Scotland and Wales, financed by grants from Westminster, and the ability to make a surcharge on local government taxes. However, a Scotland and Wales legislative Bill in 1976 failed (Bill 7; 47/3, presented 29 November 1976). Further pressures about the financing question led to a White Paper in 1977 (H. M. Government, 1977), and a Scotland Act was eventually approved in 1978. However, the formal implementation of the Act required a referendum in which at least 40% of the entire electorate of Scotland approved the change. The referendum that took place in March 1979 did not reach this level, and achieved only a small absolute majority of support from those actually voting. The June 1979 General Election brought the Conservative Party to power until 1997, which opposed devolution. However, Scottish objectives were kept alive by an increasingly important Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP). ­ In 1989 a ‘Scottish Constitutional Convention’ was established, which included a wide spectrum of opinion (but not

51

the SNP or Conservatives). This, together with collaboration between the Labour and Liberal Democrat Parties, led to a report (‘Towards Scotland’s Parliament’, 1990) aimed at implementation after the 1992 General Election. However, with Labour still out of power, implementation awaited the General Election of June 1997. Very quickly the Labour government in July 1997 passed a Scottish Parliament Act, with a referendum on 11 September 1997 achieving a 74% majority of those voting in favour of the parliament, and 64% supporting limited tax raising powers. The outcome was establishment of a separate Scottish Parliament and the launching of a Welsh Assembly with the first elections in May 1999. There was also the establishment of a new Provincial Assembly for Northern Ireland (though this did not formally sit continuously until 2007). The form of devolution that emerged in 1999 was much cleaner and less confusing than that proposed in 1973, focusing primarily on establishing new political institutions with devolved powers, to which could be added further functions and responsibilities as experience developed. Devolution was referred to as an on-going ‘process’. The structure of government in Scotland and Wales is similar, based on elected members using a two-tier model of constituencies with part top-up, and an executive: a ‘dual structure’. In Scotland this structure was clear from the outset in 1999, but in Wales less devolution was originally granted. The structure was brought essentially in line with Scotland through the Government of Wales Act in 2006. The first elections under this structure occurred in May 2007. This gave Wales for the first time a first minister nominated by the Assembly and appointed by the Queen, as in Scotland. For the three countries, the Parliament/Assembly has committees for each administrative field, which generally mirror the administrative departments under the executive. These are supposed to act under the dual control of the Parliament/Assembly and Executive, overseen by the first minister. The representative structure is as follows. In Scotland there are 129 members (or Scottish Members of Parliament: MSPs); 73 are elected for constituencies by first-past-the-­ post, and 56 are elected indirectly as regional top-ups. Each voter has two votes: one for the constituency representative, and one for the party in a region; the regional party vote is used to allocate the top-up MSPs proportionally. In Wales there are 60 Assembly members, 40 elected by first-pastthe-­post, and 20 elected indirectly by top-up (four each in five regions). In N.  Ireland there are 108 members elected by proportional representation (alternative vote system) (Directory of Scottish Government 2009; Directory of Welsh Government 2009; DODS Scottish Parliament Companion, 2010; Northern Ireland Yearbook 2009). None of these devolved bodies has exclusive powers; the UK parliament is supreme in all matters, with the devolved powers being those granted in UK law (and thus in theory

52

could be removed). There are also ‘reserved powers’ over which the devolved governments have no direct influence. Thus, the UK remains a unitary state, but has become much more of a decentralised one, with historic asymmetries reinforced. The finance of the devolved areas is generally supported through grants from the UK as a whole. These are allocated by an opaque, complex and highly criticised equation (the ‘Barnett formula’). There is a single unified tax system for the UK.  However, the devolved countries have powers over the local property tax (the rates) and (in Scotland) scope to raise a levy on the personal income tax. The main powers devolved since 1999 are for: education (schools, further and higher education), environment, some health, crime and policing, local government, social work, housing, agriculture, some transport, fire, sport and arts, alcohol licensing, and economic development. The main fields reserved to the Westminster UK parliament are: defence and national security, foreign policy, international border control, economy, fiscal policy, trade policy, employment measures, equality and rights, social security, some transport, some culture and health, and scientific research funding. Additionally, prisons and justice are reserved in Wales and N.  Ireland. Early experiences have shown the Parliament/Assembly to be popular in each case, partly as a result of a very favourable financial structure that has provided extensive grant subsidy from England (though there has been some diminution and restructuring since 2010). The devolved areas have shown independence in many fields, with notable differences from England emerging in the financing of health services, social care and university student fees, largely as a result of the greater finance that has been available. Scotland was ahead of all areas in implementing bans on smoking in public places and restricting alcohol. There have been controversies over some wasted expenditures (as with the Scottish Parliament building). Almost all policy differences of the devolved countries from England have involved more generous levels of public spending, and this has made the financial settlement based on the ‘Barnett formula’ unstable and a subject of heated debate. The Channel Islands and Isle of Man were not directly affected by these UK developments. They maintained a constitutionally independent position under the Crown; but this had been largely ignored until an International Declaration was made by the UK government in 1950. The 1950 Declaration reaffirmed their actual legal position: that whilst the UK is responsible for the external relations of the Channel Islands, any future international treaty or agreement would not apply unless they were expressly included, and the agreement of the Islands is necessary for this inclusion. However, further clarification in 1966 limited this independence, mainly as a result of the needs of the United Nations (UN). After accession of the UK to the European Community on 1 January 1973, special arrangements were

R. J. Bennett

negotiated for the Islands to maintain some degree of derogation of Treaty rights, and to maintain special tax status. Their position after the UK devolution reforms in 1999 was de facto strengthened, by now being part of a more complex and asymmetric structure of devolved powers in the different parts of the UK. However, some independence has been reduced as a result of international pressures on tax havens after the 2007–2009 financial crisis. Since the pressure on tax havens were led by Britain following the political agenda of Labour’s Gordon Brown, it was difficult for the Islands to resist. Increased scrutiny and restriction on tax haven status have subsequently continued. Devolution was described in 1999 as a ‘process’ that could evolve over time. This has been the case. In particular, since 2007 the increasing strength of the SNP in Scotland, which took control of the Parliament, has led to discussions to increase its devolved responsibilities and powers to tax. The SNP also pursued an agenda of independence for Scotland, with a commitment to a referendum, which offered votes on independence and taxing powers. This referendum took place in 2014. A referendum on extending Welsh devolved powers achieved strong support in 2010. The N. Ireland Assembly, as well as other political and business interests, also sought greater taxing powers, particularly because of the adverse effects of competition from the very low corporate tax rates in the Irish Republic; some concessions on these tax rates were granted in the 2016 UK Finance Act. Despite resisting devolution, the Conservative-led Coalition government over 2010–2015 supported most of these developments (though not Scottish independence). One reason for this was financial pressures. It was believed that greater devolution of taxing and other powers would make the devolved countries more responsible for their own expenditures (and hence potentially more frugal), which would allow a reduction in the extent of English ‘subsidy’. The first outcome was the Scotland Act of May 2012, which passed significantly greater powers to the Scottish Executive, renamed as the ‘Scottish Government’. This government is now able to manage its own election procedures, many aspects of income tax including levying an additional rate from 2016, land tax, tax on landfills, some aspects of capital and debt, and various other procedures. However, the Act did not satisfy SNP aspirations. Significant change occurred after the referendum on Scottish independence in September 2014. This achieved a much lower majority than expected in favour of continuing the union (55%), with 45% pro-independence, though two cities gave a majority for independence (Glasgow and Dundee). But this relative success increased SNP party membership and activists, which contributed to further success in the 2015 UK General Election, where the SNP was able to increase its seats from 6 to 56 of the total of 59 Scottish seats in the Westminster parliament. Although

6  The United Kingdom

this majority was reduced to 35  in the 2017 election, it reached 48 of the 59 seats in the 2019 General Election. This success enabled the SNP to press for further increases in devolved powers (especially over taxation) and pursue a so-called ‘progressive’ agenda to increase public spending. Following the 2019 General Election, there have been stronger calls for a second Scottish Referendum on independence, with the concessions on tax powers and service responsibilities granted in the 2016 Finance Act and other legislation deemed insufficient by the SNP.  The Scottish developments also led to increased Welsh powers, though still behind those in Scotland, and efforts to enlarge the Assembly’s role in N.  Ireland. Scottish changes also led to concessions for reforms in England: (i) in the UK parliament, to restrict voting rights of non-English MPs on English legislation; and (ii) to reduce the extent of ‘English grant subsidy’ to Scotland by amending the grant formula. As yet there has been little desire to establish a more formal federal structure for the UK.  However, a more federal structure may become inevitable in the longer term, especially after the tensions following the 2016 referendum and subsequent negotiations to withdraw from the EU (‘Brexit’). Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all had a majority voting to remain in the EU, whilst the majority in England and the UK as a whole voted to leave. This fuelled pressures for further devolution, which were reinforced in the 2019 General Election by the 48 seats won by the SNP (of 59 in Scotland), and for the first time a majority of non-Unionist parties winning seats in N. Ireland (10 of 18, including 7 for the pro-independence Sinn Féin). SNP’s calls for a new referendum on Scottish independence have been resisted by the UK government, and their share of the popular vote in 2019 of only 45% (despite winning 80% of the seats) suggests that if held it would not achieve a majority for independence. Even more noticeable, the 2019 pro-independence share in N. Ireland was no more than about 40%, with the Sinn Féin vote declining. The popular vote is easily misunderstood: it has not so far been primarily pro-independence in Scotland or N. Ireland, but for strong representation of their interests in Westminster. Whatever the future outcomes, the likely natural development is for the ‘devolution process’ to lead to more powers going to the constituent countries and move the UK further from a decentralised union towards a more federalised union of nations.

6.4

Regional Government and Administration

Regional government below the scale of the historic countries of England, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland has generally been minimal. Instead, regional structures have been used in an ad hoc way for the coordination and administra-

53

tion of services. However, regional government, especially for England, has had a history of enthusiastic advocates dating from early Fabian debates in 1905, but there has been little action. World War I led to various temporary regional administrative structures to aid the war effort. In response to the Irish situation, Fawcett (1919) advocated ‘Home Rule’ for all (England, Scotland and Wales, as well as Ireland, and for 12 regional areas in England larger than counties). Cole (1921, 1947) and Gilbert (1939) both advocated using regions for functional administrative improvement, and for increased representation of the population through devolved government. Some aspects of Fawcett’s proposals re-­emerged in the Redcliffe-Maud Commission (1969) on Local Government in England, which proposed provinces. However, proposals for English regional devolution had little political traction until devolution to Scotland and Wales had taken place. The development of greater independent powers for Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland had always been recognised as leaving the important question to be resolved for England, of how and if it could be regionalised and whether there should be an elected regional level. Many commentators felt that devolution to Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland alone would leave a lopsided structure. England is by far the largest part of the UK, accounting for over 83% of the whole population (see Table 6.1). It also has a high density of population, and an even larger share of the economy, economic growth and likely future economic potential. To overcome this imbalance, various approaches have been used to provide practical regional administrative structures for England. Depending on their size and field, some of these ‘regions’ have also sub-divided Wales, Scotland and N. Ireland. However, this has been a very contentious field, both between the political parties and between the different regions. As a result, developments were mostly for regional administration rather than elected government. The main structures can be summarised as follows.

Table 6.1  Population of the different countries of the UK in 2001

Country England Scotland Wales N. Ireland Jersey Bailiwick of Guernsey Isle of Man Total UK and Territories

% of UK Population population 49,138,831 83.3 5,114,600 8.6 2,835,073 4.8 1,703,000 2.9 90,812 0.2 65,573 0.1

Density of population (per sq. km.) 380 66 140 127 783 836

73,315 0.1 59,021,204 100.00

133 246

Source: UK, N. Ireland and Territory Censuses

54

6.4.1 C  entral Government Administrative Regions These are forms of de-concentrated administration, where central functions are managed at a regional level. Early examples were (i) National Insurance Local Committees established in 1949 to advise on local administration of unemployment support, which subsequently became Area Manpower Boards that included administration of skills and training; (ii) Area Consultative Councils to provide business inputs into the management of the nationalised industries after 1945, for ports, airports and road haulage, and for administration of the National Health Service after 1948, etc.; (iii) Local Productivity Councils set up in 1953 to encourage industrial innovation; and (iv) a variety of other regional administrative structures for other services, especially health. These regional structures continue up to the present for health, transport, civil defence and many other public services. The structures have been amended many times as the service fields themselves have been modified.

6.4.2 R  egional Economic Planning Boards and Councils The most committed early effort for regional administration was Regional Economic Planning Boards set up in 1965 to contribute to a National Plan for economic planning. These were de-concentrated administrative bodies composed of central government civil servants at region level. They were complemented by Regional Economic Planning Councils, which were charged with developing regional strategies. The Councils were composed of appointees from other regional administrative bodies, local government representatives, academic experts and others; i.e. they were a mix of indirectly elected and other individuals. They covered the English regions, as well as sub-regions in Scotland and Wales. The Councils were criticised as relatively ineffective and rarely strongly influenced national or regional policy, although they had some influence on some strategic planning decisions (e.g. on airports, infrastructure and new towns). The whole concept of the 1964 National Plan collapsed. This was supposed to coordinate central government with the regions and influence Treasury and other policy. A Department for Economic Affairs that was supposed to be the administrator of this process was criticised as a superfluous ‘fifth wheel’, met deep resistance from the Treasury and was abolished after 2 years. The Regional Economic Planning Boards and Regional Economic Planning Councils, however, survived until abolished in 1979, to be replaced by regional Government Offices for the Regions with no external members. These offices were modified over 2001–2010, and have been re-established since 2010.

R. J. Bennett

6.4.3 Ad Hoc Regional Coordination A wide variety of special purpose regional bodies for coordination of local government and other public agents has been attempted at various times. Generally, these have been unstable, lasting for only a few years before being superseded by other structures. Some early examples were in S. Wales, Doncaster, and for London and some metropolitan areas. With various reforms of local government, many of metropolitan coordination bodies were absorbed into metropolitan counties in 1974 and 1976 (Cole 1947; Alden and Morgan 1974). After the abolition of the metropolitan counties in 1986, various ad hoc bodies have continued up to the present: chiefly for transport, fire and police. Some of these have received direct grant support from central government via local government finance procedures. A continuing functional problem remains one of coordinating between various of the ‘care’ agencies in health, social services, local government and private and voluntary provision. Similarly, there have remained problems of coordination in security services (various functions of police, fire, civil defence), and between elements of administration of the tax and benefits system. Regional administrative change has usually been part of the various efforts to improve coordination at national level.

6.4.4 ‘Special Areas’ A major early attempt to develop regional coordination was stimulated by the problem of ‘depressed regions’ following the 1920s slump. ‘Special Areas’ were set up by central government, where businesses received investment and other incentives to encourage employment and industrial revival (under the Special Areas Act, 1934). The areas before World War II were in Central Scotland, Cumberland, N. E. England and S.  Wales. After World War II, these ‘Development Areas’ were expanded to include parts of Merseyside and Lancashire, Inverness, Dundee, Wrexham and the whole of N.  Ireland. After 1960, the areas were further expanded to include the whole of Scotland, Wales and parts of N. England and Merseyside, with some places within these having Special Development Area status with even stronger incentives (McCrone 1969). The eligible areas and incentives offered changed in detail many times over the years, with the incentives reaching their strongest in the period 1963–1969. After accession to the EU, these areas became part of the EU structural funding regions, gaining European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), Social Fund and other supports. At different times, N.  Ireland, the Scottish Highlands and Islands, Cornwall, and Merseyside were Objective 1 areas; many of the older industrial areas, some depressed seaside resorts and the Kent coalfield area received Objective 2 status.

6  The United Kingdom

55

6.4.5 Regional Development Agencies

6.4.6 Regional Devolution Since 2014

Scotland, Wales and N.  Ireland have had Economic Development Agencies (under various names) since 1974. Since 1999, these have been absorbed into the devolved Executives and Assemblies/Parliaments. In England, however, there was no such regional agency until 1999, except where local authorities established one (as occurred in the North West, South West and North East at various times; and for various sub-regions). An effort was made at developing a national system of more local agencies (broadly at the level of county) in 1990–2001 through Training and Enterprise Councils, but these did not share cross-party consensus and were abolished in 1999 by Labour (with transition, they finally closed in 2001). Instead, Labour established nine Regional Development Agencies in 1999 as economic development bodies for their regions, composed of partnerships of local government, business leaders and other regional representatives. They became fully operational with significant grant finance in 2001. They were bodies appointed by central government, chaired by a business leader, but predominantly public sector-­led, receiving UK urban regeneration money, and EU ERDF and Social Funds. Their main concerns were economic development, especially concerning physical sites and advising on planning decisions, subsequently gaining responsibilities for regional skills strategies, small business support programmes and environmental strategies. They were also responsible for strategy towards the economy, health, environment and other areas. They were initially supposed to be supported by elected Regional Assemblies, but after these failed to take off, they relied on consultation bodies called Regional Chambers (sometimes also called Assemblies) constituted of the local government bodies in their region (mainly elected local politicians), other public agents such as education, health and police services, and business bodies such as chambers of commerce (see further below). They were thus a mix of appointed and indirectly elected individuals (Directory of English Regional Government 2009). Although Regional Development Agencies were slow to become effective, they eventually received some local support. However, Regional Development Agencies also failed to develop cross-party consensus and were abolished by the Coalition government in June 2010 (with transition finally closed in April 2012) in favour of more locally based bodies (called Local Enterprise Partnerships), largely based across city-regions at a sub-regional level (38 in number). The London Development Agency was also abolished in 2010, but its functions survived by being transferred into the administration of the London Assembly and Mayor’s office.

Because of the relative success of the London Assembly and Mayor, attempts have been made to increase cooperation between local governments to develop city-region collaborations. Attempts to bring these under an executive mayor largely failed in 2012. However, in 2014 the first city-wide cooperation was agreed between the UK government and the local government units in greater Manchester. This entailed existing local units pooling their management of some major services, and receiving devolved powers and finance for other services that were formally under central government (some policing, skills training and social welfare). One effect is to overcome some of the criticisms of the Local Enterprise Partnerships by joining them into a collaborative structure with local government over more meaningful areas. After the 2015 General Election the Conservative government enacted similar city-wide cooperation for all other cities, and groups of counties in non-metropolitan areas. Each has to agree to have an elected mayor or similar executive. This was a voluntary process, resulting in a slowly expanding but somewhat uneven development across England.

6.4.7 Elected Regional Government The only significant effort to establish elected regional government in England has been efforts in 2003, when a Regional Assemblies Act paved the way for nine elected Regional Assemblies in England. These were to give a political match to the Regional Development Agencies, introducing something of a dual structure of elected Assembly and appointed executive. This aimed to realise a major political objective of the Labour government of the time, but its implementation required support from regional referendums. At least one region had to vote for an elected Assembly for the legislation to be enacted, and a referendum had to take place in each region before an Assembly was established. The first referendum was held in late 2004 in the region most likely to support an Assembly, the North East region; but the proposal was rejected. In a confused and contentious campaign the key reasons for popular rejection were the extra costs of a further tier of government, and undermining of local government. This has put any political proposal for elected regional Assemblies off the agenda for at least a generation. However, in 1999 one region was granted an elected Assembly under separate legislation and after a successful referendum: London. Although different from any other region, as an integrated city, this has been a largely successful and popular development. Members of the London Assembly

56

are elected on a two-tier structure, directly elected from the same boroughs that are responsible for the lowest tier of local government, with a political party regional top-­up. As in the devolved countries, there is an elected Assembly, but London differs in that the executive is overseen by a directly elected mayor. Without an elected regional structure for the rest of England, this now has to be seen more as a metropolitan government than a regional Assembly. It is mainly financed by grants, but receives some local taxation as a precept on local taxes (the rates) and from service fees (chiefly buses and the underground/metro, and a congestion charge). It is responsible for economic promotion, transport, training and skills strategy, tourism, and some land and planning activity. It also has a strategic role with the local governments in London (the Boroughs) on crime, children, social care, 14–19 education, health, planning and housing (Directory of English Regional Government 2009). It played a major role in the 2012 Olympic Games. A hybrid of the regional Mayor has been developed in other cities since 2014, as discussed above. The result of these various developments means that general devolved government to region level in England has not taken place. Instead, there is a varied structure of administrative regions, depending on the service field considered. The most generic statistical unit is ‘government regions’ in England. These form the basis of the NUTS level 1. These have been stable since 1999. But their definition has not been historically stable. At the detailed level, there have been difficulties of assigning some places at the boundaries of regions: e.g. the High Peak of Derbyshire between the N.  W. and Yorkshire; the boundary between Lancashire and Yorkshire; whether Poole and Bournemouth should be in the S.  E. or S.  W.; whether Hertfordshire should be in the E. or S.  E.; whether N.  Lincolnshire should be in Humberside or not; whether N.  Yorkshire should be in the N.  E. or Yorkshire; whether Cumbria should be in the N.  E. or N.  W. At the more macro level there has been controversy over whether E. Anglia (now called the Eastern Region) should be a separate region or integrated with the S. E., and whether London and the S. E. should be one administrative region since they are certainly one economic region. Currently there are nine NUTS level 1 regions in England, as shown in Table  6.2. With Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland forming level 1 units, there are 12 NUTS level 1 regions in the UK. The English regions differ in size, as well as economic weight. The dominance of London and the South East and parts of the East of England accounts for the reluctance to combine these into a single functional economic region (which is what they are geographically). As shown in Table 6.2, London accounts for 15% of the total English population (12% of the UK), with its economic region of the S. E. and E. covering 40% of England and 35% of the UK.  The division of territory between different statistical

R. J. Bennett Table 6.2  Population of the administrative regions of England 2001

Region North East North West Yorkshire and the Humber East Midlands West Midlands East of England London South East South West

% of UK Population population 2,515,422 5.12 6,729,764 13.70 4,964,833 10.10

Density of population (per sq. km.) 293 477 322

4,172,174 5,267,308 5,388,140 7,172,091 8,000,645 4,928,434

267 405 282 4562 420 207

8.49 10.72 10.97 14.60 16.27 10.03

Source: UK Census

regions has sought to give a more even balance of size and resources; but the outcome is territories that often have little functional meaning. Hence, regions have always had more administrative relevance than popular support. This accounts for some of the difficulties of devolving more power to the regional level. Also, as noted below, the UK has some of the largest local government units in Europe (e.g. more than 70 times the size of French or German local government areas and population, on average). This makes the arguments for having a further regional tier of elected government less relevant since many of the economies of scale for local public services have already been achieved at the local government level. With the economic arguments limited, and the lack of historical, functional or cultural relevance for most of the English regions, this has resulted in a weak case for regional government. Indeed where there is any popular support for a ‘regional’ level government, it is mainly restricted to limited parts of popular opinion in smaller units within regions: such as the historic kingdom of Cornwall (Kernow), or the historic kingdom of Northumbria. Within Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, there have seldom been organised pressures for elected structures at regional or sub-regional level. Most regional structures have been, and continue to be, purely administrative or statistical, as for England. These are included in the summary above. However, there have occasionally been significant pressures for some greater powers. In modern times, this has been most prominent in Shetland and Orkney. After the development of North Sea oilfields, the Shetland Islands (where most oil is landed and has most of the oilfields within its continental shelf) sought to gain greater control over oil revenues. This led to some pressures for greater government powers based in part on their separate Norse heritage, but mainly to gain greater resources. In the event, a share of oil revenue from landings at the main terminal (Sullom Voe) has been the main practical element of greater powers received. It has provided a revenue surplus for the Islands in some years. Orkney and the Western Isles have also exerted some pres-

6  The United Kingdom

sures for greater powers, chiefly when other Scottish reforms are being discussed. With the Highlands, all the Islands have greater powers and some different administrative structures than the rest of Scotland. With reform of local government in 1975, Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles became ‘most purpose’ authorities—single-tier unitary local governments. Historically support for independence for Scotland has been lower in these areas, where they have regarded the UK as something of a buttress against dominance by the Scottish urban majority. Similarly, in Wales, there have been very distinct differences in emphasis and policy needs for North Wales, South Wales and the rural centre. Wales remains a difficult country to integrate: most parts are far more accessible East-West to England than they are North-South to the other parts of Wales.

6.5

Local Government Administration

A distinguishing characteristic of local government in the UK is its ‘dual system’. Public services and administration are jointly the responsibility of the elected ‘council’ and the executive of paid officers. There has not been a single executive figure, such as a mayor as in most of Europe (Leemans 1970; Bennett 1993); in modern times, until very recently, the mayor is purely a ceremonial figure. Indeed local authorities are commonly referred to as ‘councils’, which emphasises the collective responsibility of those elected as well as their executive. The ‘dual’ structure means that there is a dominance of government by committees of elected councillors, which make the overall policy decisions that are then executed and managed by the paid executive officers. Since 2000 it has been possible to establish elected mayors as chief executives in England, and a few cities have done this. There has also been the elected mayor for London since 2000 as part of the regional reforms. The trend for mayors has been slow. Attempts were made to encourage development by the Labour government over 1997–2010. The Coalition government over 2010–2015 sought to encourage mayors in the major cities through ‘city deals’ that provided greater freedoms and resources. Liverpool and Leicester established mayors under this new procedure. However, Manchester was able to execute a ‘city deal’ with the government without agreeing to a mayor, though it has since been established. In May 2012 referendums on mayors were held in ten major cities, with support for mayors achieved only in Bristol. The rejection of mayors in Birmingham, Coventry, Leeds, Manchester, Nottingham, Bradford, Sheffield, Newcastle and Wakefield shows how alien the concept of mayor and a centralised executive is to England, where the existing local government councillors have vigorously resisted reforms. Nevertheless, subsequently some of these cities now have mayors as part of wider city-regions.

57

Separately from the issues of mayors, there have been initiatives in many local councils to implement a ‘cabinet’ system of government to coordinate services, and to bring the council and executive closer together. This is now widespread and covers the majority of the larger and metropolitan areas. Local councillors have argued that this makes mayors unnecessary. However, cabinet systems have only partially succeeded in providing a focus for local service administration, and have had little impact on the capacity of localities to improve the promotion of their areas and better focus the leadership of economic development. The structure of local government ultimately falls under the UK parliament (except in the Channel Islands and Isle of Man), and since 1999 under the devolved Assemblies/ Parliament. There is no law of community local self-­ government as in some Nordic countries or Germany. There have been, and remain, important historical differences between the systems in England, Scotland, Wales and N.  Ireland. These have been strengthened since the 1999 devolution. Most significant, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland now have single-tier ‘unitary’ local government throughout, whilst England has a mix of two-tier and single-tier ‘unitary’ government.

6.5.1 Local Government Before 1832/1835 Much local government administration until the Reform Acts of 1832/1835 carried forward medieval structures. One stultifying aspect was the electoral franchise. The systems of election for parliament and municipalities overlapped. Aristocrat and landed interests expected to be the leaders of municipal politics, and sought control via elections of local freemen because these were also the electors of Westminster MPs. As a result, ‘the two systems, the parliamentary elections system and the system of [local] corporation misrule, were so interwoven, so interdependent’ (Porritt and Porritt 1903, Vol. 1, p. 55). This was particularly serious for larger city municipal government since the landed interests were usually not very interested in it, especially in Ireland, where most of the aristocrats were absentees. Control of the localities was merely a means to control the national government. The UK government increasingly manipulated local electoral franchises, which had come almost entirely under the control of patrons linked to, or dependent on, the government: in 1700, about 20% of MP seats were influenced by patronage; 45% in 1741; and 82% in 1816; in Ireland, almost all seats were controlled by patrons (O’Gorman 1989, pp.  18–21). The detail is discussed for each area by the Commission on Municipal Corporations’ Reports (1835–1839); also see Webb and Webb (1906), Lipman (1949) and Keith-Lucas and Richards (1978).

58

A second aspect of the pre-1832/1835 period was the smallness of administrative units, the fragmentation and overlapping of many parishes that were often key units for delivering public services, and the lack of concordance of one set of boundaries with another. In the early 1700s, there were about 8000 towns that were neither cities nor boroughs; in the 1831 Census, there were 10,698; and in 1834, there were 15,635 parishes and townships administering their own poor relief (Lipman 1949, p.26). These were all significant units of government. There were also numerous boroughs (burghs in Scotland) of highly variable size, the counties, and special districts that catered for expanding urban populations through ad hoc local units of administration (for police, street lighting, etc.). The 1832 Reform Acts in England, Wales and Ireland for parliamentary elections, and the municipal counterpart of the Municipal Corporation Act of 1835 (and the 1833 Scottish Burgh Reform Act and 1846 Scottish Reform Act) resulted in a wider franchise, increasing the total electorate from about 420,000 to 650,000, to include householders with a value of at least £10 per annum in urban areas, or tenants of at least £50 (O’Gorman 1989). Non-resident voters lost their franchise, and a formal electoral list had to be monitored for the first time, radically reducing the scope for abuse. The Reform Acts also removed the most venal abuses of the old system and adjusted representation to better reflect the distribution of population during a period of rapid change and industrialisation: 178 boroughs in England and Wales were abolished, 21 new cities and towns gained 2 MPs, 19 gained 1 MP, and 26 counties doubled their Westminster representation. This had a profound effect on the geography of representation, bringing the new manufacturing districts more directly into national politics.

6.5.2 Local Government Before the 1880s Despite important effects on the UK parliament, the 1832/1835 and 1833/1846 Reform Acts did little to change local government. There were no systemic changes in boundaries except establishing larger-scale Poor Law Unions for welfare support in the 1830s. Until the 1880s and 1890s the earlier medieval geographical structures largely survived, although they became subject to more intensive and continuous detailed modification in urban areas and urban-rural fringes as urbanisation developed. The counties remained unchanged until 1888. Lipman (1949, p. 33) argues that had the ‘structure of county government been altered like that of the boroughs, in 1835, instead of in 1888, … much of the complexity of nineteenth-century local government might have been avoided’. The local government structure before the 1880s reforms can be summarised as follows:

R. J. Bennett

• Counties: These held the main responsibility for highways, budgets, quarter sessions and prisons. There were 42 historical counties in England (including each Yorkshire Riding), 13  in Wales (including Monmouth), 33 in Scotland and 6 in N. Ireland. Some large cities had county powers defined largely by whether they were levying their county rate. There were 99 of these (later to be called County Boroughs and in modern time Unitary Authorities), though only about 40 had the higher power of holding their own legal quarter sessions proceedings. • Hundreds: These had some petty session powers, numbering about 600  in 1833 plus the 200 boroughs that had similar powers. • The Parish: These were important in the administration of poor relief, and maintenance of highways and bridges. About 8000 parishes covered towns (but not boroughs) in 1600, rising to nearly 11,000  in 1831. A further 5000 other parishes also administered their own poor relief. A total of 15,635 parishes had significant civil functions in 1832 (Lipman 1949, pp. 3–24). • Boroughs: These usually combined county, hundred and parish functions. Twenty were formerly County Corporate within their own Sheriff, but over 300 municipal borough corporations existed (of which over 200 were outside modern London). Towns, including boroughs that had some sort of local authority powers, numbered 554  in England and Wales, of which 107 were in the West Riding and 76 in Lancashire (Lipman 1949, p. 60). There were numerous anomalies, outlier territories and overlapping functions between territories, which resulted in difficulties in policing, paving, lighting, and administration of justice and prisons. As a way of dealing with the practical problems, many areas had established improvement districts through local Acts. These could cover wider or narrower areas than the borough; e.g. for street paving and cleaning, lighting, policing, urban improvement, markets, health, and sewerage, and in some cases utilities such as gas and water supply. • The Poor Law Unions: These were an attempt at a division of territory using functional principles to produce a level of uniformity and convenience of travel. However, these added a new complexity by introducing areas overlapping county boundaries: 181 out of 650 Poor Law Unions overlapped county boundaries, and 65 municipal boroughs and urban sanitary districts also overlapped county boundaries (Lipman 1949, pp. 32, 124, 144). Lipman (1949, p. 32) saw the three-tier structure of counties, hundreds and parishes as a top-down structure that was a hangover of the Doomsday times and earlier. The borough and special improvement districts, in contrast, he described as ‘the building of local government from below, especially in urban areas, by making the nucleus of urban population

6  The United Kingdom

the administrative limit … in favour of the rights of a compact and locally conscious urban neighbourhood to manage its own affairs’.

6.5.3 L  ate Nineteenth-Century Local Government Reforms This structure in England and Wales was subject to a series of reforms in the late nineteenth century, through Local Government Acts in 1872, 1888 and 1894 and similar reforms in Scotland and N.  Ireland. These created a more uniform system, most of which endured with some modification until 1964 in London, and the 1970s elsewhere. The urban and rural sanitary districts were the first to be reformed in the 1870s, creating a single system for this special purpose administration. This was followed by the Municipal Corporation Act 1882, which recognised, extended and consolidated the boroughs. The Local Government Acts of the 1880s and 1890s established the county and district tiers of government, reformed and reduced the number of boroughs (which now had to satisfy a requirement for a minimum population of 50,000), removed the previously separate Improvement Act districts consolidating them into general local government responsibilities, and introduced a uniform franchise and election process for all bodies (Lipman 1949, Chaps. 4 and 5). The only major exceptions that continued were the 2302 School Boards and 648 Poor Law boards of guardians, which were reformed in 1902 and 1929, respectively. The 1880–1890 reforms introduced in England and Wales a structure of 61 county boroughs, about 250 municipal boroughs, 276 urban districts and 652 rural districts, with the counties and Yorkshire Ridings retained. A London-wide London County Council (LCC) and London School Board were created in 1888. Similar reforms over the same period modified local governments in Scotland and N. Ireland. For the first time a relatively uniform system of government and franchise was established across the whole UK. There were continued adaptations of the system through boundary changes at the detailed level. Also, between 1889 and 1922  in England, there were 33 proposals to constitute new boroughs, and 148 proposals to extend boroughs, as well as amalgamations of Hanley into Stoke-on-Trent, and Devonport into Plymouth. A net increase occurred, of 21 boroughs to 82 by 1922, and 109 extensions, mostly in Lancashire, Staffordshire and the Yorkshire West Riding (Lipman 1949, pp.170–1). Further reforms followed County Reviews in the 1930s, covering England, Wales, Scotland and N. Ireland. These resulted in a number of local Acts for each county that revised borough, urban and rural district boundaries and numbers. Two counties in Scotland were combined (Perth and Kinross; Moray and Nairn). By 1940, the

59

urban districts had been considerably reduced in numbers. In England and Wales, the reduction was 27% in number to 572, rural districts reduced by 27% to 475, and 33 urban districts became municipal boroughs. In Scotland there was a structure of counties, four ‘counties of cities’, large burghs and small burghs. Other major changes were the abolition of the School Boards in 1902, passing their responsibilities to the counties and county boroughs/burghs (although larger boroughs of population over 10,000 and districts over 20,000 could become education authorities for elementary schools). In 1929, the Poor Law Unions were also transferred to counties and county boroughs/burghs, so that, for the first time, all major local service functions were governed by one system of general local government authorities—‘compendious authorities’ (Lipman 1949, pp. 220–34).

6.5.4 Two-Tier Local Government After 1964 The next major reform was in 1964  in London (which included the abolition of the county of Middlesex), 1974 in England and Wales and 1975 in Scotland. This created a standardised two-tier structure. It followed Commissions that examined reform proposals (Redcliffe-Maud Commission, 1969 for England; and the Wheatley Commission 1969 for Scotland). Although the Redcliffe-­Maud Commission recommended a two-tier structure only in three metropolitan counties, for a variety of political reasons the resulting reforms created a two-tier structure for all metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas in England and Wales. This required new counties to accommodate a two-­tier structure in metropolitan areas. There was amalgamation of all the small units into single-tier ‘districts’ at the lowest level, within a second tier of county. In Scotland there was also a two-tier structure, with the upper tier called ‘regions’ covering several districts. The county boroughs/Scottish burghs were abolished and their powers split between the counties and districts. New counties were formed in Avon, Cleveland, Isle of Wight, and Humberside; Rutland was merged with Leicestershire. In metropolitan areas, new counties were introduced in the West Midlands, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear, Manchester, and London. The new Greater London Council replaced the former London County Council over a wider area, with the schools coming under an Inner London Education Authority (ILEA). In Wales, the historic counties were reduced from 13 to 8. In Scotland, the exceptional situation of Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles resulted in these becoming ‘most purpose’ authorities—single-tier unitary bodies, whilst the rest of Scotland moved to a two-tier structure. The abolition of the urban and rural districts and county borough/burghs radically reduced the total number of local government units, to about 600 for the UK, with the average

60

population sizes increased to become the largest local government units in Europe (except in comparison to Sweden, which undertook similar reforms in the 1970s). There was a functional division of services between the two levels. The county/region level became the major unit in terms of strategic control and expenditure: responsible for education (which accounted for about 50% of all local expenditure), strategic planning, transport planning, trunk roads and public transport, fire social services, libraries and waste disposal. The districts became responsible for land use planning, social care, local roads, public housing, refuse collection, leisure and recreation, environmental health, and tax collection. (Keith-Lucas and Richards 1978; Handbook of the United Kingdom 2010; Directory of English Regional Government 2009; Directory of Welsh Government 2009; Directory of Scottish Government 2009; Northern Ireland Yearbook 2009). Local economic development powers were heavily circumscribed after 1979, but local government in the UK has always been far more restricted than most of Europe, particularly over any role in the economy.

6.5.5 U  nitary Councils in Northern Ireland After 1973 Reforms of local government after World War II followed different routes in N. Ireland. Various reviews of the county and borough functions in the 1960s led to a range of proposals, most focusing on reforms regarding the number of counties or limiting their powers. However, no reforms were implemented until 1973. This was the first reform since the 1989 Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898. It abolished the county and urban and rural districts, introducing instead 26 unitary authorities combining all local government functions. These continued until 2015 when they were reduced to 11 districts. These are similar to the ‘most purpose’ authorities in Scotland. Local government has less responsibilities in N.  Ireland than in the rest of the UK.  The chief exclusions are education, health, social care and libraries, which since 2007 fall under the Assembly but with local elected ­appointees playing important roles in strategy. N.  Ireland also differs in not using a council tax, but instead still has retained the historic domestic rates.

6.5.6 T  he Erosion of the Two-Tier Local Government Structure After 1986 The unitary structure in Northern Ireland, and the three ‘most purpose’ authorities in Scotland encouraged pressure from the large towns and cities in the non-metropolitan areas in England for reforms that restored their historical independence. There were also political party pressures running

R. J. Bennett

against the upper-tier bodies. As a result, the two-tier structure experienced considerable modification. In Scotland, all the regions were abolished to introduce 29 unitary authorities and three island councils in 1994; 32 single-­tier districts in all. In Wales, 22 single-tier districts were introduced when the 6 counties were abolished in 1996. In England, the first modification in 1986 abolished the six metropolitan counties. This was largely for political reasons, since most were prominently opposed to the then Conservative government. All powers were returned to the districts as a single tier, and to the London boroughs (although some strategic administrative coordination remained, managed by the independent districts/boroughs). In the non-metropolitan areas, the abolition of the county boroughs in 1974/1976 was very unpopular in the major cities affected. As a result of pressures from these, after 1995 there were a series of modifications to increase the role of the lowest-tier districts removing them from the county—as unitary authorities; or in some areas to abolish the districts and turn the counties into single-tier bodies. This in many ways revived the old county boroughs. The first unitaries were the metropolitan districts and London boroughs following the abolition of the metropolitan counties in 1986; but after 1995 an increasing number of the non-metropolitan districts were removed from the counties, with a number of boundary changes to amalgamate districts and modify local structures. Excluding London (which has 33 unitary boroughs, but also a regional Assembly and mayor), by 1998 there were 46 unitary authorities (plus the Isles of Scilly that had been a unitary since 1890); by 2009, there were 55 (plus Isles of Scilly); further changes were halted in 2010. Over the period 1994–1999, a Local Government Commission oversaw the process of change (established by the Conservative government), with different outcomes for different counties, and for parts of the same county. The Commission consulted widely, encouraged proposals that were based on assessments of local opinion, and then recommended reforms options. These were accepted or rejected by central government, with some coming back several times in different forms. Some options and recommendations were subjected to legal challenges. In 2007, the Labour government established a further review process. This resulted in an even more contentious series of proposals, with further legal challenges in several cases. The outcome was seven further counties being removed from the two-tier structure. There were also proposals for six more unitaries, for: Norwich, the remainder of Norfolk, Exeter, the remainder of Devon, and Suffolk as two districts. These were to be implemented in April 2011, but after the General Election in 2010 these proposals were revoked by the Coalition government. No further changes have occurred until 2020, when new unitaries were again permitted. The evolution of these reforms is shown in Table 6.3.

6  The United Kingdom Table 6.3 Unitary 1995–2021

local

61 authorities

Unitary authorities Date established 1995 Isle of Wight 1996 Avon became four districts Humberside became four districts 1997 Bournemouth Darlington Derby Leicester Luton 1998 Blackpool Blackburn & Darwen Halton Nottingham Peterborough Plymouth Stoke-on-Trent Southend-on-Sea 2009 Cornwall became unitary county Northumberland became unitary county Durham remaining area became one district Shropshire remaining area became one district 2020 Bournemouth, Poole expanded to include Christchurch; rest of Dorset became a unitary 2021 Split of Northamptonshire into two unitaries (Parliamentary legislation pending)

established

in

England

Table 6.4  Numbers of counties, districts and unitary local government units in the UK, 1970–2020 Unit Counties in two-tier structure

Cleveland became four districts York removed from N. Yorkshire Milton Keynes Portsmouth Rutland Southampton Brighton & Hove Swindon Telford & Wrekin Torbay Thurrock Warrington Herefordshire became unitary county Berkshire became six districts Wiltshire remaining area became one district Bedfordshire remaining area became two districts Cheshire remaining area became two districts

Buckinghamshire became a unitary, with existing Milton Keynes remaining its own unitary

Source: Calculated from Local Government Commission for England reports

As can be seen from Table 6.3, some counties disappeared as administrative entities to be broken among unitary districts, some counties had no lower-tier districts and some counties were divided into unitary structures for some parts with a two-tier structure for the remainder. In effect, most of the larger former county boroughs were revived. Together with the metropolitan districts (and the London boroughs), the unitaries have become a very important part of the total English system. The unitaries have responsibility for all local government matters except police, which is administered by inter-local authority bodies. As a result of these changes, there has been a significant shift in the form of local government in the different territories of the UK since the 1970s. The changing structures are

Year England Wales Scotland N. Ireland 1970 43 13 33 6 + 2 c. boroughs 1980 46 8 9 – 1990 39 8 9 – 2000 34 8 – – 2020 25 – – – Districts in 1970 231 65 two-tier structure* 1980 365 53 – 1990 365 – 53 – 2000 308 – – – 2020 260 – – – – – – Unitary districts 1970 11 and counties 37 32 26 1980 11 37 32 26 1990 11 2000 47 22 32 26 2020 58 22 32 11 Source: Calculated from Local Government Associations, and Commission for England reports Notes: *Districts include London Boroughs and City of London; + Counties include three Yorkshire Ridings in 1970, four Scottish ‘counties of cities’, and over 1975–1994 the Scottish ‘regions’; 1 Isles of Scilly was a unitary from 1890; 2 the three Scottish Islands councils

summarised in Table 6.4. The structure up to the 1970s (or up to 1964 in London) was largely the same as in the 1920s: counties, county boroughs/burghs, urban districts/large burghs and rural districts/small burghs. After reforms in the 1970s there was a progressive reduction in the significance of the ancient county as a unit of local government, and its elimination outside England. The district as a lower-tier unit within counties was also significantly reduced in number by amalgamating lower-tier districts, and the growth of unitary bodies. The net outcome has been a reduction in the total number of local government areas in the UK from about 600 to just over 400 since the 1960s. Britain was already a country with large local government units in comparison to much of Europe; these have now become significantly larger, on average. However, for statistical purposes the previous county units remain the main basis of NUTS level 2.

6.6

Local Government Finance

As well as reforms to the structure of local government, a variety of reforms have also had major impacts on its finance. The main historic local tax has been a property tax levied on imputed rental values, called ‘the rates’. This has been supplemented by user fees and grants from central government. The Rating and Valuation Act 1925 was the first major reform of the rating system, which introduced a uniform structure of local rates, with revaluation (usually) every

62

5 years, and a reduction in the number of rating authorities from 15,546 to 1708 by removing direct parish and Poor Law levies (which were then financed by raising a levy as part of the other authorities’ rates, called a ‘precept’). The 1925 Act also introduced the first general block grant for local government, which allocated support to each area based on a measure of local rate resources, and local needs (mainly based on total population, but with male unemployment and [for counties] miles of road as additional indicators). This grant had been preceded by efforts to allocate central grants to School Boards from 1917. The effort to balance needs and resources over all services became a political battleground, with arguments about the measures of resources and needs, and the total level of grant required, from the 1920s up to the present (See Boyle 1966; Bennett 1982). Up to 1980, the fundamental compromise for local finance was to shift the burden of the local state on to central taxation. The result was that the local tax (the rates) fell to only 22% of local income by 1978; it was even lower in most of the poorer cities, down to less than 10% in many cases (Bennett 1982). This created a dangerous pattern of fiscal illusion: that local expenditure came essentially free to local consumers and voters. It became a highly politically charged issue in the 1970s and 1980s when a group of about 24 major urban areas self-identified themselves as ‘New Left’ authorities.3 These developed the concept of a ‘local state’ as a socialist autarchy from the policies of central government, significantly increasing local spending and passing the costs to central government grants (Gyford 1985; Bennett and Krebs 1988, pp. 73–88). The Conservative central government retaliated with powers to cap local rates, and compel consultation with local businesses on the setting of the rates (in the Local Government Rates Act 1984). Eighteen councils were capped in 1985–1986, almost all of the New Left. Reform of local government finance in 1987 sought greater control. The historic rates on domestic property were abolished and replaced. The first effort at replacement was a Community Charge in 1988 (a poll tax: a per capita levy on each adult in a household). This proved very unpopular and led to a large-scale political campaign to withhold payments with considerable civil disobedience. This was a major factor in the removal of Mrs. Thatcher as leader of the Conservative Party and hence as prime minister in 1990. The Community Charge was abolished and replaced by a Council Tax in 1993. This is a levy on the assessed capital value of each property in a series of broad bands. The only local business tax, the non-domestic rates, had been a locally varying tax, but has been set at a uniform national level (varying between England, Scotland and Wales) since 1990–1991. Nine London boroughs, nine metropolitan districts (including Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Walsall and N.  Tyneside) and six large non-metropolitan cities (Leicester, Nottingham, Harlow, Basildon, Scunthorpe and Cleveland). 3 

R. J. Bennett

The general weight of centralised support has continued, with most local government expenditure supported by the centralised business rates and grants from the central government, or from the devolved governments in Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland after 1999. One of the distinctive characteristics of UK local government is that there is little local tax autonomy and complex grant formulae are used to provide most revenue to local government. This has provided the central government (and now the devolved governments of Scotland, Wales and N.  Ireland) with considerable opportunities to influence local government priorities and introduce political partiality. Attempts at reform have been suggested many times, most recently in a 2004 ‘Balance of Funding Review’. One of the potentially most significant developments following this was the introduction, in 2006, of Business Improvement Districts (BIDs), and Local Government Business Growth Incentives, which gave local authorities part of the rates proceeds of new economic developments in their areas. BIDs usually cover very small areas (in some cases only a shopping centre or a few streets). They have to be approved by a vote from the local business community who will pay. By February 2008 in England, 58 BIDs had been successfully balloted (in 56 local authorities), and 7 had been unsuccessfully balloted (some twice). In Scotland there were 6 pilots in 2006, and 37 by 2016. By 2015, 180 BIDs were established across the UK. This was the first step in freeing part of local business taxes from central control, and providing better incentives for local government to encourage business development in their areas. In 2011, a Localism Act has extended these powers to include Tax Increment Financing (TIF). From the 2016 Finance Act, local government has been given further control of the non-domestic rates on business. Although there are still restrictions on the tax rate that can be levied though BID and TIF processes, this should encourage a greater focus on local economic development.

6.7

 ssociations Between Local A Government Units

A tradition of local authorities working together, or delegating functions to adjacent areas, was well established from the eighteenth century, and expanded in the nineteenth century with the growing population and urbanisation. This was particularly important for Improvement Act districts, and for Poor Law Unions who often formed ‘contributing areas’ that could use the workhouse facilities in nearby localities. This complexity was reduced by the reforms following local government consolidation at the end of the nineteenth century. But delegation between areas has continued as a necessity for practical service delivery in many areas, particularly rural ones and small urban areas like the London boroughs.

6  The United Kingdom

In recent years, pressures on budgets has stimulated some bolder experiments. For example, the financial pressures since 2009 led about 20 unitary councils to share services or staff with each other, or with the counties. The most ambitious was the merger in London of the entire service portfolio, and chief executive’s offices, of two boroughs: Kensington and Chelsea with Hammersmith and Fulham (each have populations of 165,000–170,000). These two also developed sharing of some services with Westminster (these arrangements were formally established in October 2011). The political processes for these merged councils remained unchanged, but major economies of scale were achieved at the level of service delivery. A range of other cooperations has developed; e.g. for education, a ‘Partners in Practice’ programme covered 12 groups of units in 2019. These developments are likely to expand and bring the UK more in line with Verbanden among German Gemeinden, and similar local associations elsewhere in Europe. The process of increased collaboration accelerated after 2015 as the Conservative government devolved more powers to local government and encouraged more city-region level cooperation, but with tight financial caps as part of an agenda to reduce public sector debt.

6.8

Statistical Units

The administrative and political units of the UK do not always coincide with the units that are used for statistical purposes. As noted earlier, the NUTS level 1 units are the historic countries of Scotland, Wales and N.  Ireland and the nine government regions of England, with the Channel Islands and Isle of Man excluded. At NUTS level 2, the historic counties formed the statistical units. After the abolition of the counties in Scotland, Wales and N.  Ireland, and the removal of several counties in England following the introduction of unitary local government, most county areas have remained NUTS level 2 statistical units even though most no longer have administrative or functional meaning. For other purposes, a wide variety of statistical units is used. For most public service fields, statistical material is constructed by the Census and other administrative agencies. This results in statistical information on population and economy generally being available at a hierarchy of levels: the UK; country (England, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland); region (nine government regions in England, but a varied structure elsewhere); local government units of each type (including former counties), often forming the NUTS level 2; education, health, social services, and many other public service fields (sometimes referred to in the Censuses as output and super output areas, and data zones); parliamentary constituencies for the Westminster and Edinburgh parliaments, and Welsh and N. Ireland Assemblies; local govern-

63

ment constituencies and electoral districts; parishes; wards within local government units; and increasingly also post code areas. From the region downwards in scale, these structures vary somewhat between England, Scotland, Wales and N.  Ireland. For Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, the main units below the Island level is the parish. These dependencies are responsible for their own statistical activities and the chronology of information does not always synchronise with the UK.

6.9

Conclusion

The UK is distinctive from the rest of Europe (except Ireland) in its ‘dual’ system of devolved Assemblies/Parliaments and local government, which have powers divided between elected councils and executive, and with the mayor in most places being purely ceremonial. The UK is also distinctive from many European countries in the high level of central finance to local government through grants and centralised taxes, and a common law system without a written constitution. Local government has been subject to numerous reforms since the late nineteenth century, often with the political party in power of the UK government at the time having a strong influence on the reform adopted. The result has been a relatively unstable development, particularly after 1964. Instability has been particularly high regarding the financial structures, especially the formulae for distributing local government grants, the form of local taxation, and the role of the county and district levels of local government. The development of unitary local government on the scale now existing is distinctive from most of Europe. The structure of the historic union of countries formed in 1707 was modified in 1782, 1800, 1922 and 1999. Since 1999, the UK had become a more complex asymmetric union with varied structures of devolved powers to different historic country territories. Since 2014, the asymmetries have also extended to variations between devolved structures of regional cooperation between local governments. The modern UK is distinctive from its recent past in having become a more decentralised unitary state, with significant powers now devolved to Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland and ‘regional’ groups of local government. Historic freedoms in Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man have continued, though with more restrictions on ‘tax haven’ status. The extent of devolved power to the historic countries is likely to increase in the future. The narrow majority against independence in the referendum on independence for Scotland in 2014 and the success of the SNP in the 2015, 2017 and 2019 General Elections, as well as the non-Unionist majority for the first time in N. Ireland in 2019, have increased pressure for even greater devolution for Scotland and N. Ireland, but also for Wales and England, and for reforms on how the UK parlia-

64

ment operates. This, together with the tensions surrounding the negotiations about UK withdrawal from the EU, may lead to a shift towards a more federalised union of nations. In N.  Ireland effective devolved government continues to be challenging, though stronger working with the Irish Republic has been steadily developed since the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1998; this has experienced renewed tensions during the discussions about UK withdrawal from the EU since 2016, but is likely to continue and intensify.

Sources and Further Reading References Alden J, Morgan R (1974) Regional planning: a comprehensive view. Leonard Hill, Leighton Buzzard Bardon JS (2005) A history of ulster. Black Syoff, Belfast Bennett RJ (1982) Central grants to local government: the political and economic impact of the rate support grant in England and Wales. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Bennett RJ (1993) Local government in the New Europe. Belhaven, London Bennett RJ, Krebs G (1988) Local business taxes in Britain and Germany. Nomos, Baden-Baden Boyle L (1966) Equalisation and the future of local government finance. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh Cole GDH (1921) The future of local government. Cassell, London Cole GDH (1947) Local and regional government. Cassell, London Commission on Municipal Corporations (England and Wales) (1835– 9) House of Commons Papers, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI (1835); XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII (1837); XXXV (1837–8); XXVIII (1839) Commission on Municipal Corporations (Ireland) (1835) House of Commons Papers, XXIV, XXVII, XXVIII Commission on Municipal Corporations (Scotland) (1835) House of Commons Papers, XXII, XXIX, XLVIII Connolly JS (2002) Oxford companion to Irish history. University Press, Oxford Coogan TP (2003) Ireland in the twentieth century. Hutchinson, London Davies J (1994) A history of Wales. Penguin, Harmondsworth Davies J, Jenkins N, Baines M (eds) (2009) The welsh academy encyclopaedia of Wales. University Press, Cardiff Fawcett CB (1919) The provinces of England: a study of some geographical aspects of devolution. Williams and Norgate, London Gilbert EW (1939) Practical regionalism in England and Wales. Geogr J 94:29–44

R. J. Bennett Gyford J (1985) The politics of local socialism. Allen and Unwin, London Government HM (1975) Our changing democracy: devolution to Scotland and Wales, Cmnd. 6348. HMSO, London Government HM (1977) Financing the Devolved Services (White Paper), Cmnd. 6890. HMSO, London. Haigh C (1990) The Cambridge historical encyclopaedia of Great Britain and Ireland. University Press, Cambridge Hearn J (2002) Claiming Scotland: national identity and liberal culture. University Press, Edinburgh Keith-Lucas B, Richards PG (1978) A history of local government in the twentieth century. Allen and Unwin, London Leemans AF (1970) Changing patterns of local government. International Union of Local Authorities, The Hague Lipman VD (1949) Local government areas 1834–1945. Basil Blackwell, Oxford McCrone G (1969) Regional policy in Britain. Allen and Unwin, London O’Gorman F (1989) Voters, patrons and parties: the unreformed electoral system of Hanoverian England 1734–1832. Clarendon Press, Oxford Pittock (1999) Celtic identity and the British image. Manchester University Press, Manchester Porritt E, Porritt AG (1903) The unreformed House of Commons: parliamentary representation before 1832, vol 2 vols. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Powell GC (1972) The channel islands and the common market. Three Banks Rev 95(September):49–61 Recliffe-Maud Commission (1969) Royal commission on local government in England, Cmnd. 4040. HMSO, London Ross D (2000) Chronology of Scottish history. Geddes & Grosset, New Lanark Royal Commission on the Constitution 1969–1973 (1973) Report, 2 vols. (with many research papers also published), Cmnd. 5460. London: HMSO Trevor-Roper H (2008) The invention of Scotland: myth and history. Yale University Press, New Haven Webb S, Webb B (1906) English local government. Cass, London Wheatley Commission (1969) Royal Commission on Local Government in Scotland. HMSO, London

Sources Directory of English Regional Government (2009) Kent: Carlton Directory of Scottish Government (2009) Kent: Carlton Directory of Welsh Government (2009) Kent: Carlton DODS (2010) Scottish parliament companion. Dods, London Northern Ireland Yearbook (2009) Moira: BMF Office of National Statistics (2010) Handbook of the United Kingdom. Office of National Statistics, London

7

Republic of Ireland Proinnsias Breathnach, Chris Van Egeraat, and Eoin O’Mahony

Fig. 7.1  Ireland and its counties and cities

7.1

P. Breathnach (*) · C. Van Egeraat Department of Geography, Maynooth University, County Kildare, Ireland E. O’Mahony Independent Researcher, Dublin, Ireland

Introduction

The Republic of Ireland shares the island of Ireland with Northern Ireland, an integral part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Republic occupies an area of 70,273 sq. km and has a population of almost five millions (see Table 7.1 in Appendix). The corresponding figures for Northern Ireland are 14,130 sq. km and 1.8 millions (Fig. 7.1).

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. Martí-Henneberg (ed.), European Regions, 1870 – 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61537-6_7

65

66

P. Breathnach et al.

The partition of Ireland occurred in 1922 when the Irish Free State was established as an independent dominion within the British Commonwealth. This became the Republic of Ireland in 1949 and left the Commonwealth. The division of Ireland arose from the differing historical experiences of the two parts of the island while under British colonial control (from 1600 onwards). As a result, what became Northern Ireland was predominantly Protestant and industrialised, while the Republic of Ireland was predominantly Catholic and agricultural (see the following section for further details on this). Following independence, what became the Republic of Ireland pursued a policy of industrialisation via protectionism which enjoyed limited success, with the country remaining largely rural and poor relative to its western European neighbours. In the late 1950s, the Irish economy opened up with the adoption of a policy of promoting export-oriented industrialisation via the attraction of foreign investment. While this initially emphasised employment in low-skill manufacturing, this changed in the 1990s to high-tech manufacturing and advanced services. This has been the main driving force underpinning high economic growth rates which have continued up to the present (apart from a brief setback following the 2008 financial crash). As a result, the Republic of Ireland (which is referred to as ‘Ireland’ in the remainder of this chapter) today enjoys living standards above the European Union average. Ireland is a typical Western parliamentary democracy, with a dual-chamber parliament elected through a form of proportional representation by popular suffrage. There is a largely ceremonial Presidency, with real political power lying with the Prime Minister (Taoiseach). Ireland became a member of the European Union in 1973. This chapter begins by outlining the historical evolution of subnational governance structures in Ireland up to the achievement of independence by what became the Republic of Ireland in 1922. It then reviews how the system of local government has changed during the independence period before focusing specifically on the different forms of regional governance structures which have been implemented in Ireland since the 1960s. The chapter concludes by providing an explanation for the exceptional weakness of subnational government within Ireland’s highly centralised political structure.

7.2

Historical Background

7.2.1 Gaelic Ireland Historically, Ireland was the home of the Gaels, a branch of the Celtic people who once occupied most of the European mainland. A coherent all-island polity, consisting of local and regional kingdoms, first emerged in Gaelic Ireland about

2000  years ago. Ireland was Christianised in the fifth and sixth centuries AD. The basic territorial governance unit in Gaelic society was the tuath, the territory controlled by one of the families which had established themselves as local magnates under the Gaelic clan (family) system. There were about 150 of these in all, with an average spatial extent of 570 sq. km. Each tuath was subdivided into a set of landholding units (of varying sizes depending on land quality), each of which in turn was focused on a homestead occupied normally by a member of the extended clan family and their retinue of servants. Each townland was designed to provide for the subsistence needs of the homestead residents. Groups of tuatha tended to combine, mainly for security purposes, under the overlordship of a provincial king (usually a local clan chief who had established a position of authority through military prowess). These kings had no jurisdictional role with respect to the tuatha which made up the province, their main power being that of calling on underchiefs to supply soldiers for the interprovincial wars which were a recurrent feature of Gaelic Ireland. The number of provinces varied over time, although eventually they were consolidated into just four (Leinster, Munster, Connacht and Ulster—see Fig.  7.2). These were Ireland’s only regional/provincial governance units up to the 1980s. Today their only civic function is as spatial units for the presentation of demographic statistics, although they continue to have importance in the organisation of certain sports. From time to time, provincial kings in Gaelic Ireland asserted a claim to being High King of all of the island. Even where this was accepted by other provincial kings, it was essentially an honourific rather than jurisdictional title. Opposition from other provincial kings meant that possession of the title, where it was asserted at all, tended to be ephemeral and passed between different provinces. The high kingship was a casualty of the Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland in the twelfth century, the last recognised High King dying in 1198. The economy of Gaelic Ireland was largely self-sufficient, although there was some level of contact and commerce with Britain and continental Europe. The urban settlements established by Viking invaders from the ninth century onwards led to a substantial growth in both internal and external trade. Most of Ireland’s leading cities today are of Viking origin. However, Viking settlement was largely confined to these urban centres, which comprised local lordships similar in scale to the Gaelic tuatha.

7.2.2 English Colonisation The Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland, which commenced in 1169, can be regarded as a logical extension westwards of the Norman occupation of Britain over the previous century.

7  Republic of Ireland

67

Fig. 7.2  Ireland, 1660–1922

With their superior military capacity, the Anglo-Normans quickly established control over much of eastern and southern Ireland, where the island’s most productive agricultural land was to be found. Here, the Anglo-Normans established the feudal manorial estate system which they had originally brought with them from France. England’s King Henry II quickly established a ‘Lordship of Ireland’, which claimed authority over the entire island. However, while some Gaelic chiefs did swear loyalty to the English crown, in effect the king’s control was limited to those areas under Anglo-Norman control. Even in these areas, the level of royal dominion was weak and declined further as the Anglo-Norman lords became increasingly Gaelicised. By the end of the fifteenth century, English authority was restricted to a narrow band of territory (known as ‘The Pale’) around Dublin, where the English monarchy had established its base of Irish administration. Despite its very limited domain, the English monarchy sought from an early stage to establish the rudiments of an administrative system in Ireland. This mainly involved the delineation of counties (a key governance layer in the feudal system), a process which began in the early thirteenth century. By the end of the century, about half of the territory of

the island (essentially the areas occupied by the Anglo-­ Normans) had been divided into counties (Roche 1982). The formal functions of counties were tax collection, the administration of justice, policing and defence and some public works. Each county was controlled by a sheriff, appointed by the monarchy, assisted by a ‘grand jury’ consisting of appointed members of the local nobility, landholders and merchants. More important towns also received royal charters which allowed them to perform similar functions to the counties. With the decline in the authority of the English monarchy in Ireland from the fourteenth century onwards, by 1500 effective county administration was largely confined to Dublin and the immediately adjoining counties. However, in the sixteenth century the Tudor monarchs, Henry VIII followed by Elizabeth I, implemented vigorous policies to bring all of Ireland, including both the Gaelic chieftains and the descendants of the Anglo-Norman settlers, under centralised control from London, a policy that was largely fulfilled by the beginning of the seventeenth century. This was accompanied by the extension of the county system to all parts of Ireland and reform of those already in existence, leading to the emergence of the 32 counties which remain in place today. In addition, the eight largest urban

68

centres were given special charters, termed ‘counties corporate’, which endowed them with the same status as counties (Fig. 7.2). During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the counties and counties corporate accrued a range of additional functions, including building and maintenance of roads and bridges; operation of hospitals, lunatic asylums and medical dispensaries; and liability to pay compensation for malicious damage. The northern province of Ulster had been the last major bastion of Gaelic resistance to English rule, and was effectively pacified by the introduction of tens of thousands of Protestant settlers from Britain in the first half of the seventeenth century, the indigenous Catholic population being dispossessed and mainly pushed into marginal areas of inferior land. Further episodes of insurrection throughout Ireland in the century led to the dispossession of all Catholic landholders and their replacement by a new class of British landlords, although outside Ulster the Catholic population remained in place as tenants of the new landlord class. Coming from an increasingly commercialised Britain, the new landlords set about converting their estates in Ireland to commercial production, mainly of cattle, sheep and dairy products for export. The northern province of Ulster also saw the introduction, on a growing scale, of flax cultivation (introduced by Protestant refugees from continental Europe) for the emerging linen industry. Commercialisation of the economy prompted the emergence of a new stratum of smaller urban centres to service the needs of rural commerce, and a national transport system, including canals and roads, linking rural areas to the ports. However, Ireland’s economic development was constrained by restrictions imposed by the English government, whereby, for example, Irish food exports to England were banned, exports of woollen goods were prohibited entirely and Irish foreign commerce had to be carried in English ships (Breathnach 1988). Constitutionally, in the early thirteenth century, the English monarchy declared an Irish Lordship, with the English king becoming the Lord of Ireland. In 1541, King Henry VIII declared himself King of Ireland, although England and Ireland remained separate jurisdictions. An Irish parliament was created in the thirteenth century in which membership was divided between the noble lords and bishops, who were entitled to membership, and a component elected, via the counties and chartered boroughs, by ‘commoners’ (in effect, landholders and merchants). By 1500, parliament had (as in England) separated into separate Houses of Lords and Commons. However, its deliberations remained subordinate to the approval of the English parliament. In 1800, the Irish Parliament was abolished and Ireland was converted into an integral component of what became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Henceforth, the Irish nobility became members of the House of Lords in London, while Ireland also elected MPs directly to the House of Commons. From then on, legislation relating to local gov-

P. Breathnach et al.

ernment in Ireland generally followed similar legislation in Britain, although normally with a time lag and some variation to adjust to Irish conditions.

7.3

 ocal Government in Nineteenth-­ L Century Ireland

7.3.1 Poor Law Unions Legislation enacted in 1838 created a new form of local government administration in Ireland which operated in parallel with, but separate from, the existing county-based administrative system. This was the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act, based on similar legislation enacted in 1834 with respect to England, whose aim was to provide public assistance to the population of poor people in Ireland which had grown ­rapidly in the early decades of the nineteenth century. This particularly affected the large class of rural labourers among whom unemployment was widespread, due mainly to a switch away from labour-intensive tillage agriculture following the cessation of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 and the centralisation of the linen industry (which previously had been mainly rural-based) in the Belfast urban area with the onset of mechanisation in the 1820s. The 1838 Poor Relief Act saw the construction throughout Ireland of 130 workhouses, located mainly in the principal towns. These were large institutional buildings where food and accommodation were provided to the destitute poor, in return for work such as sewing canvas bags, spinning wool and breaking stones for road metal. Each workhouse served a surrounding area of approximately 15  km radius. These areas were termed Poor Law Unions. Each Poor Law Union (PLU) was administered by a Board of Guardians, partly appointed and partly elected by those householders who were required to pay a special tax to finance the operation of the workhouses. The PLU territories were defined without reference to county boundaries or other existing administrative divisions, the sole criterion being accessibility to the workhouse centres. While the norm for municipal territories on the European mainland, this concept of defining administrative areas in terms of an urban centre and its immediate hinterland was foreign to the British system of municipal government. In this system, urban municipalities were strictly separated from adjoining rural areas, while county boundaries bore no relation to urban hinterlands. As Roche (1982, p.39) observed, the PLUs were ‘the first and, as it turned out, the last attempt to settle local government areas on some rational basis’. As things transpired, shortly after it was installed, the workhouse system was overwhelmed by the severe famine conditions which erupted in Ireland in the late 1840s. These arose from the failure through disease, in successive years, of the potato crop upon which the largely unemployed rural

7  Republic of Ireland

labouring class was heavily dependent as a food source. Such was the severity of the famine that, within just 5 years, the population of Ireland was reduced by one quarter, with one million people dying from starvation and disease and another one million emigrating, mainly to North America and Britain. After the Famine, the PLUs were given additional functions. These included responsibility for an expanded system of free medical aid for poor people with illnesses, involving the provision of ‘walk-in’ clinics and hospitals; responsibility for public sanitation in rural areas; provision of housing for farm labourers; and registration of births and deaths.

69

grew from less than 20,000 in 1800 to 350,000 in 1900 (compared with 400,000 in Dublin).

7.4

 ocal Government in Independent L Ireland

The partition of Ireland which followed from political developments in the first two decades of the twentieth century is conventionally attributed to the divide between the predominantly Protestant (and pro-British) northeastern part of the island and the rest of the island which was even more predominantly Catholic (and nationalist). However, there was also an important economic basis for partition. The north7.3.2 The 1898 Local Government Act eastern industrial base, which was strongly export-oriented, justifiably saw itself being threatened by the economic proSubnational government in Ireland was greatly altered by the gramme advanced by the Sinn Féin party which led the drive Local Government (Ireland) Act of 1898. The main aim of for political independence in the south. This strongly this legislation was the consolidation of a range of different favoured protectionism as a means of promoting industrial local government functions which were being administered development in the largely rural/agricultural Catholic part of by a variety of bodies which had been created piecemeal the island. over the years. The main effect of the 1898 Act was to conThe upshot was the creation, in 1922, of the Irish Free firm the role of the counties as the key local government State and the separate jurisdiction of Northern Ireland, which institution in Ireland, despite their medieval origin and great remained part of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland variability in terms of area and population. The Poor Law embraced six of the nine counties of the historical province Unions, which were much more uniform, spatially and of Ulster, along with the county boroughs of Belfast and demographically and were directly related to the post-­ Derry. The Irish Free State had the status of an autonomous medieval urban spatial structure, were abolished. dominion within the British Commonwealth until 1949, New county councils, elected by popular male suffrage, when it declared itself a republic and left the Commonwealth. were instituted in place of the old appointed Grand Juries Thus, after 1922, the evolution of the system of subnational which were mainly comprised of large landholders and busi- government followed separate paths in the two jurisdictions nessmen. Counties, in turn, were subdivided into Urban and (see Chap. 6 for post-1922 developments in Northern Rural Districts, each with their own popularly elected coun- Ireland). cils. These latter were to perform a range of local functions Since the establishment, in 1922, of what is now the under the overall control of the county councils. This reaf- Republic of Ireland, the ongoing trend has been the emascufirmed the established administrative separation of urban lation of the local government system. The Rural District centres from their rural hinterlands, a division which was to Councils were abolished in 1925, although it was not until create growing problems regarding planning and service 2014 that the same fate befell the Urban District Councils. In delivery in the succeeding century. both cases the functions of the abolished councils were transThe 1898 Act also replaced the old Counties Corporate ferred to the County Councils. This has left Ireland with a (urban centres with the status of counties) with a new cate- single tier of local government. gory of County Boroughs. Just four of the existing Counties The autonomy of County Councils was greatly circumCorporate (Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford) were scribed by the 1940 County Management Act, whereby the converted to County Boroughs, with the other four administration of County Councils was placed in the hands (Castlefergus, Drogheda, Galway and Kilkenny) being of centrally appointed County Managers who, in turn, had absorbed into their respective counties. Two other County responsibility for appointing other council officials. Local Boroughs were created—Belfast and Derry, both located in government autonomy was further undermined in 1978 when the northern province of Ulster (Fig. 7.2). This reflected the the national government replaced the local household tax emergence in that region, during the nineteenth century, of which was the main source of funding for local councils with an urban-industrial complex founded initially on the concen- a direct government subvention. The central government also tration in Belfast and the surrounding area of linen produc- had powers to dissolve local councils deemed not to be effection arising from its mechanisation from the 1820s on. This tively discharging their duties or complying with court spurred the creation of an engineering industry which in turn judgements, powers which were used frequently during the attracted two major shipyards to the city, whose population early decades of the state.

70

P. Breathnach et al.

Local government in Ireland has been further dismantled throughout the post-independence period through the relocation to the centre of functions previously performed by local councils, a process which is still ongoing today. Among the key functions involved have been responsibility for hospitals and the health service, the public water supply and sewerage, building and maintenance of main roads, and the farm advisory service (a very important function in a country with a high dependence—at least until recently— on agriculture). A number of more minor functions have also been relocated. The provision of public housing, which was a major function of local government from the 1930s to the 1970s, has since been greatly reduced by government spending cutbacks, while most of the existing public housing stock has been sold off. The outcome of all these developments is that Ireland has been left with a local government system which is extraordinarily weak by comparison with most other European countries. This issue is discussed in more depth in the final section of the chapter. Meanwhile, despite profound changes in the size and distribution of the population, living standards, the structure of the national economy and the workforce, and transportation and movement patterns, the spatial structure of the county system has remained largely unchanged apart from minor adjustments (the most important of which was the splitting of Dublin County Council— separate from the adjoining Dublin City Council—into three new county Councils in 1994). This contrasts sharply with the experience of most other European countries, where there has been widespread recasting of the territorial structure of subnational government in response to these societal changes.

7.5

 egional Governance Structures R 1964–1999

The idea of governance structures at the regional (i.e. at a spatial scale intermediate between the counties and the central government) first began to emerge in the discourse about subnational government in Ireland in the early 1960s. Ireland had been pursuing an economic nationalist policy of protectionism since the early 1930s; however, while this made some early gains, by 1950 the small size of the domestic market meant it had reached the limits of its potential. This meant that the 1950s were a decade of economic stagnation (in sharp contrast with the rest of western Europe), falling employment and high emigration. In the late 1950s, the Irish government abandoned protectionism and opted instead for an outward-looking development policy based mainly on the attraction of inward investment from abroad. This was enshrined in a five-year Programme for Economic Expansion, launched in 1958, which sought to put in

place planning measures to promote economic growth. This had the desired effect, with the Irish economy experiencing a marked upturn from the early 1960s. This, in turn, pointed to the need for a planning framework to facilitate and regulate development at both local and regional levels.

7.5.1 1964 Planning Regions Physical planning at local council level was provided for via the 1963 Local Government (Planning and Development) Act while, in 1964, the Minister for Local Government divided the country into a set of nine Planning Regions, consisting of groups of counties (Fig.  7.3). Consultants were appointed to prepare development plans for each of the regions. It was envisaged that a co-ordinating body would be appointed for each region whose main function would be to co-ordinate, in each region, the development plans being prepared by the counties making up that region. However, it was not intended that these bodies would possess any executive functions (Roche 1982). While the objective of coordinating the development plans of neighbouring counties did make sense, the use of counties to define the planning regions meant that they were poorly related to the underlying structure of the Irish space economy. As Sister Mary Annette (1970, 311–312) has argued, the planning regions ‘were simply ad hoc groupings of existing counties – administratively convenient, no doubt, but scarcely a useful framework for social and economic planning at a regional scale’. Having initially appointed consultants to prepare regional reports for Dublin and the Mid-West (Limerick) regions, the government then appointed the British consultancy firm, Colin Buchanan and Partners, to prepare reports for the other seven planning regions. The latter commission was then changed to preparing a regional planning framework to encompass the entire state. This was published in 1969 and proposed a planning strategy designed to counteract the powerful polarising effect of the Dublin metropolitan region in terms of attracting development. The main thrust of this strategy was the creation of two major growth centres in Cork and Limerick, the country’s second and third largest cities, and six secondary growth centres in the other regions (Breathnach 2019). The strategy also proposed the establishment of a set of powerful planning authorities to oversee the implementation of the plan at regional level. The Buchanan strategy was rejected outright by the government, at least in part due to opposition within the governing party’s strongly rural base to the strategy’s plan to locate the bulk of new manufacturing employment in the proposed urban growth centres. Instead, the Industrial Development Authority (IDA), the government agency

7  Republic of Ireland

71

Fig. 7.3  Ireland and its planning regions, 1964–1987

which was already achieving considerable success in attracting inward investment, was also entrusted with promoting regional industrial development. When the IDA published its own Regional Industrial Plans in 1972, they were much more dispersionist than the concentrated approach favoured by Buchanan. The government did establish, also in 1969, a set of Regional Development Organisations, with the remit of preparing coordinated regional development programmes for each of the Planning Regions. Comprised of representatives of county councils and state agencies which had economic development functions, these were restricted to an advisory and research role with no executive function. They were abolished in 1987. In utilising the 1964 Planning Regions as the basis for their Regional Industrial Plans, the IDA was almost unique in adopting an existing regional structure for their own regional organisation. In the 1960s and 1970s, a number of central government departments and state agencies created regional administrative structures in such areas as healthcare, higher level technical education, and tourism development, but each structure was designed without reference to any other, thus producing a general lack of uniformity in these

regional systems. Numerous reports have recommended uniformity in the interest of facilitating coordination of state functions at subnational level, but while governments have, on several occasions, made a commitment to achieving such uniformity, none have followed through on this. This reflects a general problem of lack of coordination between state departments at both national and subnational level which was identified as a key weakness of the Irish public service by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2008).

7.5.2 Regional Authorities The issue of regional governance disappeared from the Irish public policy discourse for almost 20 years following the government’s rejection of the 1969 Buchanan proposals. It reappeared again when, after the Single European Act came into effect in 1987, the EU embarked on a major expansion of financial assistance to its weaker regions to help offset what was expected to be, for them, the adverse effects of the completion of the Single European Market. This expansion of the so-called Structural Funds (relating to industrial and

72

infrastructural investment, agricultural restructuring and workforce skills enhancement) was accompanied by the introduction of measures designed to achieve more effective use of the funds. These included a more comprehensive and coordinated approach to fund expenditure in the form of five-year Operational Programmes, a more rigorous approach to ongoing monitoring and post-hoc evaluation of the effectiveness of programme performance, and the involvement of subnational levels of government in the design and implementation of the programmes. In the late 1980s, when the first round of enhanced structural funding was being prepared, Ireland’s per capita GDP stood at just two thirds of the EU average, which meant the entire country qualified as an Objective 1 region under the structural funding provisions. This meant that Ireland would receive the highest level of assistance available under the scheme. However, a problem for Ireland was the lack of a regional administrative structure which was a requirement of the funding provisions. For the first round of structural funding (1989–1993), an ad-hoc arrangement was agreed whereby, for each of seven regions, a working group was set up (comprising officials from government departments, state agencies, county man-

Fig. 7.4  Ireland and its regional authorities (1994) & regional assemblies (2000)

P. Breathnach et al.

agers and a representative of the European Commission) to draft a development programme for that region. This group, expanded to include representatives of non-governmental organisations such as trade unions and farming groups, then became a review committee for the purpose of monitoring the progress of the regional programme (Callanan 2018). For the second funding round (1994–1999), the European Commission insisted on the establishment of a formal regional structure to perform these functions. Given its deep-­ seated resistance to devolution, the Irish government’s response was predictably minimalist, but nevertheless was accepted by the Commission. This involved the establishment of so-called Regional Authorities for each of eight regions (Fig.  7.4). These were largely similar to the 1964 Planning Regions, apart from the separation of Dublin from its adjoining counties, the transfer of Roscommon county from the Midlands to the West region, and the combination of the three smallest planning regions into a single Border region. The Regional Authorities were formally assigned three main functions: to monitor Structural Fund spending in the respective regions; to promote coordination of public service provision in the regions; and to review each region’s devel-

7  Republic of Ireland

opment needs. The second of these functions arose from the Advisory Expert Committee whose report on local government reorganisation (1991) had recommended the establishment of the Regional Authorities and had also proposed that all public sector agencies should use the same regional structure. This report also suggested that the Authorities be directly elected and be assigned the provision of services which required a regional scale of operations for effective delivery. Neither of the latter recommendations (nor that of utilisation by public sector agencies of a uniform regional structure) was implemented by the government. Membership of the Authorities comprised county councillors nominated by the county councils which made up the regions served by each Authority. The lack of a direct electoral base and of executive functions, allied to minimal resourcing (the typical secretariat comprised four to five persons) meant that the Authorities had little status (Fitzpatrick Associates 1997). What was supposed to be their primary function—that of monitoring structural funding in their regions—was largely tokenistic and was not taken seriously by central government officials. As MacFeely (2016, 383) has observed ‘regionalization in Ireland was a pragmatic response to optimize EU funding rather than any real commitment to the creation of meaningful regional structures or to democratic regionalization’.

73

As each of the new regions required a separate Operational Programme for structural funding, a further tier of subnational administration was required to take charge of the financial management and control of these Programmes. Accordingly, what were called Regional Assemblies were created in 1999 to perform these functions, one for the Southern and Eastern Region and one for the Border, Midlands and West Region (Fig. 7.4). Each of these was an amalgam of existing Regional Authorities, which continued as NUTS III regions under the structural funding arrangements. Each of the Regional Assemblies comprised delegates from their constituent Regional Authorities (these already being delegates from their parent county councils). The Assemblies were also assigned the additional tasks of monitoring the implementation of the Operational Programmes within their constituent Regional Authorities and, as with the latter, to promote coordination in the provision of public services within their regions. This combination of Regional Authorities and Regional Assemblies, along with their complex compositions, meant that, in Hayward’s (2006, 10) words, ‘Ireland’s regions have among the most convoluted and inscrutable structures of governance in Europe’. Furthermore, according to Rees and Farrows (1999), quoted in Callanan (2018, 276), ‘it is difficult to conceive of these structures having much political or regional significance, beyond being administrative entities for the national government’. Even in this role, the Regional Assemblies have been of little relevance. As with the 7.5.3 Regional Assemblies 1999 Regional Authorities, they have been poorly funded with a small secretariat. Reviewing evaluations of their perforFrom 1993 on, Ireland embarked on the phase of rapid and mance, Hayward (2006) concluded that their performance sustained economic growth which became known as the was ‘poor’ and suggested that their role was little more than ‘Celtic Tiger’ phenomenon (Breathnach 1998). This was ‘symbolic’. For example, what was supposed to be the key associated with strong growth in inward investment in high-­ Operational Committee of the Southern and Eastern Regional skill manufacturing and service industries, including phar- Assembly met just once in 2005. maceuticals, medical devices, financial services, software and Internet services. As a result, by 1998 Ireland’s per capita GDP had surpassed the EU average, which meant that, 7.5.4 The National Spatial Strategy nationally, it was no longer eligible for Objective 1 status under the Structural Funding provisions. The inadequacy of Ireland’s regional governance institutions However, the Celtic Tiger growth had predominantly was shown up in sharp relief with the failure of the National been concentrated in the east and south of the country, and Spatial Strategy (NSS), an ambitious national plan for the Irish government persuaded the European Commission regional development launched in 2002. The main aim of the to allow Ireland to be divided into two NUTS II regions NSS was to put in place a national planning system to manfor the third round of Structural Funding (2000–2006), age the rapid economic and demographic growth which with the north and west remaining an Objective 1 region Ireland was experiencing at the time. In particular, the NSS while the south and east comprised an ‘Objective 1 region sought to counteract the increasing concentration of ecoin transition’. The latter was the term used to denote nomic activity and population in the Dublin region which regions which had moved out of Objective 1 status, and was a leading consequence of the Celtic Tiger phenomenon which remained eligible for some assistance, albeit at a (see Table 7.2 in Appendix). much lower level. Previously, the whole country had comThe NSS was strongly influenced by the European Spatial prised a NUTS II region under the Structural Funding Development Perspective (ESDP), a framework for spatial nomenclature. planning which had been adopted by the EU member-states

74

P. Breathnach et al.

in 1999 (Committee on Spatial Development 1999). Thus, with echoes of the Buchanan growth centre strategy, the NSS proposed to base development in the Irish regions around a set of regional ‘gateway’ cities. It was envisaged that each of these cities would cultivate a specialised, export-oriented, enterprise base which would drive broadly spread development within their respective hinterland regions. While by no means the only problem which served to undermine the NSS, a major weakness of the strategy was the absence of, and failure to develop, a powerful regional governance tier to drive the development process within the respective regions (Breathnach 2013, 2014). The NSS’s strategy for each region was to be encapsulated in a set of Regional Planning Guidelines for that region, to be drawn up by that region’s Regional Authority. The region’s county and city councils were expected to act in compliance with these guidelines in their own planning policies. However, the Regional Authorities had no powers to enforce compliance and, even if they did, the local councils in turn lacked the key functions, especially in the areas of infrastructural and economic development, required to achieve the form of ­ regionally-specific development which the NSS sought to bring about.

7.6

 he 2014 Subnational Government T Reforms

The National Spatial Strategy had made little progress when it was effectively brought to a halt by the 2008 financial crisis which undermined the Irish government’s finances, although its abandonment was not officially signalled by the government until early 2013. The financial crisis was to strongly colour the debate over local government in Ireland for several years (Callanan 2018). A Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes was established to identify opportunities to cut costs in the public service. Their report proposed a radical reduction in the number of local authorities, along with functional changes in the surviving authorities (McCarthy 2009). One year later, a Local Government Efficiency Review Group (2010) made further proposals to make savings in  local authorities, including a reduction in staff levels. The debate culminated in the publication by the government of a new policy framework for local government entitled Putting People First: Action Programme for Effective Local Government (DECLG 2012). This report, published by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, contained proposals for, potentially, the most radical reforms of any part of the Irish public sector since the foundation of the state (O’Riordáin and Van Egeraat 2013). The proposals included changes to, amongst others, the ter-

ritorial structures, institutional arrangements, level of legislative autonomy and planning functions of subnational local government at the sub-county, county and regional levels. Many of the proposed reforms took effect through the 2014 Local Government Reform Act. The following discussion focuses initially on the reforms at the sub-county and county level before moving to a more comprehensive treatment of regional government reforms.

7.6.1 Local Government Reforms The most radical change effected by the 2014 Reform Act was the abolition of all 80 town councils and their absorption into the new Municipal Districts into which all county council areas were subdivided. There are no separate elections to these Districts: instead, each District is represented by the county councillors elected for that District. Of the five City Councils (previously called County Boroughs), two (Waterford and Limerick) were merged with their adjoining County Councils to form new entities called City and County Councils. However, for various reasons the other three City Councils have retained their independent status. The cumulative effect of the reforms was to reduce the total number of local authorities from 114 to 31. These latter comprise 26 County Councils, two City and County Councils and three City Councils (Fig. 7.1). The central role of the counties in Ireland’s local government system is now more entrenched than ever, despite arguments that they are anachronistic and discordant with respect to the spatial structure of Irish society and the Irish economy. In many other countries, counties and similar historical entities have been rendered redundant in major recasting of local government systems. In Ireland, the county has become a major badge of territorial identity which has rendered it untouchable in the public mind, to the extent that even proposals for minor adjustments to county boundaries evoke major opposition. This, in large part, is attributable to the Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA), founded in 1884 to promote traditional Irish games, in particular hurling (a stick and ball game similar to hockey) and Gaelic football. From an early stage, the GAA based its premier competitions on teams representing the counties, which conferred on the latter a major position in Irish public life due to the extraordinary popularity which Gaelic games came to enjoy from the early twentieth century onwards.

7.6.2 New Regional Assemblies As regards the regional dimension, the 2012 policy framework document raised questions regarding the efficacy of the

7  Republic of Ireland

75

Fig. 7.5  Ireland and its regional assemblies

existing regional structures and, indeed, whether the retention of regional bodies as independent corporate entities was warranted at all. However, it was accepted that a regional dimension to public administration was required, mainly to support regional planning and for the purposes of functions relating to EU funding. Therefore, a re-launch of the regional element of local government was proposed, in order to create what was presented as being a rationalised and more coherent structure. In particular, it was felt that there was too much similarity, and overlap, between the Regional Authorities and the Regional Assemblies. Accordingly, it was announced that the Authorities would be abolished entirely. At the same time, it was announced that a third Regional Assembly would be created. Accordingly, the Regional Authorities were abolished in 2014 and three newly configured regional assemblies— Northern and Western (NWRA), Eastern and Midlands (EMRA) and Southern (SRA)—were established one year later (Fig. 7.5). The three regions vary considerably in population size, ranging from 2.33 million persons for the EMRA region through 1.59 million for the SRA region to 0.85 million for the NWRA region (see Table 7.3 in Appendix). No

explanation was given in the policy framework document for the creation of a third Regional Assembly, apart from a reference with respect to the Eastern and Midlands region that ‘it is felt that the [constituent] counties are sufficiently intertwined as a region, for example in terms of economic linkage and communications, to justify this grouping’ (DECLG 2012, 97). The policy framework document states that the new territorial structures would not affect the existing NUTS II and NUTS III classifications for EU funding purposes. It is difficult to see how this could be the case, unless the EU has discarded its previous insistence that there be appropriate administrative structures for managing funding at the regional level. The Regional Authorities, which were (at least in name) managing funding at the NUTS III level, have been abolished entirely while the EMRA region combines former Regional Authorities which were in the Objective 1 and Objective 1 in Transition NUTS II regions. In addition, the former Border Regional Authority is now split between the EMRA and NWRA regions, while there is no longer any clear border between the Mid West and South East Regional Authority territories following the merger (in 2014) of North

76

and South Tipperary County Councils which were previously divided between these territories. The geography of the new territorial structures has been criticised on several grounds. The proposed new regions mark an abandonment of any pretence of replicating the city-­region structures (comprising a focal city and its functional hinterland) which underpin the European Spatial Development Perspective. While some of the abolished regional authorities had at least some semblance of correspondence to existing city-region structures (Breathnach 2013; O’Riordáin and Van Egeraat 2016), the new territorial structures bear no such relationship. A possible exception here is the EMRA Region, which combines Metropolitan Dublin with its wider commuting belt, including County Louth, which was previously in the Border, Midland and Western Regional Assembly (Van Egeraat and Foley 2012). However, the other two Regional Assemblies are not characterised by functional integration and all three regions are too large to function as units for integrated socio-economic and environmental planning and bottom-up regional development. As before, the new Regional Assemblies are responsible for the management of the EU Regional Operational Programmes and other EU funding within their regions. They have also been given a role of monitoring the financial and administrative performance of the county and city councils within their regions, in conjunction with the National Oversight and Audit Commission, established in 2014. A third, and potentially more important role, is that of preparing Regional Spatial and Economic Strategies for their respective regions.

7.6.3 The National Planning Framework The role of preparing Regional Spatial and Economic Strategies has been given a significant place in the National Planning Framework (NPF), a further ambitious plan for pursuing regional development launched by the Irish government in 2018 (Government of Ireland 2018). The general thrust of the NPF is similar to that of the National Spatial Strategy (NSS), in that its primary aim is to achieve stronger growth in the other regions relative to the Dublin metropolitan region, and the principal method to be employed for achieving this is via concentrated development in the four main regional cities (Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford). This represents a degree of spatial concentration even more pronounced than that envisaged for the NSS, which had identified eight gateway centres for special development.

P. Breathnach et al.

The NPF requires each Regional Assembly to prepare a Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy (RSES) which should be aligned with the broad overall objectives of the NPF.  Each county and city council, in turn, is required to align its local plans and policies with the regional RSES.  These councils are accountable to the Regional Assemblies through a biennial reporting arrangement in relation to progress towards achievement of the RSES objectives. Acknowledging that the Regional Assemblies (especially the Southern, and Northern and Western Assemblies) have too broad a spatial extent to facilitate a concentrated focus on the four target city-regions, the NPF provided for the preparation of coordinated Metropolitan Area Strategic Plans (MASPs) for these cities. In contrast to the preparation of the NSS process, a major effort was put into securing buy-in to the NPF from different actors involved in the planning process. This included an extensive national consultation process involving the general public and agencies at different levels, as well as a high-­profile launch of the NPF itself. In addition, at the regional level, local councils, public agencies and the general public were asked to make submissions during the drafting of the RSESs, a process that was taken very seriously, certainly by the councils. In addition, the NPF has been given statutory underpinning via legislation, again in contrast to the NSS. These measures are strongly reliant on willing participation in, and compliance with, the RSESs and broader NPF process by the various organs of the state. However, the Regional Assemblies continue to have no power to enforce this compliance. Furthermore, they continue to be under-­ resourced in terms of the functions which they are expected to perform: in 2016 their combined support staff amounted to just 55 (Callanan 2018), which is miniscule for organisations operating at this level. As part of the NPF, an Office of the Planning Regulator has been established to evaluate local and regional plans and the performance of planning bodies at local and regional levels. However, it remains to be seen how effective this office will be in terms of enforcing compliance where plans or planning bodies are found to be at odds with RSES or NPF objectives; Furthermore, the Planning Regulator does not appear to have any role in supervising compliance of government departments and state agencies with these objectives. The NPF states that such bodies are required to contribute, and adhere, to the RSESs. The NSS contained a similar statement, and set out governance arrangements designed to achieve the involvement of the bodies in question, but this involvement did not materialise subsequently (Breathnach 2014).

7  Republic of Ireland

7.7

 he Weakness of Subnational T Government in Ireland

77

the two parties which emerged from the brief post-­ independence civil war and which have dominated Irish politics since. While appealing to different segments of the social By comparison with other European countries, and devel- structure, these were both essentially populist and pragmatic oped countries in general, Ireland has an exceptionally weak parties without a clear political programme, whose membersystem of subnational government (Callanan 2018). There is ship was largely drawn from a ‘petty bourgeoisie’ of farmers, no meaningful tier of regional government, while local gov- merchants and urban professionals and business people. ernment, represented by the county and city councils, has a Drawn mainly from Ireland’s rural and small-town society, very narrow range of functions. The latter councils have no these tended to be highly localistic in orientation, with a limrole in education, health, provision of social services, or ited interest in, and capacity for, national-level government operation of the water supply and sewerage—functions (Breathnach 2010). which are commonly within the remit of local or regional This gave rise to a political culture (which still persists government in other countries. Furthermore, Irish local gov- today) whereby members of parliament saw their roles priernment has a limited level of autonomy with respect to the marily, not as legislators, but as intermediaries between govfunctions which it does perform, due to a heavy dependence ernment departments and state agencies, on the one hand, on the central government for funding, and a high level of and their local constituents, on the other. This role thrived in day-to-day administrative control by central government a situation where most public services were delivered cenover local government activities. trally rather than via local government. Thus, as the range of According to the Local Autonomy Index prepared by publicly-provided services grew in range and depth as the Ladner et al. (2015), based on a range of indicators including twentieth century progressed, the normal response was to functional responsibilities, financial powers, level of local deliver these via central agencies located in Dublin. This government discretion, extent of central government super- contrasted with the normal situation in other countries where vision and the extent to which local government is consulted the provision of these services was typically delegated to regarding central government decisions, Ireland came sec- local government (Sharpe 1988). ond last (after Moldova) out of 39 European countries in Indeed, as noted earlier, the trend in Ireland over the years 2014, even below tiny Liechtenstein and Malta. Ireland’s has been for functions previously performed by local govscore of 12.5 compares with 29.5 for Switzerland at the top ernment to be transferred to the central administration, with of the list. Ireland is one of just three countries with an index very few (and mainly minor) functions moving in the opposcore of less than 15, while 13 countries have a score in site direction. Thus, today, the main functions of Ireland’s excess of 25. In essence, Ireland is one of the most central- city and county councils are confined to public housing (a ised states in the developed world. greatly reduced function in recent years), maintenance of The origins of this extreme level of centralisation can non-national roads, land-use planning, environmental prolargely be traced to the legacy of Ireland’s former status as a tection, public libraries, parks and playgrounds, the fire serBritish colony. In the colonial period, Ireland was controlled vice, and small enterprise and community development. by a highly centralised administrative bureaucracy located in Well-articulated arguments have been put forward over Dublin, a typical primate colonial city, much larger than the years by academics and, indeed, in government-­ other urban centres and totally dominant in what was, for the commissioned reports, advocating devolution of powers and most part, a rural, agricultural, society. From the mid-­ functions to subnational level in the interests of more effinineteenth century, this bureaucracy exerted increasing con- cient and coordinated public service delivery, more attuned trol over Ireland’s local government institutions (Daly 1997). to local needs, and also in the interests of promoting demoAnd, with the advent of independence in 1922, this colonial cratic citizen participation. However, no popular political administration provided the bulk of the new government’s movement has ever grown up around this issue, despite the civil service. continuing strong community and local orientation of Irish Unlike the industrial states of western Europe, indepen- society. As Callanan (2018, 346) has observed: ‘It seems a dent Ireland lacked a politically powerful ‘grand bourgeoi- striking paradox that the intense sense of localism in Irish sie’ with national and international horizons. Nor did Ireland society has never carried over into a genuine public debate have a large working class to form the basis of a strong social about the devolution of decision-making to the local level’. democratic political party such as became a normal feature This, in large measure, can be attributed to the fact that the of European politics. Instead, Irish politics developed around historical, and growing, weakness of Irish local government

78

P. Breathnach et al.

means that this institution has little impact on the day-­to-­day lives of most Irish citizens. In other countries, key services provided by local government, such as education, health and social services, are of major importance to most households. However, most Irish residents have no experience of this and therefore no understanding of how devolution of such services could have a beneficial impact on their lives. There is therefore no countervailing force to set against the entrenched opposition to devolution within the two major elements of the Irish state apparatus, that is, the central bureaucracy and the main political parties. Bureaucracies in general resist attempts to reduce their powers, and, in the Irish case, the central state bureaucracy is a very powerful institution, especially vis-à-vis elected representatives. As Callanan (2018, 359) puts it: ‘powerful interests in different government departments do not wish to see duties [currently] carried out by their local offices or agencies being assigned to local authorities’. Meanwhile, politicians who see their main role as influencing the delivery of centralised public services to their constituents are profoundly opposed to devolution which would see these services being delivered at the local level. In these circumstances, there is little prospect of significant strengthening of regional or local government in Ireland in the foreseeable future.

Appendix Table 7.1  Republic of Ireland population 1926 1961 1991 2020 Est.

2,971,992 2,818,341 3,525,719 4,921,500

Source: Census of Population Table 7.2  Area, population and per capital disposable income by Regional Assembly and Regional Authority 2002

Southern & Eastern Regional Assembly Constituent Regional Authorities Dublin Mid East Mid West South West South East Border, Midlands & West Regional Assembly Constituent Regional Authorities West Border Midlands Ireland

Area sq. Population km 2002 36,997 2,879,009

Per capita income (€) 2002 16,498

922 6064 8252 12,307 9452 33,278

1,122,821 412,625 339,591 580,356 423,616 1,038,194

14,428

14,283 12,342 6653 70,275

380,297 432,534 225,363 3,917,203

14,714 14,504 13,762 15,593

Source: Central Statistics Office

18,620 15,860 15,596 15,069

Table 7.3  Area, population and per capita disposable income by Regional Assembly (RA) and County 2016

Eastern & Midland RA Constituent Counties Dublin Kildare Wicklow Meath Louth Westmeath Laois Longford Offaly Southern RA Constituent Counties Limerick Cork Tipperary Carlow Waterford Kilkenny Wexford Kerry Clare Northern & Western RA Constituent Counties Galway Sligo Leitrim Cavan Monaghan Mayo Roscommon Donegal Ireland

Area sq. km 14,464

Population 2016 2,328,517

Per capita income (€) 2016 21,224

922 1695 2027 2342 826 1840 1720 1091 2001 30,012

1,347,359 222,504 142,425 195,044 128,884 88,770 84,697 40,873 77,961 1,585,906

23,005 20,750 19,709 19,364 18,159 17,396 16,946 16,610 16,175 18,976

2756 7500 4305 897 1857 2073 2367 4807 3450 25,799

194,899 542,868 159,553 56,932 116,176 99,232 149,722 147,707 118,817 847,442

21,329 19,371 18,857 18,772 18,597 17,958 17,871 17,857 17,588 16,792

6149 1838 1590 1932 1295 5586 2548 4861 70,275

258,058 65,535 32,044 76,176 61,386 130,507 64,544 159,192 4,761,865

18,188 17,260 17,022 16,859 16,816 16,553 16,373 14,705 19,660

Source: Central Statistics Office Note: Dublin, Cork and Galway include City and County

References Advisory Expert Committee (1991) Local government reorganisation and reform: report of Advisory Expert Committee. The Stationery Office, Dublin Breathnach P (1988) Uneven development and capitalist peripheralisation: the case of Ireland. Antipode 20(2):122–141 Breathnach P (1998) Exploring the ‘Celtic Tiger’ phenomenon: causes and consequences of Ireland’s economic miracle. Europ Urban Reg Stud 5(4):305–316 Breathnach P (2010) From spatial Keynesianism to post-Fordist neoliberalism: emerging contradictions in the spatiality of the Irish state. Antipode 42(5):1180–1199 Breathnach P (2013) Regional governance and regional development: implications of the action programme for effective local development. Administration 61(3):51–73 Breathnach P (2014) Creating city-region governance structures in a dysfunctional polity: the case of Ireland’s National Spatial Strategy. Urban Stud 51(11):2267–2284 Breathnach P (2019) The Buchanan report and its aftermath: implications for Irish regional planning. Administration 67(3):41–63

7  Republic of Ireland Callanan M (2018) Local government in the Republic of Ireland. Institute of Public Administration, Dublin Committee on Spatial Development (1999) European spatial development perspective: towards balanced and sustainable development of the territory of the European Union. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg Daly ME (1997) The buffer state: the historical roots of the department of the environment. Institute of Public Administration, Dublin DECLG (Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government) (2012) Putting people first: action programme for effective local government. The Stationery Office, Dublin Fitzpatrick Associates (1997) Mid-term evaluation: regional impact of the community support framework for Ireland. Fitzpatrick Associates Economic Consultants, Dublin Government of Ireland (2018) Project Ireland 2040: national planning framework. Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government, Dublin Hayward K (2006) A marriage of convenience: the EU and regionalisation in Ireland. Paper delivered to the Political Science Association of Ireland Annual Conference, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland, October Ladner A, Keuffer N, Baldersheim H (2015) Local Autonomy Index for European countries (1990–2014). Release 1, European Commission, Brussels Local Government Efficiency Review Group (2010) Report. The Stationery Office, Dublin

79 MacFeely S (2016) Opportunism over strategy: a history of regional policy and spatial planning in Ireland. Int Plan Stud 21(4):377–402 McCarthy C (2009) Report of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes. The Stationery Office, Dublin OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2008) Ireland: towards an integrated public service. OECD, Paris O’Riordáin S, Van Egeraat C (2013) New regional governance in Ireland: Perspectives and challenges. Administration 61(3):3–10 O’Riordáin S, Van Egeraat C (2016) The National Spatial Strategy: lessons for implementing a national planning framework. Administration 64(4):5–21 Rees N, Farrows M (1999) The reform of the EU Structural funds: administrative adaptation and the prospects for regionalisation in Ireland. Paper presented to the Biennial Conference of the European Community Studies Association, Pittsburgh Roche D (1982) Local government in Ireland. Institute of Public Administration, Dublin Sharpe L (1988) Local government reorganisation: general theory and UK practice. In: Dente B, Kjellberg F (eds) The dynamics of institutional change: local government reorganisation in western democracies. Sage, London, London, pp 89–129 Sister May Annette (1970) Regional Studies in Ireland  – a review. Urban Stud 7:310–314 Van Egeraat C, Foley R (2012) New regional assemblies announced. Ireland after Nama. Available via https://irelandafternama.wordpress.com. Accessed 12 April 2020

Part III Nordic Countries

This section includes the Nordic countries: the two old kingdoms of Denmark (chapter by Per Grau Møller) and Sweden (chapter by Anders Lindström), and the countries which were at different point in times dominated by them: Norway (chapter by Jan Erik Grindheim), Finland (chapter by Anita Niemi-Iilahti and Jari Stenvall), and Iceland (chapter by Gunnar Helgi Kristinsson). The historical and cultural links between these countries have always been very strong. Norway came under Danish rule as early as in 1380 and, in 1397, under the Danish crown, it became part of the Kalmar Union with Denmark and Sweden (as well as Finland which was under Swedish rule at the time). The link between Norway and Denmark became stronger when, in the fifteenth century, Sweden left the Union. The Treaty of Bergen granted Norway formal independence from the Danish administration. After the Treaty of Kiel (1814), Norway

82

Part III  Nordic Countries

was transferred from Denmark to Sweden. The Faeroes, Iceland, and Greenland, ­however, remained with Denmark. Even though Norway remained relatively independent within the union with Sweden, it achieved full independence only in 1905. Sweden controlled the Finnish territories from the twelfth until the nineteenth century when as a Grand Duchy it came under control of the Russian Empire. Iceland has been first under Norwegian rule (1262– 1379) and then under the Danish crown from 1380 until 1944. Given these strong and lasting ties between the Nordic countries is not surprising that their territorial and administrative structures have a great deal in common (with the exception of Denmark). Similarly to the Napoleonic model, in the Scandinavian or Nordic system of local government the central government has a given amount of control over communes and the meso-level. However, more similar to the Anglo-Saxon model to be found in the United Kingdom, local government is based on collegiality in which councils act autonomously with collective responsibility. Also the use of administering committees is a distinctive feature of the Nordic countries which is similar to the Anglo-Saxon one even though there is a chief executive who chairs the executive board. For different reasons linked to the fragmented territory and difficult communications, as well as because of the existence of former ecclesiastical communes, this system developed mainly in Norway and Sweden. In general terms, the municipalities in the Nordic countries developed from a parish tradition. The parish council, although with limited suffrage, existed before modern municipalities were set up through reforms in the nineteenth century.

8

Sweden Anders Lidström

Fig. 8.1  Sweden and its counties

8.1

State Formation

At the beginning of the Middle Ages, Sweden gradually emerged as a united country, under one king. The territory consisted of present-day Sweden, except for some western

A. Lidström (*) Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden e-mail: [email protected]

and southern parts that belonged to Denmark at this point, and the whole of Finland. From 1397 until the mid-fifteenth century, Sweden, together with Denmark and Norway, formed the Kalmar Union under the Danish crown (Fig. 8.1). A consolidation of the Swedish central state took place in the mid-sixteenth century when the Kalmar Union was dissolved. The church became a state institution and Sweden was turned into a hereditary monarchy. This was followed by a period of territorial expansion, as Sweden

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. Martí-Henneberg (ed.), European Regions, 1870 – 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61537-6_8

83

84

A. Lidström

Fig. 8.2  Scandinavia and Baltic states, 1918–2020

gradually captured land from mainly Denmark and Russia. Sweden’s territorial expansion reached its peak in 1658, by which time Sweden had become a major European power. However, during the next 150 years, Sweden lost a large part of its territory. The Swedish province of Finland became part of the Czarist empire of Alexander I in 1808, as a consequence of the Swedish defeat in the war against Russia (Sweden had already lost south-eastern Careilia with the city of Wiborg to Russia in 1721). However, Denmark, which was in alliance with Napoleon, was defeated at the battle of Leipzig in 1813 and had to cede Norway to Sweden. A forced union was established, but Norway eventually became independent in 1905 (see also the chapters on Finland and Norway). Sweden’s borders have been unchanged since then (Fig. 8.2). Local government has a long and strong tradition in Sweden. Even if local government has also been used by the state to control local affairs, there is a well-established tradition of local self-government. This was facilitated by the social structure of agriculture in Sweden. A large share of the farmers owned the land they were farming (62% in 1520), which made them an important political force in their own

right. They had their own representation in the four-estate national assembly (Riksdag). They also played an important role in local administration in the rural communities, in the ting and later the parishes (socken). The parishes acquired responsibility for social welfare already in the 1760s (Sellers et al. 2020). Extensive social and economic change in the nineteenth century, and rapid population growth meant that the system of local government had to be reformed. In 1862, the Local Government Ordinances were adopted. These created separate local institutions for ecclesiastic and secular affairs— municipalities and parishes—and added a new second level of local government, the county councils (Häggroth et  al. 1996). Four years later, political modernisation continued as the Swedish four-estate national assembly was replaced by a two-chamber Parliament. At this time, only a small proportion of the Swedish population was entitled to vote. In the local elections, this right was restricted to approximately 6% of the population. Voting rights were extended gradually, but it was not until 1921 that universal suffrage was fully introduced.

8 Sweden

8.2

Levels of Government

85

future, new amalgamations of municipalities are being considered. A parliamentary committee has recently suggested The two-tier structure of local government, which was estab- voluntary amalgamations (Kommunutredningen 2020). lished in 1862, has remained ever since. The lower level The decision-making body of the municipality is the consists of the municipalities (the so-called primary authori- municipal council (kommunfullmäktige), usually consisting ties) while the higher level is constituted by the counties of between 21 and 101 members and elected for a 4-year (the secondary authorities). However, there has never been a period. All members are elected at the same time and have hierarchical relationship between them; they are just two dif- to represent a political party. Responsibility for administraferent levels of local government with separate functions. In tive and executive functions is in the hands of the policy (or 1862, there were around 2500 municipalities (kommuner), executive) committee (kommunstyrelse), which is appointed which were divided into cities (städer), towns (köpingar) and by the council. The policy committee and a few minor comrural districts (landskommuner). Of the 2500 municipali- mittees are compulsory, but, apart from that, each municities, 2400 were rural districts, with approximately the same pality may freely decide on its political and administrative boundaries as the parishes. Already from the beginning, local organisation (Montin 2016). government units were granted a large degree of autonomy. Since World War II, the number of tasks carried out by For example, they could make decisions about budgets and and responsibilities given to local government have contaxes without requiring approval by the central government stantly increased. One of the aims of the amalgamation of (Gustafsson 1996, Lidström 2016). municipalities was to improve the efficiency (and reduce This system lasted until after World War II, when a Royal the costs) of accomplishing the new tasks. The larger units Commission was set up to examine the state of local govern- also changed the character of local democracy, as party ment in Sweden. The inadequacies of the system were mainly divisions became sharper and mass media coverage more attributed to the small size of the municipalities, at the same extensive. A by-effect of the reform has been diminishing time as their welfare functions were gradually increasing. A citizen participation in the political life of the municipalifirst amalgamation reform was carried out in 1952, when the ties and an increase in the number of staff and professional 2500 municipalities were reduced to 1037. As only the rural administrators. districts were affected, the distinction between cities, towns At the level of the counties, a distinction must be made and rural districts was retained. between the county administrative board and the county However, urbanisation continued and gradually eroded council/region. Both cover the same geographical area but the population basis of the rural districts. In the 1960s, the have different functions. public welfare services, which were mainly local governThe county administrative boards are central government ment responsibilities, expanded considerably. The existing agencies at regional level, and are not bodies of local self-­ municipalities were regarded as too small to efficiently han- government. They are responsible for general state admindle the increased tasks, which included the modernisation of istration at the county level (other functions, such as tax the compulsory school system. Another Royal Commission collection and school inspection, are handled by separate suggested that new amalgamations of municipalities should organisations). The county administrative boards carry out be carried out, to produce units with a minimum population licensing, controlling and assisting functions. They issue of 8000 inhabitants. Initially, the reform was implemented permits, such as driving licences, they control the perforon a voluntary basis, but as only minor changes occurred, mance of local authorities in areas of national interest, such the Parliament decided in 1969 to make it compulsory as environmental measures, and they are involved in promot(Gustafsson 1980). However, the decision was supported by ing the economic development of the region, for example, only a small majority, and was strongly opposed by the non-­ by coordinating the activities of different regional and local socialist parties. actors although this function has been largely transferred to After the reform, in 1974, the new structure consisted of the county councils/regions. The governor (landshövding) 279 municipalities. Thirty-four of these had fewer than the and the board are appointed by the central government for target of 8000 inhabitants. Some municipalities were later a 6-year term. Until 2002, the board (not the governor) was permitted to split, so that, by 2004, the number had increased appointed by the county council. Somewhat paradoxically, again to 290. The distinction between cities, towns and rural the governor is generally regarded as the main representative districts was abolished as a result of the reform. Today, a typ- of the county, despite not being popularly elected. ical Swedish municipality consists of a city, town or village, As regards the county councils/regions, in each county surrounded by a rural hinterland and smaller villages. In addi- there is also a county council (landsting). After successive tion to the municipalities, approximately 2280 parishes were reforms from 1998 to 2018, all county councils are now maintained. As urbanisation is continuing, and the public called regions. County councils were originally established welfare system is expected to face increasing demands in the under the Local Government Ordinances of 1862. They were

86

to be units for local self-government of tasks that required a larger population basis. Shortly after they were set up, they were also given the right to appoint members to the new first chamber of the Parliament. This right was retained until 1970, when Sweden’s Parliament was transformed into a single chamber system. Today, the main task of the regions is responsibility for healthcare and regional development. The decision-making body, the council (regionfullmäktige), is elected for a 4-year period. The organisation is modelled according to the same principles (and ruled by the same Local Government Act) as the municipalities. Hence, the executive functions are handled by an appointed policy (or executive) committee (regionstyrelse). Apart from this, the regions are free to decide on its own organisation. The territorial division of Sweden into counties dates back to the seventeenth century. The predecessor to the counties was the mediaeval territorial division into semi-­independent areas, known as landskap. These were ruled by local kings and had their own tings and laws. The division into counties has remained unchanged since the seventeenth century, even if minor adjustments have taken place. For example, in 1968, the City of Stockholm, which previously stood outside the county structure, was included into the surrounding Stockholms län. This reduced the number of counties to 24. As a result of the most recent municipal amalgamations, the Island of Gotland is both a municipality and a county. There have been frequent suggestions to reform the county structure, but these have not gained sufficient support. However, during the last decade, the dysfunctionality of the old boundaries has become increasingly obvious, as economic and functional regions have frequently been based on other forms of territorial organisation than the administratively defined counties. These problems were particularly obvious in the western and southern parts of the country. Eventually in 1999, as a part of an experimental programme, a number of changes were introduced. Three western counties were merged into a larger unit, Västra Götalands län, with Gothenburg as its major city, and two southern counties were amalgamated to form Skåne län. These experiments are now permanent. Hence, Sweden now has 21 counties. Despite several attempts, amalgamation of the other counties has not gained support in the Parliament (Niklasson 2016).

8.2.1 Powers and Competences Swedish local government is protected in the Constitution. The 1975 Constitution, or more exactly the Instrument of Government (Regeringsformen), which is one of the three documents comprising Swedish constitutional law, establishes that popular government should be achieved through a representative parliamentary system and by local government. From 2018, there is a separate chapter in the Instrument

A. Lidström

of Government on local government. The document states that both municipalities and regions exercise their power through elected bodies and that local governments are allowed to levy taxes. These principles were further developed in the Local Government Act of 1977 (and later versions), which, among other things, state that local government may conduct ‘their own affairs’. The generally accepted interpretation of the term has emerged from the actual activities that local governments carry out and from the precedents established by the administrative courts in interpreting the perimeters of local authority action. The principles that limit local government activity are as follows: • Locality: the activity of the local government must be clearly spatially located and delimitated to the local territory, must be connected to the local population and must be of public interest. • Equality: in dealing with the matter, citizens must be treated equally without discrimination. • Non-profit: the fees for public services must not lead to a profit, that is, fees cannot be higher than the costs for providing them. • Non-speculation: local government is restricted from carrying out activities that belong to the private sector. The legal principles that emerge from the term ‘their own affairs’ and from the appeals to the Supreme Administrative Court are very important for the actual functioning of local government in Sweden. The distribution of competences among the three levels (state, county councils and municipalities) is decided by the citizens through their political representatives. A municipality or county council may decide to intervene in a given domain and regard it as its own affair. Any such decision may be challenged by a citizen in the affected local authority and the decision is then referred to the administrative courts. If the court decides that the particular decision is outside the sphere of the local authority’s ‘own affairs’, it is automatically rescinded. However, this does not impede other local authorities from intervening in the same domain. The decision of the Court applies only to the specific municipality or county council where an appeal has been made. Further, if a local authority takes a decision that would have been regarded as outside its own domain if it had been tried by a court, and this decision is not challenged by one of its citizens, it will remain in effect. However, most of the functions performed by Swedish local government are regulated by special legislation. These functions include services such as education, social services, environmental protection and health services, as well as decisions about physical planning and building regulations. In these areas, the central government exerts stronger controls, based on both citizens’ appeals and regulation by gov-

8 Sweden

ernmental agencies (sector-specific national agencies and the county administrative boards). Nevertheless, in recent years, this regulation has become less detailed and new powers and responsibilities have been given to local government (Feltenius 2016). In practice, the division of functions between municipalities, regions and central government levels follows fairly straightforward principles. Municipalities have a broad range of varying functions. These include welfare responsibilities, such as the care of the poor and the elderly, social welfare, child care and primary and secondary schooling. Municipalities are also responsible for local infrastructure, including the provision of water, local roads and parks, local and urban transport, collection of refuse, fire protection and emergency services. Other functions are the provision of facilities for cultural, sport and leisure activities, and support for youth activities. Municipalities also undertake short- and long-term physical planning and grant planning permissions. The regions are more specialised; 85% of their budgets concern medical care, public health, hospitals and health centres. They provide dental care mainly to children, and care for the handicapped. The regions also have the main responsibility for the economic development of their territory. This includes allocating some resources and coordinating local and regional actors. They also run some other regional facilities, for example, cultural institutions and some upper secondary schools, and share the responsibility for public transport with the municipalities in their area. The central government, finally, handles classical state functions, such as foreign policy, defence, police, order, security and macro-economic policies. In Sweden, higher education, labour market policies and social security are also central government functions. Parts of the national infrastructure, such as railways, roads and postal services, are among state responsibilities, but other parts, such as the telecommunication network, have been privatised during recent years. The extensive municipal and county council responsibility for public welfare is reflected in the relative financial importance of these levels. Together, their expenditures represent 24.5% of the GDP, which is approximately 44% of the total public expenditure. This is very high, compared to most other Western countries (Lidström 2011). Local authorities have three main types of financial sources: • Local income tax: On average, this source provides 68% of municipality and 73% of county council income. The local income tax is proportional, and the level of tax is decided by each municipality and regional council individually. During the 1990s, the Parliament limited tax increases by setting temporary tax ceilings, but the right for local authorities to decide on their own taxes is

87

p­ rotected by the Constitution. The average tax level in 2018 is 32%, of which 21% is the municipal tax and 11% the regional tax. Tax levels have increased during the post-­ war period, but have been fairly stable from the early 1980s. The tax rates vary between local authorities, but differences are evened out through an equalisation system, by which local governments in areas with weak tax bases and extensive needs are compensated. Most Swedes only pay municipal income tax, but high-income earners also pay a progressive state income tax. Church parishes are also allowed to levy income taxes. Swedish local authorities have no right to levy any other tax of significance. • Central government grants: About 6% of municipal income and 19% of regional income derive from the central government. During the 1990s, special grants were gradually merged into a single block grant, which today provides most of central government funding to local government. However, during recent years, new special grants have been introduced, for example, in education, as a way for the central government to regain influence over local priorities. • Fees: These provide 7% of municipal and 3% of regional resources. Fees can be charges for water, electricity, administrative services, nurseries, visits to doctors etc. Each local authority decides on the level of the fees. However, the income from fees may not exceed the actual cost of providing the services. Swedish local government has considerable financial powers, for example, the right to decide on levels of taxation and an unlimited right to borrow money. However, the Parliament has decided that local government budgets have to balance, in order to prevent the emergence of debt crises. Local government finances are also, at the same time, highly dependent on the state of the local economy. A well-­ functioning local labour market generates tax income and thereby funding for welfare services, whereas problems in the local economy put additional strain on the local authority’s ability to provide local welfare and other services. Even if there are, at times, tensions between central and local governments, the relationship between decision-­makers at the different levels is mainly characterised by a sense of trust. The central government relies on local authorities not to make irresponsible tax increases, as this would jeopardise national goals of economic stability. Further, when new policies are developed, which are likely to affect local government, the central government invites representatives of local authority associations to take part at an early stage of the decision-making process. The political parties, which have a strong position in Swedish politics at all levels, provide additional links between central and local governments, as the parties that are represented in the national Parliament are also present in the local and regional councils.

88

A. Lidström

The collective interests of Swedish local government are pursued by the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions in which all municipalities and regions are members. The present organisations function as pressure groups on the formulation of national legislation on matters considered to be of local interest. They also represent a means of communication between the central state and the local authorities.

8.3

Territory in Official Statistics

The two most important territorial units in Swedish official statistics are the county and the municipality. Large amounts of statistics, covering varying topics, are regularly published with counties and municipalities as the territorial bases. These include data on population, labour markets, social and health conditions, housing situations, wealth, welfare provision, electoral statistics, environmental conditions, education and statistics related to municipal and county governments. The data are available at the website of Statistics Sweden, at http://www.scb.se/en/ Among other subdivisions, which can be found in more recent statistics, are: • Localities (tätorter), which are defined as population clusters with at least 200 metres between the houses and with at least 200 inhabitants. There were 1979 localities in Sweden in 2015. However, most of this statistics concern population development. • Local labour market areas, consisting of a central municipality and surrounding municipalities from which the main direction of commuting is to the central municipality. In 2017, Sweden was divided into 70 labour market areas. Most statistics available at this level concern population and economic conditions.

Sources and Further Reading References Gustafsson G (1980) Local government reform in Sweden. Gleerup, Lund Feltenius D (2016) Subnational government in a multilevel perspective. In: Pierre J (ed) The Oxford handbook of Swedish politics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 383–398

Gustafsson A (1996) Kommunal självstyrelse. SNS Förlag, Stockholm Häggroth S, Kronvall K, Riberdahl C, Rudebeck K (1996) Swedish local government, 2nd edn. The Swedish Institute, Stockholm Kommunutredningen (2020) Starkare kommuner  – med kapacitet att klara välfärdsuppdraget. Slutbetänkande av kommunutredningen. In: Stockholm Lidström A (2011) Sweden: party-dominated subnational democracy under challenge? In: Loughlin J, Hendriks F, Lidström A (eds) The Oxford handbook of local and regional democracy in Europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 261–281 Lidström A (2016) Swedish local and regional government in a European context. In: Pierre J (ed) The Oxford handbook of Swedish politics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 414–428 Niklasson L (2016) Challenges and reforms of local and regional governments in Sweden. In: Pierre J (ed) The Oxford handbook of Swedish politics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 399–413 Montin S (2016) Municipalities, regions, and county councils. In: Pierre J (ed) The Oxford handbook of Swedish politics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 367–382 Sellers J, Lidström A, Bae Y (2020) Multilevel democracy. How local institutions and civil society shape the modern state. Cambridge University Press

Sources Statistiska Centralbyrån (1947) Folkräkningen den 31 december 1945. Vol. 1: Areal och folkmängd inom särskilda förvaltningsområden m.m. Befolkningsagglomerationer. Stockholm Statistiska Centralbyrån (1952) Folkräkningen den 31 december 1950. Vol. 1: Areal och folkmängd inom särskilda förvaltningsområden m.m. Stockholm Statistiska Centralbyrån (1962) Folkräkningen den 1 november 1960. Vol. 5: Indelningar, tätortsavgränsning, befolkningsutveckling m.m. Stockholm Statistiska Centralbyrån (1966) Folk- och bostadsräkningen den 1 november 1965. Vol. 1: Folkmängd inom kommuner och församlingar samt kommunblock efter kön, ålder, civilstånd m.m. Stockholm Statistiska Centralbyrån (1972) Folk- och bostadsräkningen, 1970. Vol. 1: Befolkning i kommuner och församlingar m.m. Stockholm Statistiska Centralbyrån (1977) Folk- och bostadsräkningen, 1975. Vol. 3. 1: Folkmängd i kommuner och församlingar. Stockholm Statistiska Centralbyrån (1984a) Folk- och bostadsräkningen 1980. Vol. 3: Folkmängd och samboende. Stockholm Statistiska Centralbyrån (1984b) Folk- och bostadsräkningen 1980. Vol. 2. 3: Utveckling 1970, 1975, 1980: Tätorternas areal och folkmängd. Stockholm Statistiska Centralbyrån (1988) Folk- och bostadsräkningen 1985. Del. 2: Folkmängd och samboende. Stockholm Statistiska Centralbyrån (1992) Folk- och bostadsräkningen 1990. Del 2: Folkmängd och samboende. Stockholm Statistiska Centralbyrån (annual) Rikets indelningar. Årsbok över regionala indelningar. Stockholm

9

Finland Jari Stenvall, Päivikki Kuoppakangas, and Antti Talonen

Fig. 9.1  Finland and its regions

J. Stenvall (*) University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland e-mail: [email protected] P. Kuoppakangas Tampere University, Tampere, Finland A. Talonen University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

9.1

State Formation

Finland is a constitutional republic and a unitary state with 5.5 million inhabitants and 338,000  km2 of territory (Fig.  9.1). Finland represents the Nordic tradition of parliamentarism. The era of the Finnish political system as a sovereign state started in 1917, when Finland received full independence. The

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. Martí-Henneberg (ed.), European Regions, 1870 – 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61537-6_9

89

90

roots of its state formation and the regional structures, however, can be traced back to earlier centuries.

J. Stenvall et al.

from the Finnish Governing Council (as of 1816, the Senate). The Governor-General exercised supreme executive authority in Finland. This major change, though not specially desired from the 9.1.1 Swedish Rule, 1150–1809 Finnish point of view, brought positive development—from complete domination by the Swedish king to relatively For more than 600 years, Finland belonged to the Kingdom extensive autonomy within the Russian Empire. The stepof Sweden. In the beginning, it was just a large undefined wise construction of a national entity had begun. In the eastern region within Sweden. In those years, Finland was a 1860s–1970s, Finland obtained its own parliament, currency, remote developing entity that reached a population of one basic education system and legal institutions. However, in a million only as the eighteenth century gave way to the nine- situation that is rare, even exceptional, from an international teenth. Finland adopted the premises of Nordic democracy perspective (Aarnio 2002, 2), old Swedish laws were still and rule during the Swedish era. The Swedish Instrument of followed also in the Grand Duchy of Finland. A parliamenGovernment of 1634 established Sweden’s central and pro- tary system existed ideologically, but it was not functioning vincial administration, also forming new territorial units in in the way we expect a parliamentary system to work today. Finland. Four provinces were established as general admin- The senators were nominated by the Emperor and, therefore, istrative units under state level, and the number increased to did not necessarily work directly for the people. A true parsix in 1775. The reform of 1634, establishing a system of liamentary system was not developed until independence, in administrative provinces run by civil officials, is considered 1917 (Nousiainen 1998, 237). to mark the founding of the modern system of provincial Finnish autonomy blossomed most from 1863 to the administration in its current form. During Swedish rule, beginning of the repressive times at the turn of the century. Finland was never a unified political or administrative entity After the 1869 Parliament Act, construction of Finnish cenwith national institutions but a territory with six provinces tral government administration and its subsidiary adminisamong, in all, the kingdom’s 28 provinces. All government trative structures started. It was essential to create new responsibilities were concentrated in Stockholm (Tiihonen central government structures to manage important public and Tiihonen 1983, 167–177). functions, such as Customs, the postal service, the land surAt the local level, the first towns were developing around vey, public auditing and basic education. All of these were lively marketplaces in the twelfth century. In 1350 and 1619, provided with their own offices. It was social development acts were issued that addressed the economic privileges of that led to rapid expansion of the state into areas that had the towns. In urban areas, the Church independently took traditionally been the purview of the Church, universities, care of nursing care and relief for the poor, while primitive private individuals and organisations (Selovuori 1999, parishes in the countryside handled local affairs until the 46–47, 120; Temmes and Salminen 1994). In 1892, the fourteenth century. Through to the 1800s, the parishes, in co-­ administration underlying the Senate consisted of nine minoperation with the Church, evolved toward more fully devel- istries with their central agencies. At the sub-national level, oped local self-government handling education, nursing and eight provincial offices and sector-specific district offices, looking after the poor. whose number varied, were implementing national policies. The authorities and offices of central administration were situated either in the capital of the Grand Duchy of Finland 9.1.2 The Autonomous Grand Duchy itself, initially in Turku and later in Helsinki, or in the impeof Finland, Connected with Tsarist rial capital, St. Petersburg. Russia, 1809–1917 Toward the end of the nineteenth century, the harmonious development came under threat and attempts to reduce The great turning point in the development of Finland’s state Finland’s autonomy increased. The final years of Russian formation came in 1809 when Finland was separated from rule saw repeated strain brought by Russification measures. Sweden and annexed to the Russian Empire. From 1809 to World War I and Russia’s confused political conditions the achievement of full political independence in 1917, resulted in serious political problems in Finland. The first Finland had an autonomous position, as a grand duchy fairly democratically elected Finnish parliament was assembled in loosely connected with Tsarist Russia. The Russian Emperor, 1906. This was based on universal suffrage, inclusive of who was also Grand Duke of Finland, governed his new ter- women. In March 1917, after an era of political confusion, ritory with the aid of Russia’s Governor-General, who also the parliament decided to strive for full independence in had the role of Finnish State Secretary, and with assistance place of autonomy.

9 Finland

9.1.3 The Republic of Finland, 1917– Finland declared its independence on 6 December 1917. However, Kerensky’s provisional government was not willing to concede Finnish independence. This, coupled with broader political problems and an uncertain environment, resulted in a 3-month civil war breaking out in January 1918. A proposal for a republican constitution had been under preparation by a constitutional commission appointed in spring 1917. The unfinished work of developing a constitutional framework for Finland resumed after the civil war, and the republican Constitution of Finland was accepted in 1919 (Selovuori 1999, 16–18). Finland’s governmental system was a mixture of several theories of the state, but its main features were the parliament, representing the will of the people as supreme political authority, and, at the same time, a strong president, as the highest executive officer of state. The Council of State, or the government of Finland, formerly the economic division of the Senate, comprised 11 ministries and the Prime Minister’s office. Only minor adjustments have since been made in the structure of the Council of State, with the number of ministries alongside the Prime Minister’s office being 12 today. The Constitution of 1919 also stated that the administration of municipalities shall be based on local self-­government of the citizens in accordance with specific acts of parliament on this matter. It was specified in addition that the manner and extent of the application of self-government by the citizens to administrative districts larger than the municipalities shall likewise be prescribed by law. However, regional institutions with elected assemblies were never constructed. For the independent Finland, a major threat to state formation arose with the outbreak of the Winter War, in autumn 1939. The peace treaty bringing an end to the war was signed in Moscow in March 1940. Finland was forced to surrender a tenth of its territory to the Soviet Union, and the Soviet border was moved 150  km westward from Leningrad. The inhabitants of the ceded areas (Karelia and the city of Viipuri, now Vyborg), who amounted to 11% of the total Finnish population, moved to the Finnish side of the new boundary. This defeat was taken very hard in Finland, and the restlessness and the demands from the Soviet government did not end with the peace treaty. A new war, the Continuation War, began in 1941 and lasted till armistice negotiations were completed in Moscow on 19 September 1944 (Jutikkala and Pirinen 1996, 440–441). In addition to the areas in Karelia, the Finnish harbour of Petsamo with the surrounding territory was ceded to the Soviet Union. All of these areas are Russian territory today. After these events, Finnish society and the state were fundamentally the same as they were before the wars. However, huge problems had to be solved. On the political-­

91

administrative agenda were issues, such as foreign policy related to the Soviet Union, the payment of war indemnities, resettlement of the 407,000 Karelians, and social and economic security for the families of the 80,000 soldiers killed in the war (Tiihonen and Tiihonen 1983, 231). Active reconstruction dominated the years following 1950. In less than four decades, a modern welfare state based on a solid public sector was developed. Public administration at the central level (ministries and central agencies), regional level (provinces and sector-specific district agencies) and the local self-­ government level (municipalities and joint municipal authorities) grew in their number of units, professional staff counts and expenditure. In parallel with the internal progress, the international status of Finland became stronger, step by step, and in 1955, Finland joined both the Nordic Council and the United Nations. Forty years later, in 1995, it acceded to the European Union. In the negotiations prior to joining, the main focus from the Finnish point of view was on agricultural and regional issues. The year 2000 brought a new Constitution of Finland, with the aim of the reform being to codify Finland’s Constitutional law, ensure uniform and modernised normative structures, and revise the arrangements for separation of powers. The reform did not extend to the foundations of the political system; instead, it was of a limited nature, building on the continuity of the old traditions.

9.2

Levels of Government

The framework of Finland’s current administrative system was created in the late nineteenth century. A tier of collegial central bureaux subordinate to the Senate gradually took shape. The Senate departments began to resemble today’s government in terms of distribution of administrative spheres, and the procedures introduced in the war years led to adoption of a ministerial system of administration. Between 1940 and 1980, there was rapid development in the central government structures. The highest organs of government are the parliament, the Council of State and the President of the Republic. The government is a body headed by the Prime Minister and composed of ministers, who settle matters in a plenary session, while judicial powers are exercised by independent courts of law. The administrative system for central government is divided into administration sectors handled by a ministry and central administration units. Subordinate to them, regional and local state administration units are responsible for the implementation of the decisions and for production of goods and services.

92

J. Stenvall et al.

Table 9.1  Territorial state administrative units at the sub-national level, 1809–2019

Grand duchy, 1809– 1917 Republic of Finland, 1917–

Provincial administration general administration, supervisory authority police, rescue service 1809: 6 provinces 1812: 7 provinces 1831: 8 provinces 1917: 8 provinces 1919: 8 + 1 provincesa 1938: 9 + 1 provinces 1944: 10 + 1 provinces 1960: 11 + 1 provinces 1997–2010: 5 + 1 provinces 2010–present: Regional State Administrative Agencies

District administration sector-specific entities implementation of national policies 1880s—the beginning of active construction of district agencies 1930s—tasks moving from the provinces to district administration Up to 1990—a complex system of district administration consisting of agencies in 10 sectors, with the number of districts per sector varying within the range 4–33 1995: 13 environment centres 1997–2010—15 regional employment and economic development centres 2010–present: 15 ELY Centres

The province of Åland has been both a province and a self-governing region since 1920. The Åland Islands enjoy constitutionally and internationally recognised home rule

a

Grounded in the Constitution, local self-government with elected assemblies is exercised in the municipalities, whereas the regions represent a ‘semi-self-government’ model. Below, the development of Finland’s internal territorial structure is presented separately for the territorial state administrative units (see Table 9.1), which are agents of the central government and self-governing bodies (see Table 9.2) with elected assemblies and executives, acting rather more as partners of that government.

Table 9.2  The structure of local self-government in 1809–2019 Municipalities (cities, towns and rural municipalities) The first acts for Grand ‘modern local duchy, 1809–1917 self-government’, in 1865 and 1871 Number of municipalities 1875: 496 1880: 500 1910: 524 Republic 1917: 532 1937: 602 of 1950: 547 Finland, 1960: 548 1917– 1970: 518 1980: 464 1990: 460 2000: 446 2004: 444 2009: 348 2019: 311

Municipal co-operation (joint authorities) Occasional voluntary co-operation of local governments

1932 act on local government co-operation The 1930s to 1940s as an active era for establishing joint municipal authorities Number of voluntary joint authorities for hospitals, vocational schools etc. and associations for regional planning: 1987: 377 1990: 346 2000: 246 2003: 236 1994: 19 regional councils 2017: 18 regional councils 1992: 21 compulsory joint municipal authorities for hospitals (hospital districts)

Uusikaupunki (1721) and Turku (1743). These now formed the province of Viipuri. In constitutional terms, a Finnish political and geographical entity was created that showed the first even vague correspondence with the traditional areas of ethnic Finnish settlement. The number of provinces rose to eight when the province of Uusimaa and Häme in 1831 was divided into two. The geographical structure of provincial administration changed little after the 1830s, notwithstand9.2.1 Territorial State Administrative Units ing suggestions of establishing new provinces, and the number of provinces remained at eight until 1917 (Selovuori Major changes to the levels and numbers of territorial units 1999, 147–148). in Finland in the grand duchy era (1809–1917) and in the Between the year of independence and the mid-1990s, Republic of Finland (from 1917 on) are presented in there were several changes in the division of the geographiTable 9.1. cal areas of the provinces. The predominant trend was an increase in the number of provinces in tandem with development of the welfare state. A radical change occurred when 9.2.2 Provinces ‘regional administration reform 2000’ reduced the number of provinces to six (five provinces on the continent and the The territory of the grand duchy covered the six provinces of one in Åland Islands). Turku and Pori, Uusimaa and Häme, Kymenkartano, Savo-­ The tasks of regional administration too have changed, Karelia, Vaasa and Oulu. In 1812, the Grand Duchy of from the late twentieth century through the dawn of the Finland was expanded by the addition of Old Finland: the twenty-first century. Until the 1970s rolled in, the structures areas that had been ceded to Russia in the treaties of of regional administration dealt with and resolved adminis-

9 Finland

trative questions primarily within their own sector and raised regional needs for national-level decision-making. Then, with the development of the welfare state, social development policy gained ground in the operative roles of the regional administrative organisations. Provincial offices had a central role in the planning and implementation of public-­ welfare services and social, health-care and education operations. This meant ensuring that the tasks of the welfare state were carried out by the municipalities, following principles as coherent and just as possible. A detailed and comprehensive state subsidiary system served as an effective control instrument facing the municipalities. In addition to the welfare service functions, the regional level answered for the implementation of industrial policies aimed at balancing out regional differences. In addition to Provincial State Offices, the time starting in the 1880s saw state district administration built in a growing number of areas, such as commerce and industry, agriculture, the railways, postal services, Customs and education. State district administration was functioning alongside the provincial administration at the intermediate level. District offices acted as regional agencies of ministries and central agencies. The growing number of district agencies brought heterogeneity to the regional administration. After several reforms, together constituting the above-­ mentioned regional administration reform 2000 and implemented in regional administration in the 1990s, the most prominent authorities of the state regional administration are the state provincial offices (six), employment and economic development centres (15), regional environment centres (13) and road districts (9). The geographical territories of the authorities vary, but the division into 19 regions (carried out in 1994 and referring to regional self-government) is the overall arrangement of Finnish state regional administration. All the above authorities comprise one or more entire regions. Furthermore, numerous district authorities work in their particular fields within various branches of administration. The division into state local districts is the fundamental arrangement of the state’s regional divisions at the local level. The starting point taken in the regional administration reform for 2000 was the idea that a society thrives through building competitive regional centres. New administrative capacity was created via structural reforms carried out by rationalising and consolidating the formerly sector-based regional administration. Accordingly, the 15 regional employment and economic development centres and 13 regional environment centres were established. At the same time, the quantity of state provinces was reduced from 12 to five. The new regional authorities began drawing up strategies for management of operations in line with the success

93

factors identified. Among the other fundamental concepts were regional spontaneity, networking and management of operations on the basis of selected programmes (Niemi-­ Iilahti et al. 2002). There are now six Regional State Administrative Agencies in Finland. These work in close collaboration with local authorities. The agencies’ mission is to promote regions’ equality by carrying out executive, steering and supervisory tasks laid down in the law. To this end, they aim to strengthen implementation of fundamental rights and their legal protection, access to basic public services, environmental protection, environmental sustainability and public safety and also to provide a safe and healthy living and work environment in the respective regions. The Centres for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment (ELY Centres) are responsible for the regional implementation and development operations of the central government. Finland has a total of 15 ELY Centres, which are tasked with promoting regional competitiveness, well-being and sustainable development and for curbing climate change. ELY Centres have three areas of responsibility: (1) business and industry, the labour force, competence and cultural activities; (2) transport and infrastructure; and (3) the environment and natural resources. Not all ELY Centres deal with all three of these areas, though, as they can also manage duties on each other’s behalf. These centres steer and supervise the activities of the Employment and Economic Development Offices (TE Offices). In 2015, regional development was further enhanced, with the integration of health and social services into the provincial reform, with the goal of establishing autonomous regions. The rationale behind the integrated reform stemmed from the increasing average age of the Finnish population in combination with the shrinking of the working population and a clearly declining birth rate. In addition, there is inequality of access to services across Finland with respect to rural versus urban areas. If actualised as planned, this reform stands to be the most sweeping one yet in Finnish public administration. Should it be fully implemented, its impacts will extend to administration at all levels, both nationally and regionally. It has been estimated that 425 organisations and 190 distinct designated authorities in regional and local governance will be drawn together in 18 newly established regional organisations (Ranta et al. 2019). The plan in progress for the regional government reform and encompassing health and social services will not only establish these new regions but also change the structure, services and funding of health-care and social services, including a transfer of new duties to the regions. Consequently, three-tier public administration is to be estab-

94

lished, with central government, autonomous regions and local government. The new regional division (18 regions) will be based on the current regional delineation, with each of the new regions arranging the public health-care and social services within the respective area. In addition, the ELY Centres, Regional State Administrative Agencies, Regional Councils and municipalities and joint municipal authorities will transfer some of their duties to the new autonomous regions (Ministry of Finance of Finland 2019; Ranta et al. 2019). The aim behind this new reform and the co-ordination it entails is to simplify the state’s regional and provincial administration. Moving the provincial administration tasks into the structures envisioned may increase efficiency and productivity in performing regional and provincial administration tasks. Among the other targets of the reform work is to tackle the sustainability gap in general government finances (Ministry of Finance 2019). A further objective is to establish a level playing field for delivering public services to citizens and address the differences visible in health and social services while also giving clients greater freedom of choice. Moreover, since the state will be responsible for regional financing and the multi-channel funding resources (at least in their current form), financing will thus be rendered simpler (Ministry of Finance 2019; Nyholm et  al. 2016; Ranta et al. 2019). Finland’s state regional administration does not, per se, include any public organisations with directly elected political representatives. When Finland became independent, the Constitution set forth the principle of separation between administration and politics (Stenvall 2000, 98–113): administration carried out by the authorities should be subordinate to political institutions, and its agents should be chosen for their expertise. However, in the course of history, many of the higher positions in particular have come to require both expertise and support by a ruling party. Political commitment was a particularly important condition for appointment to such office in the 1970s. The Finnish system can, indeed, be called representational bureaucracy. At the turn of the millennium, however, the emphasis on results once again inspired an increase in the importance of expertise in such appointments. A system with elected political representatives has materialised in those sectors whose tasks fall within municipal self-government. That said, full implementation of the reforms described above would bring an end to this.

J. Stenvall et al.

9.2.3 Local and Regional Self-Government The evolution of local and regional self-government from the middle of the nineteenth century to the early twenty-first century is presented in Table 9.2. Finnish local self-­government with strong traditions reaching back to the eleventh century experienced institutionalisation in the late nineteenth century—the era of ‘modern local self-­government’ in Finland started when the Local Government Act of 1865 (for rural areas) and of 1871 (for towns and cities) stipulated certain judicial, democratic, administrative and economic premises for local self-government. The reform separated ecclesiastical administration from administration of secular affairs. Although Finland was a grand duchy of Russia, the Finnish Local Government Acts followed the Swedish model of local self-government (under the LG Act 1861). In one respect, however, Finland deviated from Sweden, as it still does from Sweden and other Nordic countries: regional self-­ government with an elected body was never established in Finland. Finland does not know any larger autonomous territories than the municipality. An important exception, the Åland Islands enjoy both internationally and constitutionally recognised home rule. The issue of regional self-government was placed on the political agenda on several occasions, but political consensus on a commonly acceptable decision-­ making model and geographic areas was never reached. Instead, municipalities established voluntary joint authorities to manage hospitals and other service institutions, and for other inter-municipality co-operation. In 1890, Finland’s municipalities numbered 507, with the average population being 4600 and their area averaging 700 km2 (Soikkanen 1966, 285). There were suggestions to divide some municipalities in two, with the main argument being that Finnish municipalities were too big in comparison to municipalities in Sweden and Central Europe. On the other hand, some saw bigger municipalities as more effective. No relevant changes came to pass in the number of municipalities, and it rose only after independence. The Winter War peace treaty signed with the Russians in 1944, however, reduced the number considerably: 44 of them were lost to Russia. Since the war years, their number has steadily but gradually become smaller in consequence of municipal amalgamations. The aim of these consolidation efforts has been to increase efficiency in welfare-related tasks. Local self-government developed independently in the nineteenth century and was separate from state a­ dministration,

9 Finland

with the main features getting inherited from Sweden. In the Swedish era, local activities in Finland were concentrated around the Church. At the heart of local rural administration was religious parish administration. In the first few years of autonomy, the tradition of local government did not change. With 1852, the Poor Relief Act provided a uniform regulatory structure for boards handling relief for the poor and introduced a special poverty-relief tax too, which was the first local government tax in Finland. A fundamental change for local-level rural government came with the municipal reform of 1865 when the Church’s parish administration was separated from municipal administration and local tax-collecting powers were confirmed (local government in towns was reformed a few years later, in 1873). Also, special local councils were established to serve as the highest decisionmaking bodies of local government. Even today, the municipalities have a central role in the Finnish political-administrative system, and the principle of local self-government is enshrined in the articles of the Finnish Constitution of 1919 and of 2000. Municipalities are the core actors in welfare services’ delivery, and they have a wide range of responsibilities, including functions arising from local needs and functions specified in various laws. In addition, municipalities are basic cells of democracy, offering forums for representative and direct, participatory democracy. Since a high degree of local self-government is guaranteed in the Constitution, it can be viewed as confirmation of the right of residents to decide on their own administration and economy. Thus, the municipalities have the power to levy taxes, and, in fact, nearly 50% of municipal revenues consist of local tax revenue. The Finnish municipal system is unified, so urban and rural municipalities fall under the same legislation (Niemi-Iilahti 1999, 28–29). That said, in the event that the planned health, social services and regional government reform comes to pass, the role of municipalities will change with respect to responsibilities and levying taxes. The regional reform will change the structure, services and funding connected with both health and social services. It is because new duties will be transferred to the regions in this process (Ranta et  al. 2019) that the issue of regions levying taxes has been raised (see also Nyholm et al. 2016). In the absence of an institutionalised regional self-­ government level, municipal co-operation had developed already in the nineteenth century. From 1932 on, it was regulated by a specific act, with the 1930s–1940s seeing highly

95

active establishment of voluntary joint authorities for hospitals, vocational schools and other service institutions. Preparations for accession to the European Union had their own influence on the administrative system. From the beginning of 1994, Finland’s regional policy was brought into line with EU regional policy and regional aid. New regional councils (19 in all) were established and given the role of regional development authorities. The councils operate as regional planning and development authorities and, accordingly, are the units in charge of looking after regional interests and handling regional planning. The planning for a region encompasses a regional scheme, a regional plan and a regional development programme. The core purpose of these councils is, above all, to take advantage of EU structural funds for further implementation of the regional development programmes. This also means in practice that after the incorporation of Finland into the EU the rules for regional funding, Finland aimed at benefitting from the opportunity to establish regional division that consisted on grouping together the wealthier municipalities, separated from the less wealthy ones, thus, these latter ones have benefitted more from the EU structural funding. The current 1,089 billion euro share of the EU funds (716 million of EU regional development funds (ERDF) and European social funds (ESF) 373 million euros) for Finland are divided for the less wealthy regions in eastern and northern Finland receiving 70.9% of the EU funds and the richer regions in southern and western Finland receiving 29.1% of the EU funds (Rakennerahasto 2020). Currently, the regional councils are statutory joint municipal authorities following the principles of local self-­ government. On the basis of municipal democracy, they articulate common regional needs and act to promote the material and cultural well-being of the regions under their jurisdiction. Regional councils are constituted by municipalities and formed from the local level. The decision-­ making bodies of these councils are determined by the municipalities; therefore, the local electorate does not have any direct influence on this process. Those on of a regional council are, however, elected members of their respective municipal councils (assemblies). Therefore, regional councils can be termed ‘semi-self-government’. The indirect democracy was strengthened by transferring regional representation and planning from state provincial offices to regional councils, in that provincial administration represents pure civil-servant-led administration whereas the

96

supreme power in the regional councils belongs to the assembly, whose membership must correspond to the overall percentage of votes of each political group in the whole province. The actual executive and administrative organ of the council is the board elected by the assembly, a board thereby representing the distribution of political power in the area. Membership in the EU has introduced new forms of programme-­ based regional development and co-operation. The aims for the nation’s regional policy and the measures taken to actualise them are confirmed in the programme of regional policy objectives accepted by the Government. These include the Centre of Expertise Program (with 11 centres in 1994–1998 and 14 in 1999– 2006), the Regional Centre Development Program, subregional co-operation (77 sub-regions in 2004), urban policy, rural policy and d­ evelopment of the island areas. In addition, projects are under way to revise regional legislation and the regional development strategy, to relocate the activities of the state, and to increase the efficiency of business aid. The structure of Finnish regional administration today is, irrespective of the reforms, heterogeneous and hard to categorise. The reason is that regional administration has been built up over the course of history in each case separately on the basis of the needs of the individual sectors of administration and in response to operative needs. No clear, comprehensive plan on which the regional administrative structures could be based has existed. At the same time, the regional level has become an arena in which organisations at both municipal and state level operate. Indeed, the greatest challenges for regional administration are structural incorporation and the creation of co-operation among organisations. With the turn of the millennium, regional administration has gained increasing importance from the standpoint of state formation. It seems fair to say that Finland has largely adopted a model of operation in which the society’s development relies on the success of its regions. In its current form, the Finnish governance system has an average level of organisation with regard to political institutions representing direct democracy by citizens. Alongside the state political institutions proper (the parliament, government and president), strong municipal democracy is manifested at regional level through municipal councils and municipal executive boards and in municipal boards composed of delegates. This affords strong local democracy in Finland, as municipalities are responsible for a significant proportion of the public-service tasks. In consequence of the institutional solutions, regional administration in Finland displays fairly strong representation of civil-servant-led administration. In addition to provincial offices, even other state organisations represent pure

J. Stenvall et al.

civil-servant administration, with strong expertise emphasised in the operations. On the other hand, the Finnish administrative tradition has included strong central control. This has meant that the state organisations for regional administration have, at least in principle, implemented the will of the state’s political institutions within their areas. On account of EU membership and regional policy obligations, region-level co-operation groups have been established in Finland’s various provinces. Their tasks are associated especially strongly with management of the EU’s structural funds. The set-up of these groups emphasises democracy. The concept suggests that with the emphasis on representation of political will and organisations alongside civil servants, it is more likely for regional needs to be considered. In addition, the regions’ co-operation groups feature particularly strong representation of those institutions, organisations and companies that participate in the implementation and financing of projects. For preparations related to the various issues, these groups have corresponding secretariats made up of representatives of the regional councils and state officials. The operation of Finnish regional administration can be considered to be based on strong expertise of civil servants and methods of administrative operation that are rooted in this expertise, where control of these methods has been taken over by organs based on indirect democracy especially since the 1990s (Niemi-Iilahti et al. 2002). This has introduced a rational angle to regional-level operations. In a way, the latter has been a key strength of regional administration. Since Finland’s shift in the mid-1990s from operation policies taken up in the 1970s (which were aimed at narrowing social and economic gaps) to a model of regional development, support has been directed to strengthening the various competitive factors. The objective of building strong operations by attending to success factors has required a reason-oriented approach based on expertise. On the other hand, civil servants’ expertise and the relatively weak indirect democracy has meant also that it may even be possible to speak of a deficit of democracy in Finnish regional administration (Niemi-Iilahti et al. 2002, 87). The opportunities for indirect organs’ influence in imposing pressure with regard to civil servants’ expertise are often meagre. On the other hand, there are forces of change at the regional level making the meaning of politics stronger. One of these changes involves strengthening of the boards of Regional Councils. Should the new health, social services and regional government reform come to pass in full, direct elections would be part of the new form of administrative governance. Drafting of the law for the regional government reform and for reforming health and social services continues on this assumption (Ranta et al. 2019).

9 Finland

97

Fig. 9.2  Scandinavia and Baltic states, 1918–2020

It is difficult, however, to determine the content and position of democracy at the regional level in Finland. For instance, the handling of development issues at that level is often implemented through partnerships. In this situation, the participants include both juridical and natural operators. The system could, accordingly, be called a network democracy (Fig. 9.2).

References Aarnio A (2002) General View. In: Pöyhönen J (ed) An introduction to Finnish Law. Helsinki, Finnish Lawyers’ Publishing Jutikkala E, Pirinen K (1996) A history of Finland. WSOY, Juva, Finland Ministry of Finance of Finland (2019) Valtion aluehallinnon ja maakuntahallinnon uudistus ja yhteensovitus  – selvityshenkilö [‘State Regional and Provincial Reform and Co-ordination – Rapporteur’s Report’], available at https://vm.fi/hanke?tunnus=VM118:00/2015. Accessed on 18 October 2019 Niemi-Iilahti A (1999) Global policy with cross-sectoral goals challenges public management. In: Lafferty WM (ed) Implementing

LA21 in Europe: new initiatives for sustainable communities. Oslo, ProSus, pp 27–41 Niemi-Iilahti A, Stenvall J, Ståhlberg K (2002) Iskukykyisempi Suomi: Suomalaisen Aluehallinnon kokonaisarviointi ja Kehittämislinjauksia [‘The Greater Impact of Finland: Global Assessment of the Finnish Regional Administration and Development Guidelines’] Nousiainen J (1998) Suomen poliittinen järjestelmä [‘The Finnish Political System’] WSOY. Juva, Finland Nyholm I, Stenvall J, Airaksinen J, Pekkola E, Haveri A, af Ursin K, Tiihonen S (2016) Julkinen hallinto Suomessa [‘Public Administration in Finland’]. Tietosanoma, Helsinki Rakennerahasto (2020) Available at https://www.rakennerahastot.fi/ ohjelman-­rahoitus. Accessed on 26 March 2020 Ranta T, Laasonen V, Manu S, Leskelä RL, Rissanen A, Uusikylä P, Tala J (2019) Support for the Preparation of the Regional Government, Health and Social Services Reform. Publications of the Government’s Analysis, Assessment and Research Activities 2019; Prime Minister’s Office Selovuori J (1999) Power and bureaucracy in Finland 1809–1998. Helsinki, Edita Soikkanen H (1966) Kunnallinen itsehallinto kansanvallan perustana. Maalaiskuntien itsehallinnon historia [‘Municipal Self-Government As the Basis of Democracy: The History of Rural Self-Government’]. Maalaiskuntien liiton kirjapaino, Helsinki

98 Stenvall J (2000) Käskyläisestä toimijaksi [‘From Subordinate to Initiator’], Tampere University Press (Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 759), Tampere, Finland Temmes M, Salminen A (1994) The evolution of public administration and administrative research in Finland: a historical overview. In

J. Stenvall et al. Modeen T (ed) Public Administration in Finland. Helsinki: Ministry of Finance, 17–21 Tiihonen S, Tiihonen P (1983) Suomen hallintohistoria [‘Administrative History of Finland’]. Helsinki, Valtion koulutuskeskus

10

Norway Jan Erik Grindheim

Fig. 10.1  Norway and its counties

10.1 Introduction Norway is a long and narrow country with a scattered population in the Northwest periphery of Europe. The 5.3 million Norwegians like to say that if you could swing the 1750 km J. E. Grindheim (*) School of Business, University of South-Eastern Norway, Grønland, Drammen, Norway e-mail: [email protected]

long country down by its most southerly point, it would reach the Mediterranean. The area covered by Norway, including the northern islands Jan Mayen and Svalbard, is close to that of Great Britain or Italy. Outside mainland Norway, the polar region Dronning Maud Land, Peter I Øy and Bouvetøya at the South Pole are also under Norwegian protection but insofar as sovereignty over these regions is limited by international law which will not be dealt with here (Fig. 10.1).

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. Martí-Henneberg (ed.), European Regions, 1870 – 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61537-6_10

99

100

10.2 State Formation Up to the ninth century the regions that later became the Norwegian nation-state were not unified. Only assemblies known as tings organised around a central allting and petty kingships existed. After a battle believed to have taken place in 872 at Hafrsfjord on the Western coast of Norway near Stavanger, one of the petty kings, King Harald Fairhair, started the first phase of a unifying process that lasted to the middle of the eleventh century. As historian Knut Helle has argued, however, the kingdom with its roots in the west Norwegian coastal districts did not have permanent control over the other parts of the country. King Olaf Haraldsson, who was named St Olaf after his death, was apparently the first who managed to make his power felt over most of the country at once and the same time, in the years 1015–28. Most of the time Danish kings had authority of greater or smaller parts of Norway, principally Viken, The Oslofjord area. ‘It was not until the dissolution of the Danes’ North Sea empire, on the death of King Knut in 1035, that it was possible for the Norwegian royal power to maintain permanent control over the bulk of Norwegian territory’ (Helle 1995, 25). Then Christianity had also been introduced, after the martyr death of St Olaf at Stiklestad in Mid-Norway in 1030, and the first bishoprics had appeared shortly before year 1100. The archbishop held office in Nidaros, later Trondheim, from 1152. The second phase of the unification process of Norway was made up of the civil wars between 1130 and 1220. They ended with victory and exclusive control over the whole country for the Sverre family’s ‘Birchleg’ (Birkebeinerne) kingdom over the ‘Croziers’ (Baglerne), whose first effective foothold was in Trøndelag but with Sverre’s victory over Magnus Erlingsson in the devastating battle at Fimreite in 1184 was territorially spread also to the Western part of Norway. And when the ‘Croziers’ were defeated in the Eastern part in 1202, the Birchlegs finally controlled the whole country, except from the peripheral areas in the north. In the years to come a growing population, a process of consolidation within the Church, and the rise of the first and most important towns increased the power of the Norwegian monarchy. Which again made it possible for King Håkon V Magnusson (1299–1319) to move the capital of Norway from the Western coast of Bergen, where the Hanseatic League made its appearance in the mid of the thirteenth century, to Oslo in the east of the country; even though Oslo allegedly had no more than 2000 inhabitants, whereas Bergen had a population of 7000 and Trondheim 3000. An arrangement of inter-Scandinavian royal marriages challenged the following monarchs’ power and when the three years old King Magnus Eriksson of Norway was elected King of Sweden too in 1319, this marked the end of Norway as an independent kingdom although Norwegian magnates in the Norwegian Council of the Realm continued to meet for several hundreds of years.

J. E. Grindheim

The major change, though, came with the Black Death in 1349–50 when between one- and two-thirds of the population in Norway is believed to have been killed by the plague. The number of deaths related to this first of many epidemics to follow, is however, not easy to know due to lack of reliable sources. But historians agree that around year 1500, the population of Norway was around 60% lower than before the Black Death (Moseng 2019). Many epidemics during these years devastated the economy and weakened the Norwegian state, which revenues in the High Middle Ages already were modest by European standards, and the king and the nobility had to seek revenues from lands and feudal estates across national boundaries. This contributed to the emergence of political unions between the Nordic countries, between Denmark and Norway in 1380, Denmark, Norway and Sweden in the Union of Kalmar from 1389 to 1521, and Denmark and Norway again from 1521 to 1814 (Orning 2015). The weakest party to these unions was Norway and in 1536 Norway ceased to be an independent kingdom, as King Christian III of Denmark disbanded Norway’s Council of the Realm and the Norwegian church lost its autonomy as the Reformation was enforced in Norway by royal decree. Danish noblemen could now freely take over positions as officers of the law and earn their incomes from Norway, and Danish became the written and official language of Norway. As noted by historian Ståle Dyrvik, though, ‘Norway was not swallowed up by Denmark, but rather enjoyed 300 years of growth’; still, ‘that the main trend of development was positive must not blind us to the fact that the union with Denmark had its drawbacks’ (Dyrvik 1995, 125). The close political links between the two countries also led Norway into wars between Denmark and Sweden. In 1645, the provinces of Jämtland and Härjedalen were ceded to Sweden after Denmark-Norway’s participation in the Thirty Years’ War, and in 1658 Bohuslän and the fief of Trondheim followed, although the latter was returned to Norway two years later at the final peace settlement. Subsequent wars did not lead to any loss of territory for Norway. An assembly of the States General at Copenhagen in 1660 acclaimed Fredrik III as heir to the throne and assigned him the task of giving the kingdom of Denmark–Norway a new constitution. This made the two kingdoms subject to an absolute monarchy and ever since it has been discussed whether Norway profited from this or not. In particular insofar as the monarch at times seemed not to be in the position to rule and the real power was in the hands of state officials in Norway whose views often seems to have been respected in Copenhagen. Or when the reign of kings such as Christian IV (1588–1648) obviously led to increased activity in Norway through the founding of towns such as Kristiansand (at that time Christiansand) in the south of Norway and the rebuilding of Oslo (at that time Christiania) after a great fire,

10 Norway

as well as the development of mining in places like Kongsberg and Røros, trade of lumber, etc. During the Napoleonic Wars 1807–14, DenmarkNorway was allied with France. When Napoleon suffered defeat at the Battle of Leipzig in 1813, one of his opponents, Sweden, which previously had lost Finland to its Eastern neighbour Russia, wished to have Norway as a safeguard on its Western border. When the DanishNorwegian King Frederik VI in January 1814 surrendered after having lost his final battle in Holstein and the links with Napoleon were cut, Norway was handed over to Sweden and 434  years of union between Denmark and Norway was over (Glenthøj and Ottosen 2014). The terms of the agreement established that Norway was again an independent state, although in a personal union with Sweden, and the Swedish King Carl XII accepted that Norway should have its own free constitution, a national assembly and its own government, an independent judicial branch and the right to levy taxes. But the Norwegians and their viceroy, Prince Christian Frederik, who was the nephew of the Danish king, did not immediately agree to this and when a constitutional assembly met at Eidsvoll north of Oslo on 17 May 1814 Norwegian sovereignty was established, and the prince was chosen to be the new King of Norway. This was not accepted by the victors of the Napoleonic Wars, however, and Sweden launched a military campaign Fig. 10.2  Scandinavia and Baltic states, 1918–2020

101

which rapidly subdued the Norwegians. In August of the same year an agreement was signed at Moss south of Oslo, whereby Sweden accepted the Norwegian Constitution with the amendments made necessary by the Union of the two kingdoms Norway and Sweden. King Frederik relinquished his power on 10 October 1814 and left Norway (Dagre 1997). In the years to follow there were a number of trials of strength between the Norwegian parliament and the Swedish king; the most important over the question of foreign policy, which was entirely led from Stockholm, and the introduction of parliamentarism in the Norwegian Storting (Parliament). The issue of parliamentarism had been brought to the surface of the political conflict between Norway and Sweden when the Norwegian Storting on 9 March 1872 had accepted a constitutional proposal that would allow members of the government to attend its sessions and take part in its proceedings. The proposal was vetoed by the king and this started a confrontation which opened a constitutional conflict that was not to be resolved until 12  years later—‘the longest, most profound and most comprehensive in Norwegian political history since 1814’ (Danielsen and Hovland 1995, 261) (Fig. 10.2). Two political groupings within the Norwegian parliament grew out of this conflict, the Liberals (Venstre) and the Conservatives (Høyre), of which the first supported the new system of government the constitutional proposal of 1872

102

meant, whereas the second group opposed it. The conflict was finally settled by the Court of Impeachment in 1884 and a new parliamentary system of government emerged in Norway (Nordby 2010). But immediately after the constitutional conflict was resolved, the union problem became ever more dominant and remained so until 1905. The problem was that foreign affairs were in the hands of the Swedish king and the Foreign Office, which was located in Stockholm and staffed solely by Swedish civil servants; a situation seen unworthy for an independent state that wanted full sovereignty. It finally led to negotiations between the two states on the possibility of setting up a Norwegian consular service in 1895 and ended with full independence and sovereignty for Norway on 7 June 1905; after ten years of intense political struggle, constitutional debate and military mobilisation on both sides. In a referendum in August of the same year, 368 392 Norwegians voted to end the union, 184 were against it (Dagre 1997). But the people did not go for a republic, as was also asked in the referendum, and when the union was dissolved by the Storting it elected Prince Carl of Denmark as King of Norway. Two years later the Great Powers also guaranteed Norway’s territorial integrity as a sovereign state. Culturally, Norway has been a homogeneous country since the first parts of it were assembled as a political entity in the ninth century. There has been no regional claim for independence in its modern history. The only ethnic minority has been the indigenous Sami people in the north. The size of the Sami population has been reckoned at somewhere between 50,000 etc and 80,000, of which around 40,000 to 45,000 is believed to live in Norway (Sønstebø 2018). After strong oppression from the Norwegian nation-state in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the Sami people established its own parliament in 1987, which opened in 1989. Its political authority is based on a functional and not territorial definition. According to the Norwegian constitution, ‘it is the responsibility of the authorities of the State to create conditions enabling the Sami people to preserve and develop its language, culture and way of life’ (cited in Helander 1992). In addition to the Sami ethnic minority there were 765 108 immigrants registered in Norway in 2019. Most of them come from the Nordic countries and the rest of Europe (48.2%), and belong to the same Western cultural tradition as Norwegians, while 33.5% come from Asia and 13.9% from Africa, and are in many cases culturally less integrated in the Norwegian society than those from Europe and the United States (1.3%) and South and Central America (2.8%). In addition, there were 179,294, persons born in Norway whose parents were immigrants in 2019. The largest group of immigrants come from Poland, Lithuania and Sweden to work in Norway, mostly as a result of the right of free movement guaranteed by the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement, while the fourth and fifth largest groups are Syrians and Somalians who have come to Norway as refugees (Statistics Norway 2019). Only in Oslo there have been tendencies of functional and territorial concentration of

J. E. Grindheim

v­ arious immigrant groups. Three parts of the city, Stovner, Alna and Grorud, have today almost 50% of non-Western inhabitants (Oslo Municipality 2019). Politically, Norway is a constitutional monarchy and a unitary state. There is only one source of sovereign authority and all sorts of local self-government are in the end legally defined by the central state, even though it was taken into the Norwegian Constitution in 2016 that ‘The inhabitants have the right to govern local affairs through local democratically elected bodies. Specific provisions regarding the local democratically elected level shall be laid down by law’.1 The right to local self-government may be amended or withdrawn by the central government at will, so neither a means of adjudication regarding allocation of sovereignty nor methods of policy coordination between sovereign levels of government are necessary. This principle dates back to the Norwegian constitution introduced in 1814; making it the second oldest in the world that is still being used. On 14 January 1837, an act (Formannskapslovene) concerning local self-government in administrative counties and municipalities was passed. In the parliamentary election in 1885 secret ballots were introduced for the first time and in 1898 all men over 25 years of age got the right to vote for the Norwegian parliament (Stortinget), while universal suffrage for men and women was established at the national level in 1913. This followed after all men had got the right to vote at the municipal level in 1896 and universal suffrage for men and women had been introduced in the municipalities in 1910. Direct elections at the regional level were implemented in 1975, when county councils also established their own administrative bodies and were granted the right to collect tax. In 1979 citizens of Nordic countries got the right to vote in local and regional elections and in 1983, this right was extended to include also citizens of non-Nordic countries who are above 18 years of age by the end of the year, who have not lost their right to vote according to the Norwegian Constitution § 53, and who is or has been registered as residents in Norway. For the right to vote at the national level, you need also to be a Norwegian citizen, and citizenship you can get by application after seven years of registered residence in Norway. To vote for the Sámi Parliament, you have to be registered as a Sámi in the electoral count for the Sámi Parliament, which for the last election in 2017 had 17,000 registered (Valgdirektoratet 2020).

10.3 Levels of Government The county is the political and administrative unit in Norway equivalent to the regional level in the European Union. But region is also used for functionally and territorially defined Article 49 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway (2020) decided by the Norwegian Storting 31 March 2016.

1 

10 Norway

103

areas between the county and the central level of government without any political decision-making bodies, for example, the four functionally defined health regions (see below), the territorially defined areas called landsdel (see appendix Table  10.1 NUTS 2), and the 89 economic regions introduced by Statistics Norway in 2000 to equal the NUTS 4 level of the EU (at that time there were 90 such regions in Norway). Furthermore, in connection with the negotiations over Norwegian membership in the European Union in 1994, it was decided that Norway should be divided into NUTS 1, 2 and 3 levels in accordance with the statistical definitions of the European Union, making counties equal to NUTS 3 and municipalities equal to NUTS 5 (Tables 10.1 and 10.2). Table 10.1  Main territorial units of official statistics in Norway equivalent to EU NUTS 2020 REGIN 1 (NUTS REGIN 2 1) (NUTS 2) Norge Innlandet

REGIN 3 (NUTS 3)

REGIN 4 (NUTS 4)

REGIN 5 (NUTS 5) Population

Innlandet

10

46

371,000

Trøndelaga

12

38

467,000

Nordland Troms og Finnmarkb

8 9

41 39

242,000 244,000

1 12

1 51

686,000 1,235,000

Vestfold og Telemark Agder

9

23

419,000

8

25

306,000

Rogaland Vestland Møre og Romsdal

4 9 7

23 43 26

478,000 635,000 265,000

89

356

Trøndelag Nord-Norge

Oslo og Viken Oslo Viken Agder og Sør-­ Østlandet

Vestlandet

Extra-Regio NUTS 2c Extra-Regio NUTS 3c Total

5,348,000

Source: Eurostat (2020), Kartverket (2020), Regjeringen (2019), Statistics Norway (2018), and cStatistics Norway (2017) a Trööndelage is the Sami name of Trøndelag. This merger was finalized January 1st, 2018 b Romsa ja Finnmárku is the Sami name of Troms and Finnmark; Tromssa ja Finmarkku is the Kven name of Troms and Finnmark c Extra-Regio NUTS 2 and 3 are special codes for the Norwegian territories Svalbard and Jan Mayen, the Norwegian dependencies Bouvetøya, Peter I Øy and Dronning Mauds Land, Norwegian embassies abroad and Foreign countries, unspecified, The continental shelf, The air space and Ocean areas

Table 10.2 Number of territorial units in Norway by level, 1870–2020 Year 1838 1842 1866 1930 1957 1967 1972 1974 1978 1994 2002 2005 2006 2008 2012 2013 2017 2018 2020

Municipalities 392

Changes

747 744 454

355 −3 −290

443 454 435 434 433 431 430 429 428 426 422 356

−11 11 −19 −1 −1 −2 −1 −1 −1 −2 −4 −66

Countiesa 18 19 20 20 20 20 19 19 19 19

Changes

18 11

−1 −7

1b

−1c

Source: Pedersen and Krossli (2017), Regjeringen (2017), and Regjeringen (2020) a Norwegian for county up to 1919 was the Danish word amt. Since 1919 it has been the old Norse word fylke b The city of Christiania (renamed Oslo in 1925) is separated from Akershus stiftamt (stiftamt was the name of four amt with a superior status from 1662. Their status gradually diminished but the name was in use up to 1918) c The city of Bergen, which was both a municipality and a county, became a part of Hordaland county

The Norwegian name for county is fylke, with the fylkesting (county council) as the governing body of the county authority (fylkeskommunen) and the fylkesmann (county governor) as the state’s representative in the county. After a pervasive municipal and county reform, there are from 1 January 2020 11 instead of 19 counties in mainland Norway, including Oslo being both a county and a municipality. A year before this, as part of a separate reform, the number of county governors was also reduced from 16 to 10, and a joint administrative unit was set up as Fylkesmennenes fellesadministrasjon. From 1 January 2020, the 11 counties were also divided into 356 instead of 422 municipalities, called kommuner in Norwegian. Oslo, the capital of Norway, is also divided into a fourth level of governance called bydel (urban district or borough), with 15 directly elected borough councils (Regjeringen 2019). Norway was for long the only Nordic Country without constitutional protection of the self-government of county and municipal councils, but in 31 March, 2016 the Norwegian parliament (Stortinget) adopted a constitutional amendment on municipal self-government. This does not include the county level, however, which the Storting explicitly underlined should not be included in this reform. What § 49, second part, of the Norwegian Constitution says, is, as we have

104

seen above, that the citizens have the right to govern themselves through locally elected institutions, but how the locally elected level of government is organised is due to further legislation. Nevertheless, before this, local self-­ government was just as important in Norway as in the other Nordic countries and it has played a vital role in Norwegian political history (NOU 2016:4). Not at least in the two referendums in Norway on membership in the European Union in 1972 (at that time EEC) and 1994. In both cases, there was a clear centre-periphery cleavage in which one of the main arguments was ‘no to central bureaucracy, yes to local democracy’. Furthermore, if we look back at the history of the development of the Norwegian welfare state, many of the services and social security rights Norwegian citizens benefit from today originated at the local level and in the municipalities (Hatland et al. 2018). There is no hierarchical relationship between the counties and municipalities in the Norwegian system of local self-­ government, insofar as the county and municipal councils have equal power and authority in relation to the state. The county governor is the state’s representative at the regional level and his/her main function is to follow up decisions, targets and

J. E. Grindheim

guidelines from the Norwegian Parliament and Government, and to control and supervise the counties, municipalities, private companies and other organisations at the regional and local levels. Only to a very limited degree, however, does the county governor intervene in the policy and politics of county and municipal authorities. Administratively, the counties, municipalities and county governors are all subordinated the Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation (KMD), but whereas the counties’ and municipalities’ tasks are territorially defined, the county governors are also subordinated other ministries and directorates on a functional basis, that is, in relation to sector specific tasks (Norwegian Ministry of Government Administration, Reform and Church Affairs 2013). State institutions in the counties are mainly the responsibility of the county governor, whose tasks may vary between counties, but which, for example, in the southern county of Agder is dealing with issues related to children and parents, preschool and training, people and society, health, care and social services, municipal governance, agriculture and food, environment and climate, planning and building services, civil protection and preparedness, and wardship (Fylkesmannen i Agder 2020).

Synopsis 10.1 Competences of levels of government in Norway State institutions County institutions Municipal institutions Legislative Parliament, ombudsmen and offices subordinate to Parliament, Sami Parliament Nationally Executive Monarchy, government, ministries, directorates and other state agencies, ex. inspectorates, ombudsmen, boards of appeal, of which some are more independent of their superior ministries than others Judicial Supreme Court Legislative County Council divided into standing committees and county service institutions, and an executive board headed by the Chairman of the County Council or by a County Mayor b County Executive Board headed by Regionallya Executive County Governor, regional offices of the Chairman of the County state institutions, ex. Labour Market Council or a County Mayor Authorities appointed by the County Council Judicial Courts of Appeal Legislative Local Council, which is the deliberative body of the municipality and lead by a Mayor (for the cities Bergen and Oslo which have a parliamentary system of government, seec)

10 Norway

Locallyd

105

Executive

State institutions Local offices of state institutions, ex. Labour Markeet Authorities

Judicial

District Courts, City Recorder Offices

County institutions Local service institutions, ex. education, welfare, regional development, transport and culture

Municipal institutions Municipal Executive Committee with power-sharing based on the results in the last election, lead by the Mayor, divided into standing committees and municipal service institutions, ex. pre-school, primary and secondary school, health and social welfare

Source: Fimreite and Grindheim (2001) and Grindheim, Heidar and Strøm (2017) a The term regionally can also include state organized regional authorities functionally defined at this level which not necessarily follow the territorial borders of the counties. The authority of the County Governors is defined territorially at this level, but they also have a form of trans-territorial authority defined functionally by sector specific policies b Oslo is both a municipality and a county, and the County of Oslo, the County of Viken, the County of Nordland and the County of Troms and Finnmark have a parliamentary system of government. This is based on a County Cabinet as the head of the executive branch.The Cabinet is headed by the Chairman of the County Cabinet, while the head of the administration is the County Executive c Bergen and Oslo municipalities have a parliamentary system of government with a city government of commissioners and Chief Commissioner/ Governing Mayor (“prime minister”). They do, however, also have mayors with political powers similar to the presidency of a national parliament and a figure head d Oslo is divided into fifteen boroughs, each of which has a Borough Council, whose members are elected by direct universal suffrage

The strong position of municipal self-government in Norway can also explain why the regional level between the counties and the state is so politically underdeveloped or non-existing although strengthening its administrative power and authority in Norway today. It is uncertain whether this will change in the future but within the Norwegian state hierarchy the counties have lost much of their power and authority due to the creation of functionally defined administrative regions between the counties and the state, for example, the four health regions. Which again has sparked a fear amongst the municipalities of giving away responsibility for public services to what they have seen as a possible supra-­municipal structure and led to an extended inter-municipal cooperation instead. Some of this power may be regained from a stronger international role of the counties in trans-regional European programmes, such as Interreg. So far, however, what has come out of the increased focus on regionalisation in Europe is mainly that Norwegian counties have developed an international perspective for increased trans-national co-­operation and not for the strengthening of their power and authority within the Norwegian state hierarchy.

10.4 Territorial Units2 Already in the twelfth century, Norway was divided into 25 fylker (counties), an Old Norse word and a derivative of folk (people). Early historians thought that fylke was the original Dag Jukvam (1999) gives a  detailed analysis of  territorial changes between Norwegian counties from  1660 to  1998 and  municipalities from 1838 to 1998. 2 

designation of the territorial domain of differentiated tribes, meaning something like ‘folkland’, but as Olof Petersson (1994) has argued, administratively and politically the medieval tings (deliberative assemblies) were probably of greater importance for the development of the regional level than the fylke. The tings played an important role in the settling of disputes, passing of sentences on lawbreakers and the election of kings at an early stage. The local district constituted a rudimentary form of self-government and tings were held both within smaller districts and whole regions. As the administration of justice gradually was taken over by a centralised system of law courts and Norway became a hereditary monarchy in 1260, the tings diminished in importance and only the administrative structure was maintained to enforce the centralised power of the king. With the introduction of absolutist rule by the Danish king in Norway in 1660 what was then called len (the former fylke) changed name to amt in 1662, and the local vassal was transformed into the king’s officer in the region under the name of amtmann. In the eighteenth century the amt—and above that in the administrative hierarchy the four stiftamt introduced in 1662—extended its importance once again as the king was forced to establish some kind of public assistance for the increasing number of poor people following from a strong growth in the Norwegian population (Myhre 2017). Together with the bishop, who headed the parallel but in protestant countries integrated ecclesiastical power structure, the stiftamtmann (the king’s officer in the stiftamt) was given the responsibility to set up what was called ‘school and poverty commissions’ for the poor in the parishes. These commissions consisted of a representative from the local authority (lensmann), the vicar and two of his assistants (called

106

ombud), and two representatives of the peasants in the local community (Nagel 1991). The commissions were paid for by local farmers but in many cases also the amt and the stiftamt had to support them when the costs were too high. In the towns and villages, school and poverty systems were based on a larger degree of voluntarism but as this system showed to be insufficient, town councils were soon also allowed to collect taxes for this purpose. The school and poverty commissions were the main pillars of the Norwegian system of local self-government when the act on local executive committees (Formannskapslovene) was sanctioned in 1837 (Steen 1968). During the nineteenth century, health, social welfare and schooling were going to be even more important for local communities to be engaged in. The reason for this was the fear of the politicians of the new democratic nation-state to introduce any kind of central public support or even regulation of the economy that could bring out the taste of the former Danish ‘Guardian State’ (Grindheim 1986). In 1919, Norwegian counties were renamed fylke and the state’s representative in the fylke was now to be called fylkesmann. However, local self-government was still mainly to be based on the municipalities. From 1890 to 1920, Norwegian municipalities went through a process of strong expansion— in particular in relation to health, social welfare and schooling. Together with voluntary social welfare organisations and private actors, local politicians and what Rune Ervik and Stein Kuhnle (1993) have called socio-political intellectuals at both the local and the national level, initiated new social welfare services and school reforms later to be taken over by the state and made universal for all citizens at the national level. A new time of growth in local self-government came in the years 1940–1960 but after this, the national level once again strengthened its position versus the local level of government by focusing on the regional level (Seip 1991). In the 1960s, Norwegian counties were given an active role in the development of a better psychiatric health care, the set-up of new hospitals and nursing homes, and in secondary education. As a result, the ratio of expenses between the counties and the municipalities changed from 10–90% in 1950 to 30–70% in 1978 (Grønlie 1987). However, the county councils were still only indirectly elected entities without autonomous political power. They consisted of mayors of rural municipalities and the county governors, with the mayors of the cities included from 1964. Direct elections were not introduced before 1975. The next important change in the politics of local self-­ government in Norway was a pilot project on increased local self-government introduced in 1987 which lasted until 1992 called frikommuneforsøket (free municipality experiment). It followed the implementation of a new income system for the counties and municipalities in 1986, and was a project in which 20 municipalities and four (later six) counties were given a time-limited exemption from national rules and regu-

J. E. Grindheim

lations to develop autonomous strategies to improve their services by becoming more efficient and more democratic. In addition to this, did the city council of Oslo and the county council of Hedmark introduce a parliamentary system of government instead of the traditional system of ­power-­sharing. For the four counties the project was first directed towards the field of trade and industry/business development, and primarily concentrated on how the two Northern counties of Finnmark and Nord-Trøndelag with extra subsidies from the national level could develop and implement a local regional policy based on their own goals and priorities. Second, how the Northern county of Nordland and the Southern county of Aust-Agder could improve their services by new models of co-operation between the politicians and the administrative personnel of the county and the state. The result was the development of new organisational structures of the relationship between the state and the counties. Before the 1980s central planning had dominated this relationship but the pilot project got an increasing number of counties to introduce new political and administrative routines, such as strategic planning, agreements of intent and project organisation, and it led to a stronger consciousness in Norway for an autonomous regional policy (Fimreite 1997). The top-down character of this pilot project illustrates how integrated the idea of local self-government traditionally has been in the national policy of the Norwegian state. But when we study the relationship between the counties and the state, much has changed since the 1990s due both to internal processes of de-bureaucratisation, decentralisation and democratisation of the traditionally rule-orientated and centralised Norwegian welfare state-model (Grindheim 1994), and to external processes of supra-state integration and sub-state regionalisation in Europe (Grindheim 1998, 1999). Hence, following Udo Bullmann (1997), we could say that in a historical perspective, Norway has moved from a classic unitary state to a partly devolving unitary state on a continuum in which regionalised unitary states and federal states are the next two values on the variable. In Norway, as in other European countries and in the political and administrative system of the European Union, there are as we already have seen also special administrative units called regions at a higher level than the county to which it seems to have been a trend since the 1990s to transfer power. Top-down in classic unitary states, bottom-up in federal political systems and through the system of subsidiarity in the EU (Grindheim 2009). Region is, for example, used on a functional basis by the Norwegian Tax Administration, the Norwegian Police, the Norwegian National Coastal Administration for the conduct of sea-transport in Norwegian waters or the Norwegian Public Roads Administration etc., and in 2016 the Norwegian government could report that 38 state agencies were divided into 36 units, with 293 regional offices and more than 1400 local offices (Langset og Vinsand 2017:10). Most important in relation to the altered role of the

10 Norway

counties, however, is the total reorganisation of the hospital sector that was implemented by the Ministry of Health in 2002 (NOU 2016:25). In June 2001, the Norwegian Storting resolved that from 1 January 2002 all public hospitals in Norway should be taken over by central government and operated as Health Enterprises under state responsibility within five health regions (four from 2007). Even though the reform is commonly known as the Hospital Reform, it included most specialist health services within both somatic and psychiatric health care and the ambulance service, and was a functional and administrative reorganisation of formerly territorially and politically based structures. Its most serious consequence was the total dismantling of the role of the counties in Norwegian health and social welfare policy. It broke with a more than 30-years tradition of hospitals being owned and run by the counties and municipalities in Norway. Already in 1974, however, Norway had been divided into five health regions, ‘to reflect the fact that as far as specialist medicine was concerned one needed a large catchment area in order to secure high-quality services at acceptable costs’ (Ministry of Health 2003), but regional cooperation in this system was based on voluntary participation by the counties. The objectives of the new reform were to give Norwegians better and more equal health services, improve the running of hospitals through what was to become known as unambiguous management, and to create a clear division of responsibility. The vision was to introduce a new form of functional organisation of the Norwegian health and hospital services—‘better suited to meet the challenges of the medical technology of tomorrow’ (Hellandsvik 2003, 5). Needless to say, the reform had a devastating effect on the political and administrative legitimacy of the counties. Overnight they went from being the most important service providers in the health sector to be left with secondary education and a rather undefined role as partners in regional development. On 1 January 2002, Norwegian counties were made responsible for the following: • • • • • • • • •

High schools Dental services Child welfare institutions Family welfare institutions Institutions for alcohol and drug addicts County roads, regional and local public transport Preparation for business development County planning Museums and other cultural services and cultural heritage3

Since then, the general trend has been that the national level has increasingly been under pressure from continues territorial and functional reorganisations of many sectors,

107

that is, power has been taken from elected political bodies at the county level and given to sector organised administrative bodies representing the state at the regional level. This has happened through processes which were based on six criteria: • Elected bodies at the local and regional level should have the responsibility to decide what issues to be treated in accordance with local and regional discernment. • The state should be responsible for standardised tasks based on rules and regulations due to control. • The state should be responsible for tasks in which national coordination is needed for sound practices. • Tasks should be solved at lowest efficient level possible. • The county should not develop into a super-ordinate authority. • Changes in the division of labour between the different political and administrative levels, should contribute to the reduction of bureaucracy.4 From the same parliamentary report as the above quoted criteria are taken, we can read that the counties were supposed to play a central role in future partnerships for regional development, but at the same time how the counties should be organised was not decided. In the Parliamentary report Kommune, fylke, stat—en bedre oppgavefordeling (Municipality, county, state—a better division of tasks)5 it was argued that the future organisation of Norwegian counties should be based on the following criteria: • A functional regional level. The counties should make up functionally and sustainable units to be able to take care of regional development tasks. The territorial organisation of the counties should contribute to secure a good coordination of resources within natural coherent areas. • A real and meaningful democracy. The county authorities shall be democratic arenas and give good opportunities for the citizens to participate in and influence on the development of the regions. • Good user orientation. People shall be able to make use of services provided by the nearest county authority. • Efficient use of resources. The county authority should take advantage of the economies of scale and make sure that regional tasks are solved in the most rational way within natural coherent areas. The territorial organisation of the counties should contribute to the most efficient use of resources, knowledge development and coordination within the state institutions in the counties. As a result of this, most of the counties started to discuss possibilities for mergers of counties into larger regions: St. meld. nr. 19, (2001-2002), ch. 3 (translation by author). St. meld. nr. 31, (2000-2001), ch. 9 (translation by author).

4 

St. meld. nr. 19, (2001-2002), ch. 3.

3 

5 

108

Rogaland, Hordaland and Sogn og Fjordane in the west, Aust- and Vest-Agder and Telemark in the south, Telemark, Buskerud and Vestfold in the south-east, and Østfold, Oppland, Hedmark and Akershus in the eastern part of Norway. But a regional reform was first decided by the Norwegian parliament in 2017, to be implemented from 1 January 2020 with 11 counties as the main regional political and administrative unit in Norway in the future—as illustrated in Map 10.1 above. The reform of the Norwegian county structure was part of a municipal and county reform initiated by a centre-right government under the leadership of prime minister Erna Solberg from the Conservative Party (Høyre). It was based on a common political platform agreed upon by the Conservative Party and the right-wing Progress Party a month after the parliamentary election in 2013, in which it was stated that: ‘The Government will conduct a review of the tasks carried out by the county authorities, the county governors and the central government with a view to transferring more power and authority to the municipalities’ (Office of the Prime Minister 2013:46). The reform of the municipal structure started with a parliamentary treatment in June 2014 and the county reform with a parliamentary treatment in June 2016, both being decided by the Norwegian Storting in June 2017. The final decision for the municipalities about merging with others, however, was to be decided by themselves after advisory local referendums or citizen surveys. When the municipal reform was implemented on 1 January 2020, there were 311 municipalities involved in changes due to the two reforms. Mergers were carried out in 109 municipalities, where two or more merged into 43 new municipalities. Most of the mergers where done between quite populous city municipalities and their neighbouring municipalities in coastal areas, particularly in the Viken region around the capital Oslo, in the south, the west and north-western area, and up north, while the inland area of southern Norway had only one merge. The goals of the local government reform were as follows: • Good, equal services for inhabitants, today and in the future • Comprehensive and coordinated community development, in both larger and smaller municipalities • Sustainable and financially solid municipalities • Strengthen local democracy and give the municipalities more power (Regjeringen 2019). The municipal reform did not go through without controversies, however: 257 municipalities said no to merger with their neighbours. In many cases after local referendums in which the reform was seen as a top-down process of power centralisation and a threat towards local democracy and local

J. E. Grindheim

traditions. The paradox of this opposition was that many of the municipalities that most needed to merge with a neighbouring municipality, due to economic and demographic challenges, did not want to. A survey made by the Norwegian broadcasting company NRK showed that the typical no-to-­ merger-municipality was small and characterised by an increasingly aged population as well as depopulation. Amongst the arguments used by locals against the reform an inherent feeling of fear of losing well-known services was very important, as were feelings of identity and local distinctiveness, and the fear of losing the societal cohesion and unity in a larger municipality (Helljesen 2017). The county reform was completed in a different way, insofar as it did not include any referendums after the Norwegian Storting had decided the reform, except from in the northernmost counties of Troms and Finnmark, where the county council in Finnmark took the initiative to a local referendum against the compulsory merger with Troms. But even though 87% of the 58% of those who turned out in the referendum voted against it, the Norwegian Government insisted on its completion since this was the will of a majority of the Storting. Hence, from 1 January 2020, a county reform in which 13 of the 19 counties were merged into six while four were kept unaltered, changed the number of Norwegian counties to 11. Amongst them, Nord- and Sør-­ Trøndelag had merged already on 1 January 2018 into Trøndelag, while the new ones were as follows: • Viken, which was a merger of Buskerud, Akershus and Østfold • Innlandet, which was a merger of Oppland and Hedmark • Vestfold og Telemark, which was a merger of the two • Agder, which was a merger of Aust- and Vest-Agder • Vestland, which was a merger of Hordaland and Sogn og Fjordane • Troms og Finnmark, which was a merger of the two The four that continued as before were: Oslo, as previously noted is both a municipality and a county, and Rogaland, Møre og Romsdal, and Nordland. Pertaining to their tasks, however, not much will probably change. As pointed out on the homepage of the new county Viken, which has been a very controversial merger of three former counties: ‘High schools and dental services will stay where they are, and the citizens will have the same offer as before. The county roads will be well maintained, and the public transport shall be more seamlessly across the new county. Volunteers and businesses will continue to receive the support they have been granted. Arrangements with different grants will continue until elected politicians make new priorities. You will probably not notice any big difference in regard to the fact that you live in a new county in January

10 Norway

2020. But in the long run, you can expect improvements’ (Viken fylkeskommune 2020).6 Nevertheless, even though neither of the reforms probably will change people’s life very much, there has been quite a lot of opposition to them from political parties and prominent politicians locally, as well as at the national level. As an example, even months before the regional reform was implemented, a red-green alliance of the Norwegian Labour Party, the agrarian Center Party, the Green Party, and the Socialist Left Party in the new region Viken, agreed on a collaboration platform saying that they would use their recently won majority in the county council after local elections in Norway in September 2019 to dissolve the new county. One of the arguments they used to legitimise this was that the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV) already at the beginning of 2019 had decided to split their administration in Viken in two departments, since they feared that the new unit would be too big to handle (Fjeldstad 2019). The strongest opposition at the national level came from the Center Party, whose party leader Trygve Slagsvold Vedum had made the traditionally strong centre-periphery cleavage in Norwegian politics to his main cause first in the local election campaign of 2019, and second when he soon after the implementation of the reform argued that in the next election campaign for the Storting in 2021, he would campaign on a reversal of the reform to bring back the old counties if that was what their inhabitants wanted. As he told a local newspaper from the former county of Aust-Agder: ‘We still got two parliamentary election constituencies: Aust- and Vest-Agder. But when it comes to the regional reform, I think that this is something that has to be decided locally if one wants that: I shall not override this from Stange, where I live’ (Kalvehagen 2020). Pertaining to Mr. Vedum’s last comment on overriding the will of the people in the municipalities and counties, this was not only a question of him not wanting to do so from his home in a centrally located municipality of Norway; it referred to a strong local opposition against what he and many other politicians looked upon as a process of centralisation by the centre-right government lead by Prime Minister Erna Solberg from the Conservative Party. Criticism was also raised against the reforms by researchers and other experts on local politics and administration in Norway. Already in February 2020, less than two months after their implementation, Geir Vinsand in Nivi Analyse—a consultancy specialising on regional politics—said that this prestigious reform project of the Solberg government was its biggest reform failure. Vinsand was supported by professor Jørn Rattsø, a well-known expert on local politics and administration in Norway, who came with stinging criticism of how particularly the municipal reform had been i­ mplemented. Translation by author, as all further quotes originally in Norwegian.

6 

109

Neither the goal of improving the democratic dimension of the local level, nor the idea of bringing together territorial units in functionally more coherent life, housing, and labour markets around the bigger cities had been a success, according to Rattsø—mainly because this happened on a voluntary basis locally and not according to a national plan. Hence municipalities which did what they were asked to do by the government could not be rewarded for this by taking on larger tasks since the municipalities that opposed the reform were against it. As a response to this criticism, however, the newly appointed minister for local affairs, Nikolai Astrup from the Conservative Party, said that it was difficult to transfer new tasks to municipalities when they already in many cases had too many tasks from before (Adresseavisen 2020). Looking closer at the regional reform, the main criticism has been its top-down character and lack of rationality behind the mergers decided by the Storting. In fact, it did not have much political legitimacy neither at the local nor national level when it was implemented. Regardless of what the counties wanted most of them were forced to merge (as were 13 of the municipalities), and in the end it was decided which of them very much as a result of a compromise between the Conservative Party and the Progress Party in government and their supporting parties in the Storting, the Liberal Party (Venstre) and the Christian Democrats. The first two wanted a municipal reform but to dissolve the counties, while the other two wanted to reform the counties and reluctantly accepted that the price for this was a municipal reform. Hence, it is not strange that the two reforms have been met with quite a lot of uncertainty both internally in the centre-­ right government, and from the centre-left, anti-centralist and green opposition. Furthermore, as the Progress Party left the government of prime minister Erna Solberg at the beginning of 2020 and started to talk about reversing the reforms mainly to gain votes in the periphery, the future of particularly the regional reform is uncertain. But, as a representative of the Liberal Party expressed it, the two reforms and the way they were decided was a result of the fact that ‘politics is to give and take’ (André Skjelstad, cited in Kristiansen 2018), which is certainly true when it comes to the relationship between the local and national level of politics and administration in Norway.

10.5 M  ain Territorial Levels in Official Statistics Statistics Norway was set up as Det statistiske Centralbureau (The Central Bureau of Statistics) in 1876 but already in 1797, a joint office for the collection of statistical information had been established between Danish and Norwegian authorities under the union of the two countries. The first official statistics were issued in 1837 and in 1879 the first

110

edition of Annuaire Statistique de la Norvège (Annual Statistics of Norway) came in French and in 1881  in Norwegian. In 1889 a Nordic cooperation on statistics was initiated. It lasted for more than 100  years but was closed down in 1997 as the EEA Agreement integrated all the Nordic countries’ statistical bureaus with Eurostat. In 1947, Statistics Norway joined the United Nation’s Economic Commission for Europe and in 1952 The Conference of European Statistics. In 1907 a Statistics Act was introduced in Norway which made it possible for the public sector to demand statistics from private persons and companies as well as public bodies. The Statistics Act of 1907 was replaced in 1989, by an act in which Statistics Norway is obliged to • Map and prioritise the need for official statistics in Norway • Coordinate comprehensive statistics developed by public administration bodies • Develop statistical methods and utilise statistics for analysis and research • Provide information for statistical use in research and public planning • Secure Norwegian participation in international cooperation about statistics.7 The first population census in Norway was held on 15 August 1769. But information from tax registrations can be obtained as long way back as to 1514, although the first yearly statistics of this kind are from 1610–1620. Other registrations of the Danish-Norwegian population were issued in 1663, 1665 and 1701, when the army asked for information, whereas army personnel was kept out of the population census in 1769. The first nominative population census was held in 1801 and the second in 1865, but censuses without names and other personal information were held every tenth year from 1815 to 1875. Then it was decided, however, that population censuses should be held at the turn of each decade instead of in the midst of it, to harmonise Norwegian population censuses with those in other countries. The next population census therefore was held in 1891 and from then on every tenth year. Municipalities and the national level have been the most important territorial units in Norwegian official statistics until now. Since 2000, however, 90 (now 89) economic regions equal to the European Union’s NUTS 4 level have been introduced by Statistics Norway to overcome the problems created by the large differences in size of population and area between the municipalities, and to get official Norwegian statistics more in line with the statistics of the European Union. Furthermore, due to the European Statistics Norway (2004). Statistisk sentralbyrå 1876-2001.

7 

J. E. Grindheim

Economic Area (EEA) Agreement between the EFTA-­ countries Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway on the one hand, and the European Union member countries on the other, Statistics Norway has since 1994 been obliged to send reports to the European Commission and Eurostat based on NUTS 1, 2 and 3 levels in accordance with the EU directive on competition. Statistics Norway defines regional statistics as all statistics with a regional distribution. This means that most of the statistics produced by Statistics Norway is regional statistics, in which figures until 2020 have been given for the 422 municipalities and 19 counties on almost all issues.8 Whereas statistics for the national level is defined as regional statistics when Norway is seen as a part of a bigger unit, for example, the EEA, or compared to other countries. The statistical classifications used by Statistics Norway are called REGIN (Regional nomenclatura for Norway) 1–5. They follow the European Union NUTS levels: REGIN 1 is used about the whole country, REGIN 2 about 7 territorially defined regions (6 landsdeler and a seventh group of Extra-Regio NUTS 2), REGIN 3 about the 11 counties, REGIN 4 about 89 economic regions, and REGIN 5 about the 356 municipalities. To conclude: Regional statistics provided by Statistics Norway relates to a territorial unit, for example, region, county, municipality, basic unit or urban settlement; it describes characteristics of and/or variations between different regions, for example, regions, counties or municipalities; and it is often comprehensive and cut across different issues (Rogstad et al. 2001). Acknowledgements Thanks to Professor Anne Lise Fimreite (University of Bergen) and Senior Adviser Vilni Verner Holst Bloch (Statistics Norway) for good and creative comments.

 ppendix Table 10.1 Border Changes A Between Norwegian Counties 1870–2020 Regional organization of Norway according to decree of February 8th, 1671: Akershus stiftamt (Akershus, Oslo, Hedmark, Oppland, Buskerud) • • • •

Fredrikstad with Smålenenes amt (Østfold) Kristiansand or Agdesiden stiftsamt Bratsberg (Telemark) Stavanger (Rogaland)

8  Norway had 435 municipalities in 2000 but the number gradually went down to 422 in 2018. Since 1 January 2020, there have been 356 municipalities and 11 counties in Norway.

10 Norway

111

Bergenhus stiftamt (Sogn og Fjordane, Sunnmøre, parts of Hordaland) • Halsenøy kloster and Hardanger (parts of Hordaland) • Nordlandene (Nordland and Troms) Trondhjems stiftsamt (Trøndelag) • Romsdal (Romsdal og Nord-Møre) • Vardøhus (Finnmark) 16 border changes were carried through between Norwegian counties (named amt from Danish from 1662 to 1919, when the old Norse fylke replaced amt). In the reform that took place January 1st, 2020, region was also widely used as equivalent to county. Time of Type of change change Merger of counties 12 Hordaland 13 Bergen 1.1.1972 16 Sør-Trøndelag 17 Nord-Trøndelag 1.1.2018 01 Østfold 02 Akershus 06 Buskerud 1.1.2020 04 Hedmark 05 Oppland (except from 0532 Jevnaker and 0533 Lunner) 1.1.2020 07 Vestfold 08 Telemark 1.1.2020 09 Aust-Agder 10 Vest-Agder 1.1.2020 12 Hordaland 14 Sogn og Fjordane 1.1.2020 19 Troms 20 Finnmark 1.1.2020 Transfers of whole municipalities 0980 Åseral (new municipal 1880 number: 1026) 0580 Sollia (new municipal number: 1890 0432) 1567 Rindal (new municipal number 1.1.2019 5061) 0532 Jevnaker 0533 Lunner 1.1.2020 Transfers of whole municipalities with merger 1280 Årstad 1301 Bergen 1.7.1915 0218 Aker 0301 Oslo 1.1.1948 0602 Drammen 0712 Skoger 1.1.1964

From/to county

12 Hordaland 50 Trøndelaga

30 Viken

34 Innlandet 38 Vestfold ogTelemark 42 Agder 46 Vestland 54 Troms og Finnmarkb AustAgder/Vest-Agder

Oppland/Hedmark

Møre og Romsdal/ Trøndelag Oppland/Viken

Hordaland/Bergen Akershus/Oslo Vestfold/Buskerud

Time of Type of change change From/to county Border adjustments in inhabited areas 0929 Åmli part transferred to 0830 Nissedal 1.1.1964 Aust-Agder/Telemark (Espestølgrenda) 0726 Brunlanes part transferred to 1.1.1964 Vestfold/Telemark 0805 Porsgrunn (the farms Enigheten, Høyberg and Skavåsen) 0824 Gransherad part transferred to 0604 Kongsberg 1.1.1964 Telemark/Buskerud 0727 Hedrum part transferred to 0811 Siljan 1.1.1964 Vestfold/Telemark 0727 Hedrun part transferred to 0805 Porsgrunn 1.1.1964 Vestfold/Telemark 1154 Skjold part transferred to 1216 Sveio 1.1.1964 Rogaland/Hordaland (Flatnæs-Buvik-area) 0929 Åmli transferred to 1.1.1965 Vest-Agder/Telemark 0830 Nissedal (the farms Espestøl, Reinfoss and Espestølstykket) 0440 Kvikne part transferred to 1635 Rennebu (Innset sogn (parish), the rest of the municipality transferred To 0437 Tynset) 1.1.1966 Hedmark/Sør-Trøndelag 0811 Siljan part transferred to 0727 Hedrum (the property 1.1.1968 Telemark/Vestfold Svarttangen) 0511 Dovre part transferred to 1.1.1970 Oppland/Hedmark 0439 Folldal (the three Western farms Bergsengsetergårdene) 0437 Tynset part transferred to 1635 Rennebu (part of the 1.1.1970 Hedmark/Sør-Trøndelag property Garlia) 0220 Asker part transferred to Akershus/Buskerud 0627 Røyken (cadastral unit 1.1.1996 number 6, 9, 10, 13, 17 property unit number 1, 5, 7, 13) 1911 Kvæfjord (part of basic statistical unit 0101 Vestre Godjford and the whole basic statistical unit 0102 Østre Godfjord) transferred to 1.1.1999 Troms/Nordland 1870 Sortland with new basic statistical unit number 0310 Godfjord Border adjustments in uninhabited areas 0231 Skedsmo part transferred to 0301 Oslo 1.1.1980 Akershus/Oslo 0233 Nittedal part transferred to 0301 Oslo (Danielshøgde, 1.1.1984 Akershus/Oslo Sandungen) 0519 Sør-Fron part transferred through boundary description to 0439 Folldal (cadastral unit 28.9.1990 Oppland/Hedmark number 1, property unit number 4 and parts of property unit number 1) Source: Juvkam (1999:86–89) and Statistics Norway (2020). a Trøndelag also has a Sami name: Trööndelage b Romsa ja Finnmárku is the Sami name of Troms and Finnmark, and Tromssa ja Finmarkku is the Kven name of Troms and Finnmark

112

References Adresseavisen (2020) Kommunereformen har ikke gjort Norge bedre. Målene er ikke nådd. Adressa.no. Available via https://www.adressa. no/meninger/leder/2020/02/19/Kommunereformen-­har-­ikke-­gjort-­ Norge-­bedre-­21123753.ece Bullmann U (1997) Regional Integration in the EU  – a German perspective. Paper presented to 'Local and Regional Integration in the EU', March 7 - 8, Odense Dagre T (1997) The history of Norway. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Oslo Danielsen R, Hovland E (1995) Part III 1814-1945. In: Danielsen R, Dyrvik S, Gronlie T, Helle K, Hovland E (eds) Norway: a history from the Vikings to our own times. Scandinavian University Press, Oslo Dyrvik S (1995) Part II 1536-1814. In: Danielsen R, Dyrvik S, Gronlie T, Helle K, Hovland E (eds) Norway: a history from the Vikings to our own times. Scandinavian University Press, Oslo Ervik R, Kuhnle S (1993) Sosial kunnskap, risiko og sosialpolitikk. In: Ervik R, Kuhnle S (eds) Kunnskap, risiko og sosialpolitikk. Institusjonelle perspektiver på skandinavisk utvikling, Alma Mater, Bergen Eurostat (2020) NUTS – Nomenclatura of territorial units for statistics. Available via https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/nuts/background Fimreite AL (1997) Kommunene. In: Fimreite A-L (ed) Forskerblikk på Norge. En oppsummering fra satsningsområdet: Ledelse, organisasjon og styring. Tano Aschehoug, Oslo Fimreite AL, Grindheim JE (2001) Offentlig forvaltning. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo Fjeldstad Ø (2019) Storfylket Viken ble for stort for Nav. Velferd.no. Available via https://velferd.no/velferd/2019/ storfylket-­viken-­ble-­for-­stort-­for-­nav Fylkesmannen i Agder (2020) Fagområder. Available via https://www. fylkesmannen.no/agder/ Glenthøj R, Ottoson mn (2014) 1814: krig, nederlag, frihet: Danmark-­ Norge under Napoleonskrigene. Spartacus, Oslo Grindheim JE (1986) Velferd eller veldedighet? En analyse av frivillige organisasjoners rolle i utviklingen av alkoholistomsorgen i Norge. Institutt for sammenliknende politick, Universitetet i Bergen Grindheim JE (1994) Towards a ‘new state’ in social policy? Changing perspectives of the Norwegian welfare state. In: Bucar B, Kuhnle S (eds) Small states compared: politics of Norway and Slovenia, Alma Mater, Bergen Grindheim JE (1998) Europeisk regionalisering og norsk regionalpolitikk i 1990-årene – aktører, strategier, prosesser. Norsk statsvitenskapelig tidsskrift 14(1):38–66 Grindheim JE (1999) Regionaliseringen i Europa og norsk utenrikspolitikk. The Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. [report 1/99], Oslo Grindheim JE (2009) Stat, Region, Union – Flernivåstyre i Den europeiske union. PhD dissertation, Department of Comparative Politics, University of Bergen Grindheim JE, Heidar K, Strøm KW (2017) Norsk politikk. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo Grønlie T (1987) Velferdskommune og utjevningsstat 1945-1970. In: Næss HE, Hovland E, Grønlie T, Baldersheim H, Danielsen R (eds) Folkestyre i by og bygd, norske kommuner gjennom 150 år. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo Hatland A, Kuhnle S, Romøren TI (eds) (2018) Den norske velferdsstaten, 5th edn. Gyldendal, Oslo Helander E (1992) The Sami of Norway. The Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Available via http://odin.dep.no/ud/nornytt/uda-­ 309.html. Helljesen V (2017) NRK-gjennomgang av nei-kommunene: Preges av forgubbing og fraflytting. Available via https://www.nrk.no/norge/

J. E. Grindheim nrk-­gjennomgang-­av-­nei-­kommunene_-­preges-­av-­forgubbing-­og-­ fraflytting-­1.13644969 Hellandsvik P (2003) New Health Organization in Norway. Government run hospitals. Consequences for research and health services. Ministry of Health, Oslo Helle K (1995) Part I down to 1536. In: Danielsen R, Dyrvik S, Gronlie T, Helle K, Hovland E (eds) Norway: a history from the Vikings to our own times. Scandinavian University Press, Oslo Juvkam D (1999) Historisk oversikt over endringer i kommune- og ­fylkesinndelingen. Statistics Norway. [Report 99/13], Oslo Kalvehagen M N (2020) Har sitt beste valgkampminne fra Aust-­ Agder, men Arendalsuka kunne han vært foruten. Agderposten.no. Available via https://www.agderposten.no/nyheter/har-­sitt-­beste-­ valgkampminne-­fra-­aust-­agder-­men-­arendalsuka-­kunne-­han-­vaert-­ foruten/ Kartverkert (2020) Fylkes- og kommuneoversikt. Available via https://www.kartverket.no/kunnskap/Fakta-­om-­Norge/Fylker-­og-­ kommuner/Tabell/ Kristiansen BS (2018) Erkjenner at regionreformen var en hestehandel. Dagsavisen.no. Available via https://www.dagsavisen.no/nyheter/ innenriks/erkjenner-­a t-­r egionreformen-­var-­e n-­h estehandel-­1 . 1180808 Langset M, Vinsand G (2017) Regionale strukturers betydning for arbeidet med samfunnssikkerhet og beredskap på Østlandet. NIVI-­ report 2017:5. Available via. http://www.nivianalyse.no/images/ rapporter/2017/NIVI_Rapport_2017_5_Regionale_strukturers_ betydning_for_samfunnssikkerhet_og_beredskap.pdf Moseng OG (2019) Svartedauden. Store norske leksikon. Available via https://snl.no/svartedauden Myhre JE (2017) Befolkningsøkningen. Norgeshistorie.no. Available via https://www.norgeshistorie.no/bygging-­av-­stat-­og-­nasjon/hus-­ og-­hjem/1406-­befolkningsokningen.html Nagel AH (1991) Innledning. Kommunene og velferden. In: Nagel A-H (ed) Velferdskommunen. Kommunenes rolle i utviklingen av velferdsstaten, Alma Mater, Bergen Nordby T (2010) Grunnlov og styreform. Norge 1814-2010. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo Norwegian Ministry of Government, Administration and Church Affairs (2013) Fylkesmannsrollen. Utvikling og utfordring. Departementenes servicesenter. Available via https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/fad/vedlegg/statsforvaltning/fylkesmenn/fylkesmannsrollen.pdf Norwegian Ministry of Health (2003) The Norwegian Hospital Reform – Central government assumes responsibility for hospitals. Available via http://odin.dep.no/shd/sykehusreformen/ NOU 2016:4 (2016) Ny kommunelov. Departementenes sikkerhets- og serviceorganisasjon. Informasjonsforvaltning, Oslo NOU 2016:25 (2016) Organisering og styring av spesialisthe­ lsetjenesten– Hvordan bør statens eierskap innrettes framover? Departementenes sikkerhets- og serviceorganisasjon. Informasjonsfor valtning, Oslo Office of the Prime Minister (2013) Political platform for a government formed by the Conservative Party and the Progress Party (Sundvolden-plattformen). Available via https://www.regjeringen. no/contentassets/a93b067d9b604c5a82bd3b5590096f74/politisk_ platform_eng.pdf Orning HJ (2015) Kalmarunionen. Norgeshistorie.no. Available via https://www.norgeshistorie.no/senmiddelalder/makt-­og-­ politikk/1010-­kalmarunionen.html Oslo Municipality (2019) Befolkning etter administrativ bydel, landbakgrunn og alder  – 2019, Landbakgrunn. Statistikkbanken. Available via http://statistikkbanken.oslo.kommune.no/webview/ Pederson OP, Krossli JI (2017) Nå har vi 426 kommuner i Norge. Available via https://kommunal-­rapport.no/kommunestruktur/2017/01/ na-­har-­vi-­426-­kommuner-­i-­norge

10 Norway Petersson O (1994) The government and politics of the Nordic countries. Fritzes, Stockholm Regjeringen (2017) Historisk utvikling. Den norske kommunestrukturen opp gjennom tidene (1873-2013). Regjeringen.no. Available via https://www.regjeringen.no/no/tema/kommuner-­og-­regioner/ kommunereform/utviklingen-­av-­d en-­n orske-­kommunestruktu/ id751352/ Regjeringen (2019) Reform of local government. Available via https://www.regjeringen.no/no/tema/kommuner-­o g-­r egioner/ kommunereform/reform-­of-­local-­government/id2548429/ Regjeringen (2020) Regionreform. Regjeringen.no. Available via https://www.regjeringen.no/no/tema/kommuner-­o g-­r egioner/ regionreform/id2628044/ Rogstad L, Stølen NM, Jakobsen T, Schøning P (2001) Regional statistikk og analyse  – strategier og prioriteringer. Statistics Norway. [Notat 2001/9], Oslo Seip A-L (1991) Velferdskommunen og velferdstrekanten – et tilbakeblikk. In: Nagel A-H (ed) Velferdskommunen. Kommunenes rolle i utviklingen av velferdsstaten, Alma Mater, Bergen Statistics Norway (2004) Statistisk sentralbyrå 1876-2001. Available via www.ssb.no/histstat/div/div_02.pdf Statistics Norway (2017) Classification of regional special codes. Available via https://www.ssb.no/en/klass/klassifikasjoner/4 Statistics Norway (2018) Classification of economic regions. Available via https://www.ssb.no/en/klass/klassifikasjoner/108

113 Statistics Norway (2019) Innvandrere. Statistics Norway. Available via https://www.ssb.no/innvandring-­og-­innvandrere/faktaside/innvandring Statistics Norway (2020) Endringer i de regionale inndelingene. Available via https://www.ssb.no/offentlig-­sektor/kommunekatalog/ endringer-­i-­de-­regionale-­inndelingene Steen S (1968) Lokalt selvstyre i Norges bygder. J.W.Cappelens Forlag A/S, Oslo St. meld. nr. 31 (2000-2001) Kommune, fylke, stat – en bedre oppgavefordeling. Statens forvaltningstjeneste. Available via https://www. regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/stmeld-­nr-­31-­2000-­2001-­/id194354/ St. meld. nr. 19 (2001-2002). Nye oppgaver for lokaldemokratiet  – regionalt og lokalt nivå. Statens forvaltningstjeneste. Available via https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/ stmeld-­nr-­19-­2001-­2002-­/id195855/ Sønstebø A (2018) Samisk statistikk 2018. Reports 2018/5. Statistics Norway. Available at https://www.ssb.no/befolkning/ artikler-­og-­publikasjoner/_attachment/339026?_ts=16151cb7dd0 The Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway (2020) Lovdata.no. Available via https://lovdata.no/dokument/NLE/lov/1814-­05-­17/ ARTIKKEL_1 Valgdirektoratet (2020) Stemmerett. Available at https://www.valg.no/ valg-­i-­norge/deg-­og-­valget/stemmerett/stemmerett/ Viken fylkeskommune (2020) Om Viken fylkeskommune. Available via https://viken.no/om-­fylkeskommunen/fylkeskommunens-­oppgaver-­og-­ ansvar/

11

Denmark Per Grau Møller

Fig. 11.1  Denmark and its regions

11.1 State Formation1 Denmark (Fig. 11.1) was a united state from around 1000. With runic letters on a stone at the church in Jelling (Eastern P. G. Møller (*) Institute of History, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark e-mail: [email protected]

This chapter is based on the authorised web encyclopaedia Gyldendal (ed.) Den store danske encyclopædi http://www.denstoredanske.dk  – Denmark: history; Bregnsbo and Jensen (2004).

1 

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. Martí-Henneberg (ed.), European Regions, 1870 – 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61537-6_11

115

116

P. G. Møller

Fig. 11.2  Scandinavia and Baltic states, 1918–2020

Jutland), King Harald (Blue Tooth) claims that he ‘had these stones made after Gorm his father and after Thyra his mother—that Harald who won all Denmark and Norway and made the Danes Christian’.2 The stone is dated around 965  AD and testifies the transition from a realm of chieftains or dukes to a kingdom based on a coalition with the Church. Harald and his forefathers are predecessors of the present royal family, although not in direct line. The regional structure is not known, but a division into hundreds might go back to the Viking Age. The name in Danish (‘herred’— ‘hær’ means army) might indicate a military division, but more documented is that a hundred around the year 1200 was known as the basic jurisdictional unit (and functioned till 1956). The capital of the realm was moved to Roskilde on Zealand in the beginning of the medieval period—1070 Roskilde is mentioned as the capital of the Danes—and the cathedral of Roskilde was the burial place of the king’s family (and still is). But in the beginning of the fifteenth century, The Danish National Museum Web: https://en.natmus.dk/historicalknowledge/denmark/prehistoric-period-until-1050-ad/the-viking-age/ the-monuments-at-jelling/the-jelling-stone/ quoted 13-02-2020.

2 

the kingdom started consolidating Copenhagen as capital with seat at the castle of Copenhagen. In the Viking period the Danish kings Svend Tveskæg and Knud the Great reigned over parts of Britain, but soon after Knud’s death in 1035 it was reduced to areas in the Baltic region (Fig.  11.2). Norway and parts of Sweden belonged periodically in this century to Denmark, but Norway was conquered and included in 1028 and lost again in 1035. During the period 1157–1241 (named the Valdemar-period from two of the three kings), expansion took place in the Baltic area (Estonia, and areas along the Baltic Sea, including Holsten), but this ended by the defeat in 1227 at Bornhøved. Soon afterwards the two Nordic countries slipped out of the hands of the Danish kingdom. Furthermore, the realm was marked by internal problems and economic debt, which meant mortgaging to merchants and dukes in Holsten. In 1381 Norway and Denmark were again united under the Danish king, through marriage between the Danish princess Margrethe and the Norwegian king Håkon 6th. Margrethe was the real regent after her husband’s and their son’s death in 1387—and soon also integrated Sweden. In 1397, the Calmar Union was formally established between the three realms under Danish supremacy. Norway stayed

11 Denmark

under Danish king until 1814 with certain autonomy, but following the Danish administrative rules, while Sweden (and Finland) finally dropped out in 1523, when Gustav Vasa became king. In the course of the seventeenth century Denmark and Sweden clashed in wars, the most decisive in the years 1657– 1660. Denmark was the inferior part in relation to the Swedish king, who had ambitions of being a great power in the Baltic area. As a result of the peace treaty in 1659, Denmark lost the provinces Scania, Halland and Blekinge east of Øresund to Sweden. These provinces had originally been part of the Danish realm with an important archbishop diocese in Lund and made the position of the capital on Zealand geographically natural. The situation after the defeat of 1659 left Denmark with huge internal economic and political problems. The outcome was an introduction of absolutism almost by one stroke and a reduction in the power of the nobility to the benefit of the hereditary monarchy whose institution was strengthened by the king’s law of 1665, formalising absolutism and the role of the king. Absolutism gradually meant a bureaucratisation of Danish society where the estates of the noblemen played a central role as a decentral executor of power. Taxation was modernised with a new land register in 1688, a new law codex was introduced in 1683 by King Christian V and other initiatives were taken to standardise Danish society, also by introducing new collegial administrative system. Belonging to the Danish realm are or have been also three islands in the Atlantic: the Faeroe Islands, Iceland and Greenland. These had a more natural relation to Norway, but as Norway belonged to Denmark, Danish supremacy was the case. This was not changed at the Vienna Congress in 1814. Iceland became an independent republic in 1944, and the Faeroe Islands and Greenland still belong to Denmark but will not be treated below.

11.1.1 The Duchies Slesvig and Holsten in the Danish State3 The provinces Slesvig and Holsten have a special relation to Denmark. From the twelfth century the area of Slesvig or South Jutland was used as a duchy for younger sons of the Danish king, and in 1232 it was formally established that Abel, son of King Valdemar II, was appointed duke of South Jutland. Gradually the duke took over rights of the This chapter is based on  Gyldendal (ed.) Den store danske encyclopædi http://www.denstoredanske.dk; Adriansen et al. (2011).

3 

117

king and established an autonomous duchy. Slesvig had always a relation to the Danish kingdom. Holsten was originally seat of several counts under German supremacy, but as the remaining count line died out in 1459, Holsten was united under the Danish king, and in 1474 formalised as an autonomous duchy, in line with Slesvig. In spite of this, Holsten remained part of the German-Roman Empire till 1806 and of the German Union from 1815 to 1866. In 1815, the duchy Lauenburg (southeast of Holsten) was given to Denmark at the Vienna Congress as compensation for the loss of Norway. As duchies, these regions had certain autonomy in relation to legislation and administration; for instance a special office in the central administration was handling cases from the duchies, called German Office (Tyske Kancelli), which also dealt with foreign affairs. More complicated was the situation as the Danish king was duke in parts of the duchies in line with other dukes in the duchy. These dukes originated from the same family, but insisted on their rights as dukes; over time (1490, 1544, 1580), several divisions were made between these lines to facilitate and make the situation less complicated. From 1720, the Danish king was the sole duke in Slesvig. Culturally, the duchies were a borderland between German and Danish culture and language. This mixture only became a problem when the feelings of nationalism arose in the nineteenth century. The Danish government tried to integrate Slesvig more into Danish constitution on the expense of Holsten, which caused great protests in the German parts of the duchies and ended in two wars, 1848–1850 and 1864. The first one was more a civil war, which was won by Danish troops, whereas the war of 1864 involved Prussia and Austria. As a result of the Danish loss in the field and at the table, the duchies were handed over to Prussia, later the German Empire, and the old border between the kingdom and the duchy of Slesvig, Kongeåen (the king’s river), was made to the border between Denmark and Germany. After World War I, a referendum was undertaken in Slesvig in 1920, and the northern part of the area was subjected to Danish rule according to the national votes.

11.2 Levels of Government and Functions 11.2.1 The Medieval and Premodern Period Regional division was always part of the Danish central government in order to administering local communities. From the medieval period is known the office as vassal (lensmand) who was appointed by the king to take care of the king’s

118

interest in his local area. Usually, he was a nobleman. In 1320 the king admitted in a charter with the council of noblemen that a vassal had to be born in the Danish area, and in 1483 the king was obliged in a charter to appoint a nobleman. His job was first of all to collect taxes from the peasants and citizens and deliver these to the king. But furthermore, he was the stronghold of the king in his local area. Among the tasks of a vassal was that he had to announce the laws of the king and keep justice in his area—with the help of district bailiffs in each district area, called hundred (‘herred’). He was to see the execution of all verdicts and to collect the fines from the population of his area (Jørgensen 1985, 21–30). Outside the range of the vassals were the towns, which were administered directly from the central administration. The towns differed from the rural areas by their general history being given privileges by the king from which followed their specific trades, citizen rights and internal administration. This was a paradox because in many cases the castle of the vassal and later of the county was situated in a town and later the regional district was named from the town. It was the case that towns were outside the regional division until 1970. By the introduction of the absolutism in 1660—more abrupt and legalised in Denmark-Norway that in any other country—the institution of the vassal was also reformed, but not radically. In 1662 the name changed into county (‘amt’), but the divisions were not revised until 1793. In 1642 the number was 45 vassals, in 1662 the number was 49 counties, but gradually their number was reduced to 24 in 1793. A great reform initiated in that year reduced their number to 18, which turned out to be sustainable (Jørgensen 1985, 83–85). The reason for their reduction was economic-administrative. Generally, the tasks of a count official were the same in the period of absolutism, namely as the local administrator of the central government. But as the official tasks of the public sector developed, the tasks of the count officials were also enlarged. The fields of teaching, health, social welfare developed gradually as well as more practical tasks as roads, agriculture (especially enclosure was a great task in the period 1780–1810) were led by the count official. The reform of 1662 meant an introduction of a new independent administration in line with the counties, called ‘amtsstue’. They were responsible for collecting all taxes from the local areas and they were generally covering the same spatial areas as the counties, with exceptions. The officer as head of an ‘amtsstue’ was a ‘amtsskriver’, from around 1700 called ‘amtsforvalter’. From 1662 a new regional office was established in combination with the clerical regional division into dioceses, a diocese count. His task was next to administering civil tasks within the diocese to be supervisor of the counties within his district— this task ended during the 1700s. But a diocese count continued to exist disregarding changes in the structure of the counties.

P. G. Møller

11.2.2 The Reform of 1842 A bigger reform of the local administrative system was initiated in 1842 as first step towards democratisation of the Danish society—a decisive step was the constitution of 1849 introducing the parliament. On local level, municipalities were introduced consisting of councils on parish level. Members of the council were the minister and big landowners living in the municipality (more than 32 tønder hartkorn [barrels of hard grain], almost 4 times a normal farm). Furthermore, four to nine members were elected from among the male population with age 25 or more and who were farming a unit consisting of more than 1 tønde hartkorn. A municipality was dealing with local questions concerning schools, charity and local infrastructure. At the same time, the counties were made part of this first democratic-based local administrative system. In each county, a county council was erected headed by the count (‘amtmand’). Furthermore, a clergy dean was appointed from the county by the central administration. Six members of the county council were elected on different basis: three members were elected from among the big landowners of the county (only two if they did not own more than half of the land of the county) and three to four were elected by the representatives of the municipalities—to be an elective you should be a farmer with more than four tønder hartkorn (freeholder) or five tønder hartkorn (tenant). The county councils had influence on the taxes to the county and the use of the revenue; the administration of the county and its tasks and the central appointment of the county man remained unchanged (Jørgensen 1985, 257ff). As mentioned above, the number of counties was 18 from the end of the eighteenth century. After 1842, three counties had established a subdivision, called ‘amtsrådskreds’, to facilitate a subdivision of the political organisation, and among them one was at interval between two individual counties (Århus and Skanderborg were individual counties during 1824–1867 and again during 1942– 1970). The regulation of borders after the Vienna Treaty of 1864 meant that areas formerly belonging to the duchy of Slesvig were made part of the kingdom. This involved (1) some areas around Ribe, which were integrated into Ribe county, (2) eight parishes southeast of Kolding that became part of Vejle county, and (3) the island of Ærø, which was made part of Svendborg county. In 1920, as a result of the Versailles Treaty of 1919, the northern part of the former duchy was reunited with the kingdom and four new counties were established: Tønder, Haderslev, Åbenrå and Sønderborg. The two last mentioned were united into one county in 1932, but two ‘amtsrådskredse’ were maintained.

11 Denmark

11.2.3 The Reform of 1970 A big reform was introduced in 1970, and as in 1842 there was a close interaction with the lowest level of administration in the municipalities. All municipalities were reformed into bigger units in the years preceding 1970—the first ones initiated on local initiative and in 1970 a commission with state representatives ordered that the municipalities be formed into units of a certain size. The number of municipalities was reduced from 86 town municipalities and 1200 parish municipalities to 277 municipalities, now called primary municipalities. The number of counties was likewise, but not so drastically, reduced from 22 counties (25 ‘amtsrådskredse’) to 14 new counties, called county municipalities. The two municipalities in the capital, Copenhagen and Frederiksberg, were not included into a county, but had identity as primary and county municipalities. The reasons behind this reform were several. First of all, the municipalities and the counties had become too small to meet the financial and administrative-technical challenges from the growing welfare society. Within teaching, social and healthcare, technical devices (municipalities) and healthcare and hospitalities (counties), the existing units had become too small. Secondly, urban development (industry, dwellings, social infrastructure) took place on the basis of existing towns and new urban centres. For these purposes, the administrative unit of a town was not suitable as development happened in the surrounding rural areas. Furthermore, it was waste of resources and confusing having an administrative two-string system with double hospitals, schools and offices for the population in the same area, while the towns were no longer an individual unit. In the municipalities, a modern adjusted political system was established with a lord major appointed by a majority of the new municipality parliament (only in the four big towns, a reminiscence of the medieval town’s alderman, several lord majors were appointed within different areas and one Chief Burgomaster). More radically was the organisation of the new county municipalities changed. As head of the county was now a politically elected board, that appointed a ‘county lord major’ from its midst. There were elections every four years in as well the primary as the county municipalities. The county lord major was now head of the administration of county and its many new tasks: these concerned hospitals, healthcare, colleges (gymnasium), regional planning, regional roads, environment and nature. The number and size of county municipalities were fixed in order to make a sustainable administration, as well in relation to administrative tasks and their professional solutions as to economic considerations. The economic basis of the counties was taxes,

119

which they were allowed to levy on the basis of income— on line with the state and the primary municipalities. The office as diocese count existed also after the reform of 1970. But his tasks were more limited and concentrated on questions within family right (divorce, alimentation, adoption etc.). He was still appointed centrally and somehow the last piece of this feudal institution. The integration of Denmark into the European Common Market in 1973 and the integration into the European Union in 1993 did not mean any changes to the internal infrastructure.

11.2.4 The Reform of 2007 This structure of the counties was radically changed by 2007 (Fig. 11.1). In 2004 the liberal government decided to abolish the counties as a regional level with the right to levy taxes, which had existed since the Middle Ages. Only the state and the (primary) municipalities were administrative units and the municipalities were the only entrance for the citizen to the public authorities. The number of municipalities was reduced from 277 to 98 aiming at economical and professional sustainability. But in spite of this regions were introduced as an administrative level, especially with hospitals as their main task and furthermore regional planning and environmental tasks. But the regions did not have the right to levy taxes, and they were dependent on contributions from the state to finance the hospitals and from the municipalities to its other tasks. Anyhow, they had a politically elected council that appointed its leader. The 14 counties (and two capital municipalities) were transformed into 5 regions based on the big university hospitals in the country. This reform was more a result of temporary political agendas than of a long-felt need to reform the administrative structure. The title of a political science book indicates this very well, The Unthinkable Reform. The reform of the hospital sector was the most deeply felt desire for reform, while the argument of tax levy and reduction in taxation was more populist. The reform had only a small majority in the parliament (Christiansen and Klitgaard 2008).

Appendix In 2020, status is unchanged: we still have a level of 5 regions and 98 municipalities with unchanged portfolios. There are political discussions about equalisation among the municipalities of the expenses for keeping the welfare state at a fair level, but this does not affect the division of the municipalities.

120

Sources and Further Reading References Adriansen I et al (eds) (2011) Sønderjylland A – Å (historical encyclopedia). Historisk Samfund for Sønderjylland, Aabenraa Boje P et al (eds) (1991) Folkestyre i by og på land. Danske kommuner gennem 150 år. Poul Kristensens Forlag, Herning Bregnsbo M, Jensen KV (2004) Det danske imperium: storhed og fald. Aschehoug, København Christiansen PM, Klitgaard MB (2008) Den utænkelige reform. Strukturreformens tilblivelse 2002–2005. Syddansk Universitetsforlag, Odense

P. G. Møller The Danish National Museum  – Web: https://en.natmus.dk/ historical-­knowledge/denmark/prehistoric-­period-­until-­1050-­ad/ the-­viking-­age/the-­monuments-­at-­jelling/the-­jelling-­stone Frandsen KE (1984) Atlas over Danmarks administrative inddeling efter 1660, vol I–II. Dansk Historisk Fællesforening, København Gyldendal (1985) Den store danske encyclopædi. Available online at www.denstoredanske.dk Jørgensen H (1985) Lokal administration i Danmark. Oprindelse og historisk udvikling indtil 1970. En oversigt. Administrationshistoriske Studier nr. 11. G.E.C. Gads forlag, København

12

Iceland Gunnar Helgi Kristinsson

Fig. 12.1  Iceland and its constituencies

12.1 State Formation The impetus for the formation of an Icelandic state (Fig. 12.1), as it emerged during the first half of the twentieth century, came to a certain extent from the development

G. H. Kristinsson (*) University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland e-mail: [email protected]

of a national state in nineteenth-century Denmark. Standardisation of law, administration and language in the Danish state made the largely rural population of Iceland increasingly sceptical of the ability and willingness of the Danish administration to safeguard its interests in an age of secularisation and urbanisation (Hálfdanarson 1993). Hence, a nationalist movement gradually emerged during the second half of the nineteenth century, composed party of liberal intellectuals but with a mass basis mainly in the

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. Martí-Henneberg (ed.), European Regions, 1870 – 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61537-6_12

121

122

G. H. Kristinsson

Fig. 12.2  Scandinavia and Baltic states, 1918–2020

conservative farming population. The independence movement found a common ground in a historical and legal argumentation for national autonomy, but hardly shared a social ideology. Icelandic nationalism was built on the basis of history and culture. The Icelandic nation, in the view of the nationalist movement, had a thousand years of documented history and a distinctive culture which—along with several legal considerations—entitled it to a political structure separate from the Danish state. Iceland was settled during the Viking expansion in Scandinavia (Fig. 12.2), primarily by Norwegians and their slave population of Celtic origins. The settlers established an assembly (the Althingi) in 930, based on Norwegian models. During the Commonwealth period (930–1262), the Althingi laid down the law and settled disputes, but the enforcement of its decisions was in private hands, based partly on a system of chieftains and partly on complex rules of kinship obligations. This was essentially a weak system of enforcement and made society increasingly vulnerable to power struggles between the different clans and chieftains. Although Christianity was adopted by a decision of the Althingi in the year 1000 the church did not become a force which could restrain the struggles of the chieftains and during the thir-

teenth century the country was ablaze with internal warfare. The kings of Norway attempted to utilise the unrest in the country for their own advantage and in 1262 the Icelanders accepted the Old Treaty, whereby the king would promise peace and to uphold the law in exchange for the allegiance of the Icelandic chieftains. The settlement and the age of the Commonwealth were the background to the Icelandic sagas, which became the standard reference point during the campaign for independence as the golden age of the Icelanders. By contrast, the period of foreign domination, which followed, was considered the age of poverty and humiliation. The country became increasingly isolated and even the language—old Norse— gradually became unintelligible to Scandinavians who were increasingly affected by German influence during the heyday of the Hanseatic League. With the end of the Kalmar Union—which for a time united the Nordic states under a common crown—the kingship of Iceland moved from Norwegian into Danish hands. Thus, when Norway was separated from Denmark at the end of the Napoleonic Wars (joining a union with Sweden instead), Iceland remained part of the Danish kingdom. The Icelanders made no objections to this, as far as can be seen.

12 Iceland

When, however, absolutist rule came to an end in Denmark in 1848, the Icelanders maintained that the union with Denmark had been a personal one with the king, in accordance with the Old Treaty, and hence with the abolition of absolutism Iceland should receive separate legislative and executive powers, even if it remained part of the Danish kingdom. While these demands initially did not meet with a favourable response in Copenhagen, the elements of an independent Icelandic state gradually fell in place between 1874 and 1944. • 1871–1874: The Danish government unilaterally legislated that Iceland should be part of the Danish state but with its own special rights, including a legislative assembly (subject to veto by the king) and a Governor General, answerable to the Ministry for Icelandic Affairs in Copenhagen. Iceland at that point (1874) received its first constitution, largely modelled on the Danish one but with special provisions, for example, concerning the Governor General. • 1904: Iceland received Home Rule in 1904 in the wake of the liberal victory in Denmark in 1901 and the introduction of parliamentary rule. With Home Rule, Iceland received its own minister, responsible to the Althingi although formally part of the Danish cabinet. A new structure for central administration was established in Reykjavik, replacing the Governor General and the Ministry for Icelandic Affairs in Copenhagen. • 1918: Iceland obtained sovereignty in 1918 but remained in a union with Denmark. The Union Treaty established several areas of cooperation between the two states, apart from a joint king, including joint citizenship and diplomatic services. The treaty included provisions for its revision and eventually dissolution if a renewed agreement could not be reached between the two states. • 1944: Iceland decided to end the union with Denmark and establish the Republic of Iceland in 1944. While symbolically important, as the final note in the struggle for independence, this event was of much smaller political consequence than the other three noted above. According to the constitution, Iceland is a republic with a parliamentary form of government. Although the president is popularly elected his office, under normal circumstances, has very limited political influence and presidential elections tend to be non-partisan (Kristinsson 1999). Ambiguities in the text of the constitution, however, leave some scope for different interpretations of the president’s role. The most powerful figure in the Icelandic political system is the prime minister, but the fact that the country as a rule is governed by coalition governments (usually with two or three and on one occasions four coalition partners) puts a limit to his influence.

123

12.2 Levels of Government Iceland is the most sparsely populated country in Europe but its population is the most homogenous one. Since 1986 there has been only one level of local government, the communes (sveitarfélög). The largest commune by far is Reykjavik, with 129 thousand inhabitants but the others range from 40 inhabitants to 37 thousand. Among the main responsibilities of the communes are the elementary school, various social and health services, culture, sports and local planning and infrastructure. Many of the communes are too small to take care of all their responsibilities on their own. In such cases, clusters of communes often form regional boards (byggðasamlög) on an ad hoc basis to manage individual tasks jointly. Even so, the services of the smaller communes tend to be much more limited than those of the larger ones. Local government in Iceland has fewer tasks than in the Scandinavian states. Thus, local government accounts for only one third of total government consumption compared to an average of two thirds in Scandinavia (Kristinsson 2001). Despite some increase in the tasks of local government in recent years, such as the handing over of the elementary school in 1996 and a greater role in servicing disabled people in 2011, the local level remains weak and ill-prepared in many ways to take on new tasks. A major reason why greater tasks have not been handed over to the local level is the large number of very small communes which have great difficulties in handling even their present tasks, let alone taking on new ones. The communal structure was shaped at a time when the vast majority of the country’s inhabitants was spread throughout the rural areas and travel—or any kind of communication—was difficult. Modern local government was introduced in 1872 as part an attempt by the Danes to modernise the administrative structure of Iceland. While the system of local government was based largely on a Danish model, the boundaries of the communes tended to be drawn in accordance with the old Icelandic system of communes (hreppar) which prevailed from the eleventh century until 1808 (when the last vestiges of local self-government were abolished). Despite extensive urbanisation in the twentieth century many of the old communes prevailed, although with a reduced number of inhabitants, as the towns tended to be organised into new communes, separate from their rural surroundings. Two policy alternatives have in recent decades been presented as solutions to the large number of small communes. One is the establishment and strengthening of a second level of local government which would be strong enough to take over greater tasks from the state. The other is the amalgamation of local governments to create larger and more viable units. The second alternative has been the preferred one, although progress along the path of amalgamation has been far from swift or efficient. In practice, various forms of inter-­

124

communal cooperation remain the predominant method of adapting to smallness. At the outset, in 1872, the local government system was more complex and multi-layered than the one prevailing today, including three levels of local government in the rural areas. These were the communes (hreppur), county-boards (sýslufélög) and the regional boards (amtsráð). The first was elected directly by voters but the others were based on indirect representation. The county-boards supervised the activities of the communes and performed quite a number of tasks themselves. The regional boards in turn supervised the county boards in addition to being in charge of local government generally in their respective regions. The regional boards were abolished in 1907, in the wake of Home Rule in Iceland, and the Ministry in Reykjavik took over their tasks. Gradually the tasks of the county boards were also reduced and their tasks transferred either to the communes (which originally had been concerned primarily with poor relief) or to central government (Guðmundsson 1943). By 1986 separate county boards were no longer felt to be needed and were abolished with the revision of the local government act that year. The towns (kaupstaðir)—each of which had been established with separate legislation granting them township status—were integrated into the general legislation at that point as well, creating a single, uniform level of local government in Iceland. The large number of small communes created a number of problems in the local government system, not least the inability of the smaller communes to perform their tasks adequately. This has been widely recognised at least since the second half of the twentieth century. The county boards were not popular in the communes which probably explains the lack of appeal of a second level of local government as a solution to the problem of smallness, along with the fact that the entire population of Iceland (360 thousand) would easily fit into a single regional unit in the neighbouring states. Until the 1990s, the central government applied a generous transfer system to the smaller communes without offering at the same time strong incentives to join into larger units (Table 12.1). During the 1990s the central government began applying its policy tools more efficiently to promote amalgamations, and, in addition, handed over the elementary school which provided a strong incentive to many of the smaller units to unify, since they were unable to handle the new task on their own. But some of them still apply commune corporations for the task (byggðasamlög) or pay for services from neighbouring communes. The smallness of many communes and the lack of a second level of local government appear to be the main reasons for the smaller tasks of local government in Iceland ­compared to Scandinavia. This, however, offers only a partial explanation. What needs to be explained in addition is why central government never applied forced amalgamations.

G. H. Kristinsson Table 12.1  Communes in Iceland 1901–2018

Year 1901 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2018

Inhabitants 100 or 101– less 500 5 147 3 166 6 170 7 170 12 174 36 158 41 147 40 143 49 125 47 107 23 53 6 22 7 18

500– 2000 39 32 30 29 26 27 31 32 34 34 29 25 24

2001– 10,000 1 1 3 5 5 7 8 9 12 12 14 18 16

10,000 or more – 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 4 4 5 6 7

Total 192 203 210 212 218 229 228 227 224 204 124 77 72

Based on Hagstofa Íslands (n.d.), Hagskinna (1997, p. 85), Kristinsson (2001, p. 29), Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga (n.d.)

When faced with the growth of the welfare state during the post-war period, the Social Democratic movements of Scandinavia found local government to be the proper agent to deliver expanding state services. To prepare local governments for the task, large scale reforms were carried through at the local level to make both the primary and secondary units more fit for the task. Social Democracy in Iceland, however, was much weaker than in Scandinavia and the growth of the welfare state more gradual (Ólafsson 1993) Hence, the pressure for local government reform was not of the same magnitude. The Central Government has stuck to a policy of voluntary amalgamations (Eythórsson 1998).

12.3 Political-Administrative Organisation Apart from the communal structure the geographical division of the country into units is mainly of three types. In the first place there is the regional organisation of the central administration. There is no overall structure to the regional organisation of the ministries. Each can organise locally in its own way and some do so in several ways. Thus, there are eight local courts, based to a large extent on the constituency system in force between 1959 and 2003. The health districts are 7, organised on slightly different lines, as are the 9 police districts, while tax districts were all joined into one in 2010. The constituencies used in Althingi elections are a second important geographical division. Iceland is divided into six multi-member constituencies. Parliamentarians from the same constituencies sometimes work closely together across party boundaries and the constituency groups can be an important factor in parliamentary life. The parliamentarians work jointly on various projects to support their constituencies and in some cases they de facto decide on the allocation of resources within

12 Iceland

their constituencies, for example, on the order of priorities in road building or maintenance. The ministries often use the constituencies as the reporting unit in the organisation of their statistics and even in their regional organisation. Finally, although the communes are not formally grouped into districts, they cooperate on a voluntary basis. The associations of local governments play a significant role in several respects. The commune corporations are given special legal status in the Local Government Act and provide a significant part of local government services in the country. They are particularly important in the smaller units but even Reykjavik runs some projects with its neighbours using this form. Local governments also form interest organisations, both at the regional and national level. The national organisation, Association of Local Authorities in Iceland (Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga) consults with the national government on a regular basis and receives funds from central government. Voluntary and interest organisations tend to be organised primarily at the local and national levels, but some are organised at the regional level as well, including the unions in some cases.

125

Sources and Further Reading Eythórsson G (1998) Kommunindelningspolitik i Island. CEFOS, Göteborg Guðmundsson J (1943) Var rétt að afnema ömtin? Sveitarstjórnarmál 2:4–15 Hagstofa Islands/Statistics Iceland (1997) Hagskinna. Sögulegar hagtölur um Ísland. [Icelandic Historical Statistics]. Hagstofa Íslands, Reykjavík Hagstofa Íslands/Statistics Iceland (n.d.) Web page https://hagstofa.is/ Hálfdanarson G (1993) Íslensk þjóðfélagsþróun á 19. öld. In: Hálfdanarson G, Kristjánsson S (eds) Íslensk þjóðfélagsþróun 1880–1990. Ritgerðir. Félagsvísindastofnun og Sagnfræðistofnun, Reykjavík, pp 9–58 Kristinsson GH (1999) Iceland. In: Elgie R (ed) Semi-presidentialism in Europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 86–103 Kristinsson GH (2001) Staðbundin stjórnmál. Háskólaútgáfan, Reykjavík Ólafsson S (1993) Variations within the Scandinavian Model: Iceland in a Scandinavian Comparison. In: Hansen E, Ringen S, Uusitalo H, Erikson R (eds) Welfare trends in the Scandinavian countries. M.E. Sharpe, New York Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga (n.d.) Available at www.samband.is

Part IV The Napoleonic Model

This section includes the countries whose regional and administrative structures have been more heavily influenced by the model designed by the Napoleonic reforms in France, and ‘exported’—together with the idea of a homogeneous nation-state and popular sovereignty— through its military campaigns and occupations between the end of the eighteenth century and the Congress of Vienna of 1815. The countries included in this section start with John Loughlin’s chapter on France, where the model has originated, and continues with Daniele Caramani’s chapter on Italy, Luís da Silveira’s chapter on Portugal, and Jesus Burgueño’s chapter on Spain. The French system introduced in 1790 with the Revolution, and later systematised by the subsequent Napoleonic constitutions, was characterised by a distinctive philosophy of the rela-

128

Part IV  The Napoleonic Model

tionship between central government and local authorities based on principles of rationality and order. The development of ‘fused systems’ in the West and in the South of Europe has accompanied efforts of national standardisation and rationalisation of administrative structures. Fused systems are characterised by a strong degree of centralisation with a minimum amount of autonomy in the various départements, provinces, arrondissements administratifs, and so on, in which the state is represented through the figure of a ‘prefect’, with competence limited to a large extent to represent, execute, and implement, central decisions, and submitted to a strong control from the centre. Administrative innovations concerned in particular financial matters with the establishment of a modern and professional system of allocation and collection of taxes. The fused system was imposed by Napoleon to counter the highly heterogeneous and regionalised administrative system of the Ancien régime, as well as the Jacobin constitution of 1791. In the countries considered in this chapter the Napoleonic model has survived in spite of reforms towards regionalisation since the 1970s, namely, the introduction of regions in Italy and France and, more significantly, in Spain in the course of the 1980s. The Napoleonic model has influenced in particular two more countries which have however not been included in this section. First, Belgium where the arrondissements administratifs in 1830 were shaped on the French départements and, second, the Netherlands where the French occupation transformed the highly decentralised political structure based on a loose confederation between the provinces of the Low Countries. Contrary to Switzerland which has a similar experience of Napoleonic centralisation under the République helvétique, the Netherlands maintained after 1815 the centralised structure inherited from the French period whereas the Swiss dropped it. Because of the past highly decentralised structure, the strong historical links with the other countries of the city-belt (namely the German Holy Roman Empire) and, in the case of Belgium, the recent transformation towards a federal state, these countries—along with Luxembourg— have been put in this section on federal states. Furthermore, this section does not include Greece which is usually considered as having adopted too a Napoleonic administrative model because it has been considered that its territorial-administrative structure derives more directly from the rationalising and modernising reforms of Turkey.

13

France Claude Motte

Fig. 13.1  France and its regions

Retracing the evolution of France’s administrative divisions over more than two centuries inevitably leads to two observations (Fig. 13.1). The first is the solidity of the administrative web established between 1789 and 1800, despite the massive transformations C. Motte (*) Ingénieure de Recherche at CRH/Laboratoire de Démographie et d’Histoire sociale (LaDéHiS), CNRS/EHESS, Paris, France e-mail: [email protected]

and multiple periods of crisis that the country went through over the following two centuries: three revolutions, (1789, 1830, 1848); four periods of war (1792–1815, 1870, 1914– 1918, 1939–1945), the first three of which resulted in altered borders; five constitutions and four political regimes (two empires, an absolute monarchy, a parliamentary monarchy, five republics); and finally, a radical transformation of its economic and social landscape, and a major evolution in its population composition and distribution throughout the country.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. Martí-Henneberg (ed.), European Regions, 1870 – 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61537-6_13

129

130

Such durability is surprising, and it is worth trying to understand the reasons underlying it. Was it that the boundaries drawn by the members of the constituent assembly in February 1790 were ‘fair’, that they could withstand such upheavals? Was it that this dense fabric adhered to the feeling of identity and local traditions of sociability built up over the past centuries, defended tooth and nail any time it was suggested they be challenged?1 The second observation, or cause for surprise, is not so much the large number of divisional levels—first four tiers, then five2 since the Regions were created in the 1960s —but of the entities that make up each one —most remarkably, the more than 36,000 communes, or municipalities, that make up the final tier. We cannot shed any light on this dual source, for our neighbours at least, of incredulity without referring to two intersecting trends that have traditionally driven the exercise of power and government in France and that outline an administrative framework ‘à la française’, namely: • A descending movement: the centralisation of government, established by the absolute monarchy during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, relayed downwards by the intendants named by the King and echoed in the Constitution of the Year VIII (1799–1800) by the creation of prefects named by the government. • An ascending movement: national representation, introduced for the election of the first municipal councils in 1790, embodied by elected officials responsible for managing and policing local affairs and who relay upwards the needs and ‘convenances’ expressed by the rank and file.

C. Motte All Frenchmen are brothers and belong to one family; they will contribute from every corner of the realm to the formation of their laws: the rules and effects of their government will be the same in all places….

In 1789–1790, it was a question of erasing the tangle of boundaries that scrambled the country, to quote Thouret, a member of the Assembly, into a ‘defective’ muddle. In a September 1789 report on the establishment of proportional representation in the Constituent Assembly, Thouret stated that: The kingdom is split into as many different divisions as there are diverse kinds of regime and power: into diocese as concerns ecclesiastical affairs, into gouvernements as concerns the military, into généralités as concerns administrative matters, and into bailiwicks as concerns the judiciary. None of these divisions provides a useful or suitable framework for a representative order. Not only do the territories vary excessively in size, but these old divisions, which owe nothing to any political scheme and are made tolerable by habit alone, are defective in many respects, both physical and moral.

Article 1 of the National Assembly Decree of 15 January 1790, states this clearly: ‘The realm will be newly divided into departments, for the purposes both of national representation and of administration’. The division is, therefore, clearly dual-function: electoral for the political dimension and administrative for management of the country. A third characteristic of the French administrative model was established by the same decree, namely the uniformity of divisions established over the whole territory:

Hence, the willingness to criss-cross the country with entities of the most uniform size possible and, in any case, with the same jurisdiction regardless of their demographic or fiscal significance. However, this principle of territorial uniformity and of the oneness3 of the French (one People, one ‘family’) would, over the following two centuries, encounter several exceptions (special status) and become increasingly diluted. Sliding towards a deconcentrated central government and, in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, incorporating in parallel the development of decentralised local government,4 by granting the ‘right to experiment’ to local authorities, the French state left the way open for a territorialisation of law. If it is true, as Claude Grasland maintains, that ‘spatial categories (neighbourhoods, municipalities, departments, regions, etc.) are ways of observing society and space which are produced by a power according to certain objectives of control and management, and which convey the ideology on which that power is based’,5 then the administrative divisions of France are a good example.

A trivial but revealing example is the new system of car registration in France: ‘On Tuesday, 28 October 2008, the Minister of the Interior, Overseas Territories and Local Authorities received a delegation from the parliamentary group entitled “Never Without My Department” concerning the new registration plates. To avoid disregarding this evident attachment to departments, the minister agreed to make compulsory the display of a geographical identifier on registration plates, composed of the number of a department and the logo of the corresponding region….’ http://www.123savoie.com/ article-7555-1-nouvelle-immatriculation-des-vehicules.html 2  Two more than exist in most other European countries; moreover, the European territorial classification NUTS has only retained three.

Understood as the lack of differentiation between French citizens, irrespective of origin, religion or language. 4  Deconcentration is a variant of centralisation, not an aspect of decentralisation. It creates no independent public service officials and only moves the seat of decision making. ‘It is still the same hammer that strikes, we have just shortened the handle’. See bibliography, J.-P. Lebreton. 5  Laude Grasland, pp. 115–132, see bibliography.

1 

3 

13 France

131

Fig. 13.2  France, 987–1180 (Source: Mirot 1980, p. 126)

13.1 T  he Heritage of the Ancien Régime: A Centralised State 13.1.1 The Origins of France In 476, the abdication of the last Roman emperor, Philip Augustus, marked the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Subsequently, the embryo of a Frankish kingdom with still uncertain and fluctuating boundaries developed in the heart of the future kingdom of France. The kings of the Merovingian dynasty (448–752), including the best-known Clovis 1st (466–511), endeavoured to conquer and unify Gaul through wars against the Gallo-Romans, the Germanic peoples, the Burgundians and the Visigoths.6 The kings of the Carolingian dynasty (752–987), marked by the iconic figure of Charlemagne (742–814), significantly expanded the Frankish kingdom through wars with the Aquitains, the Arabs, the Lombards of Italy and the Germanic peoples, until it reached the proportions of a ‘European’ Empire. In 806, during his lifetime, Charlemagne divided this empire among his three

Cf. Mirot, L. and A., Géographie historique de la France, p. 55.

6 

sons. After his death in 814, his descendants were unable to overcome rivalry between the great feudal lords and between those lords and their suzerain. This led to 150 years of shifting boundaries between their various possessions and those of the kingdom (Fig. 13.2). Finally, the kings of the Capetian dynasty (987–1328), the first of whom was Hughes Capet (940–996), ‘devoted much of their reign to loosening the grip of feudal lords who threatened their domains, and to ensuring free communication between the various parts of their possessions to form a block, the first nucleus of the future royal estate and of the territorial unity of France.’7 Moreover, it was a Capetian king, Philippe Auguste, who in 1190 was the first to take the title of ‘King of France’. Under the following dynasty, the Valois (1328–1589), wars, matrimonial alliances and acquisitions gradually expanded the crown’s domain. In 1607, when Henri IV, first king of the Bourbon dynasty, added the possessions of the House of Bourbon-Navarre to the royal domain, all the great feudal states disappeared (Fig. 13.3).

Cf. Mirot and Mirot (1980, p. 111).

7 

132

C. Motte

Fig. 13.3  France, 1515–1610 (Source: Mirot 1980, p. 248)

The territory of France was largely formed. Several regions on the continental borders were still lacking: Artois, Hainault, Alsace and Lorraine, Franche-Comte, Nice and Savoy, Corsica and the Principality of Orange, all of which belonged to foreign lords. These would be joined to the Crown under the Bourbon dynasty (1589–1792). The enclaves of Avignon and the Venaissin County, Savoy and Nice would be incorporated in the early years of the French Revolution (1792–1793). It should be added that in 1789, French sovereignty extended outside Europe to an overseas colonial domain: in America (Antilles, French Guiana, Saint Pierre and Miquelon), Asia (five trading posts), Africa and the Indian Ocean (Ile Bourbon or Reunion, Ile de France or Mauritius, Seychelles, trading posts in Madagascar).8

13.1.2 Local Government Before 1789 As France grew, royal power was gradually strengthened by the development of an increasingly centralised government.

Cf. Lang, G., Le Code officiel géographique, see bibliography.

8 

The country was divided into districts, at the head of which the king appointed his delegates who held all political, legislative, financial, judicial and military powers. These were provosts under the Capetians, then bailiffs and seneschals under the Valois, then governors and finally intendants and subdelegates under the Bourbons, at the height of the centralised administrative system of the so-called ‘absolute’ monarchy. Note that the successive creation of these offices, and of the districts assigned to them, was designed to limit the powers of the eminent personalities who held them, and who performed their duties with such zeal that they were able to build up real fiefdoms within the royal domain. To establish its administration, the royal power initially relied on the divisions previously set up by religious and feudal authorities. However, as the administration spread, growing both increasingly centralised and involved in local affairs over the centuries, it gradually departed from the initial network. By the end of the Ancien Régime this had resulted in the ‘defective’ tangle of boundaries denounced by Thouret in September 1789 (see the given quotation). Thus, next to the 33 generalités of 1789 administered by intendants—the King’s men—themselves split into élec-

13 France

133

Fig. 13.4  France, 1860–2020

tions, civil dioceses, bailiwicks, sub-delegations, counties etc., there were 17 parliaments and Sovereign Councils divided into presidials, bailiwicks, sénéchaussées etc. for the judiciary; 18 archbishoprics and 117 bishoprics for the religious sphere, themselves divided into archdeaconries, archiprêtrés, deaneries etc. and finally 40 military governments. The Committee for Territorial Division (Comité de Division du territoire) launched a thorough overhaul of these tangled skeins, as described by M. Rabaud Saint-Etienne, a member of the Constitutional Committee (Comité de constitution): in the space of one month, every province, town and citizen had applauded these regenerative decrees, which substituted the political equality of every town and every portion of the kingdom for the monstrous, contradictory heap of inequalities that time, chance, abuse, privilege, favours and despotism had turned into chaos.

The Committee then imposed a division in four overlapping tiers that persist to this day, capped since the 1960s by a fifth tier, the Region (Fig. 13.4).

13.2 T  he Legacy of 1789–1790: The Local ‘Convenances’ The founding text of contemporary France’s administrative framework, passed on 15 January 1790,9 divided France into 83 departments and 544 districts10—between 3 and 9 depending on the department. During those same months, the first municipalities were elected, governed by the Act of 14 December 1789. Their members, elected from amongst the active citizens as defined by law, were required to meet in primary assemblies at the chef-lieu of the canton to elect the Secondary Electors. These would in turn elect the incumbents of the various departmental authorities, first and fore-

Annexed to the session of 26 February and confirmed by royal letter patent of 4 March 1790. However, the principle of the kingdom’s division into department, district and canton had been voted previously on 22 December 1789. 10  From 1790 to 1795, the term district was used in French. In 1799 the term arrondissement was substituted, and is used to this day. See note 12. 9 

134

most the cantonal justices of the peace and the members of the legislature. Apart from the complete overhaul of local entities, with the department as the single mould in which all other areas of administration (religious, fiscal, legal etc.) would be developed, the other strong point of the institutional overhaul of those years involved heeding the will and sense of identity of the people, reflected, in the terms of the period, by ‘local convenances’. This is certainly one of the elements that contributed most deeply to a ‘resistance to the development of French political and administrative divisions; an exemplary effect of the overwhelming strength that some national traditions retain’.11 Respect for these local convenances was apparent in the freedom granted to inhabitants to transform their traditional, customary space—the parish—into an institutionalised territory—the municipality, or commune. Give or take a few, the 44,000 parishes existing in summer 1789 gave rise to 44,000 municipalities in the first elections of spring 1790. Thus, the territory was divided into departments, these departments into districts, the latter into cantons which themselves were made up of municipalities. The number and boundaries of the first two tiers were determined from above by the Constituent Assembly, which, however, left local governments the task of adjusting them, as stated in the Instruction of the National Assembly of 8 January 1790: The National Assembly has traced the boundaries of the departments and districts as seemed most fitting at first glance. If the details of implementation bring to light the necessity or suitability of certain changes to this demarcation… the administrative bodies, once formed and established in each department and district, will become the natural judges of these local convenances. Together they will make all rectifications necessary to ensure that their respective boundaries may reconcile the interests of individuals with the common good; and if it so happens that they cannot agree in some cases, the National Assembly will rule according to the submissions they provide.

The two lower levels were left to the determination of local populations, as stated by a member of the National Assembly in November 1789: ‘Demarcation of the territory should be applied only to the determination of departments and not to the formation of cantons and municipalities’. In 1790, the institutional and administrative overhaul rested on the principle that ‘the Republic is one and indivisible’ which, as regards administrative divisions, hinged on four points: • A hierarchical structure of sub-national divisions • Consideration of grassroots ‘convenances’ and wishes • Uniformity of local divisions, of their powers and the way their administrative officers would be designated for authorities of the same tier Cf. Benoit, J.-M., La France redécoupée, p. 15.

11 

C. Motte

• National and local elections implemented within the framework of these divisions. The changes that occurred over the following two centuries would not fundamentally challenge the points of this principle, except the third point due to the decentralisation of state services gradually being introduced.

13.3 D  evelopments Over the Nineteenth to Twenty-First Centuries During the 1790s—a period of unrest, agitation and internal and external wars—revisions of boundaries and jurisdictions at every level of government were frequent, making a precise reconstruction of their evolution difficult. Although early on in this period France experienced its first taste of the decentralised state, this experience was soon discontinued when the Napoleonic government was formed with the Constitution of the Year VIII in 1799. The four-tiered structure then established would last nearly for two centuries,12 notwithstanding changes in boundaries, content and even, with the constitutional acceptance of special status within the French population and state, in the political philosophy of governance. Moreover, due to its colonial past, France’s administration spread over territories outside the European continent, which would see their status evolve towards an increasingly asserted and recognised autonomy.

13.3.1 The Creation of a Fifth Tier The first noteworthy development was the establishment of a fifth tier in the hierarchy of administrative areas, formed by grouping together several departments: the Region (see Table 13.1). In the 1950s, France enjoyed a period of strong growth, necessitating an attempt to coordinate this economic development and the major capital works, which ensued in the provinces. • 1955–1956: launch of 21 ‘regional action programmes’ aimed at ‘promoting the economic and social growth of the various regions’. • 1959–1960: transformation of the ‘regional action programmes’ into ‘administrative divisions for regional

Apart from a short period, 1795–1799, during which the districts, which numbered 544 in 1790 and grew to 561 with the annexations of 1792–1793, were abolished and replaced by ‘cantonal municipalities’ deriving from the merger of districts, cantons and several thousand small, rural communes. The Constitution of the Year VIII (1799) reestablished this second tier under the name of ‘arrondissement’.

12 

13 France

135

Table 13.1  Overall number of regions, departments, arrondissements, cantons and municipalities, 1800, 1876, 1968, 2011, 2019 (Metropolitan France, overseas departments) Regions Departments Arrondissements Cantons Communes 1800a 89 371 2916 40,178 1861 89 373 2938 37,510 1968 22 95 322 3208 37,708 2011 26 100 342 4036 36,682 2019 18 101 332 2054 34,970 5 5 12 172 129 Including 5 departments overseasb Within current boundaries But not including les Territories and Communities Overseas (COM et TOM)

a

b

Table 13.2  Areas of central government (deconcentrated services), electoral constituencies and local authorities Type of division Region Department Arrondissement Canton Municipality Inter-Municipal Association

Administrative area of the state Regional prefect, regional directorates Departmental prefect, departmental directorates Sub-prefect No Mayor (role of state official) No

Electoral constituency Regional elections Senatorial elections (some departments)

Local or regional authority Yes (regional council) Yes (general council)

No Cantonal elections Municipal elections No (assembly appointed by member municipalities)

No No Yes No (grouping of local authorities)

Source: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_territoriale_de_la_France

action’:13 every authority would have to model their subdivisions on these areas —they might, on a case by case basis, build administrative units covering several regions or, on the contrary, subdividing one region into several sections, but the boundaries of these units would have to coincide with the regional boundaries. • 1964: creation of the office of Regional Prefect and of the Commission for Regional Economic Development (CODER), a consultative assembly made up half of socio-­ professional actors and the other half of figures appointed by the departmental councils and the Prime Minister. It would assist the regional prefect responsible for coordinating state activities in the region. • 1972: creation of regional councils; the administrative divisions for regional action, however, were no longer simply divisions, instead becoming Regional Public Establishments (établissements publics régionaux or EPR). They now took on the name of ‘regions’. • 1982: The Act of 2 March 1982 institutionalised the name ‘region’ and instituted the election of regional councillors by direct universal suffrage, within the framework of the departments, for a six-year term. The Act endows the regions with well-defined powers. The first election took place on 16 March 1986, the same day as the first round of the legislative elections. The regions had become local authorities in the same right as departments and municipalities.

13.3.2 Towards a Decentralised State: Local Authorities The other important development is the gradual transformation of certain local government bodies into Local Authorities (Collectivités territoriales) endowed with the status of a legal entity (see Table 13.2). This is the case, in chronological order, of departments (Act of 10 August 1871), municipalities (Act of 5 April 1884) and regions (Act of 2 March 1982). In a very recent development, we should note the plan to move the status of one of the forms of inter-municipal association, existing in embryo since the second half of the nineteenth century—namely, urban, agglomeration or municipal communities14—towards that of local authorities by giving their administrators the status of local elected representatives. It is also worth noting that the main laws enacted during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries concerning the jurisdiction and prerogatives accorded to local government bodies only introduced a certain dose of deconcentration to the French administrative system. Although the state gradually consented to grant some decision-making powers to local bodies (local and departmental councils), this did not mean it gave up its power of ex ante control or of revocation of acts issued by these local bodies. It was not until the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries that increasing decentralisation was implemented, that is, an ex post conIn French, communautés urbaines, communautés d’agglomération and communautés de communes. 14 

In French, ‘circonscriptions d’action régionale’.

13 

136

trol of the acts of local bodies that finally challenged the model established in 1790. Of the five tiers, only regions, departments and municipalities have received the rank of local authorities15 under the following definition: Local authorities are French administrative structures, distinct from state administration, which are responsible for the interests of the population of a specific sub-national area. Thus, a municipality is responsible for the interests of people living within its boundaries. The definition and organisation of local authorities are determined by the Constitution (Art. 34 and Title XII), acts and decrees. These provisions are laid out in the General Code for Local Authorities. Local authorities are defined by three criteria: 1. They have the status of a legal entity, which means they can take legal action. Combined with decentralisation— the process of state transferral of certain functions and powers and their corresponding resources to local authorities—this legal status ensures that local authorities enjoy administrative autonomy. They each have their own staff and their own budget. On the contrary, ministries and local state services do not have the status of a legal entity. They are solely administrative branches of the state. 2. They have their own functions and powers, assigned to them by the legislature (Parliament, a collegial body that exercises legislative power and oversees the executive). The French parliament is made up of two chambers: the National Assembly and the Senate. Local authorities are not states within the state. They have no sovereignty and cannot, on their own initiative, endow themselves with new organs. 3. They hold power of decision, which is exercised by deliberation in a council of elected representatives. Decisions are subsequently implemented by the local executive bodies. Since the constitutional revision of 28 March 2003, local authorities have been granted regulatory power to exercise their duties.16

The term local authority is used in this translation for its greater acceptability in English usage. Note, however, that ‘the term local authority is a common-language description of what the French Constitution calls a “territorial authority”. Indeed, until the constitutional revision of 28 March 2003, both terms featured in the Constitution: local authority in Article 34 and territorial authority in Title XII. But since then, only the latter expression appears in the Constitution. Authorities are therefore now “territorial” and the expression “local authority” has no legal basis’. Extract from the INSEE website 16  Ibidem.

C. Motte

Although some local authorities are governed by particular operating rules and special statutes,17 they all fall under droit commun18 and are made up of: • A deliberative assembly elected by universal suffrage granted to all adult citizens (municipal, general and regional councils); • An executive elected by the Assembly from among its members (for municipalities, the mayor and his or her deputies; for departments and regions, the presidents of the general and regional councils). Regions, in addition to these two bodies, also have a regional social and economic council. As a result, the powers of central government and of local government apply to the same territories. However, at the head of each territorial division, the exercise of the state’s executive power, on the one hand, and the administrative management of the area, on the other, are in the hands of separate staff —appointed by the government for the former, and for the latter by an electoral process —except at municipal level: the mayor combines both functions, as he or she is the state representative but is elected by universal suffrage. In short, ‘local government is a complex whole, produced largely by history, within which coexists a centralised administration under the control of the legal entity of the state and whose local services are hierarchically subordinate to ministerial authority and local authorities whose status as a legal entity has been recognised and which have organs invested with a more or less autonomous decision-making power’.19 In 2003, the Constitutional Act of 28 March introduced several important changes to the French political and administrative system: • The Republic’s organisation is decentralised. • Changes relating to the organisation of local authorities are first examined by the senate. • Regions, local authorities with special status and overseas local authorities are included in the constitution alongside municipalities and departments. They have the authority to take on those responsibilities that may be best implemented at their level (principle of subsidiarity).

15 

This includes the local authorities of Paris, Lyon and Marseille (socalled PML Act of 31 December 1982), Corsica and the French overseas territories, see the paragraph on Special Status. 18  The French droit commun is not to be confused to with common law in the English sense (law developed through court decisions, as opposed to legislation); rather it describes the set of legal rules, which apply in general to all situations that are not subject to special or specific rules. 19  See bibliography, J.-P. Lebreton, L’administration territoriale, p. 2. 17 

13 France

• The deliberative bodies (municipal, general and regional councils) have the right to conduct binding local referendums. • Local authorities have the right to experiment in legal and regulatory matters. • Apart from Reunion, overseas departments may derogate from the Act.

13.3.3 Other Types of Territorial Division About 50 years ago, urban communities were added to these five hierarchical, overlapping tiers, followed about 30 years later by the development of three other types of territorial division, Inter-Municipal Associations, Pays and Regional Nature Parks. As yet, none of these has local authority status, and the boundaries of the last two types are not required to respect the boundaries of the administrative tiers. Creation of any of these units depends on the voluntary membership of municipalities.

13.3.3.1 Inter-Municipal Associations (Intercommunalités) From the mid-nineteenth century, faced with the large number of municipalities with very small populations and budgets who refuse nonetheless to merge, governments have encouraged municipalities to group together, under the name of ‘syndicat de communes’ or association of municipalities, in order to ‘pool’ their management of specific services. Inter-municipal cooperation allows municipalities that group together within a public establishment to share management of public facilities or services, and/or to set up economic development, town and country or urban planning projects on a larger scale than that of the municipality. Currently, nearly 95% of municipalities belong to at least one form of inter-municipal association. This goes to show the scheme’s success. Public Establishments for Inter-Municipal Cooperation (Etablissements publics de coopération intercommunale or EPCI) are municipal groupings with the objective of ‘common development projects within perimeters of solidarity’. They are subject to common, consistent rules, comparable to those of local authorities. Some EPCIs have their own tax revenue: • Communauté Urbaine (CU), or Urban Community; • Communauté d’Agglomération (CA), or Community of Built-Up Areas • Communauté de Communes (CC), or Municipal Community • Syndicat d’Agglomération Nouvelle (SAN), or Association of Newly Built-Up Areas.

137

Distribution of EPCIs that levy their own taxes, by category, on 1st January 2011 Number of EPCIs that Category levy taxes CU 16 CA 191 SAN 5 CC 2,387 Total 2,599

Total number of municipalities grouped together 424 3290 29 31,298 35,041

Total population (in millions of inhabitants) 7.7 23.4 0.3 27.4 58.8

Sources: DGCL, Insee

In 2010, communities exercised nine statutory powers on average, well above their minimum requirements. Today, economic development, town and country planning, housing, transport, waste, sanitation, cultural and sports facilities, roads are the flagship functions of communities. Others are EPCIs that do not have their own tax revenue: • Syndicats Intercommunaux à Vocation Unique (SIVU), or Single-Purpose Inter-Municipal Associations • Syndicats Intercommunaux à Vocation Multiple (SIVU), or Multi-Purpose Inter-Municipal Associations • Syndicats Mixtes fermés (SM fermés), or Combined Closed Associations • Syndicats Mixtes ouverts (SM ouverts), or Combined Open Associations.

13.3.3.2 Pays A Pays, in its sub-national sense, is an area or region with geographical, economic, cultural and/or social cohesion, on the scale of a social or employment catchment area. It expresses the community of economic, cultural and social interests of its members and facilitates the design and implementation of development projects. This status was created by the Outline Act of 4 February 1995 for Town and Country Planning and Development (Loi d’orientation pour l’aménagement et le développement du territoire or LOADT), called the Pasqua Act, and amended by the LOADDT, or Voynet Act, of 25 June 1999. Pays are new sub-national bodies that are neither local authorities, nor public establishments for inter-municipal cooperation (EPCIs). They do not necessarily correspond to traditional or historical regions. They can be interregional, inter-departmental, inter-municipal or overlap a nature park. Municipalities and groups thereof develop a ‘charte de pays’, or ‘country charter’, that sets out the common project for sustainable development of the area. The country charter is adopted by decision of the municipal councils or, if the responsibility for town and country planning and economic development has been transferred to municipal groupings,

138

by decision of the legislative bodies of these groupings. It is available to the public in the town hall of the municipalities that have approved it, and at the prefecture. There are about 350 recognised pays. Their creation depends on voluntary and contractual steps taken by municipalities, and they cover only a small part of France. Suffering, as they do, from a lack of visibility and governance, their spread has been limited by the rise of EPCIs, especially of municipal communities.

C. Motte

a constituency for the election of representatives to the National Assembly on the other. In 1800, the department of Paris was renamed Department of the Seine, and the 12 sections became municipal arrondissement,20 each administered by a mayor. The city’s security was entrusted to a prefect (chief) of police assisted by a commissioner in each arrondissement. In 1859, by the Act of 16 June, the city of Paris annexed its neighbouring municipalities, in whole or in part. With this territorial expansion came the creation of eight extra munici13.3.3.3 Regional Nature Parks pal arrondissements, taking their number to 20. The city Created by General de Gaulle’s decree of 1 March 1967, remained the prefecture of the department of the Seine. Regional Nature Parks are areas whose outstanding natural In 1964, the Act of 10 July, and its implementing decree features and landscape are of nationally recognised signifi- of 1 January 1968, reorganised the Paris region: dissolution cance. They are also based on a strongly asserted identity. of the departments of the Seine and Seine-et-Oise to be Their boundaries are not set in relation to administrative replaced by seven new departments, one of which was the boundaries: they may partly concern municipalities, inter-­ new department of Paris with boundaries corresponding to municipal associations, cantons, departments and regions the city of Paris alone, which also remained a municipality. (http://www.parcs-­naturels-­regionaux.fr/fr/). Regional The office of mayor of Paris was restored. nature parks, predominantly rural areas whose landscapes, In 1982, the Act of 31 December—called the Defferre natural environment and cultural heritage are exceptional yet Act after the minister and mayor of Marseille who had it fragile, are created to protect and enhance large inhabited passed, or the ‘PLM’ Act after the three cities concerned: rural spaces. Each regional nature park revolves around a Paris, Lyon and Marseille—instituted that the two local collaborative sustainable development project. authorities established in Paris (the department and the In 2007, there were 45 regional nature parks covering municipality) would from then on be run by the same 13% of France, concerning 21 regions, 66 metropolitan organs: the mayor of Paris (executive of both the municidepartments and 2 overseas departments, 3706 municipali- pality and the department) and the council of Paris (delibties and nearly 3,100,000 inhabitants. erative body of both the municipality and the department). The mayor is elected for a six-year term by universal suffrage by and from among the Paris councillors. However, his or her jurisdiction remains limited by the specific pow13.3.4 Use of Special Status ers of the prefect of police.21 13.3.4.1 The City of Paris, Both Municipality Each of the 20 municipal arrondissements has an and Department arrondissement council (deliberative organ, composed of Since 1982, the city of Paris has covered two distinct local one-third Paris councillors, two-thirds arrondissements authorities, a municipality and a department. This was not councillors) and an arrondissement mayor (executive organ, always the case. elected from among the arrondissements councillors). During the month of May 1790, the National Assembly made several decrees concerning the city of Paris. These 13.3.4.2 The Specific Status of Lyon and Marseille: Municipal were recorded by the royal letter patent of 27 June 1790. Arrondissements At the time, the municipality was only the chef-lieu of the newly created department of Paris. Within the boundaries Like Paris, Lyon and Marseille are divided into municipal then in existence, the city was divided into 48 sections arrondissements. which, according to the text, ‘will form so many Primary Assemblies, when it is time to choose the electors who • Lyon: 1852, five arrondissements, nine since 1964. Since will assist in the appointment of members of the their creation, an arrondissement council site in each Administration of the department of Paris, or the appointment of Members that the department will send to the 20 In French, ‘municipal’ arrondissements: not to be confused with National Assembly’. These electors would also appoint a ‘departmental’ arrondissements that divide the departments. ‘Municipal mayor for the whole city and 16 administrators. The sec- arrondissements’ are administrative divisions existing only in big cities; Paris from 1800, Lyon from 1852 and Marseille from 1946. tions served as cantons, as in other departments. Here we 21  Stemming notably from the consular decree of 1800 (12 Messidor see the dual function of the division: an area for the Year VIII), which determines the functions of the Paris prefect of police appointment of local administrators on the one hand, and and by the laws that later amended it.

13 France

arrondissement, headed by a mayor. These arrondissements councils are not fully fledged councils and do not levy taxes, rather allocating the funds delegated to them by the central council. • Marseille: 1946, 16 arrondissements from the start. Unlike Paris and Lyon, since the Defferre Act (PLM of 1982), first a mayor was elected for each of six sectors, grouping together between one and four arrondissements per sector; then, in 1987, eight sectors made up of two arrondissements each. Thus, there are eight sectoral mayors in Marseille. For Paris, Lyon and Marseille alike, the establishment of municipal arrondissements sought to bring government services ‘as close as possible’ to the people.

13.3.4.3 Corsica: A Unique Status France bought the island of Corsica, also known as Île de Beauté, from the republic of Genoa in 1768. In 1790, when departments were first instituted, Corsica formed a single department. Then in 1793, two departments were re-­ established under the names Liamone and Golo. In 1811. Corsica returned to being a single department until 1975, when the island was once again split into two departments, Corse-du-Sud (chef-lieu Ajaccio) and Haute-Corse (cheflieu Bastia). In 1982, when regions first became local government authorities, the Corsican region (CTC) was given a special status: the Corsican Assembly (Assemblée de Corse or AC, the local designation for the regional council) is elected by full universal suffrage using a system of proportional representation in a single constituency, although there have been two departments since 1975. Furthermore, the Act of 2 March authorises the Corsican Assembly to make proposals to the prime minister on changes to laws or regulations concerning fields in which it has some responsibility (cultural affairs and local development). In 1991, the ‘Joxe Statute’, after the minister who passed the law, reversed this provision by deciding that the prime minister would be required to consult the AC on bills or draft decrees including provisions specific to Corsica. The Executive Council of the Assembly is responsible for defining and implementing policy in the areas of economic and social development, education and culture. New functions and powers in the areas of education, radio and television, cultural activities and the environment are also specified by the statute. The AC presents a land-use plan which, after consultation with the state, must give rise to a planning contract in order to be enforceable. The transfer of responsibility for transport to the CTC is funded by a ‘territorial continuity’ grant, which results from a change in budget heading. Specific powers are defined for professional training, energy, etc.

139 The decision of the Constitutional Council of 9 May 1991 created the sole example of a local authority halfway between a metropolitan region and an overseas region: sole example, and not a special “region” for which the general status would be specifically modified. As departments are regarded as a integral part of the legal landscape, the institutions of the CTC are juxtaposed to these (http://www.droitconstitutionnel.net/ Corsestatut.htm).

13.3.4.4 Alsace-Moselle, Legal Particularities For historical reasons, three departments—Haut-Rhin, Bas-­ Rhin and Moselle—have certain particularities, related not to their administrative divisions, but to the specific local law inherited from the German occupation of 1871–1918. These special legal characteristics concern religion (state funding of religious activities), social services (social security, public holidays, law governing associations) and the courts (magistrate’s court, county courts and commercial courts).22

13.3.5 Codifications of Administrative Geography The gradual admission into the European Union of countries with a great variety of administrative structures and patterns of population distribution made comparative statistical studies almost impossible to carry out. It became necessary to develop a coding system for administrative entities in the various European countries. The NUTS classification partly retained, when one already existed, the code established by member countries, aggregating units to build entities of comparable size. For France, the Official Geographic Code established by the National Institute for Statistics and Economic Studies (Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques or INSEE) was used. Based on a similar system, a historical geo-classification is currently being developed.

13.3.5.1 T  he Official Geographic Code (COG) and the European Classification INSEE23 has been publishing the Official Geographic Code— Names and Codes (Code officiel géographique— Nomenclatures et codes) since 1946. This references the codes and official names of municipalities, cantons, arrondissements, departments, regions, overseas local authorities and

Tribunal de Grande instance, tribunal d’instance and tribunal de commerce. Another particularity of Alsace-Moselle: there, trains run on the right, whereas in the rest of France they run on the left. 23  Created in 1946 by the Finance Act of 27 April to replace the National Statistics Service, which had published the first version of the COG in 1943. 22 

140

foreign countries and territories. For France, the Common Classification of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS), used by Eurostat (statistics office of the European Union) since 1988, adopted in 2003 by the European Parliament and Council, revised in 2007 with the entry of new members, retains only the regional level (NUTS 2) and the departmental level (NUTS 3), grouping them together in the level above, the state (NUTS 1). The other two levels, specified but not coded in the NUTS classification, are ‘Local Administrative Units’ (LAU), that is, for France, the 3787 cantons (LAU1) and the 36,68324 municipalities (LAU2). Note that the NUTS regulations, although they respect the administrative boundaries specific to each member country, nonetheless impose a criteria of demographic size to compose their territorial divisions. This differs fundamentally from INSEE’s principle for codification in France, which only takes into account the list of existing units, whatever their surface area and their economic or demographic size. In 1967, in collaboration with the French planning authorities25 INSEE undertook a division of France into large land use planning areas: ZEATs (Zone d’Étude et d’Aménagement du Territoire). This division into ZEATs, established during the great trend for town and country planning, has been retained by Eurostat and corresponds to level 1 of the common classification of territorial units for statistics (NUTS 1). To the eight original areas, a ninth was added for the overseas territories—regions and departments only, the other French overseas territories not forming part of Europe:

C. Motte

project is being developed at the Laboratory for Demography and Social History.26 There are two parts to the project: a geo-historical coding of territorial entities and a simulation based on reconstituting old municipal territories. • Known as the ‘Géonomenclature historique des lieux habités’27 or Historical Geo-Classification of Inhabited Places, this geo-historical code takes INSEE’s code officiel géographique (COG) and extends it to cover the periods preceding 1943, the date at which the first COG was written, and other territorial divisions: religious, tax-­ based, legal, geographical, academic etc.

In 1943, the general principle of the INSEE code was to number the entities existing that year in alphabetical order, each lower level directly in relation to the reference level— departments—which had already been coded from 01 to 99. As such, municipalities are numbered from 001, 002, 003 till the last one within the department to which they are attached, as are cantons and arrondissements. For example, the city of Strasbourg is coded 67,482: 67 for the department of BasRhin and 482 for the municipality; or 67 8 27,482: 67 for the department of Bas-Rhin, 8 for the arrondissement of Strasbourg Campagne, 27 for the part of the city belonging to the first canton of Strasbourg and 482 for the municipality. For coding, entities created after 1943 are not ordered alphabetically; they simply follow on from the last entity coded. Conversely, an entity that disappears administratively sees its code disappear, creating a gap in the numbering sequence. The Geo-Classification, drawing on information from the Cassini municipal database,28 endeavours to provide a code 1. Paris region: Ile de France 2. Paris Basin: Burgundy, Centre, Champagne-Ardenne, for entities which had already disappeared administratively Upper and Lower Normandy, Picardy in 1943. It also seeks to code the other means of territorial 3. North: Nord Pas-de-Calais division, using the same principle as the INSEE COG, going 4. East: Alsace, Franche-Comté, Lorraine back through the years to the Ancien Régime. For example, it 5. West: Brittany, Pays de la Loire, Poitou-Charentes will code religious parishes and dioceses from before and 6. South West: Aquitaine, Limousin, Midi-Pyrénées after 1789. Besides the number of the reference level (the 7. Centre East: Auvergne, Rhône-Alpes diocese for parishes) and of the parish (within its diocese), 8. Mediterranean: Languedoc-Roussillon, Provence-Alpes-­ the Geo-Classification will include other codes specifying Côte d’Azur, Corsica the major historical period (before or after 1789), the sphere 9. Overseas Regions/Departments of division (before 1789, the diocese was used for tax administration and religious administration), and the evolution of names and boundaries of referenced entities. This code is 13.3.5.2 The GeoPeople Project designed to facilitate the later addition of information, espeand the Historical Geo-Classification cially for historical periods pertaining to which the informaAs part of an National Research Agency Agence nationale de la Recherche (ANR) call for proposals, the ‘GeoPeople’ In French, the Laboratoire de Démographie et d’Histoire Sociale: a team belonging to the Centre for Historical Research, joint research unit (UMR) 8558 (French National Centre for Scientific Research, CNRS/School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences, EHESS). 27  See bibliography, Pélissier and Brunterc’h (2003). 28  See http://cassini.ehess.fr 26 

For the 100 French departments, 96  in metropolitan France, 4 overseas. 25  Office of the Planning Commissioner (Commissariat général au plan) and the DATAR (Town and Country Planning and Regional Development Agency). 24 

13 France

tion will be gradually entered into the database as archives are explored. Richer and more complex than the INSEE COG, this classification will enable historians and archivists to index and map the information they collect in relation to the entities that concern them, according to their place in time, the structure of divisions or their toponymic or territorial form. • The second part of ‘GeoPeople’ involves mapping old administrative divisions—firstly municipalities going back to 1800—based on historical (eighteenth century: Cassini maps; nineteenth century: Ordnance Survey maps) and contemporary collections. By putting these various cartographic collections into perspective with the territories’ demographic variations, the project will enable space–time analysis of the overlapping influences of administrative boundaries/population/land use. ‘Using both territorial and demographic simulations, the task is to generate networks and density distributions in line with observations made since the mid-18th century. At a time when we are reflecting on the nature of France, its population and its territory, the GeoPeople project will provide an accurate picture of our country’s permanent features and of the changes it has been through at the local level’.29

13.4 A  dministration of Overseas France: Increasingly Divergent Status In 1789, France inherited a colonial dominion from the Ancien Régime that spanned: • The Antilles: the west part of Saint-Domingue, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Tabago and Sainte-Lucia • The Americas: French Guiana and Saint Pierre and Miquelon; • Africa: a few trading posts on the Atlantic coast (Senegal, Gambia, Sierra Leone etc.) • The Indian Ocean: Reunion Island, Mauritius, Seychelles and a few trading posts in Madagascar • Asia, five trading posts in India (Chandernagore, Karaikal, Mahe, Pondicherry and Yanam)

141

‘the colonies are an integral part of the republic and are subject to the same constitutional law’, the French government applied varied, changeable status to these territories, known as ‘colonies, protectorates and countries under mandate’, a precise description of which does not fall within the scope of this text. Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, the constitutional reform of 28 March 2003, supplemented by the Act of 21 February 2007 establishing statutory and institutional provisions regarding the overseas territories, did away with the appellations DOM and TOM, and gave the overseas regions the same status as metropolitan regions. But, in the monodepartmental overseas regions the two deliberative organs, the regional and departmental councils, are merged. Since then, the various overseas entities include the following: • The five overseas monodepartmental departments/regions (Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guiana, Reunion, and Mayotte, which in 2011 became the 101st French department and the fifth overseas region • The overseas local authorities (collectivités d’outre-mer or COM): French Polynesia (called an ‘overseas country’ or pays d’outre-mer with considerable autonomy), Saint-­ Barthélemy and Saint-Martin (both of which were separated from the department of Guadeloupe and established as regional authorities by the Act of 21 February 2007), Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Wallis and Futuna • Constituent countries of the Republic: New Caledonia, a sui generis local authority as it corresponds to none of the legal categories for existing local authorities • The Republic’s dependencies: the French Southern and Antarctic Lands (Terres Australes et Antartiques Françaises or TAAF), the Scattered Islands in the Indian Ocean and Clipperton Island, each of which has its own particularities Only the five monodepartmental regions, along with Saint-Barthélemy30 and Saint-Martin—which have been regional authorities since 2007—are part of the European Union; they are called ‘Ultra Peripheral Regions’ or UPR. Two legislative regimes exist for French-administered overseas territories:

Throughout the nineteenth century, France expanded its colonial holdings considerably and strengthened its colonial administration. However, although as early as 1795, article 7 of the Constitution of the Year III (22 August) stipulated that

• The regime of legislative identity (article 73 of the Constitution): national laws and regulations are fully applicable overseas. Adaptations are nonetheless possi-

ANR 2010, Space and territory programme: spatial enigmas of life in society. Observation of the territory for the understanding of evolution of administrative boundaries and settlements. Building Geo-Historical Databases and ontological approach, see http://geopeuple.ign.fr/

Until 1 January 2012 according to the European Council Decision of 29 October 2010 amending the status with regard to the European Union of the Island of Saint-Barthélemy, Official Journal of the European Union, 9 December 2010.

29 

30 

142

C. Motte

ble, in order to take into account the specificities of these regions. This regime mainly concerns the DOM-TOM. • The regime of legislative specificity and autonomy (article 74 of the Constitution): an organic law defines the special status of each regional authority subject to this regime. This regime concerns the COM and New Caledonia. However, in some COMs (Mayotte, Saint Pierre and Miquelon), identity and legislative specificity are combined.

13.5 T  he Five Tiers of French Administration The following concerns only the divisions of metropolitan France, the administrative divisions of overseas France ­having already been outlined here (see Table 13.3). This presentation of the five tiers of French local government illustrates the difficult balance between central government, or the state’s deconcentrated services and local

Table 13.3  Number of arrondissements, cantons, municipalities and population of departments according to the 2008 census N° R 82 22 83 93 93 93 82 21 73 21 91 73 93 25 83 54 54 24 74 94 94 26 53 74 72 43 82 23 24 53 91 73 73 72 91 53 24 24 82 43 72 24 82 83 52 24 73

Region Rhône-Alpes Picardy Auvergne PACA PACA PACA Rhône-Alpes Champagne-Ardenne Midi-Pyrénées Champagne-Ardenne Languedoc-Roussillon Midi-Pyrénées PACA Lower Normandy Auvergne Poitou-Charentes Poitou-Charentes Centre Limousin Corsica Corsica Burgundy Brittany Limousin Aquitaine Franche-Comté Rhône-Alpes Upper Normandy Centre Brittany Languedoc-Roussillon Midi-Pyrénées Midi-Pyrénées Aquitaine Languedoc-Roussillon Brittany Centre Centre Rhône-Alpes Franche-Comté Aquitaine Centre Rhône-Alpes Auvergne Pays de la Loire Centre Midi-Pyrénées

N° D 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2A 2B 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

Department Ain Aisne Allier Alpes-de-Haute-Provence Hautes-Alpes Alpes-Maritimes Ardèche Ardennes Ariège Aube Aude Aveyron Bouches-du-Rhône Calvados Cantal Charente Charente-Maritime Cher Corrèze Corse-du-Sud Haute-Corse Côte-d’Or Côtes-d’Armor Creuse Dordogne Doubs Drôme Eure Eure-et-Loir Finistère Gard Haute-Garonne Gers Gironde Hérault Ille-et-Vilaine Indre Indre-et-Loire Isère Jura Landes Loir-et-Cher Loire Haute-Loire Loire-Atlantique Loiret Lot

N.A. 4 5 3 4 2 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 5 3 3 2 3 3 4 2 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 6 3 4 4 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 3

N.Ca 43 42 35 30 30 52 33 37 22 33 35 46 57 49 27 35 51 35 37 22 30 43 52 27 50 35 36 43 29 54 46 53 31 63 49 53 26 37 58 34 30 30 40 35 59 41 31

N.M 419 816 320 200 177 163 339 463 332 433 438 304 119 706 260 404 472 290 286 124 236 706 373 260 557 594 369 675 403 283 353 589 463 542 343 353 247 277 533 544 331 291 327 260 221 334 340

Total pop. 598,323 553,555 353,315 162,911 139,497 1,099,416 321,453 292,722 155,530 309,689 358,293 287,535 1,992,855 694,156 154,824 364,247 629,612 321,810 251,503 143,386 164,726 535,391 602,478 128,799 421,941 537,560 492,508 593,037 435,045 921,568 709,776 1,239,903 192,561 1,450,039 1,037,686 992,575 239,332 600,106 1,214,776 271,220 386,160 337,226 759,948 229,966 1,290,533 668,913 179,416

13 France

143

Table 13.3 (continued) N° R 72 91 52 25 21 21 52 41 41 53 41 26 31 22 25 31 83 72 73 91 42 42 82 43 26 52 82 82 11 23 11 11 54 22 73 73 93 93 52 54 74 41 26 43 11 11 11 11 11 01 02 03 04

Region Aquitaine Languedoc-Roussillon Pays de la Loire Lower Normandy Champagne-Ardenne Champagne-Ardenne Pays de la Loire Lorraine Lorraine Brittany Lorraine Burgandy Nord-Pas-de-Calais Picardy Lower Normandy Nord-Pas-de-Calais Auvergne Aquitaine Midi-Pyrénées Languedoc-Roussillon Alsace Alsace Rhône-Alpes Franche-Comté Burgandy Pays de la Loire Rhône-Alpes Rhône-Alpes Île-de-France Upper Normandy Île-de-France Île-de-France Poitou-Charentes Picardy Midi-Pyrénées Midi-Pyrénées PACA PACA Pays de la Loire Poitou-Charentes Limousin Lorraine Burgandy Franche-Comté Île-de-France Île-de-France Île-de-France Île-de-France Île-de-France Guadeloupe Martinique Guyane Reunion

N° D 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 971 972 973 974

Department Lot-et-Garonne Lozère Maine-et-Loire Manche Marne Haute-Marne Mayenne Meurthe-et-Moselle Meuse Morbihan Moselle Nièvre Nord Oise Orne Pas-de-Calais Puy-de-Dôme Pyrénées-Atlantiques Hautes-Pyrénées Pyrénées-Orientales Bas-Rhin Haut-Rhin Rhône Haute-Saône Saône-et-Loire Sarthe Savoie Haute-Savoie Paris Seine-Maritime Seine-et-Marne Yvelines Deux-Sèvres Somme Tarn Tarn-et-Garonne Var Vaucluse Vendée Vienne Haute-Vienne Vosges Yonne Territoire de Belfort Essonne Hauts-de-Seine Seine-Saint-Denis Val-de-Marne Val-d’Oise Guadeloupe Martinique Guyane La Réunion TOTAL

N.A. 4 2 4 4 5 3 3 4 3 3 9 4 6 4 3 7 5 3 3 3 7 6 2 2 5 3 3 4 1 3 5 4 3 4 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 2 4 2 4 342

N.Ca 40 25 41 52 44 32 32 44 31 42 51 32 79 41 40 77 61 52 34 31 44 31 54 32 57 40 37 34 20 69 43 39 33 46 46 30 43 24 31 38 42 31 42 15 42 45 40 49 39 40 45 19 49 4036

N.M 319 185 363 601 620 433 261 594 500 261 730 312 652 693 505 895 470 547 474 226 527 377 293 545 573 375 305 294 1 745 514 262 305 782 323 195 153 151 282 281 201 515 455 102 196 36 40 47 185 32 34 22 24 36,682

Total pop. 337,883 81,083 798,434 515,207 580,265 193,388 312,975 742,904 200,437 733,146 1,063,760 228,184 2,606,369 819,190 302,025 1,487,199 645,723 668,467 237,490 450,239 1,109,002 760,625 1,720,308 246,129 573,235 574,691 422,149 738,020 2,233,818 1,273,791 1,325,235 1,432,114 376,686 580,909 383,585 242,363 1,018,976 551,179 636,223 435,887 382,451 393,756 353,611 145,360 1,221,722 1,566,668 1,518,225 1,323,389 1,181,322 408,299 403,795 221,178 817,001 65,393,891

Source: Insee, 2008 Population Census Population figures for departments valid on 1 January 2011; updated: March 2011 Metropolitan France and overseas departments (except Mayotte), territorial boundaries in force on 1 January 2010; date of statistical reference; 1 January 2008 N° R region code, N° D department code, PACA Alpes-Côte-d’Azur region, N.D number of arrondissements, N.Ca number of cantons, N.M number of municipalities, Total pop total population of inhabitants

144

government, or the local authorities to which the state is gradually conceding a share of its sovereign powers within the framework of a decentralised state.

13.5.1 Regions 13.5.1.1 The Administrative Areas In several stages over the period from 1955 to 1982, the office of Regional Prefect was established and the Region, formed by the aggregation of several departments, became the top tier of the administrative hierarchy, which has since had five tiers. With Mayotte becoming the 101st department and a monodepartmental region in 2011, France now has 22 metropolitan regions and 5 overseas regions. Most regions are named after old French provinces. Ile-de-France is the most populated region (11 million inhabitants), Corsica the least populated (260,000 inhabitants), French Guiana is the largest, Martinique the smallest and, in metropolitan France, the Midi-Pyrénées region is the largest. 13.5.1.2 C  entral Government: Organs, Functions and Powers The region is an administrative unit of the state, run by the regional prefect. The prefecture is usually located in the region’s chef-lieu. While the region as a local authority may not exercise supervision over departments and municipalities, the regional prefect does have authority over the departmental prefects. A regional prefect’s remit is currently governed by the Decree of 29 April 2004 (which replaced the Decree of 10 May 1982, which itself largely followed the provisions of a 1964 decree). Regional prefects are the prefects of the departments in which their region’s chef-lieu is located. In this respect, for that department, they fulfil the entire remit of a departmental prefect. They also have an administrative, economic and political role within the region: • They run the deconcentrated regional services of the state. • They must convey the government’s policy on major projects, for example, inter-municipal associations, the implementation of community services schemes or monitoring European Union programmes. • They verify the legality and budgetary compliance of their region’s actions and those of its public institutions. • They chair the regional administration committees (CAR), which include the departmental prefects and the heads of deconcentrated regional services of the state.

C. Motte

After consultation, they finalise the state’s strategic action plan in their region. • They prepare, through information and proposals, the economic and social development and town and country planning policies. As such, they are responsible for the negotiation and conduct of state-region planning contracts.

13.5.1.3 L  ocal Government: Organs, Functions and Powers The region is an authority equipped with a regional council made up of regional councillors elected by universal suffrage (six-year term), and headed by a president who holds executive power, under the ex post facto supervision of the regional prefect. Regions have no legislative autonomy, but they do have regulatory powers. Any transfer of state functions or powers must be accompanied by the provision of funding previously allocated to this expenditure by the state. In accordance with the principle of free administration of local authorities, regions have financial independence and, therefore, their own budget, which they are required to distribute between different areas. Revenues consist of state grants, on the one hand, and their own taxes, on the other. Their budget must be balanced, unlike that of the state. Regions have a broad scope of action. They are primarily active in education (running lycées or secondary schools), higher education and research, professional training and apprenticeships, economic development, town and country planning and infrastructure. In addition, they have a ‘right to experiment’ and may run local referendums.

13.5.2 Departments 13.5.2.1 The Administrative Areas Although it was decided that administrative areas would be named after their chef-lieu, this was not the case for departments, which were named in reference to one or other of their geographical features, such as the name of a mountain or a river running through them. In the second half of the twentieth century, some departments were granted the right to drop terms considered disparaging from their names. For example, Loire-Inférieure (Lower Loire) became Charente-­Maritime in 1941, and in 1990 Côtes-du-Nord became Côtes-d’Armor. The chef-lieu of the department, known as the prefecture, is the municipality where the departmental authorities are located. The number of departments in mainland France rose from 83 in 1790 to 134 in 1813, at the height of the Napoleonic Empire, before dropping back to 86 in 1815 and finally settling at 96 in 1975 for metropolitan France:

13 France Year No Reason 1790 83 Establishment 1811 130 The two Corsican departments, Liamone and Golo, were reunited in a single department, Corsica 1813 134 Height of the Napoleonic Empire 1815 86 Fall of the Empire. Loss (first and second treaties of Paris, 1814 and 1815) of Alpes-Maritimes, Léman and Mont-Blanc, incorporated into the kingdom of Sardinia, as well as the departments which today are not part of the country. Changes in the boundaries between Léman and Mont-Blanc under Sardinian rule. 1860 89 Return (Treaty of Turin, 1860) of the three departments, the latter two under the names Savoie and Haute-Savoie but with the same boundaries. Changes in boundaries between Alpes-Maritimes and Var. 1870 87 Franco-Prussian war, French defeat. Loss of the entire Bas-Rhin, a part of Haut-Rhin, Moselle and Meurthe. Conservation of the southern part of Haut-Rhin, creating the Territoire de Belfort; the remaining French parts of the Lorraine were combined in a single department named Meurthe-et-Moselle. 1919 90 World War I (1914–1918). Defeat of Germany. Return to France of the three departments of Alsace and Lorraine with the boundaries established by the German administration. 1962 95 Reorganisation of the Paris region. Dissolution of the Seine and Seine-et-Oise departments and redistribution of municipalities between seven departments: Paris, Hauts-de-Seine, Seine-Saint-Denis, Val-de-Marne, Val-d’Oise, Essonne and Yvelines 1975 96 The department of Corsica is split into two departments: Corse-du-Sud and Haute-Corse

Except for the cases of Corsica and the Paris region, changes in the number of departments were due to war.

13.5.2.2 C  entral Government: Organs, Functions and Powers The department has been an administrative unit of the state since 1790. From the Constitution of Year VIII (1799) onwards, each department has been presided over by a departmental prefect, appointed by the government, assisted by sub-prefects for each sub-prefecture (or arrondissement) and responsible for verifying the implementation of governmental directives. 13.5.2.3 L  ocal Government: Organs, Functions and Powers Each department is administered by a General Council, made up of general councillors elected by universal suffrage (six-year term, uninominal two-round system) in local elections (see canton here). With the Acts of 25 March 1852 and 13 April 1861, ‘considering that one can govern from afar but that one can only administer well in person, that while it is important to centralize government, it is necessary to decentralize31 adminisMisuse of language to qualify this reform of decentralisation. See bibliography, J.-P. Lebreton, p. 13. 31 

145

tration’, the department became a deconcentrated administrative unit. In 1870, the Act of 10 August granted departments the status of local authorities, separate from state administration and responsible for safeguarding the interests of a specific area’s population. The Act of 2 March 1982 set decentralisation in motion by giving general councillors new powers, while the executive was transferred to the president of the General Council, who prepares and implements the department’s budget. Now, departments’ areas of responsibility include health and social services, town and country planning and rural facilities, and investment spending for education, culture and heritage. The department is also an electoral constituency for regional elections.

13.5.3 Arrondissements 13.5.3.1 The Administrative Areas Instituted by the Constitution of the Year VIII (1 December) and made official by the Act of 28 Pluviôse year VIII (17 February 1800), the arrondissements replaced the old districts, abolished in 1795, as the second tier of administration. Municipalities that are chefs-lieux of an arrondissement are called ‘sub-prefectures’, and the prefecture, chef-lieu of the department, is also a sub-prefecture. There is one special case to note: the arrondissements of Metz-Campagne, StrasbourgCampagne and Thionville-Ouest each have a chef-lieu municipality, which is not part of the arrondissement. Arrondissements names are those of the chefs-lieux municipalities, so they change according to modifications in municipality names, as well as when chefs-lieux are transferred (19 occurrences over two centuries). The number of arrondissements, far lower (367 in 1800) than the number of old districts (561 in 1793), has changed little overall (330  in 2011), with a fairly even spread of arrondissements being created and dissolved: • Five new arrondissements created in the nineteenth century and eighteen in the twentieth century (essentially during the reorganisation of the Paris region) • One arrondissement dissolved in the nineteenth century and seventy-six in the twentieth century (in 1926, 106 were dissolved, but 34 were re-established later on).

13.5.3.2 C  entral Government: Organs, Functions and Powers The arrondissement is an administrative unit of the state, a subdivision of the department. Arrondissements themselves are divided into cantons. They are administered by sub-­

146

prefects, appointed by the government to assist their departmental prefect, sharing with the latter the supervision of their arrondissement’s municipalities.

13.5.3.3 L  ocal Government: Organs, Functions and Powers Arrondissements have never been local authorities. They have, therefore, never been run by elected representatives. During the nineteenth century, there were Arrondissements Councils whose remit was limited to setting distributive taxes and expressing wishes (particularly proposals for merging or creating municipalities) that the sub-prefect would transmit to the prefect and the general council. The Act of 16 September 1807 authorised them to levy extraordinary taxes for public works, and the decree of 9 April 1811 transferred ownership of the sub-prefectures to them. However, at the Restoration, their prerogatives were reduced in favour of those of departments. In 1837, and again in 1871, their dissolution was envisaged. Arrondissements were used at some periods as legislative constituencies, particularly during the Third Republic. In 1940, the Act of 12 October ‘suspended’ the arrondissements councils, which were never reactivated.

13.5.4 Cantons 13.5.4.1 The Administrative Areas Cantons were created in 1789 at the same time as departments. There were 4660 to start with, growing to over 4800 in 1793 with the annexations of those years. The number of cantons dropped sharply in 1801 to 2912 (Act of 28 January reducing the number of justices of the peace). Since then, their number has increased continuously to reach 3883 in 2010. Successive redistributions have been necessary, mainly in urban areas, due to the fact that cantons serve as electoral constituencies; their boundaries must be readjusted according to population increases and changes in population distribution. In 1800, cantons became a subdivision of arrondissements and each canton may only belong to a single arrondissement. In most cases, cantons encompass several whole municipalities. Since 1800, this is not the case in urban areas, as cantonal boundaries no longer respect municipal boundaries: • The most populous municipalities are divided into several cantons. • A canton can be made up of parts of several municipalities, or parts of one or several municipalities combined with other whole municipalities. Cantons take the name of their chef-lieu municipality, together with numbers or the name of the cardinal points in

C. Motte

the case of urban cantons. Some cantons created since the 1970s were given names unrelated to the name of their chef-­ lieu, like, for example, the Côte Vermeille canton created in 1973 (department of Pyrénées orientales), whose chef-lieu is the municipality of Port-Vendres.

13.5.4.2 C  entral Government: Organs, Functions and Powers In 1790, most municipalities selected as chef-lieu were already centres for administrative services. They kept this role, and several state services would remain localised there. When they were created, cantons were invested with an electoral function (constituency for the formation of primary assemblies, from which were elected the departmental representatives), a judicial function (jurisdiction of the court of first instance called ‘Justice of the Peace Court’), a tax function (seat of the tax collector for indirect taxes) and finally a police function (headquarters of the gendarmerie). In the twentieth century, cantons lost part of these functions. Although in principle cantons still accommodate some state services (gendarmerie, tax collection), they are completely ignored by both the Act of 6 February 1992 relative to local government of the Republic and the Decree of 1 July 1992 on the charter of deconcentration. Conversely, their function as electoral constituencies remains important. It is from within the cantons that general councillors are elected; these councillors form the general departmental councils and participate in the election of senators (who themselves sit in the second constitutive chamber of the French parliament). 13.5.4.3 L  ocal Government: Organs, Functions and Powers Neither are cantons local authorities, but since the Departmental Act of 10 August 1871, general councillors are elected by universal suffrage from these cantonal constituencies. They serve a six-year term in office and are renewed by half every three years: half coinciding with municipal elections, the other half with regional elections. Councillors may be re-elected indefinitely. Each canton elects a general councillor. Consequently, departments with populations of different sizes may have more or less the same number of councillors. Lastly, no one may be a candidate in more than one canton.

13.5.5 Municipalities ‘The municipal bodies shall fulfil two types of function: the first specific to the municipal authority, the second specific to the general administration of the state, which it delegates to the municipalities’, stipulates article 49 of the 1789 Decree of the National Assembly. This is still true in principle.

13 France

147

13.5.5.1 The Administrative Areas Municipalities are the lowest tier of French administration. This institution took root in the French landscape in several stages: • 1789–1790: Transformation, with almost no losses, of the parishes of the Ancien Régime into the first elected municipalities • 1792–1793: secularisation of civil registration—previously performed by the parish priest, now the responsibility of the mayor—and imposition of the word ‘commune’ (municipality) instead of town or village • First half of the nineteenth century: establishment of the land registry, which provided the opportunity to standardise municipal areas, resulting in the dissolution of a number of small municipalities. Some were to battle for years, and often successfully, to be re-established. • 1884: the Municipal Act created a uniform legal framework for all French municipalities (except for the city of Paris). This decision would never be challenged thereafter, despite the extreme disparity of French municipalities, and the large number and specific characteristics of small municipalities. In addition, the Act gave municipalities the status of a legal entity and, consequently, that of a local authority. Mayors would be elected by the municipal councils, themselves elected by universal suffrage, for a four-year term, later extended to six years. It defined the prefecture’s supervisory rather than decision-­ making powers vis-à-vis the municipality. The municipal structure is, therefore, the same as the structure at departmental level: a deliberative body—the municipal council—which adopts decisions; an executive body—the mayor—in charge of implementing the council’s deci-

Year 1971–2009

Mergers accomplished 943

Eliminated by merger 1343

This modest result contrasts with those obtained in other European countries, committed to the same movement over the same period. Between 1950 and 2007,32 the number of municipalities was reduced by: • 87% in Sweden (from 2281 to 290 municipalities) • 80% in Denmark (from 1387 to 277 municipalities) • 79% in the United Kingdom (from 1118 to 238 municipalities) • 75% in Belgium (from 2359 to 596 municipalities) • 42% in Austria (from 4039 to 357 municipalities) Source: European Council, committee on local and regional democracy 2007 and http://www.senat.fr/rap/l09-169/l09-16921.html 32 

sions; a state representative—the mayor—who represents both the municipality and the state. The municipality is undoubtedly the tier that raises the most issues, in the sense that the large number of municipalities is maintained despite constantly repeated attempts or incitements by the government to reduce them. There are two key moments in the evolution of the number of municipalities: • 1867–1873: period of establishment Until 1867, any change in municipal boundaries, including the establishment of new municipalities, was the decision of central government or the legislative body. In 1867, an act conferred this jurisdiction to the prefects. In 1871, a second act transferred it to the general council, before the Municipal Act of 1884 gave it back to the legislature. Prefects and general councillors are all closer to the population than members of parliament or officers of the Ministry of the Interior. Thus, they are more exposed to local pressure, and the number of requests soared for the creation or renewed independence of small municipalities that often had been regrouped dozens of years before. Out of just under a thousand municipalities to be created or re-established during the century, over a third fell between 1867 and 1873. • 1971–1979: Marcellin Act of 1971, merger-association Most mergers and associations took place in 1972–1973. The first de-mergers appeared from 1975. Over the whole 1971–2009 period, this scheme had limited success: Results of the Marcellin Act

De-mergers 180

Created by de-merger 243

Balance 1100

• 42% in Norway (from 744 to 431 municipalities) • 41% in Germany (from 14,338 to 8414 municipalities) And yet the Marcellin Act had taken the precaution of maintaining the name and the inventory of associated municipalities. It also authorised the creation of an annex to the central town hall, with the deputy mayor remaining the registrar and officer of the Criminal Investigation Department. Nonetheless, as deputy mayor and no longer titular mayor, the municipal institution had been attacked: According to the 1968 general population census, there were 37,708 municipalities (in metropolitan France). That is when the Act of 16 July 1971, called the “Marcellin Act”, came in. It was supposed to mark a new and particularly important phase in the

148

C. Motte

Table 13.4  Municipalities by population size as on 1 January 2006 Number of inhabitants Size less than 50 50 to 99 100 to 199 200 to 399 400 to 999 1,000 to 1,999 2,000 to 3,499 3,500 to 4,999 5,000 to 9,999 10,000 to 19,999 20,000 to 49,999 50,000 to 99,999 100,000 to 199,999 200,000 or more

Number of municipalities Number Accumulated number 955 955 2,774 3,729 6,158 9,887 8,117 18,004 9,392 27,396 4,366 31,762 2,092 33,854 859 34,713 1;047 35,760 484 36,244 319 36,563 83 36,646 28 36,674 11 36,685

Accumulated (%) 26 10.2 27 49.1 74.7 86.6 92.3 94.6 97.5 98.8 99.7 99.9 100 100

Municipal population Number Accumulated number 32,814 32,814 210,986 243,800 909,345 1,153,145 2,337,280 3,490,425 5,977,017 9,467,442 6,,086, 297 15,553,739 5,486,368 21,040,107 3,574,675 24,614,782 7,213,026 31,827,808 6,765,893 38,593,701 9,677,533 48,271,234 5,422,498 53,693,732 3,788,993 57,482,725 5,752,843 63,235,568

Accumulated (%) 0.1 0.4 1.8 5.5 15 24.6 33.3 38.9 50.3 61 76.3 84.9 90.9 100

Source: Insee, 2006 population census Interpretation: 9392 municipalities have between 400 and 999 inhabitants (municipal population). They represent 5,977,017 inhabitants In total, 27,396 municipalities have fewer than 1000 inhabitants, or 74.7% of municipalities: they represent 9,467,442 inhabitants, or 15% of the population Field: metropolitan France, overseas departments, Saint-Martin, Saint-Barthélemy and Saint Pierre and Miquelon. Paris, Lyon and Marseille each count as one municipality modernization of the municipal institution. Among the various possible solutions, priority was to be given to mergers, ­summarized as follows: ‘It must be understood and acknowledged that this [merging] should not be regarded as the disappearance of human communities united by history and tradition but, on the contrary, as the birth of new, stronger municipalities, better organized and therefore able to make better use of a more genuine autonomy’. Application of this act was a failure, as municipal mergers can only succeed if they truly reflect the desire of the population. In fact, the municipality embodies the level of local governance to which citizens remain attached. On 1 January 2008, France had 36,683 municipalities, or 40% of total municipalities in the enlarged European Union.33 (see Table 13.4)

In the end, it was the other forms of variable-geometry municipal grouping (union and/or inter-municipal association) for the accomplishment of specific services that won the support of the population and of municipal councils, precisely because they do not challenge municipal identity. Why does the population feel such an attachment to this institution, particularly the inhabitants of very small municipalities? Especially seeing that the number of these very small municipalities has risen sharply over the last two centuries: Census 1801 1999