Medium Term Expenditure Framework > Decentralisation

Model Local Government Laws

(1/3) > >>

Glen Wright:
I would be interested to receive from colleagues some examples of local government laws that might serve as model for development of new Organic Law in Albania.  The new law would cover the principles of LGUs, their rights and obligations, their functions, revenues,  organization and structure of the local governments as well as regional government.  What you suggest as further chapters or contents of this law.  Do you have some examples of good model provisions for a decentralized local government system, 

FitzFord:
Glen,
I have been thinking about what suggestions to make. I continue to be confronted by my reluctance to suggest examples that were custom designed for specific circumstances. Would you like to have an initial discussion offline? Mauro can give you my email address.

Fitz

FitzFord:
Glen,
In thinking through Local Government Laws, I tend to think about what are the characteristics of the country and its subdivisions, and how will these influence the success or stumbles of subnational divisions and, as a consequence, the laws, assignment of responsibilities and resources, and constraints that would need to formulated, implemented, monitored and limited, and what should be encouraged and rewarded, and how.
This is my first cut at setting out the factors that in my experience help or hurt the performance of communities, especially with regard to cohesiveness and conflict. The cohesiveness would be expected to predispose groups to be willing to trust and work together, and share. Conflict, of course, tends to create suspicious and tensions. In real life, the barriers and lines are not necessarily rigid, but if poorly managed, could make unnecessarily difficulties. When the processes for decision-making, establishing priorities and allocation of resources relationships, are clearly set out in a manner that is accepted as fair, over time, communities usually work better and trust grows and reinforces. So, these are my usual areas to start quietly exploring. When these are fairly well understood, the outline of the decision-making and implementation of programs, including who gets to participate, how leaders are chosen, the assurance of transparency ensues. I also tend not to express the process in quite this way because some will bristle. So language is also important. What helps is that everybody/group do not necessarily want the same thing, or at the same time, so that priority of items are also important to understand. We could start out by classifying the population groups and elements of the agenda and who and where the priorities are. Then we could look at who is benefitting from what (processes; products) at this time, and how each group would be likely to react to particular proposals. Surprisingly, I have found that when you lay out the draft results and indicate how it would be possible to improve each groups benefits, a viable negotiable proposal can result. What is important for the interlocutor is to be seen as non partisan and aiming to have everyone get closer to their objectives over a reasonable period of time.

I would also try to address the circumstances of different characteristics among different localities/regions. Generally, it is reasonable to take into account the local wellbeing in allocating center resources to regions. It is usual to allow more scope in the decision making of the amount, size and range of programs where the regions are less dependent. Relatively, these regions also should be allowed to use their own resources to take reasonable risks and establish priorities that represent genuine consensus in their regions. We can continue to refine these distinctions.

This may be a good place to pause and let you add and substract.

Fitz.

 
 I hope this is a helpful start. As you know, this is just the start!


I forgot to address the circumstances of different characteristics among different localities/regions. Generally, it is reasonable to take into account the local wellbeing in allocating center resources to regions. It is usual to allow more scope in the decision making of the amount, size and range of programs where the regions are less dependent. Relatively, these regions also should be allowed to use their own resources to take a reasonable risks and priorities that represent genuine consensus in their regions. We can continue to refine these distinctions.

 

Glen Wright:
Hello Fitz:  Thanks for this contribution.  You are making an important point about the characteristics of the communities and it is a key area to be addressed in developing the local government law.  I think there are some interesting comparisons to be made in Central and Eastern Europe about how these characteristics have impacted the local government system. As I recall in Macedonia there was a consolidation of local governments and one of the factors, whether explicit or not, was the ethnic makeup of the newly created units.  The map was effectively drawn to avoid some potential problems based on the ethnic character.  I believe I am correct in recalling this but perhaps some one else can add more or another perspective to this.

Recently in Albania there was a merging of units and one of the contentious issues was the inclusion of the Greek population in a particular area into a larger jurisdiction and there was much resistance to this.  There was supposedly some consideration of taking into account historical, cultural and ethnic characteristics in the drawing of the municipal boundaries, but still there was some areas that could not stand alone just based on ethnic considerations.

One solution I know that would fit to inclusion in a law on local government was the idea of minority villages and that certain representations and functions would be assigned to them outside the normal functions. I believe this was done in Hungary, particularly for Roma villages, and this seemed to solve some of the tensions in the communities.  I would like to hear of other ideas on how this has worked.

FitzFord:
Glen, as I was thinking about what would be useful examples to use in response to the dilemma you noted, various cases that were imperfect came to mind. I suspect that diversities cannot be avoided. Perhaps the most useful approach is to have built into the system, periodic (say 5/10 years) reviews of performance where limited adjustments would be made to the system to improve a limited selection of the most egregious problems. The rules for these reviews should be agreed in the initial framework of the decentralization system. Perhaps some of our colleagues may be able to cite some examples.

Fitz.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page