Models compared” “

“Federalism 2004. Quantitative aspects and comparisons between European experiences” is the title of the report drawn up by ‘Reforme ‘, an association promoted by academics and professionals at the Research Institute ‘REF’ – Research for the economy and finance. We propose a brief résumé of the report below. For further information: reforme@ref-online.it “The various levels of government in the main European countries – explains the report – now conform to four main models: political federalism; fiscal decentralization; Dutch and Nordic; and British”. POLITICAL FEDERALISM is the model of Austria, Germany and Belgium. “In Austria the Constitution attributes equal dignity to the federal Bund as to the nine Laender, whose functions are general. In Germany the federal structure seems even more reinforced: apart from autonomous statutes and general functions, the Laender are provided with a decentralized system of constitutional courts and a national Chamber (Bundesrat). Belgian federalism is more recent and is the consequence of the opposition and conflict between the country’s various ethnic and linguistic groups. A long process of constitutional adaptation led, in 1993, to a system in which federal state, (ethnic and linguistic) communities and regions (intermediate levels of government) are equipped with equal institutional dignity, but ought in principle to perform different, constitutionally predefined functions”. MODEL OF DECENTRALIZED COUNTRIES. This is the model applied in France, Spain and “still de facto in Italy, pending the developments of the reform of Title V of the Constitution”. In France, where the primacy of the central power over the 22 regional authorities was hitherto in force, “the constitutional reform of 2003, which sanctions the decentralized organization of the Republic, altered the distribution between the various institutional levels and increased the role of the territorial authorities vis-à-vis the central government”. “The Spanish post-Franco Constitution of 1978 – lastly – introduced the intermediate level of the ‘autonomous Communities’; they are also represented in the national Senate”. The “decentralization of healthcare and welfare state sectors” in their favour was completed in 2002. DUTCH AND NORDIC MODEL. This is the model applied, “albeit with far from negligible differences, in Denmark, Finland, Holland and Sweden. Its main characteristic, perhaps also due to the limited dimension and specific geographical features of the Nordic countries, is the absence of Regions as government authorities. But this is offset by a considerable extension of the functions of local governments and their decision-making autonomy. Also significant is the development of functional agencies in Holland, aimed at overcoming the inefficiency connected with the maintenance of local authorities of reduced size. The integration between political and ‘functional’ federalism is a significant recent tendency, aimed at reconciling efficiency and political autonomy”. BRITISH MODEL. “Traditionally government in Britain has been strongly centralized, but recently trends towards greater decentralization have emerged. In this case too there is a considerable extension of functional decentralization with the proliferation of ‘authorities’ responsible for specific sectors”. SELF-DETERMINATION, EFFICIENCY, SOLIDARITY. “Federal reforms in the main European countries – says the report – reflect the objective of increasing the degree of self-determination of the decentralized structures and increasing the efficiency of the public sector. These reforms, as well as impacting on the institutional systems (UK and France), are intended to re-design the distribution of functions between the various levels of government (Spain, France) and the funding procedures (Spain, France and Germany). In some countries the reforms are still under discussion (UK, Switzerland), without it being possible to predict their outcome. Other countries have already implemented them over the last two years: among these, the reforms completed in Spain (2002-2003), France (2003) and Germany (2002) are of particular interest for the Italian case”. In Germany “the distribution of functions between Bund – central government – and Laender is not under discussion, but the search for a different mix between objectives in terms of solidarity between the territories and in terms of efficiency has found a solution in a system of equal distribution that no longer compensates, as in the past, for the differences between the Laender”. The UK, lastly, “in spite of the recent devolution of legislative and executive powers to the governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, still remains one of the most centralized countries in Europe”. ———————————————————————————————————– Sir Europa (English) N.ro assoluto : 1282 N.ro relativo : 22 Data pubblicazione : 24/03/2004