For all the talk of the unique challenges facing English and Welsh councils, when it comes to devolving real powers they are not alone. In fact, the first world report on decentralisation and local democracy - a comparison of local gov ernment reforms in virtually every country - shows that the UK is grappling with largely similar issues to many other countries. Local government delivers a range of public services in all countries, usually has some sort of tax-raising powers and is typically linked to local democracy.
Functions
Virtually all countries delegate town planning; allocation of social benefits; the management of social institutions for particular categories of the population, especially the elderly; roads and public transport; water distribution; social housing; the building and maintenance of schools; education support; and policies to promote economic growth locally.
The most common variation occurs in education, health and social security. Whereas in Denmark regional authorities manage health care and health insurance, and in Sweden social security is managed nationally (though healthcare and hospitals are run by the counties), in Germany, France, Italy and Spain, local government has only partial or marginal powers in these areas. Similarly, education staff fall under the aegis of state or regional authorities in Germany, Austria, Spain and Belgium.
China's largest cities look after the judiciary, pensions and economic development as well as more typical local services. Turkey's local authorities share responsibility for public services, including education, with special provincial administrations. Moves to devolve responsibilities and powers have increased in recent years. While in eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, China and Vietnam, reforms have tended to involve economic restructuring, in Africa, Latin America, Indonesia and the Philippines, the focus has been on democracy and state modernisation, and in north America, Australia, Germany and New Zealand it's been on improving services.
Urban policy In most nations, the problem of governing dense urban areas has driven reform. City regions and other partnership mechanisms have proliferated. Some systems allow co-operation more easily than others. Councils in north Amer ica are less constrained and collaboration across boundaries is common. The US has established many special units with a narrow remit, such as primary education or fire safety.
The collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s saw the dissipation of central state control over services in many eastern European countries, while Spain, Italy, Scotland and Northern Ireland were all grappling with demands for greater regional autonomy. Most European countries embarked on territorial reforms, typically strengthening municipal and subregional governance, and leading to debates about the merits of city regions.
In central Asia (Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turmenkistan, Uzbekistan), localism is strong but very much subservient to central government. In Argentina, Brazil and Mexico, regional governance is dominant, although Brazil has given municipal authorities more powers. The Andean countries have brought in sweeping reforms. In the early 90s, Columbia and Bolivia published comprehensive visions of reform, which were scuppered by the economic crisis. Peru has been decentralising since 2000. Council organisation has been rethought. In OECD countries, many authorities have been rationalised, notably in the UK, Belgium and Greece; in areas where the municipal tier was weak, new tiers have been added. Most Eurasian states have altered local structures to accommodate regional or ethnic groups.
Contracting out
In the Middle East, external joint-service councils and neighbourhood committees oversee infra structure in rural areas. In north America, many services are now funded locally, priv at is ation and public-private partnerships have become the norm and two thirds of municipal councils have privatised some ser vices. New Zealand and Aus tralia are privatising an increasing number. In the Nether lands, Sweden and the UK, many services are contracted out.
Finance and choice
Although local government's share of public spending has risen, the overall figures are still only a small fraction of the total. In Africa, it is typically 5-10%, in Latin America usually about 20%. In only Denmark and the Netherlands Antilles is it more than 50% of the total. The fiscal autonomy of local government is highly restricted in the Middle East, Africa and Eurasia, but most countries in the Asia-Pacific region, north America and Europe raise much more money directly (30-40% of the total). Globally, citizens now tend to be much more involved in the way services are delivered. Many African countries, India, Pakistan, the Philippines and parts of Latin America use village councils to gather citizens' opinions. Referendums and calls to action by citizens are common in north America and Japan, while the Latin American and Caribbean region uses participatory budgeting extensively.
Capability
Local government employees often face low pay, understaffing and poor career prospects, so not many qualified professionals work there. Only Bolivia, South Africa and Indonesia have adopted comprehensive policies on decentralisation, but even there implementation has not always matched the rhetoric. In Africa, decentralisation has rarely been properly planned, and in Eurasia the main idea was to separate the state from local self-government. Mostly, councils' functions are still not clearly defined, and notions of local and regional autonomy have clashed. In Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia, local government was independent, whereas in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova and Ukraine, this has yet to occur and reforms have withered on the vine. Ambiguity in accountability often results in nominal devolution of powers and direct delivery by central government, notably Latin America in the 1990s, when some governments used direct delivery to gain political support, while others botched co-ordination, resulting in duplication of services.
