Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Administrative decentralization is the technical side of democratization. Two examples are decentralization in the structure of public administration, and decentralization in provision of local services, which seems to be more complicated, Some type of integration is necessary for ‘real’ administrative decentralization, the purpose of which is to get closer to democratization. However, fragmentation is not a synonym of decentralization. According to my hypothesis the more decentralized a system the more necessary it is to integrate its basic units. There are different forms of integration. The scale is very wide: it varies from amalgamation, to the creation of voluntary associations among municipalities. Administrative decentralization does not exclude public managerial integration in service delivery. In East – Central European countries, parallel to the structural decentralization, different new forms of integration are emerging, simply as a result of the establishment of local institutions in place of former monopolies. This nonadministrative, functional, integration seems to be very important for the development of effectiveness in local democracy.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bird

R M

Ebel

R D

Wallich

, (Eds), 1995 Decentralization of the Socialist State: Intergovernmental Finance in Transition Economics (World Bank, Washington, DC)

Council of Europe, 1994 Colloquy on the Size of Municipalities, Efficiency and Citizen Participation (Council of Europe, Strasbourg)

CSO, 1994 Statistical Yearbook of Housing (Central Statistical Office, Budapest)

Csomós

, 1993, “Principles of the housing reform”, manuscript, Hungarian Ministry of Welfare, Arany János u. 6–8, H-1361, Budapest

Dahl

R A

, 1967, “The city in future democracy” American Political Science Review 61 953–970

Dahl

R A

Tufte

E R

, 1973 Size and Democracy (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA)

Horváth

T M

, 1995, “A feszült lokalitás” (Report on a representative survey in 400 Hungarian municipalities), in Aréna és Otthon (Politikai Tanulmányok Intézete Alapitvány, Budapest). pp 19–101

ILGPS, 1994 Local Governments in the CEE and CIS, 1994: An Anthology of Descriptive Papers Institute for Local Government and Public Service, Nádor u. 11, H-1051, Budapest

Lorrain

, 1992, “The French model of urban services” West European Politics 15(2) 77–92

10.

Marcou

, (Ed.), 1994, “State budget support to local governments: Report for the SIGMA Program” (PHARE/OECD, Paris)

11.

Mouritzen

P E

, 1989, “City size and citizens' satisfaction: Two competing theories revisited” European Journal of Political Research 17 661–688

12.

Newton

, 1982, “Is small really so beautiful? Is big really so ugly?” Political Studies 30 190–206

13.

Page

E C

Goldsmith

M J

, (Eds), 1987 Central and Local Government Relations: A Comparative Analysis of West European Unitary States (Sage, London)

14.

Sharpe

L J

, (Ed.), 1993 The Rise of Meso in Europe (Sage, London)

15.

Swianiewicz

, 1995, “Policy preferences and ideologies in the 1994 local election in Poland”, in Public Administration in Transition Eds Jabes

Vintar

, (NISPAcee, Bratislava) pp 315–330

16.

UNCHS, 1996 Hungarian National Report presented at the Conference of Habitat II: The City Summit, Istanbul; UNCHS HABITAT Information Center for East-Central Europe, Németvölgyi út 41, H-1124 Budapest

Decentralization in Public Administration and Provision of Services: An East — Central European View

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References