Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Local government
View on WikipediaIt has been suggested that Municipal council be merged into this article. (Discuss) Proposed since April 2025. |
This article possibly contains original research. (January 2011) |
| Part of the Politics series |
| Basic forms of government |
|---|
| List of forms · List of countries |
|
|
| Part of a series on |
| Governance |
|---|

Local government is a generic term for the lowest tiers of governance or public administration within a particular sovereign state.
Local governments typically constitute a subdivision of a higher-level political or administrative unit, such as a nation or state. Local governments generally act within the powers and functions assigned to them by law or directives of a higher level of government. In federal states, local government generally comprises a third or fourth level of government, whereas in unitary states, local government usually occupies the second or third level of government.
The institutions of local government vary greatly between countries, and even where similar arrangements exist, country-specific terminology often varies. Common designated names for different types of local government entities include counties, districts, cities, townships, towns, boroughs, parishes, municipalities, municipal corporations, shires, villages, and local government areas. The same term may be used in different countries to refer to local governance institutions with vastly different institutional features, powers, or functions.
In addition to general-purpose local governments, some countries have special-purpose local governments (special districts), such as independent school districts, elected water boards, or local service districts.
Although there is no single, commonly accepted definition of the term, the most precise definition of local governments is provided by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which divides the general government sector into three sub-sectors (central, state, and local government)[1] and defines local governments as "institutional units whose fiscal, legislative, and executive authority extends over the smallest geographical areas distinguished for administrative and political purposes."[2]
The IMF further notes that local governments "typically provide a wide range of services to local residents," while "the scope of their authority is generally much less than that of central government or state governments, and they may or may not be entitled to levy taxes." They are often heavily dependent on grants (transfers) from higher levels of government, and they may also act, to some extent, as agents of central or regional governments. They should also be able to appoint their own officers, independently of external administrative control. Even when local governments act as agents of central or state governments to some extent, they can be treated as a separate level of government, provided they are also able to raise and spend some funds on their own initiative and own responsibility."[2]
Other definitions for local governments are less prescriptive and emphasize the political or representative nature of local governments. For instance, OECD defines local governments as "decentralized entities whose governance bodies are elected through universal suffrage and which has general responsibilities and some autonomy with respect to budget, staff and assets."[3] The Local Public Sector Alliance defines local government institutions as "a corporate body (or institutional unit) that performs one or more public sector functions within a [local] jurisdiction that has adequate political, administrative, and fiscal autonomy and authority to respond to the needs and priorities of its constituents".[4]
Questions regarding the empowerment of local government institutions, the structure and nature of local political leadership, and the extent of local self-governance and municipal autonomy are key questions of public administration and governance. Local elections are held in many countries.
Africa
[edit]Egypt
[edit]Egypt has a centralised system of local government officially called local administration as it is a branch of the Executive.[5] The country is divided into 27 governorates (محافظة muḥāfaẓah; Egyptian Arabic pronunciation: [moˈħɑfzˤɑ]; genitive case: muḥāfaẓat [moˈħɑfzˤet]; plural: محافظات muḥāfaẓāt [moħɑfˈzˤɑːt]),[6] the top tier of local administration. A governorate is administered by a governor, who is appointed by the President of Egypt and serves at the president's discretion.
Governors have the civilian rank of minister and report directly to the prime minister, who chairs the Board of Governors and meets with them on a regular basis.[7] The Minister of Local Development coordinates the governors and their governorate's budgets.[8]
Mali
[edit]In recent years[when?], Mali has undertaken an ambitious decentralization program, which involves the capital district of Bamako, seven regions subdivided into 46 cercles, and 682 rural community districts (communes). The state retains an advisory role in administrative and fiscal matters, and it provides technical support, coordination, and legal recourse to these levels. Opportunities for direct political participation, and increased local responsibility for development have been improved.[citation needed]
In August–September 1998, elections were held for urban council members, who subsequently elected their mayors. In May/June 1999, citizens of the communes elected their communal council members for the first time. Female voter turnout was about 70% of the total, and observers considered the process open and transparent. With mayors, councils, and boards in place at the local level, newly elected officials, civil society organizations, decentralized technical services, private sector interests, other communes, and donor groups began partnering to further development.[citation needed]
Eventually, the cercles will be reinstituted (formerly grouping arrondissements) with a legal and financial basis of their own. Their councils will be chosen by and from members of the communal councils. The regions, at the highest decentralized level, will have a similar legal and financial autonomy, and will comprise a number of cercles within their geographical boundaries. Mali needs to build capacity at these levels, especially to mobilize and manage financial resources.[citation needed]
Nigeria
[edit]Nigeria as a federal republic operates three tiers of government: federal (or central), states and local government. The country's constitution provides for each local government (which exists in a single tier countrywide), and its development areas and autonomous communities created by individual state legislation to have democratically elected local government heads. There is a ministry (or bureau) of local government and chieftaincy affairs in each state charged with the responsibility of administration at that level. Nigeria has a total of 774 Local Government Areas (LGAs).[9]
South Africa
[edit]South Africa has a two-tiered local government system comprising local municipalities which fall into district municipalities, and metropolitan municipalities which span both tiers of local government.
Asia
[edit]Afghanistan
[edit]Afghanistan was traditionally divided into provinces governed by centrally appointed governors with considerable autonomy in local affairs. There are currently 34 provinces. During the Soviet occupation and the development of country-wide resistance, local areas came increasingly under the control of mujaheddin groups that were largely independent of any higher authority; local commanders, in some instances, asserted a measure of independence also from the mujaheddin leadership in Pakistan, establishing their own systems of local government, collecting revenues, running educational and other facilities, and even engaging in local negotiations. Mujaheddin groups retained links with the Peshawar parties to ensure access to weapons that were doled out to the parties by the government of Pakistan for distribution to fighters inside Afghanistan.[10]
The Taliban set up a shura (assembly), made up of senior Taliban members and important tribal from the area. Each shura made laws and collected taxes locally. The Taliban set up a provisional government for the whole of Afghanistan, but it did not exercise central control over the local shuras.[11]
The process of setting up the transitional government in June 2002 by the Loya Jirga took many steps involving local government. First, at the district and municipal level, traditional shura councils met to pick electors—persons who cast ballots for Loya Jirga delegates. Each district or municipality had to choose a predetermined number of electors, based on the size of its population. The electors then traveled to regional centers and cast ballots, to choose from amongst themselves a smaller number of loya jirga delegates— according to allotted numbers assigned to each district. The delegates then took part in the Loya Jirga.[12]
The warlords who rule various regions of the country exert local control. The transitional government is attempting to integrate local governing authorities with the central government, but it lacks the loyalty from the warlords necessary to its governing authority. More traditional elements of political authority—such as Sufi networks, royal lineage, clan strength, age-based wisdom, and the like—still exist and play a role in Afghan society. Karzai is relying on these traditional sources of authority in his challenge to the warlords and older Islamist leaders. The deep ethnic, linguistic, sectarian, tribal, racial, and regional cleavages present in the country create what is called "Qawm" identity, emphasizing the local over higher-order formations. Qawm refers to the group to which the individual considers himself to belong, whether a subtribe, village, valley, or neighborhood. Local governing authority relies upon these forms of identity and loyalty.[13]
Armenia
[edit]Armenia is subdivided into eleven administrative divisions. Of these, ten are provinces, known as marzer (մարզեր) or in the singular form marz (մարզ) in Armenian.
Azerbaijan
[edit]Azerbaijan is administratively divided into the following subdivisions: 67 districts (rayonlar), 11 cities (şəhərlər). The Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic is a territorial exlcave, which itself contains: 7 districts and a city. The rayons are further divided into municipalities. (Bələdiyyə).
Bangladesh
[edit]Bangladesh is divided into eight administrative divisions,[14] each named after their respective divisional headquarters: Barisal, Chittagong, Dhaka, Khulna, Rajshahi, Sylhet, Rangpur and Mymensingh Division.
Divisions are divided into zila. There are 64 zila in Bangladesh, each further divided into upazila or thana. The area within each police station, except for those in metropolitan areas, is divided into several unions, with each union consisting of multiple villages. In the metropolitan areas, police stations are divided into wards, which are further divided into mahallas. There are no directly elected officials at the divisional or district levels, although elected chairs of subdistricts also sit on district councils.[15] Direct elections are held for each union (or ward), electing a chairperson and a number of members. In 1997, a parliamentary act was passed to reserve three seats (out of 12) in every union for female candidates.[16][17]
Dhaka is the capital and largest city of Bangladesh. The cities with a city corporation, having mayoral elections, include Dhaka South, Dhaka North, Chittagong, Khulna, Sylhet, Rajshahi, Barisal, Rangpur, Comilla and Gazipur. Other major cities, these and other municipalities electing a mayor and councilors for each ward, include Mymensingh, Gopalganj, Jessore, Bogra, Dinajpur, Saidapur, Narayanganj, Naogaon and Rangamati. Both the municipal heads are elected for a span of five years.
Brunei
[edit]The administrative divisions of Brunei mainly consist of daerah, mukim and kampung or kampong. They are organised hierarchically, with daerah being the first level and kampong the third level. All the administrative divisions are under direct governance of the government through the Ministry of Home Affairs. There are four districts in Brunei: Brunei-Muara, Belait, Tutong and Temburong. The administrative level of mukim lies below the district. At present, there are 38 mukims, with 17 in Brunei-Muara, 8 in Tutong, 8 in Belait and 5 in Temburong District. A mukim is headed by a penghulu. A village (Malay: kampung or kampong) is the lowest administrative level in Brunei and headed by a ketua kampong or village head. Its population varies from a few hundreds to tens of thousands.
Cambodia
[edit]China
[edit]Georgia
[edit]The subdivisions of Georgia are autonomous republics (Georgian: ავტონომიური რესპუბლიკა, avtonomiuri respublika), regions (მხარე, mkhare), and municipalities (მუნიციპალიტეტი, munits'ipaliteti).
India
[edit]Local government is the third tier of government in India, after Union Government and State Government. The urban local bodies (municipalities) are for urban governance and panchayati raj institutions (panchayats) for rural governance.
The Urban Local Bodies (ULBs):[18] are Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council (municipality) and Town panchayat (notified area council).
The Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs), knowns as "Panchayats" are a three-tier system of local self-government in rural areas in India: District Panchayat (district level), Block Panchayat (block level) and Village Panchayat (village level).
Indonesia
[edit]Iran
[edit]Iraq
[edit]Israel
[edit]The Israeli Ministry of Interior recognizes four types of local government in Israel: [citation needed]
- Cities: 71 single-level urban municipalities, usually with populations exceeding 20,000 residents.
- Local councils: 141 single-level urban or rural municipalities, usually with populations between 2,000 and 20,000.
- Regional Councils: 54 bi-level municipalities which govern multiple rural communities located in relative geographic vicinity. The number of residents in the individual communities usually does not exceed 2000. There are no clear limits to the population and land area size of Israeli regional councils.
- Industrial councils: Two single-level municipalities which govern large and complex industrial areas outside cities. The local industrial councils are Tefen in Upper Galilee (north of Karmiel) and Ramat Hovav in the Negev (south of Beer Sheva).
Japan
[edit]Since the Meiji restoration, Japan has had a local government system based on prefectures. The national government oversees much of the country. Municipal governments were historical villages. Now mergers are common for cost effective administration. There are 47 prefectures. They have two main responsibilities. One is mediation between national and municipal governments. The other is area wide administration.
Kazakhstan
[edit]Korea
[edit]Malaysia
[edit]Local government is the lowest level in the system of government in Malaysia—after federal and state. Councillors are not elected in local-level elections which have been abolished in 1976, but rather appointed by state governments.[19] It has the power to collect taxes (in the form of assessment tax), to create laws and rules (in the form of by-laws) and grants licenses and permits for any trade in its area of jurisdiction, in addition to providing basic amenities, collecting and managing waste and garbage as well as planning and developing the area under its jurisdiction.
Myanmar
[edit]Nepal
[edit]Gaunpalika (Rural Council) and Nagarpalika (Municipal council) are the local level divisions in Nepal. Which is ruled by third level of government after Federal and Provincial government. In Nepal there are total 753 local levels government (including 6 Metropolises, 11 Sub-metropolises, 276 Municipalities and 460 Gaunpalikas). And there are total 6,743 wards are formed under these 753 local levels. These local government are ruled by local leaders and the Mayor is the supreme of each local government which is elected every 5 (Five) year by local public.
Pakistan
[edit]Local government is the third tier of government in Pakistan, after Federal Government and Provincial Government. There are three types of administrative unit of local government in Pakistan are District Government Administrations, Town Municipal Administrations and Union Council Administrations
There are over five thousand local governments in Pakistan. Since 2001, these have been led by democratically elected local councils, each headed by a Nazim (the word means "supervisor" in Urdu, but is sometimes translated as Mayor). Some districts, incorporating large metropolitan areas, are called City Districts. A City District may contain subdivisions called Towns and Union Councils. Council elections are held every four years. District Governments also include a District Coordination Officer (DCO), who is a civil servant in-charge of all devolved departments. Currently, the Powers of Nazim are also held by the DCO.
Palestinian Authority
[edit]Local government in the Palestinian National Authority-controlled areas are divided into three main groups: Municipal councils, village council and local development committees.
- Municipality (Palestinian Authority): Depends on size of locality. Localities that serve as the centers of governorates and populations over 15,000 have 15-member councils. Localities with populations over 15,000 residents have 13-member councils and localities with populations between 4,000 and 15,000 have 9-member councils.
- Village Council (Palestinian Authority): Localities with populations between 800 and 1,500 have 3-member councils while those between 1,500 and −4,000 residents have 7-member councils.
Philippines
[edit]The Local Government Code of 1991 provides for the three levels of Local Government Units or LGUs in the Philippines: (1) the province (2) city and municipality, and (3) the barangay.[20] The country remains a unitary state and the National Government continues to have strong influence over local government units.
A province is led by a governor along with the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (Provincial Council) composed of board members. A mayor leads a city or municipality while the Sangguniang Panlungsod (City Council) and the Sangguniang Bayan (Municipal Council) constitute the legislative branches of a city and municipality, respectively. A barangay is headed by the Barangay Captain and the Barangay Council. Barangays can be further divided into puroks and sitios but their leadership is unelected.
The 1987 Philippine Constitution also provides for the existence of autonomous regions. The Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM) is the only autonomous region in the Philippines. There was an attempt to institute an autonomous region in the Cordillera, but that failed and instead the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR) was established.
Local governments have limited taxing authority. Most of their funds come from the national government via the Internal Revenue Allotment
Saudi Arabia
[edit]There are three levels of local government in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: the city council, the municipal council and the municipality.
The city council is the highest level of local government. The municipal councils began in 2005 and is the second level of local government. The municipality is the third level of local government. There are 178 municipalities across the kingdom. The first began in Jeddah during the Othmanic period. Each municipality is run by its city's mayor. Collectively, the kingdom's municipalities make up the Ministry of Municipality and Rural Affairs (MoMRA).
Sri Lanka
[edit]Syria
[edit]Taiwan
[edit]
The Republic of China government in Taiwan consists of special municipality governments, provincial city governments and county governments for their local governments. They also have councils in each of those three local government levels.
Tajikistan
[edit]Thailand
[edit]Turkey
[edit]Turkey has two levels of local government; provinces (Turkish: iller) and districts (Turkish: ilçeler).
The territory of Turkey is subdivided into 81 provinces for administrative purposes. The provinces are organized into 7 regions for census purposes; however, they do not represent an administrative structure. Each province is divided into districts, for a total of 957 districts.
United Arab Emirates
[edit]Uzbekistan
[edit]Vietnam
[edit]Vietnam has 3 levels of local government:
- First tier: municipalities (thành phố) and provinces (tỉnh)
- Second tier: provincial cities (thành phố), district-level towns (thị xã) and rural districts (huyện)
- Third tier: wards (phường), towns (thị trấn) and communes (xã)
Each level has a People's Committee (executive – up to third tier), a People's Council (legislative – up to third tier) and a People's Court (judiciary – up to second tier).
Yemen
[edit]Europe
[edit]Albania
[edit]Since its Declaration of Independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1912, Albania has reformed its internal divisions 21 times. Before the implementation of the 1998 Constitution, the primary division was into about 36 districts (Albanian: rrethe), whose number, size, and importance varied over time. Following their abolishment in the year 2000, the counties were divided into urban (bashki) and rural municipalities (komuna)[21] until the 2015 elections, when they were replaced by the current system.
Presently, Albania has 3–4 levels of local government :
- 12 counties (qarqet), sometimes known as prefectures (prefekturë) or administrative divisions
- 61 municipalities (bashki)
- 373 administrative units (Albanian: njësi administrative), sometimes known as communes (komuna), which also oversee about 3,000 villages (fshatra)
The prefects who oversee each county are appointed by the central government, but the mayors of the municipalities and the local government councils are elected democratically.
Andorra
[edit]Andorra is formed by seven parishes (parròquies, singular – parròquia); Andorra la Vella, Canillo, Encamp, La Massana, Escaldes-Engordany, Ordino, Sant Julià de Lòria.
Some parishes have a further territorial subdivision. Ordino, La Massana and Sant Julià de Lòria are subdivided into quarts (quarters), while Canillo is subdivided into 10 veïnats (neighborhoods). Those mostly coincide with villages, which are found in all parishes. Each parish has its own elected mayor who is the nominal head of the local government known as a comú in Catalan.
Belarus
[edit]At the top level of administration, Belarus is divided into six regions and the city of Minsk, which has a special status being the capital of Belarus. Minsk is also the capital of Minsk Region.
At the second level, the regions are divided into raions ("districts").
Bulgaria
[edit]Since the 1880s, the number of territorial management units in Bulgaria has varied from seven to 26.[22] Between 1987 and 1999 the administrative structure consisted of nine provinces (oblasti, singular oblast). A new administrative structure was adopted in parallel with the decentralisation of the economic system.[23] It includes 27 provinces and a metropolitan capital province (Sofia-Grad). All areas take their names from their respective capital cities. The provinces subdivide into 264 municipalities.
Municipalities are run by mayors, who are elected to four-year terms, and by directly elected municipal councils. Bulgaria is a highly centralised state, where the national Council of Ministers directly appoints regional governors and all provinces and municipalities are heavily dependent on it for funding.[24]
Croatia
[edit]Croatia is divided into 20 counties and the capital city of Zagreb, the latter having the authority and legal status of a county and a city at the same time. The counties subdivide into 127 cities and 429 municipalities.[25]
Czech Republic
[edit]The highest tier of local government in the Czech Republic are the thirteen regions (Czech: kraje, singular kraj) and the capital city of Prague. Each region has its own elected Regional Assembly (krajské zastupitelstvo) and hejtman (usually translated as hetman or governor). In Prague, their powers are executed by the city council and the mayor.
The regions are divided into seventy-six districts (okresy, singular okres) including three "statutory cities" (without Prague, which had special status). The districts lost most of their importance in 1999 in an administrative reform; they remain as territorial divisions and seats of various branches of state administration.[26] A further reform in effect since January 2003 created 204 Municipalities with Extended Competence (obce s rozšířenou působností); also obce III. stupně – third-level municipalities, unofficially also called "little districts" (Czech: 'malé okresy') which took over most of the administration of the former district authorities. Some of these are further divided between Municipalities with Commissioned Local Authority (obce s pověřeným obecním úřadem, shortened to pověřená obec, pl. pověřené obce; "second-level municipalities"). In 2007 the borders of the districts were slightly adjusted, and 119 municipalities are now within different districts.
Denmark
[edit]For local government purposes, Denmark is divided into five regions (Danish: regioner), with their most important area of responsibility being the public health service. They are also responsible for employment policies, while some regions are responsible for public mass transit. Regions are not financial independent as they rely entirely on central state funding (around 70%) and funding coming from the municipalities (around 30%). Regions are led by directly elected councils (regionsråd) consisting of 41 members each.
The regions are further divided into 98 municipalities (kommuner). Elections for the municipalities are held on the third Tuesday of November every four years.
Estonia
[edit]Estonia is divided into 79 municipalities (omavalitsus), and each municipality is a unit of self-government with its representative and executive bodies. Furthermore, the country is also divided into fifteen counties (Estonian: maakonnad), each of which were used to be led by a county governor (maavanem), who represents the national government at the regional level. This although changed with 2017 administrative reform.
Finland
[edit]
The most important administrative layer of local government in Finland are the 311 municipalities, which may also call themselves towns or cities. They account for half of public spending. Spending is financed by municipal income tax, property tax, state subsidies, and other revenue.
In addition to municipalities, there are two intermediate levels of local government. Municipalities co-operate in seventy-four sub-regions and nineteen regions. These are governed by the member municipalities and have only limited powers. However, the autonomous province of Åland has a directly elected regional council, and the Sami people have a semi-autonomous Sami Domicile Area in Lapland for issues on language and culture.
France
[edit]According to its Constitution of 1958, France has 3 levels of local government:
- 13 Régions (including Corsica) and 5 Régions d'outre-mer (Réunion, Martinique, Mayotte, Guadeloupe and French Guiana). Corsica is not referred to as a "région" but simply as a "collectivité territoriale", that merely means "local government area".
- 96 départements and 5 départements d'outre-mer (Réunion, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte and French Guiana). Paris is both a commune and a département.
- There are 36,679 municipalities (in French: Communes).
However, in addition to the constitutional clauses of 1958, there now exist specificities:
- Intercommunalities are now a level of government between municipalities and departments.
- There exist 2 "pays d'outre-mer": French Polynesia and New Caledonia. The expression "pays d'outre-mer" is convenient as it can be understood in French as both "overseas country" and "overseas county/traditional area" (as evidenced by Pays de la Loire that is a home région, not a home "country"). French Polynesia works as an autonomous région, whereas New Caledonia has a sui generis local government status with specific institutions and even more autonomy.
Germany
[edit]Greece
[edit]Since 1 January 2011, Greece consists of thirteen regions subdivided into a total of 325 municipalities and communities. The regions have their own elected governors and regional councils, however there are seven decentralized administrations, which group from one to three regions under a government-appointed general secretary. There is also one autonomous area, Mount Athos.
Hungary
[edit]For local government, Hungary is divided into 19 counties. In addition, the capital (főváros), Budapest and the 25 Cities with county rights (megyei jogú városok) is independent of any county government. But all the county capitals are cities with county rights, except Pest county where Budapest is the capital of the county.
The local authorities of these cities have extended powers, but they belong to the territory of the respective county instead of being independent territorial units.
The counties are further subdivided into 198 districts (járások), and Budapest is its own 23 districts (kerületek).
Iceland
[edit]The Municipalities of Iceland are local administrative areas in Iceland that provide a number of services to their inhabitants such as kindergartens, elementary schools, waste management, social services, public housing, public transportation, services to senior citizens and handicapped people. They also govern zoning and can voluntarily take on additional functions if they have the budget for it. The autonomy of municipalities over their own matters is guaranteed by the constitution of Iceland.
The municipalities are governed by municipal councils which are directly elected every four years. The sizes of these councils vary from five members in the smallest municipalities to fifteen in the largest one. Most municipalities except for the very small ones hire an executive manager who may or may not be a member of the municipal council. These managers are usually referred to as mayors (bæjarstjóri / borgarstjóri) in the mostly urban municipalities but "commune manager" (sveitarstjóri) in the rural or mixed municipalities.
Ireland
[edit]The Republic of Ireland's local government is laid out by the Local Government Reform Act 2014. With a few exceptions, local government is two-tier. At the lowest level are the municipal, metropolitan or borough councils, which are elected during local elections. These councillors from the relevant county then together form the council, termed either County or City and County Councils. For example, the 4 municipal districts in Westmeath County each elect their own councils, who together form Westmeath County Council. Many functions are performed by the Chief Executive, who is appointed by the Minister for Local Government.
The exceptions to the above is the county of Dublin and the cities of Cork and Galway, the later two's councils are directly elected with no lower council. Dublin county is made up of four local area authorities, each elected directly. There are thirty-one local authorities.
The main sources of funding for local government in Ireland are local property and motor tax revenues, payments from the Exchequer, charges for goods and services, and state grants.[27]
Italy
[edit]The Constitution of Italy defines three levels of local government:
- Regions: they were first acknowledged after the birth of the Italian republic in 1948. Numbering 20, they acquired a significant degree of autonomy after a constitutional reform was passed in 2001. Furthermore, 5 of them (namely Valle d'Aosta, Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Trentino-Alto Adige, Sardinia and Sicily) have a special status and are given even more power than the 15 others.
- Provinces: they were the only local bodies in effect during the Kingdom of Italy (from the unification of Italy in 1861 to the birth of the Republic in 1948). Consequently, they used to serve many functions, but these were reduced as Regions absorbed more and more competences. Nowadays they number 107 and mostly care to roads, school buildings, and local zoning and planning. Finally, from 2015 onwards, 14 provinces officially became metropolitan cities.
- Communes: The Mayor and staff, caring for the needs of a single town or of a village and neighbouring minor towns or villages.
Major cities also have an extra tier of local government named Circoscrizione di Decentramento Comunale or, in some cities (e.g. Rome) Municipio.
Latvia
[edit]Latvia is a unitary state, currently divided into 110 municipalities (Latvian: novadi) and 9 republican cities (Latvian: republikas pilsētas) with their own council.
Liechtenstein
[edit]Liechtenstein is divided into eleven municipalities (Gemeinden – singular Gemeinde), most consisting of only a single town.
Lithuania
[edit]This article needs to be updated. (June 2013) |
Lithuania has a three-tier division of local government: the country is divided into 10 counties (Lithuanian: singular – apskritis, plural – apskritys) that are further subdivided into 60 municipalities (Lithuanian: singular – savivaldybė, plural – savivaldybės) which consist of over 500 elderships (Lithuanian: singular – seniūnija, plural – seniūnijos).
The counties are ruled by county governors (Lithuanian: apskrities viršininkas) appointed by the central government, and effectively oversee the two lower tiers of local government.
Municipalities are the most important administrative unit of local government. Each municipality has its own government and council, with elections taking place every four years. The mayor, who is a member of the council, is elected directly by the residents in a majority vote.[28] The council appoints elders to govern the elderships.
Elderships, numbering over 500, are the smallest units of local government. They provide public services such as registering births and deaths and identifying individuals or families in need of welfare.
Malta
[edit]Malta is a unitary city state divided into 68 municipalities (local councils), according to the constitution of the Malta.
Netherlands
[edit]The Netherlands has three tiers of local government: national, provincial, municipal and water board.
The Netherlands is divided into twelve provinces (provincie, pl. provincies). They form the tier of administration between the central government and the municipalities. Each province is governed by a provincial council, the States-Provincial (Provinciale Staten, abbr. to PS). Its members are elected every four years. The day-to-day management of the province is in the hands of the provincial executive, the States Deputed (Gedeputeerde Staten, abbr. to GS). Members of the executive are chosen by the provincial council. The size of the executive varies from one province to another. In Flevoland, the smallest of the Dutch provinces, it has four members, while most other provinces have six or seven. Meetings of the provincial executive are chaired by the King's Commissioner (Commissaris van de Koning(in), abbr. to CvdK). The King's Commissioner is not elected by the residents of the province, but appointed by the Crown (the King and government ministers). The appointment is for six years and may be extended by a second term. The King's Commissioner can be dismissed only by the Crown. King's Commissioners play an important part in the appointment of municipal mayors. When a vacancy arises, the King's Commissioner first asks the municipal council for its views as to a successor, then writes to the Minister of the Interior recommending a candidate.
Municipalities (gemeente, pl. gemeenten) form the lowest tier of government in the Netherlands, after the central government and the provinces. There are 415 of them (1 January 2012). The municipal council (gemeenteraad) is the highest authority in the municipality. Its members are elected every four years. The role of the municipal council is comparable to that of the board of an organisation or institution. Its main job is to decide the municipality's broad policies and to oversee their implementation. The day-to-day administration of the municipality is in the hands of the municipal executive (college van burgemeester en wethouders, abbr. to (college van) B&W), made up of the mayor (burgemeester) and the aldermen (wethouder, pl. wethouders). The executive implements national legislation on matters such as social assistance, unemployment benefits and environmental management. It also bears primary responsibility for the financial affairs of the municipality and for its personnel policies. Aldermen are appointed by the council. Councillors can be chosen to act as aldermen. In that case, they lose their seats on the council and their places are taken by other representatives of the same political parties. Non-councillors can also be appointed. Unlike councillors and aldermen, mayors are not elected (not even indirectly), but are appointed by the Crown. Mayors chair both the municipal council and the executive. They have a number of statutory powers and responsibilities of their own. They are responsible for maintaining public order and safety within the municipality and frequently manage the municipality's public relations. As Crown appointees, mayors also have some responsibility for overseeing the work of the municipality, its policies and relations with other government bodies. Although they are obliged to carry out the decisions of the municipal council and executive, they may recommend that the Minister of the Interior quash any decision that they believe to be contrary to the law or against the public interest. Mayors are invariably appointed for a period of six years. They can be dismissed only by the Crown and not by the municipal council.
Water boards (waterschap and hoogheemraadschap, pl. waterschappen and hoogheemraadschappen) are among the oldest government authorities in the Netherlands. They literally form the foundation of the whole Dutch system of local government; from time immemorial they have shouldered the responsibility for water management for the residents of their area. In polders this mainly involves regulating the water level. It has always been in the common interest to keep water out and polder residents have always had to work together. That is what led to the creation of water boards. The structure of the water boards varies, but they all have a general administrative body and an executive board (college van dijkgraaf en heemraden) consisting of a chairperson (dijkgraaf) and other members ((hoog)heemraad, pl. (hoog)heemraden). The chairperson also presides the general administrative body. This body consists of people representing the various categories of stakeholders: landholders, leaseholders, owners of buildings, companies and, since recently, all the residents as well. Importance and financial contribution decide how many representatives each category may delegate. Certain stakeholders (e.g. environmental organisations) may be given the power to appoint members. The general administrative body elects the executive board from among its members. The government appoints the chairperson for a period of six years. The general administrative body is elected for a period of four years. In the past the administrative body was elected as individuals but from 2009 they will be elected as party representatives.
Norway
[edit]Norway had 357 municipalities of varying size in 2024, each administered by an elected municipal council. They are grouped into 15 counties (fylker), each governed by an elected county council.[29]
Each county has a governor appointed by the central government, responsible for ensuring legality in their administration.[30] The municipal sector is a provider of vital services to the Norwegian public, accounting for about 20% of Norwegian GNP and 24% of total employment. They have the right to tax and to use their resources to support education, libraries, social security, and public works such as streetcar lines, gas and electricity works, roads, and town planning, but they are usually aided in these activities by state funds.[citation needed]
Oslo is the only urban center that alone constitutes a county; the remaining 14 counties consist of both urban and rural areas. County and municipal councils are popularly elected every four years.
Portugal
[edit]Currently, mainland Portugal is divided into 18 districts (in Portuguese, distritos). Each district takes the name of their respective capital city. Insular Portugal, comprising the two Atlantic archipelagos of the Azores and Madeira, is organized as two autonomous regions (in Portuguese, regiões autónomas).
Each district and each Autonomous region is divided into municipalities (in Portuguese, municípios) which, in turn, are subdivided into parishes (in Portuguese, freguesias).
Since 1976, when the two Autonomous regions of Portugal were established, the Azores and Madeira are no longer divided into districts.
Poland
[edit]Poland has three levels of subdivision. The Polish territory is divided into 16 voivodeships (provinces); these are further divided into 379 powiats (counties or districts), and these powiats are further divided into 2,479 gminas (communes or municipalities). Major cities normally have the status of both gmina and powiat.
Each voivodeship is jointly governed by the National-government appointed voivode and a locally elected sejmik (provincial assembly), which appoints an executive board led by a voivodeship marshal.
Russia
[edit]The Russian Federation consistes of eighty-five federal subjects that are constituent members of the Federation. However, two of these federal subjects — the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol—are internationally recognized as part of Ukraine. All federal subjects are of equal federal rights in the sense that they have equal representation—two delegates each—in the Federation Council (upper house of the Federal Assembly). But they do differ in the degree of autonomy they enjoy.
The modern administrative-territorial structures of the federal subjects vary significantly from one federal subject to another. While the implementation details may be considerably different, in general, however, the following types of high-level administrative divisions are recognized:
- administrative districts (raions)
- cities/towns and urban-type settlements of federal subject significance
- closed administrative-territorial formations
Typical lower-level administrative divisions include:
- selsoviets (rural councils)
- towns and urban-type settlements of the administrative district significance
- city districts
Slovenia
[edit]Slovenia has only one level of local self-government established: municipalities. The Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia provides also basis for establishing second level, regions, but they haven't been established yet (Article 143). There are two types of municipalities in Slovenia:
- urban municipalities (Art. 141 of the Constitution)
- (rural) municipalities (Art. 139 of the Constitution)
Slovenia signed (1994) and ratified (1996) European Charter of Local Self-Government without any reservations. The Charter is in force since March 1, 1997. The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities (Council of Europe) performed three monitorings (2001, 2011, and 2018).
Spain
[edit]Spain is divided into 17 autonomous communities, which in turn are divided into 50 provinces. There are also two autonomous cities: those of Ceuta and Melilla. Finally, each province comprises a number of municipalities.
Each administrative entity is given powers, structure, and boundaries by a law that was passed by the Prime Minister .
Law 7/1985,[31] passed by the former Spanish Prime Minister Felipe González Márquez (socialist), lays down the procedure of the Local Government. Every city in Spain used this Law until 2003. This year, the former Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar (conservative), passed a Law (57/2003)[32] to modernize organic rules of those cities which had more than 250,000 inhabitants, and other important cities (like capital cities of provinces with at least 175,000 inhabitants). Also, it exists two other important Laws for specifically Madrid (Law 22/2006)[33] and Barcelona (Law 1/2006).[34] The main governing body in most municipalities is called Ayuntamiento (in the less populated municipalities an alternative local organization system called open council, "concejo abierto", is used). The Ayuntamiento in turn is formed by the Plenary (el Pleno, the collective formed by the city councillors) and the Mayor. The number of members that compose The Plenary varies depending on city's population (for example, since 2007 Valencia has 33 members and Pamplona has 27). The name given to the members of the Plenary is councillor (concejal). Those councillors are elected between city's inhabitants every four years by direct vote. After being elected, councillors meet in a special Plenary session to determine who will be elected, between them, as city's Mayor. In the next days after the election, the mayor chooses some councillors to set up the executive governing body (Junta de Gobierno or Comisión de Gobierno). After that, and for the next four years, city's mayor and the Junta de Gobierno will govern over the city according to their competences (urbanism, some taxes, local police, licenses for specific activities, cleaning services, etc.). Meanwhile, councillors in the Plenary but not part of the Junta de Gobierno (the opposition) will oversee Mayor's rule. The autonomous community of Catalonia is divided in 4 provinces and more than 900 municipalities. Between these two tiers, there are 41 comarques (singular, comarca), roughly equivalent to 'district' or 'county'. The comarca is a commonwealth, or union, of municipalities with competences in several fields (Law 6/1987 of the Parliament of Catalonia).
Sweden
[edit]Every fourth year general elections are held in Sweden to elect members of the national parliament, 20 county council assemblies and 290 municipal assemblies. As the parliament elects the national government, the local assemblies elect their executive committees and their boards. Members in local committees and boards are elected proportionally by the political parties in the assemblies, giving all the major parties representation. The parties usually cooperate well on the local levels.
The county councils (landsting) are responsible for health care and usually provide transportation.
The municipalities (kommuner) are responsible for:
- social services, childcare, preschool, elderly care
- primary and secondary education
- planning and building
- health protection, water, sewerage, refuse, emergency services
On a voluntary basis, the municipalities provide sports, culture, housing, energy as well as commercial service.
The activities are financed by income taxes. Swedes pay around 20% of their taxable income to the municipality and around 11% to the county council. (The national government is financed by VAT and payroll taxes and fees.)
Ukraine
[edit]United Kingdom and dependencies
[edit]The system of local government is different in each of the four home nations of the UK. In total there are 426 local authorities in the UK. 346 of these are in England, 11 in Northern Ireland, 32 in Scotland and 22 are in Wales.
England
[edit]The most complex system is in England, the result of numerous reforms and reorganisation over the centuries. The top-level of sub-national administration within England until the end of March 2012 consisted of the nine regions. The regions were used by central government for various statistical purposes, and Government Offices for the English Regions and assorted other institutions including Regional Development Agencies. Regional Government Offices, Regional Development Agencies and Regional Ministers were all abolished by the Cameron ministry in 2010. Only the London region which is a sub-region compared to the other regions of England has a directly elected government. Only one regional referendum has been held to date to seek consent for the introduction of direct elections elsewhere — by John Prescott in the northeast of England — and this was initially rejected by the people of the North East in 2004.
The layers of elected local government vary. In different areas the highest tier of elected local government may be:
- counties, which may be
- single-tier unitary authorities, or
- divided into districts (also known as boroughs in some areas)
- districts, which are separate unitary authorities in some areas
- metropolitan districts (also called metropolitan boroughs) in some areas which are similar to unitary authorities, but have joint boards with other districts in the same metropolitan county
- Greater London, which is divided into 32 London boroughs and the City of London
In most areas there is a lower tier of government, civil parishes, with unlimited functions and powers under the 2011 Localism Act.
Most civil parishes are in rural areas, but if the parish is a town the parish council may be called a town council. In a few cases the parish is a city, and the parish council is called a city council.
Metropolitan counties, and a few non-metropolitan counties, no longer have elected councils or administrative functions, and their former functions are performed by districts. Such counties remain ceremonial counties.
Isle of Man
[edit]Local government on the Isle of Man is partly based on the ancient parishes. There are four types of local authorities: a borough corporation, town commissioners, village commissioners, and parish commissioners.
Northern Ireland
[edit]Since 1 April 2015 Northern Ireland is divided into 11 districts. Local government in Northern Ireland does not carry out the same range of functions as those in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Scotland
[edit]Local government in Scotland is arranged on the lines of unitary authorities, with the nation divided into 32 council areas.
Wales
[edit]Wales has a uniform system of 22 unitary authorities, variously styled as county, county borough, city or city and county local authorities. There are also communities, equivalent to parishes.
The Local Government Association (LGA) is the national membership body for local authorities in England and Wales. Its core membership is made up of 317 English councils and the 22 Welsh councils through the Welsh Local Government Association. Across the UK, the Association for Public Service Excellence (APSE) also works to assist local authorities in the UK to improve their frontline services. APSE works with more than 250 local authorities "to advise and share information and expertise on a broad range of frontline public services".[35]
North America
[edit]Canada
[edit]
In Canada's federal system, local government is the responsibility of provincial and territorial governments.[36] The most prominent form of local government is the municipality, which is a locally elected authority with responsibility over a variety of services, such as roads, parks, fire protection, policing, planning, libraries, transit, and waste management.[37] The exact responsibilities, powers, and governance of municipalities varies from province to province. In British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, municipalities operate on a two-tiered system, where lower-tier local municipalities administer some services, such as fire protection or parks, while upper-tier regional municipalities administer shared services, such as utilities, waste management, or policing.[38][39][40] The remaining provinces and territories use a single-tier system of municipal government, where each municipality is legally independent of every other, although they may still voluntarily share services.
In addition to municipal government, some provinces maintain special purpose boards to govern police services, school districts, conservation authorities, or to provide certain municipal services to unincorporated areas that would not otherwise receive them.[41]
The federal government regulates First Nations band governments, which deliver local services to Indigenous reserves in the country.[42] Many band governments administer more than one reserve, and may participate in tribal councils, a form of voluntary regional organization for several band governments.[43]
Mexico
[edit]Mexico is a Federal Republic made up by 31 states and Mexico City. Each state is divided in municipios, while Mexico City is divided in sixteen demarcaciones territoriales (formerly called delegaciones). Twenty-nine states of Mexico were created as administrative divisions by the constitution of 1917, which grants them those powers not expressly vested in the federal government; Mexico's two remaining territories, Baja California Sur and Quintana Roo, achieved statehood on 8 October 1974, raising the total to 31.[44] Each state has a constitution, a governor elected for six years, and a unicameral legislature, with representatives elected by district vote in proportion to population. An ordinary session of the legislature is held annually, and extraordinary sessions may be called by the governor or the permanent committee. Bills may be introduced by legislators, by the governor, by the state supreme court, and by municipalities (a unit comparable to a US county). In addition to the 31 states, there is also Mexico City, whose Head of Government serves as a member of the city's cabinet and its title is compared as a governor. Many state services are supported by federal subsidies.
The principal unit of state government is the municipality. Mexico's 2,378 municipalities are governed by municipal presidents and municipal councils. State governors generally select the nominees for the municipal elections. Municipal budgets are approved by the respective state governors. Until 1997, the president appointed the mayor of Mexico City. Political reforms allowed the first open elections in 1997, and Cuauhtémoc Cardenas Solórzano became Mexico City's first elected mayor.
United States
[edit]
Local government in the United States refers to governmental jurisdictions below the level of the state. Most states have at least two tiers of local government: counties and municipalities. In some states, counties are divided into townships. There are several different types of jurisdictions at the municipal level, including the city, town, parish, borough, village, reservations and boundaries. The types and nature of these municipal entities varies from state to state.
Oceania
[edit]Australia
[edit]Local government is the third tier of government in Australia, after federal and state.
New Zealand
[edit]New Zealand has a local government system comprising two complementary sets of local authorities—regional councils and territorial authorities. There are 78 local authorities consisting of:
- 11 regional councils, which cover much of New Zealand's land area, and
- 67 territorial authorities (comprising 53 district councils, 12 city councils and 2 other councils).
Six of the territorial authorities are unitary authorities, which also have the powers of a regional council. They are Auckland Council, Nelson City Council, the Gisborne, Marlborough and Tasman district councils, and Chatham Islands Council.
Regional council areas are based on water catchment areas, whereas territorial authorities are based on community of interest and road access. Within a regional council area there are usually many city or district councils, although city and district councils can be in multiple regional council areas.
South America
[edit]Argentina
[edit]Argentina is a federation of 23 provinces and the federal capital of Buenos Aires. During the 19th century there was a bitter struggle between Buenos Aires and the interior provinces, and there has long been an element of tension regarding the division of powers between the central government and provincial bodies. The federal government retains control over such matters as the regulation of commerce, customs collections, currency, civil or commercial codes, or the appointment of foreign agents. The provincial governors are elected every four years.
The constitutional "national intervention" and "state of siege" powers of the president have been invoked frequently. The first of these powers was designed to "guarantee the republican form of government in the provinces." Since the adoption of the 1853 constitution, the federal government has intervened over 200 times, mostly by presidential decree. Under this authority, provincial and municipal offices may be declared vacant, appointments annulled, and local elections supervised. Between 1966 and 1973, all local legislatures were dissolved, and provincial governors were appointed by the new president. A restoration of provincial and municipal government followed the return to constitutional government in 1973. After the March 1976 coup, the federal government again intervened to remove all provincial governors and impose direct military rule over all municipalities. Since 1983, representative local government has been in force again.
Until 1996, the President appointed the mayor of Buenos Aires, and by law, the president and Congress controlled any legislation that affected the city. Constitutional reforms that year led to an elected mayoral position, and a 60-member Poder Legislativo (legislative power).
Brazil
[edit]Brazil is a federation consisting of 27 federative units: 26 states and one Federal District. Government exists at three levels: federal, state, and municipal. The states are subdivided into 5,570 municipalities, while the Federal District has no municipalities (divided into administrative regions instead) and has powers of both a state and a municipality..
Municipal government consists of an executive branch headed by a mayor (Prefeito/Prefeita), and a legislative branch (Câmara Municipal), serving four-year terms. Municipalities are enshrined in the constitution of 1988 as entities of the federation; their responsibilities are distinct from the other two levels in theory,[45] but overlap in practice (e.g. education, health, transportation).[46] With their broad powers, municipalities may create their own constitutions, termed organic law, and cannot be overruled by state governments.[46]
Elections at the municipal level follow a similar, partisan system to state and federal elections, but take place in different years. Municipalities may have anywhere from 9 to 55 members of the Câmara Municipal, depending on the population.[47] There is no minimum or maximum population requirement for municipalities: while the average population of a municipality in 2005 was 30,099, Borá, São Paulo state (the least populous) had only 823 inhabitants, while São Paulo (the largest) had 10.9 million inhabitants.[46] Municipalities within a state may choose to merge or separate with approval in a plebiscite and enacting of a state law.[48]
Paraguay
[edit]Paraguay is divided into 17 departments, which are subdivided into districts, which, in turn, comprise municipalities (the minimum requirement for a municipality is 3,000 persons) and rural districts (partidos). A governor, elected by popular vote, runs each department. Municipal government is exercised through a municipal board, chosen by direct election, and an executive department. In the principal cities and capitals, the executive department is headed by a mayor appointed by the minister of the interior; in other localities, the mayor is appointed by the presidents of the municipal boards. Police chiefs are appointed by the central government.
Peru
[edit]Peru is divided into 25 regions and the province of Lima. Each region has an elected government composed of a president and council that serve four-year terms.[49] These governments plan regional development, execute public investment projects, promote economic activities, and manage public property.[50] The province of Lima is administered by a city council.[51] The goal of devolving power to regional and municipal governments was among others to improve popular participation. NGOs played an important role in the decentralisation process and still influence local politics.[52]
Uruguay
[edit]Uruguay's administrative subdivisions consisted of nineteen territories called departments and governed by intendencias, which were subordinate to the central government and responsible for local administration. They enforced national laws and administered the nation's social and educational policies and institutions within their territories. These territories had limited taxing powers, but they could borrow funds and acquire property. They also had the power to establish unpaid five-member local boards or town councils in municipalities other than the departmental capital if the population was large enough to warrant such a body.
Executive authority was vested in a governor (intendente), who administered the department, and in a thirty-one-member departmental board (junta departmental), which carried out legislative functions. These functions included approval of the departmental budget and judicial actions, such as impeachment proceedings against departmental officials, including the governor. At the municipal level, a mayor (intendente municipal) assumed executive and administrative duties, carrying out resolutions made by the local board (whose members were appointed on the basis of proportional representation of the political parties). The governor was required to comply with and enforce the constitution and the laws and to promulgate the decrees enacted by the departmental board. The governor was authorized to prepare the budget, submit it for approval to the departmental board, appoint the board's employees, and, if necessary, discipline or suspend them. The governor represented the department in its relations with the national government and other departmental governments and in the negotiation of contracts with public or private agencies.
Like the governor, the members of the departmental board and the mayor were elected for five-year terms in direct, popular elections. A governor could be reelected only once, and candidates for the post had to meet the same requirements as those for a senator, in addition to being a native of the department or a resident therein for at least three years before assuming office. Departmental board members had to be at least twenty-three years of age, native born (or a legal citizen for at least three years), and a native of the department (or a resident for at least three years).
The board sat in the capital city of each department and exercised jurisdiction throughout the entire territory of the department. It could issue decrees and resolutions that it deemed necessary either on the suggestion of the governor or on its own initiative. It could approve budgets, fix the amount of taxes, request the intervention of the Accounts Tribunal for advice concerning departmental finances or administration, and remove from office—at the request of the governor—members of nonelective local departmental boards. The board also supervised local public services; public health; and primary, secondary, preparatory, industrial, and artistic education. Although Montevideo was the smallest department in terms of area (divided into twenty-three geographic zones that generally coincided with the electoral zones), its departmental board had sixty-five members in 1990; all other departments had thirty-one-member boards and a five-member executive council appointed by the departmental board, with proportional representation from the principal political parties.
Data as of December 1990[citation needed]
References
[edit]- ^ International Monetary Fund (2009). "System of National Accounts 2008" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on January 14, 2024.
- ^ a b International Monetary Fund (2014). "Government Finance Statistics Manual 2014" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on January 26, 2024.
- ^ OECD/UCLG (2016). "Subnational Governments around the world: Structure and finance" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on November 16, 2023.
- ^ Local Public Sector Alliance (September 2023). "Guidance Note: Preparing a LoGICA Intergovernmental Profile" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on November 1, 2023.
- ^ "Law 43/1979". The Official Gazette. 1979. Archived from the original on December 22, 2022. Retrieved December 24, 2022.
- ^ "Governorates of Egypt". The Arab Republic of Egypt - Presidency. Retrieved December 24, 2022.
- ^ "The Cabinet - Governors' Meetings". February 28, 2020. Archived from the original on February 28, 2020. Retrieved December 23, 2022.
- ^ "About the Ministry". Ministry of Local Development. Retrieved December 23, 2022.
- ^ Country Profile 2019 [The Local Government System in Nigeria] (PDF). p. 161. Retrieved February 26, 2021.
- ^ "Kabul | Encyclopedia.com". www.encyclopedia.com. Retrieved June 29, 2025.
- ^ Kumar, Ruchi. "From road tax to courts: The Taliban's attempts at state-building". Al Jazeera. Retrieved June 29, 2025.
- ^ "The Afghan Loya Jirga". PBS News. June 3, 2002. Retrieved June 29, 2025.
- ^ "- AFGHANISTAN: CONTINUING CHALLENGES". www.govinfo.gov. Retrieved June 29, 2025.
- ^ "Rangpur becomes a division". bdnews24.com. January 25, 2010. Archived from the original on April 7, 2013. Retrieved August 6, 2011.
- ^ Siddiqui, Kamal (2012). "Local Government". In Islam, Sirajul; Jamal, Ahmed A. (eds.). Banglapedia: National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh (Second ed.). Asiatic Society of Bangladesh.
- ^ Local Government Act, No. 20, 1997.
- ^ "Strengthen Local Government Towards Deepening Democracy: Annual report 2012–2013" (PDF). Bangladesh Mahila Parishad. Archived (PDF) from the original on March 31, 2014. Retrieved March 31, 2014.
- ^ "Profile - Local Government - Know India: National Portal of India". knowindia.india.gov.in. Retrieved December 20, 2023.
- ^ Nik Hashim Ibrahim; Mohd. Yahya Nordin. Local Government System in Malaysia: A General Perspective (PDF). Kuala Lumpur: National Institute of Public Administration Malaysia. pp. 146–68.
- ^ Republic Act No. 7160 (October 10, 1991), Local Government Code of 1991, The Official Gazette, retrieved December 18, 2023
- ^ "On the Organization and Functioning of the Local Government, Republic of Albania, 2000" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on February 15, 2010. Retrieved August 27, 2010.
- ^ "Историческо развитие на административно – териториалното устройство на Република България" (in Bulgarian). Ministry of Regional Development. Retrieved December 26, 2011.
- ^ "Областите в България. Портрети". Ministry of Regional Development. Archived from the original on June 19, 2012. Retrieved December 4, 2011.
- ^ Country Profile: Bulgaria (PDF). Library of Congress. 2006. p. 17. Archived (PDF) from the original on October 9, 2022. Retrieved April 1, 2016 – via Library of Congress Country Studies.
- ^ "Zakon o područjima županija, gradova i općina u Republici Hrvatskoj" [Territories of Counties, Cities and Municipalities of the Republic of Croatia Act]. Narodne novine (in Croatian). July 28, 2006. Retrieved September 9, 2011.
- ^ The death of the districts, Radio Prague 3 January 2003.
- ^ "Local government facts and figures: Ireland". lgiu.org. Retrieved October 1, 2021.
- ^ Suvestinių redakcijų sąrašas pagal datą List on the website e-seimas.lrs.lt. Retrieved 30 March 2021.
- ^ "Norske fylke og kommunar". Kartverket.no (in Norwegian Nynorsk). November 7, 2023. Retrieved July 21, 2024.
- ^ "About us". County Governor - Statsforvalteren.no. Retrieved July 21, 2024.
- ^ Ley 7/1985, de 2 de abril, Reguladora de las Bases del Régimen Local. Noticias.juridicas.com. Retrieved on 2 December 2012.
- ^ Ley 57/2003, de 16 de diciembre, de medidas para la modernización del gobierno local. Noticias.juridicas.com. Retrieved on 2 December 2012.
- ^ Ley 22/2006, de 4 de julio, de Capitalidad y de Régimen Especial de Madrid. Noticias.juridicas.com. Retrieved on 2 December 2012.
- ^ Ley 1/2006, de 13 de marzo, por la que se regula el Régimen Especial del municipio de Barcelona. Noticias.juridicas.com. Retrieved on 2 December 2012.
- ^ Association for Public Service Excellence, What we do, accessed on 26 August 2024
- ^ "Constitution Act, 1867". Canadian Legal Information Institute.
- ^ "Municipal Government in Canada". The Canadian Encyclopedia.
- ^ "The Municipal Councillor's Guide" (PDF). Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Archived from the original on January 14, 2009. Retrieved June 25, 2013.
- ^ Union of British Columbia Municipalities. "Local Government in British Columbia: A Community Effort" (PDF). 2006 Edition. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 3, 2007. Retrieved July 1, 2007.
- ^ "Territorial organization, General municipal scheme: The supralocal level". Gouvernement du Québec: Affaires municipales de Québec. Retrieved August 28, 2022.
- ^ "Chapter 7 : Special report: local government in Canada". Australian Government Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development. Archived from the original on May 15, 2017.
- ^ "Gateway to Aboriginal Heritage". Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation. Archived from the original on October 15, 2009.
- ^ "Consolidated Statement of Revenue and Expenses" (PDF). AFN Executive Committee Reports. Archived (PDF) from the original on November 2, 2009.
- ^ "Poder Legislativo del Estado de Quintana Roo. Instalación de la Legislatura Constituyente" Archived December 25, 2018, at the Wayback Machine, Congressqroo.gob.mx
- ^ "Constituição da república federativa do brasil - 1988". Presidência da República Casa Civil: Subchefia para Assuntos Jurídicos. Title 3, Chapter IV, Art. 30. Retrieved May 1, 2021.
- ^ a b c Afonso, José; Araújo, Erika (January 11, 2007). "Local Government Organization and Finance: Brazil". The World Bank. Public Sector Governance and Accountability Series. Local Governance in Developing Countries. Rochester, NY: 381–418. SSRN 2548199 – via SSRN.
- ^ "CONSTITUIÇÃO DA REPÚBLICA FEDERATIVA DO BRASIL - 1988". Presidência da República Casa Civil: Subchefia para Assuntos Jurídicos. Title 3, Chapter IV, Art. 29, Sec. IV. Retrieved May 1, 2021.
- ^ "CONSTITUIÇÃO DA REPÚBLICA FEDERATIVA DO BRASIL - 1988". Presidência da República Casa Civil: Subchefia para Assuntos Jurídicos. Title 3, Chapter I, Art. 18, Sec. 4. Retrieved May 1, 2021.
- ^ Ley N° 27867, Ley Orgánica de Gobiernos Regionales, Article N° 11.
- ^ Ley N° 27867, Ley Orgánica de Gobiernos Regionales, Article N° 10.
- ^ Ley N° 27867, Ley Orgánica de Gobiernos Regionales, Article N° 66.
- ^ Monika Huber, Wolfgang Kaiser (February 2013). "Mixed Feelings". dandc.eu.
Further reading
[edit]- Kemp, Roger L. Managing America's Cities: A Handbook for Local Government Productivity, McFarland and Co., Jefferson, NC, US, and London, Eng., UK 1998 (ISBN 0-7864-0408-6).
- Kemp, Roger L. Model Government Charters: A City, County, Regional, State, and Federal Handbook, McFarland and Co., Jefferson, NC, US, and London, Eng., UK, 2003 (ISBN 978-0-7864-3154-0).
- Kemp, Roger L. Forms of Local Government: A Handbook on City, County and Regional Options, McFarland and Co., Jefferson, NC, US, and London, Eng., UK, 2007 (ISBN 978-0-7864-3100-7).
- Lockner, Allyn O. Steps to Local Government Reform: A Guide to Tailoring Local Government Reforms to Fit Regional Governance Communities in Democracies. iUniverse, Bloomington, Indiana, US, 2013 (ISBN 978-1-4620-1819-2).
External links
[edit]- Department of Local and Regional Democracy and Good Governance—Council of Europe
- The Congress in brief
- Rural local self-government challenges and development prospects by Rukhman Adukov
- Women in Governance, India on YouTube
- Using a Model Municipal Performance Measurement System to Assess Mid-sized Texas Cities.
- Factors Contributing to Municipal Annexation among Medium Sized Southern US Cities. Colin Rice
- United Cities and Local Governments Archived 2021-01-25 at the Wayback Machine is an organisation for cities, local governments and municipal associations throughout the world.
- Agenda 21 for culture Archived 2013-08-01 at the Wayback Machine is the reference document for cultural programmes of local authorities
- Rural Decentralization and Local Governance provides free access to selected e-resources and news on local governance in developing countries.
- Governance From Below Free to download studies, papers, data, and other resources on local government, decentralization and federalism.
Local government
View on GrokipediaDefinition and Principles
Definition
Local government encompasses the subnational administrative entities responsible for governing defined territorial units smaller than the sovereign state, such as municipalities, counties, districts, or townships, with authority to address community-specific needs including public services, infrastructure, and land-use regulation.[8] These bodies typically operate as the lowest tier of public administration, deriving their powers through constitutional provisions, statutory legislation, or delegated authority from higher government levels, enabling localized decision-making on matters like waste management, local taxation, and zoning.[9][10] Core to local government is the possession of both legislative and executive capacities, often exercised by elected councils or assemblies that enact bylaws and oversee implementation, distinguishing it from mere administrative agencies of central government.[10] This structure fosters responsiveness to proximate populations, though the extent of autonomy varies: in unitary states, powers may be more circumscribed by central oversight, while federal systems grant broader fiscal and regulatory independence.[9] Local governments are generally defined by their general-purpose mandate, serving broad community functions rather than specialized roles like school districts in isolation. Empirical variations underscore that local government forms are not uniform; for instance, over 90,000 such entities existed in the United States as of 2022, ranging from cities to special districts with taxing powers, while globally, structures adapt to cultural and legal contexts without a singular archetype.[11][9] Credible analyses emphasize that effective local governance hinges on clear delineation from national authority to avoid overlap, as ambiguous boundaries can undermine efficiency, though sources like international development reports note persistent centralization pressures in many developing contexts.[10]Core Principles
Subsidiarity constitutes a foundational principle of local government, asserting that public functions and decision-making authority should reside at the lowest feasible level of governance capable of performing them effectively, thereby preventing unnecessary central intervention and promoting tailored responses to local conditions.[12][13] This approach recognizes that communities possess superior knowledge of their own needs—such as infrastructure maintenance or zoning—compared to distant national bodies, reducing bureaucratic inefficiencies and enhancing causal alignment between policies and outcomes. Empirical evidence from decentralized systems, including U.S. municipalities handling over 60% of public infrastructure spending as of 2020, demonstrates improved service delivery when authority devolves to localities with demonstrated competence.[14] Democratic accountability underpins local governance, requiring elected councils or assemblies to derive legitimacy directly from residents through periodic elections, thereby incentivizing officials to prioritize verifiable public welfare over abstract national directives.[15] This principle manifests in structures where local executives enforce ordinances enacted by councils, as seen in county models where voters select both legislative and administrative leaders to enforce reciprocal oversight.[16] Transparency mechanisms, such as public access to budgets and meetings mandated in jurisdictions like U.S. states under open records laws enacted since the 1970s, further reinforce this by enabling citizen scrutiny and reducing agency problems inherent in hierarchical centralization.[17] Fiscal autonomy and resource efficiency form complementary principles, granting local entities control over taxation, budgeting, and expenditure to match revenues with localized demands, avoiding the distortions of uniform national allocations. For instance, decentralized fiscal policies in systems adhering to these tenets have correlated with higher per-capita infrastructure investment in responsive locales, as local actors can adjust to demographic shifts without supranational veto.[18] Proximity to citizens also cultivates inclusive participation, where community input informs decisions on services like waste management—handled locally in over 90% of OECD countries—yielding empirically superior compliance and cost savings through voluntary cooperation rather than coercive mandates.[19] These principles collectively advance causal realism by grounding governance in observable local realities, though their efficacy depends on institutional safeguards against capture by entrenched interests.Historical Development
Ancient and Pre-Modern Origins
In ancient Mesopotamia, city-states such as those in Sumer emerged around 3100 BCE, featuring local governance structures where rulers known as lugal (kings) or priestly authorities managed urban affairs, including irrigation, trade, and justice, often advised by assemblies of elders representing family-based hierarchies.[20] These systems reflected a proto-urban administration tied to temple economies, with local decisions on resource allocation preceding broader imperial consolidations under Akkadian rule circa 2334–2154 BCE.[20] Ancient Egypt, by contrast, maintained a highly centralized pharaonic system from approximately 3100 BCE, where local administration occurred through appointed nomarchs overseeing nomes (districts) for taxation, labor conscription, and order maintenance, though their autonomy varied with dynastic strength and rarely extended to independent self-rule.[21] This model prioritized hierarchical delegation over local initiative, as evidenced by Old Kingdom inscriptions detailing nomarchal duties under pharaonic oversight.[21] In ancient Greece, independent poleis (city-states) proliferated from the 8th century BCE, embodying early forms of local self-governance; Athens, for instance, transitioned to a participatory democracy by the 6th century BCE under Cleisthenes' reforms, with citizens assembling to deliberate on laws, finances, and defense via the ekklesia and boule council.[22] Other poleis like Sparta operated oligarchic systems with local elders (gerousia) handling communal decisions, fostering autonomy that contrasted with imperial models and influenced later republican ideals through direct civic involvement limited to free adult males.[22] The Roman Republic (509–27 BCE) systematized local government via municipia, self-administering towns in Italy and provinces granted charters for elected magistrates (duoviri) and councils (ordo decurionum) to manage infrastructure, markets, and taxation, as seen in the 2nd-century BCE extensions under the Gracchi reforms.[23] By the Empire's height in the 1st–2nd centuries CE, over 1,000 such entities operated with relative autonomy under imperial supervision, collecting local revenues and adjudicating disputes, though corruption and central fiscal demands eroded independence over time.[24] Pre-modern Europe saw the rise of medieval communes from the 11th century, particularly in northern Italy (e.g., Milan, Genoa), where urban merchants and artisans formed sworn associations (coniuratio) to secure charters from feudal lords, establishing podestà-led councils for self-defense, trade regulation, and jurisprudence amid weak monarchies.[25] These evolved into oligarchic republics by the 12th–13th centuries, numbering dozens in Lombardy and Tuscany, balancing local autonomy with alliances like the Lombard League (1167) against imperial overreach.[26] Elsewhere, English boroughs gained royal charters for mayoral governance from the 12th century, handling markets and militias under manorial frameworks.[25] In non-Western contexts, ancient India's Vedic assemblies (sabhas and samitis) circa 1500–500 BCE facilitated village-level dispute resolution and resource management, persisting as panchayats in later periods for customary law enforcement.[27] China's pre-modern administration, from the Zhou dynasty (1046–256 BCE) onward, relied on appointed county magistrates under prefectural hierarchies, emphasizing Confucian merit-based local oversight for tax collection and order, with limited bottom-up autonomy compared to European models.[27]Modern Foundations (18th-19th Centuries)
The late 18th century marked a pivotal shift in local governance through revolutionary upheavals that emphasized representative institutions and administrative uniformity. In France, the National Constituent Assembly in 1789-1790 dismantled the ancien régime's patchwork of provinces and privileges, creating 83 departments subdivided into cantons and communes as the basic units of local administration. Each commune elected a mayor and council responsible for local affairs, though under central oversight from Paris, reflecting a tension between decentralization for efficiency and national control to prevent feudal resurgence. This structure, implemented by December 1789 for communes, endured despite subsequent instability, providing a model for rationalized local autonomy tied to citizenship rather than estate.[28] In the United States, independence from Britain in 1776 reinforced local traditions inherited from colonial charters, with states assuming authority over municipalities as "creatures of the state" under their constitutions. New York's 1777 constitution explicitly recognized counties, towns, and cities as primary local entities, granting them powers for taxation, poor relief, and infrastructure via elected selectmen or supervisors. Southern states adapted English county models, establishing justices of the peace for administrative courts by the early 19th century, while New England towns retained open town meetings for direct participation. By 1800, over 200 incorporated cities and towns existed, driven by westward expansion and early urbanization, though powers remained narrowly defined to avoid challenging state sovereignty.[29][30] Britain's reforms addressed entrenched corruption in unincorporated boroughs, culminating in the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835, which restructured 178 towns into municipal boroughs with elected councils and mayors selected annually. Prompted by a royal commission's 1833 report documenting oligarchic control and inefficiency, the act extended the franchise to male ratepayers, enabling councils to levy rates for services like paving and lighting. This responded to 19th-century industrialization, where urban populations doubled in places like Manchester between 1801 and 1851, necessitating local bodies for sanitation and poor law administration beyond the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act's unions. Local spending on infrastructure rose accordingly, from minimal pre-1835 levels to systematic investments in waterworks and sewers by mid-century.[31][32] These developments reflected causal pressures from population growth—Europe's urban share rising from 10% in 1800 to 20% by 1850—and Enlightenment demands for accountable governance, yet implementation varied: France's system centralized elections under national law, the U.S. fragmented authority across states yielding inconsistent capacities, and Britain's incremental approach preserved parliamentary supremacy while empowering localities for practical exigencies. Empirical evidence from local tax records shows early 19th-century municipalities funding essential services like roads and markets, laying groundwork for modern fiscal federalism without ideological overreach.[33]20th-21st Century Evolution
In the early 20th century, local governments in industrialized nations expanded their roles amid rapid urbanization and Progressive reforms, particularly in the United States, where efforts focused on combating corruption, professionalizing administration, and enhancing public services. During the Progressive Era (roughly 1890s–1920s), U.S. municipalities implemented civil service reforms to replace patronage systems with merit-based hiring, constructed public infrastructure like playgrounds and high schools, and regulated urban markets to address food safety and economic inequities.[34] [35] Similar professionalization occurred in Europe, with local authorities assuming greater responsibilities for public health, housing, and sanitation, as seen in Britain's adoption of municipal socialism and town planning acts that empowered councils to build affordable housing by the 1910s.[36] These developments reflected a causal link between industrial growth—doubling urban populations in many Western cities between 1900 and 1930—and the need for localized service delivery to manage density-related challenges like disease outbreaks and infrastructure strain.[37] Mid-century trends shifted toward centralization, driven by world wars, economic depression, and the rise of welfare states, which concentrated fiscal and policy control at national levels to ensure uniform standards and resource allocation. In Europe, post-1945 reconstruction integrated local governments into national welfare bureaucracies, with countries like Sweden and the UK channeling funds through central grants for services such as education and social assistance, reducing local autonomy in budgeting; by the 1960s, local expenditures often exceeded 20% of GDP in Nordic nations but under tight central oversight. [38] In the U.S., New Deal programs from 1933 onward federalized local relief efforts, while wartime mobilization further eroded municipal independence, as federal mandates standardized responses to crises. This centralization improved economies of scale for large-scale programs—evidenced by reduced regional disparities in welfare coverage—but often stifled local innovation, with empirical studies showing slower adaptation to community-specific needs compared to pre-war eras.[39] A global decentralization wave emerged in the 1970s and accelerated through the 1980s, prompted by fiscal pressures, democratization movements, and critiques of bureaucratic inefficiency, deconcentrating authority from national to subnational levels in over 80 countries by 1990.[40] [41] In Latin America and Eastern Europe, post-authoritarian transitions devolved powers, such as Spain's 1978 constitution granting autonomous communities control over education and health, boosting local revenue shares from 10% to 25% of public spending by the mid-1990s.[42] Economic rationales underscored this shift: decentralizing service provision closer to users reduced information asymmetries and improved accountability, with IMF analyses linking it to higher growth rates in devolved systems through better matching of taxes to expenditures.[43] However, uneven implementation revealed risks, including fiscal imbalances where local debts rose without adequate central transfers, as in Italy's mezzogiorno regions. The 1990s introduced New Public Management (NPM) principles to local governance, emphasizing market-oriented reforms like performance contracting, outsourcing, and competition to enhance efficiency amid globalization and fiscal austerity. Originating in Anglo-Saxon countries, NPM influenced over 50 nations by 2000, with U.S. cities adopting metrics-based evaluation—such as New York’s CompStat system in 1994 for policing—and European locales like the UK's Best Value regime in 1999 replacing rigid inspections with competitive tendering for services.[44] [45] These reforms yielded measurable gains, including cost reductions of 10-20% in contracted services per World Bank evaluations, but critics noted unintended consequences like fragmented accountability and widened inequalities in access.[46] Into the 21st century, local governments have integrated digital technologies and adaptive governance amid urbanization and climate challenges, transitioning from NPM toward "digital-era governance" that reintegrates holistic service delivery with data-driven tools. E-government initiatives proliferated post-2000, with platforms enabling online permitting and citizen feedback; by 2020, over 90% of OECD municipalities offered digital services, correlating with 15-25% efficiency gains in administrative processes.[47] [48] Responses to crises, such as the 2008 financial downturn and COVID-19, further evolved structures: U.S. localities received $350 billion in federal aid by 2021 for recovery, prompting hybrid models blending central support with local discretion, while European Union cohesion funds since 2014 emphasized sustainable urban development, devolving 30% more project authority to regions. This era underscores causal realism in local evolution—empirical data from OECD reports show devolved systems outperforming centralized ones in resilience, with adaptability tied to fiscal autonomy levels exceeding 15% of subnational GDP.[49] [50]Theoretical Foundations
Decentralization vs. Centralization
Decentralization in local government involves the devolution of decision-making authority, fiscal powers, and administrative responsibilities from national to subnational levels, enabling localities to address context-specific needs through mechanisms such as fiscal federalism and intergovernmental transfers.[51] Centralization, conversely, concentrates these powers at the national level to enforce uniform policies and standards, often prioritizing economies of scale and equitable resource allocation across regions.[52] The theoretical debate centers on trade-offs between local responsiveness and national coherence, with empirical outcomes varying by institutional design, economic context, and governance capacity.[53] Proponents of decentralization argue it enhances efficiency by aligning public goods provision with local preferences, as theorized in Tiebout's model of jurisdictional competition, where citizens "vote with their feet" to select optimal service-tax bundles.[54] This can foster innovation and accountability, with local officials facing direct electoral scrutiny. Empirical studies, such as those using stochastic frontier analysis on OECD data, indicate that greater fiscal decentralization correlates with improved public service delivery efficiency in contexts with strong local capacity, including better resource allocation for education and infrastructure.[55] For instance, in developing countries with robust decentralization frameworks, service outcomes like health access have improved due to tailored implementation, though results hinge on anti-corruption safeguards.[56] However, decentralization risks exacerbating regional disparities if poorer localities lack revenue-raising ability, leading to uneven service quality and potential fiscal imbalances without adequate national transfers.[57] Centralization advocates emphasize its role in achieving redistribution and standardization, mitigating local capture by elites and ensuring minimum national standards for services like welfare and infrastructure.[58] National oversight can reduce spatial variations in outcomes, such as mortality rates, by pooling resources for large-scale projects unattainable locally.[58] World Bank analyses highlight that centralized systems often excel in macroeconomic stability and crisis response, as seen in coordinated fiscal policies during downturns.[51] Drawbacks include informational asymmetries, where distant central planners impose mismatched policies, potentially distorting local incentives and breeding inefficiency or resentment.[59] Evidence from health sector reforms shows centralization can hinder utilization when it overrides local knowledge, though it stabilizes equity in fragmented systems.[60]| Aspect | Decentralization Advantages/Disadvantages | Centralization Advantages/Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
| Efficiency | Promotes tailored services and competition; risks duplication and capacity gaps.[7] | Enables scale economies; prone to bureaucratic rigidity.[61] |
| Equity | Enhances local accountability; may widen inter-regional gaps.[57] | Facilitates redistribution; overlooks local variances.[62] |
| Growth Impact | Mixed; positive in high-capacity settings, negative where institutions weak.[63] | Supports stability; can stifle innovation.[64] |
Economic and Fiscal Rationales
Local governments enable more efficient allocation of public resources by allowing jurisdictions to tailor services to heterogeneous local preferences, reducing the mismatch that occurs under centralized provision. In fiscal federalism theory, as articulated by Wallace E. Oates, decentralization facilitates the assignment of expenditure responsibilities to the level of government best positioned to respond to diverse needs, leveraging superior local information about costs and demands compared to national authorities.[68] This approach minimizes deadweight losses from uniform policies imposed across varied regions, such as differing demands for education or infrastructure in urban versus rural areas.[69] A core economic mechanism supporting local autonomy is the Tiebout model, proposed by Charles Tiebout in 1956, which posits that interjurisdictional competition and resident mobility can approximate market-like efficiency in the provision of local public goods. Under this framework, individuals "vote with their feet" by relocating to communities offering the optimal combination of taxes and services, prompting localities to innovate and control costs to attract residents and businesses.[70] This sorting process fosters fiscal discipline, as inefficient policies lead to population outflows and revenue erosion, evidenced in empirical studies of U.S. metropolitan areas where tax competition correlates with lower per-capita spending.[71] Fiscally, local governments promote benefit taxation principles, aligning revenues like property taxes with the direct users of services such as schools and roads, which enhances accountability and reduces free-rider problems inherent in broader tax bases. Oates' analysis emphasizes that matching local revenues to expenditures—through sources like user fees and sales taxes—avoids the fiscal imbalances from central grants, which can distort incentives and encourage overspending.[72] For instance, in federal systems like the United States, state and local taxes funded approximately 40% of subnational expenditures in 2022, supporting targeted investments that national budgets cannot replicate without incurring higher administrative costs.[73] This structure also encourages economies of scale at the local level for non-rival goods while preserving responsiveness, countering the inefficiencies of over-centralization where uniform standards ignore regional productivity differences.[68]Democratic Accountability
Democratic accountability in local government refers to the processes by which citizens influence and oversee local officials and policies, primarily through elections and direct participation, enabling responsiveness to community needs distinct from national-level governance.[74] Local elections allow voters to select council members and mayors, fostering accountability via periodic re-election threats and localized feedback loops.[75] Additional mechanisms include public consultations, referendums, and oversight by local assemblies, which provide avenues for citizen input beyond voting.[74] Proponents argue that local government's spatial proximity enhances accountability, as officials face direct scrutiny from affected residents, promoting efficient service delivery and policy alignment with local preferences over centralized directives.[76] Empirical studies link strong local electoral systems to improved fiscal health and quicker financial reporting, as seen in U.S. municipalities with robust transparency mandates.[77] Decentralized structures facilitate experimentation and competition among localities, theoretically incentivizing better governance to attract residents and businesses.[78] However, empirical evidence reveals significant challenges, including persistently low voter turnout that weakens mandate legitimacy; in U.S. local elections, participation often falls below 20-30% even in urban areas, compared to 63% in presidential races.[79][80] This apathy undermines accountability, allowing incumbents to persist without broad scrutiny and enabling capture by special interests or patronage networks.[81] Weak institutional links between elections and service outcomes further dilute effectiveness, as noted in cross-national analyses where formal channels falter due to information asymmetries and elite dominance.[74] Corruption risks persist locally, eroding trust when transparency lags, despite theoretical advantages of scale.[82] Reforms like aligning local elections with national cycles have modestly boosted turnout, as evidenced by higher participation in consolidated U.S. election years, though structural issues like voter disinterest in "low-stakes" races remain.[83] Enhancing accountability requires bolstering civic education and digital tools for engagement, yet causal evidence ties success to context-specific factors rather than decentralization alone.[84]Organizational Forms
Single-Tier vs. Multi-Tier Structures
Single-tier local government structures consolidate authority and service delivery under a single elected body responsible for all functions within a defined jurisdiction, eliminating intermediate layers. This model contrasts with multi-tier systems, where responsibilities are divided between upper-tier authorities (such as counties or regions) handling strategic services like education, transportation, and social care, and lower-tier entities (such as districts or municipalities) managing localized functions including housing, waste collection, and planning.[85][86] In practice, single-tier systems are implemented in unitary authorities, as in parts of England where 56 such councils existed as of 2023, covering areas like Bristol and unitary counties like Northumberland, which assumed full powers following 1990s and 2000s reforms to streamline governance. Multi-tier arrangements persist in regions like rural England, with 24 county councils overseeing districts for broader coordination, or in the United States, where over 3,000 counties typically provide services overlapping with the 19,000+ municipalities, leading to shared or divided roles in areas like public safety and land use.[87][88] Proponents of single-tier structures argue they enhance efficiency by minimizing administrative duplication and transaction costs between layers, potentially reducing per capita expenditures; for instance, post-amalgamation analyses in England indicated unitary councils achieved economies of scale in procurement and service integration, with some reporting 5-10% savings in operational costs by 2010. Direct accountability to voters is strengthened, as residents interact with one authority rather than navigating divided responsibilities, fostering clearer democratic oversight. However, critics note potential diseconomies in sparsely populated or geographically diverse areas, where a single body may struggle with hyper-local needs, leading to uniform policies that overlook variations.[87][89] Multi-tier systems, conversely, enable specialization and regional economies of scale for functions requiring broader coordination, such as flood management or economic development spanning multiple localities, as evidenced in U.S. counties' role in aggregating municipal inputs for infrastructure projects. This division can improve responsiveness to scale-specific demands, with upper tiers handling high-cost services like highways (averaging $10-20 million annually per county in larger U.S. jurisdictions) while lower tiers focus on community-level delivery. Drawbacks include fragmented accountability, where blame-shifting between tiers erodes public trust, and higher overall costs from overlapping bureaucracies; empirical reviews of consolidations, such as those in Illinois municipalities, show mixed fiscal outcomes, with some two-tier setups incurring 10-15% higher administrative expenses due to coordination failures.[90][89] Overall, empirical evidence on efficiency remains inconclusive, with studies across jurisdictions like Canada and the UK revealing that single-tier reforms yield short-term cost reductions in urban settings but variable long-term gains, often dependent on population density and service type rather than structure alone; multi-tier persistence in federal systems like the U.S. reflects entrenched political economies favoring localized representation over pure efficiency.[89][86]Leadership Models
In local governments, leadership models delineate the allocation of executive authority between elected officials and appointed administrators, influencing policy implementation, accountability, and operational efficiency. Predominant forms include the mayor-council system, council-manager system, and commission system, with variations adapted across jurisdictions. These structures emerged from Progressive Era reforms in the early 20th century, aiming to counter corruption in machine politics by professionalizing administration or strengthening executive leadership.[91][92] The mayor-council system features an elected mayor as the chief executive, responsible for administering city operations, preparing budgets, and enforcing ordinances, while an elected council handles legislative functions such as lawmaking and oversight. In the "strong mayor" variant, prevalent in larger U.S. cities like New York and Chicago, the mayor wields significant powers including veto authority over council decisions, appointment of department heads without council approval, and direct control over administrative staff, fostering decisive leadership but risking politicization of bureaucracy.[92][93] Conversely, the "weak mayor" model limits the mayor to ceremonial duties, with the council appointing an administrator, as seen in smaller municipalities; this dilutes executive focus but enhances collective decision-making. Approximately 40% of U.S. cities over 2,500 population operate under mayor-council forms, often correlating with higher voter turnout due to prominent mayoral elections but also elevated administrative turnover tied to electoral cycles.[91][94] The council-manager system, adopted by over 50% of U.S. municipalities with populations exceeding 10,000 as of 2022, vests policy-making in an elected council that appoints a professional city manager as chief executive to handle day-to-day operations, budgeting, and personnel.[95] This model, rooted in management principles emphasizing expertise over partisanship, insulates administration from short-term political pressures, with the manager serving at the council's pleasure rather than direct election. Empirical analyses indicate council-manager governments often exhibit lower per-capita debt and more consistent service delivery, attributed to merit-based hiring and long-term planning; for instance, a 2009 NBER study found reduced public sector wages and improved fiscal restraint compared to mayor-council counterparts, though critics argue it diminishes direct democratic accountability by centralizing power in unelected professionals.[96][97] Internationally, analogous structures appear in countries like Germany, where professional Bürgermeister (mayors) combine elected and administrative roles under council oversight.[92] The commission system, less common today with fewer than 1% of U.S. cities employing it as of 2016, involves elected commissioners who jointly legislate and head specific departments, such as public works or finance, blending executive and legislative roles. Originating in Galveston, Texas, after the 1900 hurricane to streamline crisis response, this model promotes departmental accountability but can lead to fragmented leadership and policy gridlock due to equal commissioner authority.[91][98] Hybrid variants, including manager-council with a ceremonial mayor, blend elements for flexibility, as in some U.S. counties. Empirical evidence on performance remains mixed, with council-manager forms generally showing superior efficiency in resource allocation per meta-reviews, yet mayor-council systems excelling in responsive leadership during economic downturns, underscoring that no model universally outperforms others absent contextual factors like city size and governance capacity.[99][100]Special-Purpose Entities
Special-purpose entities, also known as special districts or special-purpose governments, are independent local governmental units established to deliver one or a limited set of public services, operating separately from general-purpose local governments such as municipalities or counties.[101] These entities address specific needs that may span jurisdictional boundaries or require specialized expertise and financing not readily provided by broader local authorities.[102] In the United States, where they are most prevalent, special-purpose entities numbered 39,555 as of 2022, comprising about 44% of all local governments and focusing on functions like natural resource management, with 16,020 dedicated to such areas.[103] Creation of these entities typically occurs through state legislation, either via general enabling laws or special acts tailored to particular projects or regions, granting them powers to tax, borrow, and regulate within their mandate.[104] Historical roots trace to colonial-era initiatives, such as the 1736 Union Fire Company in Philadelphia, evolving into formalized districts in the 19th century for irrigation and drainage amid rapid urbanization and infrastructure demands.[105] By the mid-20th century, their numbers tripled from 12,340 in 1952 to 34,683 in 1997, driven by suburban expansion and demands for services like water supply and fire protection.[106] Common examples include water and sewer districts, which manage supply and treatment; fire protection districts, providing emergency services; and hospital or library districts, handling healthcare or educational resources.[107] Transportation authorities, such as toll road operators, exemplify multi-jurisdictional entities that issue revenue bonds backed by user fees rather than general taxes.[108] Governance varies, with boards often elected by residents or appointed by state officials, emphasizing technical proficiency over broad political representation.[109] Proponents argue that special-purpose entities enhance efficiency through focused operations, enabling precise matching of costs to beneficiaries via assessments or fees, and facilitating capital-intensive projects via dedicated bonding authority without straining general-purpose budgets.[110] This specialization fosters responsiveness to localized demands, as seen in conservation districts tailored to environmental conditions.[111] Critics, however, highlight diminished accountability, as fragmented elections or appointments reduce voter oversight compared to unified local governments, potentially leading to opaque decision-making.[112] Overlapping jurisdictions can exacerbate coordination failures and administrative costs, with empirical concerns about inefficiency arising from duplicated efforts in areas like utilities.[113] In federal systems like the United States, special-purpose entities proliferate due to state-level autonomy, contrasting with unitary systems where analogous functions are often integrated into municipal or national frameworks.[114] Internationally, equivalents such as regional water boards in Canada or public development authorities in parts of Europe serve similar roles but with greater central oversight, reflecting varying degrees of decentralization.[115] Reforms in some U.S. states have aimed at consolidation to mitigate proliferation, though their persistence underscores enduring utility for niche services.[116]Functions and Powers
Service Provision
Local governments deliver essential public services that directly impact daily life, including utilities such as water supply and wastewater management, solid waste collection, public transportation, and maintenance of local roads and infrastructure.[117][118] In many jurisdictions, they also handle public safety through police and fire departments, recreational facilities like parks and libraries, and social services including housing assistance and community welfare programs.[118] These responsibilities vary by country and level of decentralization; for instance, in OECD nations, subnational governments often manage over 60% of public spending on education, health, and transport, enabling localized adaptation to demographic and economic conditions. Service provision at this level stems from the principle that proximity to citizens facilitates responsiveness, as local officials can better align offerings with heterogeneous preferences compared to centralized bureaucracies.[7] Empirical studies indicate that decentralization can enhance service delivery efficiency under certain conditions, such as strong local fiscal autonomy and accountability mechanisms, but outcomes are not uniform. A stochastic frontier analysis across countries found that greater fiscal decentralization correlates with improved efficiency in public service production, particularly for infrastructure and welfare, by incentivizing competition among localities and reducing administrative overhead.[55] For example, in Spain, decentralized municipalities exhibited higher spending efficiency in waste management and street lighting during 1995-2000, attributed to tailored resource allocation.[119] However, World Bank assessments highlight that without robust institutions, decentralization may lead to uneven delivery, as seen in cases where local capture by elites or capacity deficits hampers outcomes in developing regions.[7] Overall, meta-reviews of global evidence describe the link as weak and context-dependent, with no consistent superiority over centralization; success hinges on factors like intergovernmental transfers and performance monitoring rather than decentralization alone.[120] In practice, local governments often employ diverse delivery models, including direct operation, contracting to private firms, or partnerships with special-purpose entities, to optimize costs and quality. OECD data from 2020 shows that local public enterprises handle water and transport services in over 40% of member countries, balancing public oversight with operational flexibility.[121] Performance-based financing, as implemented in Ethiopia's urban programs since 2010, has boosted service metrics like road maintenance coverage by tying grants to verifiable improvements, demonstrating causal gains in accountability.[122] Challenges persist, including funding shortfalls and coordination failures with higher tiers, which can result in suboptimal provision; for instance, fragmented responsibilities may elevate costs by 10-20% in multi-tier systems without clear delineations.[49] Effective service provision thus requires evidence-based allocation, prioritizing measurable outputs like response times for emergency services or coverage rates for sanitation.Regulatory Authority
Local governments exercise regulatory authority primarily through ordinances, bylaws, or resolutions that govern local activities, such as land use, public health, safety standards, and environmental controls, derived from delegated powers by higher levels of government or constitutional home rule provisions.[123] In the United States, this authority varies by state; for instance, counties regulate unincorporated areas via zoning ordinances and building code enforcement, with municipalities often holding broader home rule powers under state constitutions to address local self-government needs, including nuisance abatement and property standards.[124][125] In practice, regulatory powers enable local enforcement of standards like food safety inspections, waste management rules, and traffic controls, often through dedicated boards such as local health departments, which review regulations, recommend policies, and issue permits or fines for non-compliance.[126] Empirical data from U.S. jurisdictions indicate that these powers facilitate targeted responses to local issues; for example, in California, county regulatory oversight in unincorporated zones has supported consistent enforcement of over 1,000 building permits annually in some regions as of 2023, reducing unpermitted construction risks.[123] In Canada, provincial legislation grants municipalities explicit authority to regulate property and persons, exemplified by British Columbia's Local Government Act (updated 2023), which empowers bylaws on noise, signage, and animal control, with over 160 municipalities issuing thousands of regulatory decisions yearly.[117] Limitations arise from preemption by national or state laws, ensuring uniformity on broader issues; in the UK, local councils derive powers from statutes like the Localism Act 2011, focusing on planning permissions and licensing, but subject to central oversight, with 317 English districts handling approximately 300,000 planning applications in 2022.[127] In the European Union, local entities implement directives on areas like environmental protection, but primary regulatory competence rests with member states, as seen in varying local enforcement of the EU's Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC, effective 1991), where compliance rates differ by region due to decentralized authority.[128] Studies highlight that effective local regulation correlates with improved compliance and economic outcomes, such as a 2022 analysis in Indonesia showing transparency enhancements in local governance boosting firm adherence to regulations by up to 15%.[129] However, overreach risks inefficiency, as evidenced by U.S. critiques of fragmented zoning laws contributing to housing shortages, with regulatory delays averaging 6-12 months in major cities per 2021 Federal Reserve data.[130]Planning and Development
Local governments hold primary responsibility for land-use planning and development control, exercising regulatory powers to direct physical growth, allocate infrastructure, and mitigate environmental impacts within their jurisdictions.[131] These functions typically encompass the creation of comprehensive plans that outline long-term visions for community development, including zoning ordinances that designate land for residential, commercial, industrial, or agricultural uses to prevent incompatible developments and promote orderly expansion.[132] In practice, local authorities issue building permits, enforce subdivision regulations, and conduct environmental reviews, often requiring public hearings to incorporate community input while balancing property rights against collective interests like traffic management and public safety.[133] Historically, modern local planning powers in the United States trace to state enabling legislation, with the U.S. Department of Commerce issuing the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act in 1926 and the Standard City Planning Enabling Act in 1928, which provided model frameworks for states to delegate zoning and planning authority to municipalities.[134] These acts empowered local bodies to divide land into zones and regulate building density, height, and setbacks, evolving from earlier efforts like New York City's 1916 zoning resolution—the first comprehensive U.S. zoning law—aimed at curbing overcrowding in response to rapid industrialization.[135] In other jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom, local planning authority stems from acts like the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, which centralized development control under local councils while aligning with national policies.[136] Empirical evidence indicates that stringent local planning regulations often constrain housing supply and elevate costs, as zoning restrictions limit density and new construction, reducing the elasticity of supply in response to demand.[137] For instance, studies across U.S. metropolitan areas find that higher regulatory stringency correlates with 20-30% reductions in housing starts and price premiums of up to 35% in restricted markets, driven by factors like minimum lot sizes and growth boundaries that favor incumbent residents over broader affordability.[138][139] Relaxing such rules, as in localized reforms in California post-2017, has demonstrably increased permitting activity and moderated rent growth in affected neighborhoods, though outcomes vary by enforcement and local political resistance.[140] Critics attribute these effects to "local control" incentives, where municipalities prioritize preserving property values and tax bases over regional needs, leading to sprawl or shortages; proponents argue regulations avert externalities like infrastructure overload, supported by data showing planned developments yield lower per-unit service costs.[141] Development processes also involve special districts or public-private partnerships for large-scale projects, such as urban renewal or transit-oriented initiatives, where local governments coordinate with state or federal entities for funding under frameworks like the U.S. Housing Act of 1954, which shifted emphasis from demolition to rehabilitation. However, implementation challenges persist, including delays from appeals and variances, which can extend approval times to 2-5 years in high-regulation areas, exacerbating supply bottlenecks amid population growth.[142] Effective planning requires empirical calibration, as overly permissive regimes risk uncoordinated growth, while excessive controls, prevalent in coastal U.S. cities, correlate with stagnant construction rates below 1% of stock annually despite demand pressures.[143]Financial Frameworks
Revenue Generation
Local governments derive revenue primarily from own-source mechanisms, including taxes levied on property, sales, and occasionally income, as well as non-tax sources such as user fees, licenses, and charges for services. These own-source revenues (OSR) afford fiscal independence, enabling localities to fund services like infrastructure and public safety without sole reliance on higher-level transfers, though their composition varies by jurisdiction and legal authority. In the United States, for instance, state and local governments collected $4.1 trillion in general revenues in fiscal year 2021, with own-source taxes forming a core component alongside fees.[144] Globally, OSR typically includes taxes aligned with the benefit principle, where payments reflect service usage, and property-based levies predominate due to their stability and link to local asset values.[145] Property taxes constitute the dominant own-source revenue for many local governments, assessed on the value of real estate and improvements therein. In the U.S., property taxes generated about 75% of local tax revenues nationwide as of 2024, serving as the primary source in 40 states due to their inelastic nature and difficulty in evasion.[146] [147] Assessment methods often involve market value comparisons, income capitalization for commercial properties, or cost approaches, with rates set by local councils to balance revenue needs against economic impacts.[148] In OECD countries, property taxes average around 1-2% of GDP at the local level, though utilization lags behind potential in nations with low autonomy, such as parts of Europe where central restrictions limit rate-setting.[149] Sales and value-added taxes provide another key stream, capturing consumption within local boundaries, though their assignment to subnational levels depends on constitutional frameworks. In nine U.S. states, general sales taxes rank as the largest local tax source, often shared with states via point-of-sale allocation.[147] User fees and charges, including those for utilities, permits, and recreational facilities, emphasize pay-for-use equity; for U.S. cities, these rival property taxes in scale, comprising up to 20-30% of revenues in service-heavy municipalities.[150] Licenses for businesses, vehicles, and professions add targeted income, while fines from violations offer supplementary but volatile funds. In developing contexts, enhancing OSR collection through digital tools and enforcement has boosted yields, as seen in efforts to align fees with actual costs.[151]| Revenue Type | Typical Share in U.S. Local Governments | Key Characteristics |
|---|---|---|
| Property Taxes | ~75% of local taxes | Stable, value-based; primary in most states[146] |
| Sales Taxes | Varies; largest in 9 states | Consumption-linked; shared with states[147] |
| User Fees/Charges | 20-30% of city revenues | Benefit-based; includes utilities and permits[150] |
| Licenses/Fines | Supplementary (5-10%) | Targeted; volatile due to enforcement[151] |
Expenditure Management
Expenditure management in local government refers to the systematic processes for planning, authorizing, executing, and monitoring public spending to align with fiscal constraints, service priorities, and legal requirements. Local authorities typically operate under annual or multi-year budgets that categorize expenditures into operating costs—such as personnel salaries, utilities, and maintenance—and capital outlays for long-term assets like infrastructure.[155][156] These budgets must often be balanced, meaning projected expenditures cannot exceed anticipated revenues, a principle enshrined in legislation across many jurisdictions to promote fiscal sustainability.[157][158] Execution involves layered controls to prevent unauthorized or inefficient spending. Key stages include commitment control, where purchase orders or contracts are approved before obligations arise; verification, ensuring goods or services match invoices; and payment authorization, with segregation of duties to reduce fraud risk—such as separating requisition, approval, and disbursement functions.[159][160] Procurement policies further enforce competitive bidding for larger expenditures, aiming to secure value for money while complying with transparency rules.[161] In practice, tools like encumbrance accounting reserve funds upon commitment, allowing real-time tracking against budget limits.[162] Oversight mechanisms include ongoing monitoring through variance reports, which compare actual spending to budgeted amounts, and periodic adjustments via supplemental appropriations if revenues fluctuate.[163] Internal audits assess control effectiveness, while external audits—often mandated annually—verify financial statements under standards like Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), enhancing accountability by identifying discrepancies or non-compliance.[164][165] In OECD countries, subnational governments, including local levels, account for approximately 40% of total public expenditures, underscoring the scale and need for robust management in areas like education and public works.[166] Effective management prioritizes outcomes over inputs, incorporating performance metrics to evaluate spending efficiency, such as cost per service unit delivered.[167] However, adherence varies; empirical reviews indicate that stronger internal controls correlate with lower error rates in financial reporting.[160][168]Intergovernmental Transfers and Debt
Intergovernmental transfers consist of financial resources allocated from central or regional governments to local authorities, typically comprising grants, revenue-sharing arrangements, and other fiscal instruments designed to bridge gaps between local revenue capacities and expenditure responsibilities.[169][170] These transfers are classified into unconditional grants, which provide discretion in usage; conditional grants, tied to specific purposes like infrastructure or education; and matching grants, requiring local co-financing to encourage investment.[171][172] In federal systems, such as those in the United States or Canada, transfers often constitute 20-40% of local revenues, varying by jurisdiction and economic conditions.[173] The primary objectives of these transfers include fiscal equalization to reduce disparities in service provision across regions, correcting vertical fiscal imbalances where local governments bear substantial spending duties but limited tax bases, and promoting national policy goals through targeted funding.[170][172] Empirically, unconditional transfers have been shown to stimulate local economic activity by increasing factor accumulation in lower-income areas, as observed in Ecuador where a natural experiment revealed positive multiplier effects on output and employment.[174] However, excessive reliance on transfers can induce moral hazard, reducing local tax effort and fostering dependency; studies indicate that grant reductions prompt higher local taxation and deficits without curtailing spending, underscoring flypaper effects where funds "stick" to expenditures.[175][176] Local government debt arises from borrowing to finance capital-intensive projects, such as infrastructure, often through municipal bonds or bank loans, subject to constraints ensuring fiscal sustainability.[177] In many jurisdictions, balanced budget requirements or prior approvals from higher governments limit indebtedness; for instance, Canadian municipalities require provincial consent for borrowing, imposing a hard budget constraint to avert defaults.[177] Empirical evidence highlights risks, including crowding out of private investment—French data from 2006-2018 show local debt expansion reduces corporate credit access and output—while in China, local debt swaps mitigated banking risks but amplified fiscal pressures amid real estate downturns.[178][179] Transfers and debt interact dynamically within fiscal federalism frameworks, where grants can supplement borrowing capacity or substitute for it, influencing local fiscal discipline.[171] In practice, higher transfers may ease debt reliance but risk softening budget constraints, as seen in regions where grant inflows correlate with elevated hidden debt levels, potentially undermining long-term solvency.[180] Reforms emphasizing performance-based transfers aim to align incentives, though evidence remains mixed on mitigating inefficiencies.[181]Governance Processes
Elections and Representation
Local elections determine the composition of municipal councils, city commissions, and other subnational bodies responsible for policy implementation and service delivery, often occurring more frequently than national contests—typically every four years in many jurisdictions.[182] Electoral systems vary widely: majoritarian methods like first-past-the-post in single-member districts predominate in the United States and United Kingdom, where the candidate with the plurality wins, potentially leading to disproportional outcomes.[183] In contrast, proportional representation (PR) systems, used in countries like Germany and New Zealand for local polls, allocate seats based on vote shares, aiming to mirror party or list support more closely.[184] [185] Direct mayoral elections, common in over 100 countries as of 2020, enhance executive accountability but can polarize councils if the mayor lacks a supporting majority.[186] Representation in local government hinges on districting—single-member districts foster geographic accountability by tying officials to specific locales, while at-large systems elect from the whole jurisdiction, promoting citywide perspectives but risking minority vote dilution.[187] Empirical studies show district systems correlate with higher policy responsiveness to local needs, such as infrastructure in underserved areas, though at-large elections prevail in smaller U.S. municipalities (about 60% as of 2020).[187] Proportionality debates intensify in diverse populations: PR boosts minority party seats—for instance, in European locales, it has increased female and ethnic representation by 10-15% compared to majoritarian setups—but majoritarian systems prioritize stable majorities for decisive governance.[184] [188] Racial and ethnic underrepresentation persists globally; in U.S. cities, nonwhite candidates winning close races raise subsequent policy attention to minority issues by 5-10%, per analyses of California councils from 1990-2018.[188] Voter turnout underscores representation gaps: local elections average 40-50% globally, far below national rates (e.g., 25-35% in U.S. municipals versus 60% presidential), driven by perceived low stakes and off-cycle timing.[186] [79] In Europe, turnout hovers at 45-55%, with compulsory voting or synced national-local polls boosting participation by up to 20%; unaligned schedules exacerbate apathy, yielding unrepresentative outcomes favoring older, higher-income voters.[189] [190] This selectivity impairs accountability, as low-engagement electorates reduce incentives for broad responsiveness; causal evidence from reforms like weekend voting indicates turnout gains translate to more equitable policy, such as expanded social services.[191] Challenges to fair representation include district manipulation akin to gerrymandering, though less prevalent locally than at state levels; U.S. municipal redistricting, often controlled by incumbents, has diluted minority votes in at-large hybrids, prompting Voting Rights Act challenges that increased descriptive representation by 8% in affected Illinois locales post-1980s.[192] Elite incumbency advantages—reelection rates exceeding 80% in many U.S. counties—stem from name recognition and weak challengers, undermining competitive renewal.[193] Reforms like term limits or open primaries address this, but evidence mixed: PR adoption in U.S. cities like Cambridge, Massachusetts, since 1941 has sustained diverse councils without instability.[194] Overall, effective representation demands balancing proportionality, turnout, and localism to align governance with demographic realities, though institutional inertia favors status quo systems.[195]Decision-Making Bodies
Local government decision-making bodies primarily comprise elected legislative councils or assemblies and executive authorities such as mayors or appointed managers, responsible for policy formulation, budgeting, and oversight of services. These bodies operate within structures designed to balance representation with administrative efficiency, with variations across jurisdictions reflecting historical, legal, and cultural contexts. In deliberative systems, councils hold primary decision-making power, often elected by universal suffrage, while executives implement directives.[10][196] The council-manager form, common in the United States, features an elected council as the legislative body that sets policies, approves budgets, and appoints a professional city manager to handle day-to-day administration and execution. This model separates politics from administration, aiming for non-partisan, expertise-driven decisions; as of 2022, it was adopted by a majority of larger U.S. municipalities.[92][91] In contrast, the mayor-council system vests executive authority in an elected mayor, who oversees operations, proposes budgets, and may veto council actions, while the council legislates and provides checks. Strong mayor variants grant the mayor significant administrative control, including department appointments, facilitating decisive leadership but risking politicization; this form prevails in cities emphasizing direct electoral accountability, such as many in Texas as of 2024. Weak mayor systems limit the mayor to ceremonial roles, with councils delegating to managers.[197][198] Commission governments combine legislative and executive functions among elected commissioners, each heading departments, which streamlines decisions but can blur policy-administration lines; this is less common today, used in fewer than 1% of U.S. municipalities. In parliamentary-style local systems, such as in the United Kingdom, full councils elect leaders from within, with committees handling specialized decisions under party group influences.[91][199]| Form of Government | Legislative Body | Executive Authority | Key Decision-Making Features |
|---|---|---|---|
| Council-Manager | Elected council sets policy and budget | Appointed professional manager implements | Emphasis on administrative expertise; council oversight without direct executive election[93] |
| Strong Mayor-Council | Elected council legislates | Elected mayor with veto, budget proposal, appointments | Centralized executive power for rapid response; potential for accountability via elections[92] |
| Commission | Elected commissioners (legislative and departmental heads) | Commissioners collectively | Integrated roles; decisions via commission votes, less separation of powers[91] |
