This four-country comparison has four sections. First, some remarks on appropriate definitions and concepts are made (inter alia by introducing and emphasising the distinction between 'traditional' and New Public Management-inspired administrative reforms). Then, country by country accounts of the pertinent reforms are submitted 'in a nutshell'. Third, with the 'convergence or divergence?' question in mind, the conclusion is put forward that significant differences persist (and even increase), particularly between Sweden and Germany, on the one hand, and England and France on the other. In the final section, an attempt is made to assess the 'performance' of the different local government systems in looking at their capacity to 'co-ordinate' policies and activities. It is argued that Sweden's and Germany's traditional type of democratically accountable, multi-functional and territorially viable local government does relatively well in achieving policy co-ordination, democratic participation and political accountability. Great Britain and France, however, could do better. 1The purpose of this paper 1 is to put the reform waves which Great Britain's/ England's 2 local government has seen since the late 1970s into a comparative international perspective. The article considers Great Britain/England, Sweden, Germany and France. The consideration underlying this selection is that in many comparative accounts these four countries are seen as representing, at least in their historical evolution, distinctly different local government systems, so that the analysis of their more recent developments should provide relevant insights. FLGS300411 (NT)

No abstract

In taking a historical‐institutionlist approach, this paper looks at the development of administrative reforms in German local government which, because of the comparatively high degree of political and administrative decentralization of the Federal Republic has played a crucial role in the latter’s entire politico‐administrative setting and, hence, in its institutional reforms. The paper mainly identifies three stages in the post‐war development of administrative reforms. During the ‘planning movement’ of the late 1960s and early 1970s, Germany’s local level government and administration underwent significant and, to a considerable degree, lasting institutional changes. The 1980s were a period of incrementalist adaptation. Since the beginning of the 1990s, conspicuously later than in the Anglo‐Saxon and Scandinavian countries, but earlier and faster than the federal and the Länder levels, Germany’s local government has embarked upon dramatic changes particularly on two scores. First, in a growing number of municipalities and counties, administrative modernization was incorporated under the heading of a ‘New Steering Model’ (NSM) that largely drew on the dominant international New Public Management (NPM) debate. The dynamics of the ongoing administrative reforms are marked by an ‘amalgamation’ of NPM/NSM and earlier (‘traditional’) reform concepts. Secondly, at the same time, the political institutions of local government have under‐gone a significant shift as a result of the introduction of direct democratic procedures (direct election of mayors and heads of counties, binding local referenda). The paper argues that it is this co‐incidence and co‐evolution of administrative and political reforms that make for the peculiarity of Germany’s current modernization trajectory, distinguishing it from the Anglo‐Saxon and, to a lesser degree, from the Scandinavian modernization paths.

This article discusses the provision of public services (public utilities) and personal social services in European countries. In pursuing a historical perspective, four stages are discerned: the pre-welfare state of the late nineteenth century; the advanced welfare state climaxing in the 1970s; the neo-liberal policy phase since the early 1980s; and the recent phase since the mid-2000s. It is argued that, during each phase, the prevalent organizational form of service provision (whether municipal/public, private, or third sector) was shaped by the current dominant political beliefs and discourse; that is, by the "social democratic" assumption of the operational preference of public/municipal sector provision until the 1970s and the neo-liberal trust in the operational superiority of market liberalization and privatization. In the recent phase since the mid-2000s, divergent trends are observed. On the one hand, the neo-liberal market and privatization drive has persisted while, on the other, in reaction to the downturn of the neo-liberal policy tenets and the socio-economic fallout of fiscal austerity policies, a comeback of the public/municipal sector (remunicipalization) in public service provision and a (re-)emergence of third sector organizations and actors in the provision of personal social services and care have taken shape, somewhat reminiscent of the pre-welfare state engagement of societal actors.

No abstract