The Impact of Territorial Re-Organisational Policy Interventions in the Republic of Macedonia

Abstract

This paper attempts to analyse territorial reorganisation policy interventions in Macedonia, first in 1995 and again in 2004, which overreached their aims and objectives; and where economic viability and institutional reform were trumped by ethnic factors in defining local government boundaries. The core argument is that through territorial reorganisation, opportunities are provided to major ethnic political parties, both Macedonian and Albanian, in order to exercise more power by increasing their 'market share' in local governments. This paper argues that this political approach adds to a higher level of segregation among ethnic communities. Further, this paper clearly explains how balancing political, economical and institutional qualifications for the two territorial policy interventions posed challenges in Macedonia due to its citizens perceptions and demographic profile.In understanding the need for territorial re-organisations in Macedonia, one must not ignore historical legacy and developments around the region in the last decade. Immediately after Macedonia became a sovereign and independent state in September 1991, the new Macedonian constitution was drawn up and later adopted in November 1991. This revealed tensions between two major ethnic groups over constitutional nationalism and the principle of democracy. It was not until 2001 when the Ohrid Framework Agreement was signed through mediation of the international community that the country's political leadership recognised the need for a new political discourse in order to bring more social and economic progress to the country.

Is Biggest Best? A Comparative Analysis of the Financial Viability of the Brisbane City Council

“…Furthermore, in the Special Edition of Local Government Studies , similar conclusions regarding the purported benefits of council amalgamation have been drawn for Eastern Europe (Swianiewicz ), Denmark (Vrangbæk ), and Germany (Wollmann ). Hlepas () was especially critical of the Greek program of municipal mergers whereas Kreci and Ymeri () drew similar conclusions from the Macedonian program of council consolidations. Finally, DeCeuninck et al.…”

“…Reese ; Vojnovic ). The interest in council amalgamations is also evident among European scholars who have studied this issue for France, Germany, Italy, and Spain (Dollery and Robotti ) as well as Eastern Europe (Swianiewicz ), Denmark (Vrangbæk ), Greece (Hlepas ), Macedonia (Kreci and Ymeri ), Belgium, and the Netherlands (DeCeuninck et al. ).…”

Impact of municipal amalgamation on stakeholder collaboration: the case of Auckland, New Zealand

“…A preponderance of published literature suggests that the objectives of amalgamation are not always achieved (Sancton 2005), that effective coordination post-merger is absent and that no savings are made on service costs levied by supercities (Schwartz 2009). These failings are evident in Spain, France, Italy and Germany (Dollery and Robotti 2008;Wollmann 2010), Scandinavia (De Ceuninck et al 2010;Vrangbaek 2010), Eastern Europe (Swianiewicz 2010), the US (Leland and Thurmaier 2006;Leland and Thurmaier 2010;Faulk and Hicks 2011;Faulk and Grassmueck 2012), Greece (Hlepas 2010) and Macedonia (Kreci and Ymeri 2010).…”

Educational decentralisation in post-conflict societies: approaches and constraints

“…135 It did so through decision-making procedures governed by proportionality, by weighted majority rules and by inclusive forums like the Committees for Inter-Community Relations. 136 The drawing of municipal boundaries to maximise ethnic homogeneity also helped embed the new political representatives of ethnic communities on the local level 137 whilst reinforcing patterns of patronage. 138 This hampered flexible change in the school network.…”