Suchergebnisse

ABSTRACTThe study of central–local relations in Britain is in a state of flux. Traditionally the subject has been the preserve of Public Administration but work in this tradition has been incisively criticised. However, no cogent alternative framework of analysis has been offered. This paper briefly reviews the existing British literature before assessing the contribution of recent theoretical developments in the sociology of organisations to the understanding of intergovernmental relations. It concludes that the literature on interorganisational analysis has become pre‐occupied with methodological questions and in its most common manifestations will not facilitate the analysis of intergovernmental relations. However, if interorganisational analysis is located within a theory of intra‐ and interorganisational power, it can provide a series of concepts of considerable utility. Although the paper focuses on understanding British practice, recent work on interorganisational relations in France, West Germany and the United States of America is discussed.

Intergovernmental relations in Canada have tended to be viewed in light of the paper distribution of powers contained in the British North America Act, and, as a result, debate and research have focused on judicial interpretation and amendment as means of adapting inter governmental relations. The tremendous augmentation of governmental functions (and spending) at all levels has necessitated the creation of extra-constitutional mechanisms for providing the flexibility required to meet the con temporary trend toward the merging and blending of juris dictions that had been thought to exist in relatively watertight compartments. What is unique about the processes termed executive federalism is the way in which adjustment of regional and local relations tends to move to the top for resolution in a species of diplomatic conferences. While the new procedures have injected a realistic flexibility into the system, a high price is exacted in terms of Canada's capacity to arrive at an overall set of national policies.

Trends in intergovernmental relations have not been a simple move from "layer cake" to "marble cake." There were many federal-state and federal-state-local rela tionships in the nineteenth century, although it is true that strict construction theories were held by most presidents. The responsibilities between states and localities were never clear-cut. Grants-in-aid have been the major factor in alter ing the situation in the twentieth century. The national gov ernment has also moved into the field of business regulation. The major causes of the change included the pressing nature of federal grants, professionalism, technological factors, and political factors. The grants-in-aid structure has left a num ber of unsolved problems. It does not equalize very effec tively. It probably has not improved state-local personnel ex cept in certain specific fields. It has decreased state and local responsibility and confused state and local budgeting. The future situation is somewhat in doubt. The over-all national government fiscal situation is poorer than that of states and localities. However, there are economists who feel that the national government must continue to spend. Pressure groups are continuing to operate for grants. The effectiveness of the "new conservatism" is open to question. The only technical device for preventing the development of the present politi cally irresponsible grants-in-aid system seems to be the block grant which has been advocated by leaders of both parties but has attained no official status. Political scientists are urged to try to keep the values of state and local government in mind in appraising the grant system.

Intergovernmental relationships in the United Kingdom are more confused and uncertain than they have been for a long time. The recent reorganization of local gov ernment has made more complex relationships between the tiers of local authorities, especially in the cities where a single-tier system had prevailed. The establishment of new functional agencies for water and the health services, distinct from local authorities, has further fragmented local power. To work the new system, elected members and their staffs will require diplomatic skills to relate their own authority with tiers both above and below and with other public agencies involved in providing services in their area. Local authorities are not so dependent financially on the central government as is sometimes alleged, and although the center has many de vices available to it to influence local government, the use made of them varies between the departments, and the re sponse to them varies again between the local authorities. Re gional devolution is advocated by nationalist movements in Wales and Scotland, and by some in England who want to reduce the power of the center and involve the public more in government. Seven models of devolution are currently under discussion. Ulster remains a thorny problem. Complications to intergovernmental relationships are introduced by pressure for popular participation in community councils and by Britain's entry into the European Economic Community.