So you think you know what local government is?

This article was downloaded by: [Tufts University]On: 12 November 2014, At: 14:25Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Local Government StudiesPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/flgs20

So you think you know whatlocal government is?Michael Cole a & George Boyne aa University of Glamorgan Business School ,Published online: 02 Jan 2008.

To cite this article: Michael Cole & George Boyne (1995) So you think you knowwhat local government is?, Local Government Studies, 21:2, 191-205, DOI:10.1080/03003939508433771

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03003939508433771

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/flgs20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/03003939508433771

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03003939508433771

or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

25 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

ARTICLES

So You Think You Know WhatLocal Government Is?

MICHAEL COLE and GEORGE BOYNE

Changes since the 1970s in the role and functions of British localauthorities raise questions about the very meaning of the term 'localgovernment'. Posed in an extreme way, it might be asked whether localgovernment still exists.1 The boundaries between local authoritiesand other organisations seem to have become increasingly blurred inrecent years for at least four reasons. First, greater central controlsimply that councils simply administer national services. The increasedreliance of local authorities on central funds, especially since thenationalisation of business rates, also suggests that councils mayproperly be viewed as outposts of central government. Secondly,centralisation has been accompanied by privatisation, commercialisa-tion and contracting out, which places councils increasingly in theprivate rather than the public sector. Thirdly, current plans for re-organisation will increase the average population size of the lowest tierof local government. Britain already has the largest local authorities inwestern Europe2 and it might be argued that further reorganisation willproduce a scale of government that is effectively regional rather thanlocal. And, finally, local services are increasingly the responsibilityof bodies which are appointed rather than elected. These practicalchanges are reflected in academic work. Whereas the major researchprogramme funded by the old Social Science Research Council at theend of the 1970s was concerned with the relationship between thecentre and local government, the focus of the current ESRC initiative islocal governance, which reflects the fragmentation of local services anddecision making.

It is, therefore, no longer clear what the term 'local government'means in the contemporary British context. This is a significantproblem for both practical and academic reasons. If national policymakers have no clear conception of local government then they maygenuinely believe that it can be strengthened by a proliferation of

Michale Cole and George Boyne, University of Glamorgan Business School

Local Government Studies, Vol.21, No.2 (Summer 1995), pp.191-202PUBLISHED BY FRANK CASS, LONDON

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

25 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

192 LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES

appointed bodies. Similarly, just what are the defenders of localgovernment, such as the local authority associations, seeking to defend?For example, is the power of taxation essential to local government, oris the power to allocate centrally provided revenue between localservices sufficient? From an academic perspective, it is important tohave a clear definition of local government for comparative analysis.An increasing number of academic analyses lament the decline (ordemise) of British local government,' but is the term being used ina consistent way in different time periods? Similarly, the growingnumber of cross-national comparisons of local government scarcelystop to consider whether like is being compared with like.4 Thepossibility of valid comparisons is remote in the absence of a cleardefinition of local government.

The aim of this paper is to clarify the meaning of the term 'localgovernment'. A wide range of definitions are evaluated and keycomponents from these definitions are then isolated and assessed. Theappropriateness of any particular definition will vary with the purposeof comparative research. It is important to state at the outset that ourobjective is not to create a perfect definition of local government thathas universal validity. Rather it is to highlight the confusion in manyexisting definitions and identify some of the elements of a usefuldefinition of local government.

THE PROBLEM OF DEFINING LOCAL GOVERNMENT

In their discussion of the difficulty of producing a definitive list ofBritish governmental departments, Hood, Dunsire and Thompsonquote approvingly Grant Jordan's observation that Britain's govern-mental system is characterised by a lack of rules.5 Governmentalbodies were created on an ad hoc basis and given the constitution andpowers appropriate to their needs. In consequence there is a vast rangeof different types of public sector organisation and parcelling them intoneat categories is difficult. As the Bowen report on Quangos showed,the development of classification systems is an imprecise task and atevery stage of the process those creating the nomenclature are open tothe charge of inconsistency."

Where there is agreement about what constitutes a particularcategory of governmental organisation it is merely because governmenthas settled on one list of these bodies, not because a theoreticallyconsistent definition has been created. There is little dispute aboutwhat is a non-departmental public body because a comprehensive listis provided in the publication Public Bodies.7 But this is not to say that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

25 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

SO YOU THINK YOU KNOW WHAT LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS? 193

these bodies have characteristics that clearly set them apart from otherpublic or, in some cases, private sector bodies, merely that inclusion inthe list identifies any organisation as a non-departmental public body.

In relation to British local government a similar approach is adoptedby Hood, Dunsire and Thompson. While they recognise the complexityof central governmental structure and the difficulty of producing adefinitive list of departments, they see no such problem with localauthorities which have 'easily defined formal-legal categories ofagency'.8 They contrast the supposedly simple structure of localgovernment with the complex matrix of central governmental bodies.

Support for this thesis can be found in various local governmentacts, which define the main types of authority and list the councils ineach category. For example, the 1888 Local Government Act out-lined the powers and responsibilities of the new counties and countyboroughs in England and Wales and supplied a definitive list of theseauthorities. The rigidity of the definition provided no room foracademic discussion about which authorities were or were not countiesor whether the powers and responsibilities of some of these authoritiesrendered their classification as counties inappropriate. But not all localgovernment legislation specified each individual authority and henceproduced a definitive list. The 1916 Local Government EmergencyProvisions Act eschewed listing local councils in favour of a broaddefinition which took local government to mean 'any person or body ofpersons who receive or expend the proceeds of any local rate and anyother public body which the Minister of Health may determine to be alocal authority'.'' Far from producing easily identifiable categories theact opened the way for the inclusion in the local government system ofany body which spent funds derived from a local rate. Taken literally itcould lead to quasi-public or private organisations being included aslocal government because they received local authority grants whichwere derived, in part at least, from the rates. At the extreme, indi-viduals receiving local authority grants could themselves be thought ofas local authorities on the grounds that they spent money raisedthrough the rating system!

But the key criticism of Hood, Dunsire and Thompson's idea thatlocal government is easily defined through specific legal categories isthat while this approach may be useful for discussing contemporaryBritish local government it cannot provide an answer to the question ofwhat units have formed part of the British local government systemthroughout the country's history. Acts, of course, are framed to dealwith contemporary problems and issues and are seldom concerned withmaintaining a uniformity of approach with previous legislation. Nor

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

25 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


does Hood, Dunsire and Thompson's assertion assist the comparativeanalysis of local government. But to answer the question 'what is localgovernment?' it is essential to consider foreign local governmentsystems and decide which key factor(s) makes a governmental organi-sation part of the local government system. A danger exists thatfeatures relevant only to Britain or Western democracies will be listedas defining characteristics of local government and more basic anduniversal features will be overlooked or marginalised.

To avoid creating a definition irrelevant to other types of politicalsystem it is essential to ask whether any particular criterion is useful fordefining local government throughout the world. The main thrust ofthe following analysis is centred around the British system, howevereach characteristic is also assessed against local government systems ina wide variety of countries.

DEFINITIONS

Traditionally, many writers on British local government had a fairlyclear idea which organisations were part of the local governmentstructure. Writing in 1931, Robson felt confident enough to avoid anytheoretical discussion about what constituted local government.10 Hartobserves that English local authorities possess 'to a greater or lesserdegree' four characteristics that distinguish them from 'local agents ofthe Central Government or of the modern Public Corporations'."They are legally independent; popularly elected; have independenttax powers and, to a certain extent, are autonomous. However, hespecifically rejects the idea that it is possible to define local governmentand claims that the meaning of the term in England is not to bediscovered by any a priori definition.12 Lipman also eschews anytheoretical analysis and provides a comprehensive history of localgovernment areas between 1834 and 1945 without stopping to ask whatcharacteristics make a public organisation part of the local governmentsystem. He adopts a conventional approach and includes bodies suchas the unelected pre-1888 counties and the hundreds without askingwhat implications this approach has for the definition of twentiethcentury local government." If unelected nineteenth century bodies arethought of as local government, why should we exclude unelectedtwentieth century local organisations such as the new town developmentcorporations? Lipman's analysis reflects a confidence that we knowwhich bodies constitute British (or normally English and Welsh) localgovernment and that, therefore, there is no need to spend time definingthe subject matter (see Clarke14 and Smellie" for similar approaches).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

25 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Writing in the 1970s, Seeley also preferred to concentrate onproviding a narrative rather than attempting to define what constituteda local authority.16 He included the pre-1888 counties, the hundredsand a variety of nineteenth century single-purpose bodies (includingthe Turnpike Trusts) as part of the local government system, but failedto provide a theoretical justification for his decisions. Finer discussesthe meaning of the term 'government', the place of local authorities inthe British governmental system and identifies some characteristics ofEnglish local authorities.17 However, his analysis stops short of anoverall definition of local government.

Jennings initially defines local government as governmental organs'having jurisdiction not over the whole of a country but over specificportions of it';18 but after identifying difficulties with this concept heabandons the attempt to identify a set of definitive common charac-teristics, arguing that 'local government is not a logical division ofgovernment. It is a distinction of ordinary language which has no logicaljustification'.'1' Given these difficulties Jennings simply defined localgovernment in Britain in terms of the authorities listed in legislation.

Byrne constructs a definition of local government which is clearlybased on the late twentieth century British model. He declares thatlocal government is 'marked out as a distinctive form of publicadministration'2" by five key features. It is elected, multi-purpose,operates on a local scale, has a clearly defined structure, and is sub-ordinate to Parliament.21 Smith and Stanyer adopt a similar approachbut draw a distinction between primary and secondary local govern-ment. Primary local government is similar to Byrne's idea of localgovernment: it has a well-defined structure, is elected and performs avariety of tasks (multi-functional). They also observe that primarylocal government possesses a degree of autonomy from central govern-ment because it has independent powers of decision-making andtaxation. Secondary local government bodies normally perform onetask or a closely related group of activities and are controlled bymembers nominated or indirectly elected from the primary authorities."However, Smith and Stanyer are sceptical about defining local govern-ment and observe that 'no satisfactory definition of local governmenthas ever been devised, partly because the significance of differentattributes changes with time and place'.21 However, even though theirsignificance may vary, this does not make it impossible to identify therelevant attributes.

In their survey of world local government systems, Humes andMartin24 state that local government possesses most of the followingattributes: a population; a clearly defined area; the capacity to sue and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

25 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


be sued; the ability to make contracts; a continuing organisation; theauthority to undertake and the power to conduct public activities;and the right to collect revenue and determine a budget. Humes andMartin also observe that in a federal system local government can bedistinguished from state and regional levels because it is subordinate toa higher tier of government. Whereas sovereignty is divided betweennational governments and the state/regional government, local govern-ments do not enjoy a share of sovereignty but are normally sub-ordinate to higher levels. The 'laws establishing and controlling localgovernments are generally state laws and the administrative controlsover local government in countries with federal constitutions areusually exercised by state officials'.25

The same point is made by Jennings concerning the local governmentsystems of the United States and Australia, both of which have federalconstitutions. While state governments are 'within their constitutionalpowers, autonomous authorities'26 local government is 'governmentwhich is subordinate to higher authority'.27 Humes and Martin rejectthe idea that only elected bodies can be part of the local governmentsystem and distinguish between representative (elected) and non-representative (unelected) local government. Similarly they note thatlocal government can be single purpose as well as multi-purpose.By using these two groups of characteristics they create a fourfoldclassification.

Stoker also draws a distinction between elected and non-electedlocal government. In the current British system non-elected localgovernment is composed of a wide range of organisations in the areabetween central government and elected local authorities. These bodiestry 'to develop policies specific to particular localities'.28 Their work hasa local dimension which entails 'regular inter-action with local authoritypolicy-makers'.2" Unlike elected local authorities these organisationsare normally concerned with one purpose or policy area. This categoryencompasses arms-length bodies (like the sports councils, the regionalwater authorities, the arts councils and the health authorities); localauthority implementation agencies; private/public partnership organi-sations; user organisations; intergovernmental fora; and joint boardssuch as the police, fire and transport joint boards in the metropolitanareas since 1986.

THE DEFINITIONS APPRAISED

Having illustrated the variety of approaches to defining local govern-ment in the existing literature, our next step is to identify what the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

25 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


authors believe to be the key characteristics of local government andassess their usefulness in constructing a definition.

GEOGRAPHICAL SIZE AND AREA

The idea that local authorities have jurisdiction over a specific areadoes not help distinguish local government from national or regionalgovernments. Byrne, Humes and Martin, Stewart and Stnker all stressthat local government is local, but this begs the question as to howlarge local government has to become before it ceases to be local. Forexample, the GLC governed nearly a sixth of England's population butwas said to be local. Northern Ireland's population is about a sixththat of London, yet Northern Ireland-wide bodies are thought of asregional or, in the case of the old Stormont Parliament, something akinto national. Similarly, US states like Montana, North Dakota andWyoming are considerably smaller than English counties such asDevon, Essex or Kent, yet all English counties are classified as localgovernment whereas US states occupy a position between national andlocal government. Furthermore, many countries are smaller than thelocal authorities in their national neighbours. Monaco with a popu-lation of 26,000 is 77 times smaller than Paris, and Malta (population400,000) is nearly 7 times smaller than Rome. The assertion that localgovernment is local reveals nothing about the absolute size of any unitand little about its size in relation to any regional or state tier(s) ofauthorities.

All that can be said in relation to geographical areas is that localgovernments are usually smaller than the national or state governmentswithin which they are subsumed. In other words it is relative and notabsolute size which counts. However, even to argue that local units aregeographically smaller than the central government to which they aresubordinate is problematic. For example, in Monaco there is one localauthority which covers the entire state and therefore the same geo-graphical area as the national government.3"

SUBORDINATION TO A HIGHER AUTHORITY

Although most federal systems leave local government exclusivelyto regional or state-level authorities, this is not the case in everyfederation. For example, under the constitution of Nigeria's secondrepublic local government was made subject to federal control andregulation. The National Assembly was given powers to legislateon local government councils. State law in this field could not be

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

25 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


'inconsistent with any law made by the National Assembly'.31 If sub-ordination to state or regional tiers cannot be used as the definingconcept of local government, neither can the whole idea of sub-ordination to a higher authority. The problem is that where there is nofederal structure this distinction between regional or state-level andlocal government collapses. For example, in Britain the doctrine ofparliamentary sovereignty makes it impossible to distinguish localgovernment from any other governmental or quasi-governmental insti-tution on the basis of subordination.

However, the key flaw in this approach to defining local governmentis that even in federal systems it is only useful for distinguishing localgovernment from a higher governmental tier with an independentconstitutional source of authority. This framework cannot separatelocal government from other governmental bodies, quasi-governmentand private organisations because they are also subordinate to govern-mental tiers with a share of sovereignty.

ELECTION

The idea that local government is elected (or directly elected) is arecurrent theme in many of the definitions. Robertson goes furtherand asserts that local government is 'traditionally democraticallyelected'12 and implies that the electors are presented with a genuinechoice of candidates and not merely obliged to cast a vote for or againstone pre-selected member of the ruling party or group. Robson impliesthat only elected bodies can be thought of as local government, whileStanyer and Smith and Stoker consign indirectly elected, non-electedor appointed local government into a secondary category.

Defining local government in terms of direct election causesproblems in relation to British nineteenth century local government.Although many of the single-purpose authorities were directly electedthis cannot be said of many of the multi-purpose ones. Neither theunreformed pre-1888 counties nor the hundreds were elected and thuswould have no place in a local government classification based ondirect election. Moreover, difficulties also arise in relation to theparishes. Although parish officials were in theory chosen by directelection, in practice the small electorate and long tenure of officialsin many closed vestries made the distinction between election andappointment difficult to sustain. Are officials chosen by a dozen or sofamily members and cronies really directly elected? How small does anelectorate have to become before the term ceases to have a meaning?Difficulties would also arise in relation to the pre-1974 British system

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

25 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


in which indirectly elected aldermen, who were chosen by councillors,served on local authorities.

An election-based definition of local government would also bedifficult to apply to non-democratic countries. For example, contem-porary municipal governments in all the United Arab Emirates' maintowns are appointed." In the Congo only the capital district of Brazza-ville has an elected local assembly.34 In Malawi all members of towncouncils are appointed, not popularly elected.35 Neither are non-elected local authorities confined to countries that are traditionallyconsidered to be undemocratic. In the United States the governingbodies of many special districts are appointed, not elected by thepeople.

Many local authorities contain a mix of elected and non-electedmembers. In Dominica the councils of Roseau and Portsmouth (theisland's two main towns) are composed of five elected and threenominated members.36 In Bolivia, although the municipal councils aredirectly elected, the appointment of mayors rests with the President,who chooses amongst three candidates nominated by the electedcouncils.37 Bahrain's six towns are administered by municipal councilscomposed of elected and appointed members.38

If the concept of local government is restricted to directly electedlocal authorities the list of exclusions becomes much longer. Forexample, reliance on this definition would exclude the pre-1974Norwegian counties (which were indirectly elected by the munici-palities).39 In Britain joint-boards would have to be excluded alongwith the former Metropolitan Board of Works and the London DistrictBoards. This approach would also cause problems when assessing theplace of many nineteenth century single-purpose bodies, which werecreated as standing committees of the open vestry. Bodies such as theselect vestries of the poor law, highway boards, commissioners ofbaths and washhouses, burial boards and library commissioners wereconstituted in this manner.

A more serious problem is posed by the fact that parish meetingssuch as open vestries and New England's town meetings are notelected bodies and thus could not be regarded as local government if anelection-based definition was rigidly applied. Such a situation wouldbe unsatisfactory. Removing the open vestry would exclude what isgenerally regarded as one of the key pre-twentieth century localgovernment institutions and the basis for many of the nineteenthcentury single-purpose bodies.

The problem with Stoker's concept of non-elected local governmentis that he equates flexibility and sensitivity to local conditions with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

25 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


local government. If, as Stoker argues, the Arts Council or the SportsCouncil are local government, there seems to be little reason toexclude the Department of Employment, which runs a network of JobCentres, or the Department of Social Security and its local benefitoffices. These bodies are financed and appointed by the centre and aremore accurately viewed as central not local government.

Stoker's concept of non-elected local government extends to includepublic/private partnership organisations. These bodies are funded andmanaged by public and private sector participants and are perhapsbetter thought of as examples of co-operation between the state andthe private sector rather than as an integral part of local government. Ifwe accept Stoker's implicit assumption that the state's appointment ofboard members or its granting of funding draws an organisation intothe public sector then the implications for the scope of local governmentare profound. For example, if state grants or contracts (the Ditchleydiscussions in the late 1960s found no essential difference betweenthem)4" make a body public then every private company in receipt of acouncil contract is by definition part of local government.

There is nothing controversial about Stoker's inclusion of localauthority implementation agencies as part of local government: localauthorities provide most of their funds and control appointments totheir management committees. However, it is questionable whetherthey warrant a separate category, They have no independent powers oftaxation and are normally dependent on one local authority for thevast majority of their funds. Services for which a charge is made,such as leisure centres, are often less dependent on local authorityfunds than local authority enterprise boards which fall into theimplementation agency category.

MULTI-PURPOSE BODIES

The idea that local government can be defined as multi-purpose is atthe heart of several of the definitions. It is implicit in Robson's listand is mentioned by Byrne and Stewart. Smith and Stanyer, whilstacknowledging the existence of single-purpose local bodies, relegatethem to their indirectly elected secondary category and thereforeimply that directly elected local authorities always perform more thanone task. The problem is that, while this view may be appropriate forcontemporary British arrangements, the assertion that local authorities(or at least directly elected local authorities) are multi-purpose isinconsistent with much of nineteenth century British local governmentor contemporary arrangements in countries like the USA and Canada.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

25 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Modern US school districts and British nineteenth century local bodiessuch as school boards, boards of guardians and burial boards are orwere directly elected but confined to one function. To insist that localauthorities are, by definition, multi-functional would exclude manyorganisations that have traditionally been regarded as integral parts ofthe local government system.

TAXATION

Smith and Stanyer and Stewart argue that a characteristic of a localauthority is that it levies taxes. Such a definition would include many ofthe British bodies excluded by the use of an election-based definition.For example, it would allow the pre-1888 counties to be included onthe basis that they levied a county rate. Direct forms of democracysuch as the open vestries, the parish meetings and the New England-style town meetings also imposed taxation and would therefore qualify.More awkward is the position of the nineteenth century hundred inEngland and Wales. Although a hundred rate was raised it was leviedby the quarter sessions which ran the county and also levied the countyrate. As the hundred did not levy the rate itself it could be argued thatit was not a local authority. However, the hundred is traditionallyregarded along with the county, parish and borough as one of the keycomponents of the pre-1888 local government system.

Moreover the criterion of levying local taxation does not avoidinternational problems with the definition of local government. A fewcountries are so rich that they have very few taxes and do not raisefunds through local taxation. For example, five out of the seven ArabEmirates raise so much money from oil revenues that they do not needto levy taxes.4' Saudi Arabia has no local form of taxation-the Zahat,or Islamic Charity Tax, is the only tax levied on Saudi nationals.42 Iflocal taxation is a defining characteristic of local government then it isthe preserve only of those countries who need to raise funds locally:super-rich states cannot have local government. Given this difficulty itis perhaps better to amend the dependence on taxation to take accountof the highly favourable economic circumstances existing in a handfulof countries. This concession reduces the clarity of the definitionand weakens its universal applicability by creating a small sub-group.However, it does recognise that very unusual circumstances force amodification to be made to avoid absurdity.

The use of the criterion of taxation also causes problems for othercountries which have local governmental-type institutions withoutindependent tax-raising powers. Although the former Soviet Union

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

25 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


possessed local Soviets (which were similar in many respects to localcouncils or assemblies elsewhere) they could not raise taxes. Theirmain source of revenue was from sales taxes which were collectedlocally but distributed centrally.43 Neither, unlike the English andWelsh hundreds, were they 'units of obligation' in which residentswere specifically liable for local expenditure. The residents of localSoviets had no obligation to fund local services or serve in public offices(most of which were given to Communist Party members).

Humes and Martin define local authorities as bodies which collectrevenue rather than levying taxes per se. Such a definition would allowfor the inclusion of bodies which charge users for specific services butdo not collect taxes from the inhabitants of a particular geographicalarea. Under this criterion the Turnpike Trusts (which levied tollsand not taxes) would count as local government. The widening of thedefinition to include bodies levying charges takes the discussion into ananalysis of the boundary between the public and private sectors.Unfortunately no widely accepted demarcation has emerged and anassessment of this highly complex field is beyond the scope of thisarticle. Therefore it is sensible to abandon any idea of defining localgovernment on the basis that it is self-evidently part of the publicsector. In any case the concept of the public sector has much lessmeaning in the context of the saxon or feudal systems. However, iflocal government cannot be defined on the basis of its position in thepublic sector the use of charging as a key characteristic also has to beabandoned. Otherwise it could be argued that the local branch ofMarks and Spencer is as much a part of the local government system asis the district council.

Rejecting the concept of charges for one of taxation, however, doesnot deal with all inconsistences and anomalies. For example, thereis the problem of the Port of London Authority and the harbourauthorities which levied a rate which was not really a tax because it wascharged in goods passing through the port. But if these bodies areexcluded on the grounds that their taxes could be avoided by usingother ports or modes of transportation, a question mark is raisedagainst the position of any local authority raising funds from a salestax, as this can be avoided by refusing to buy the goods subject to thetax.

Perhaps a more appropriate strategy is to recognise that there is noclean division between charges that can be avoided and taxes thatcannot. Instead a distinction can be drawn on the basis that localauthorities levy taxes, which are hard to avoid, on a relatively largecommunity while non-local authorities levy charges on a relatively

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

25 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


small community of users who can avoid paying by taking their customelsewhere. The first is a community obligation, the latter is a market-place decision.

CONCLUSION

There is no single characteristic which is, in itself, sufficient to definelocal government. Not all local authorities are geographically smallerthan their national governments; local councils share subordination tothe centre with other organisations; some bodies which are widelyaccepted as part of the local government system are not elected:many local governments are single-purpose rather than multi-purpose;and local authorities in some countries have no power of taxation.Nevertheless, bodies which possess all of the following characteristicscan be thought of as 'pure' local government: jurisdiction over asubstantially smaller area than the national government, election bypopular vote, powers of taxation and genuine discretion over serviceprovision. By contrast, pure 'non-local' government consists of bodieswhich are funded and appointed by the centre and responsible tonational government ministers. In this context, the growing currencyof the term 'non-elected local government' to describe such organi-ations is a source of confusion rather than clarity. Whatever localgovernment may be it is not central government.

Two main empirical questions arise in comparing local governmentsystems over time or across nations. First, which sub-set of thecharacteristics of pure local government is relevant to the purposesof the research? And, second, to what extent must each of thesecharacteristics be present - for example, what share of a nation'spopulation must a council have before it becomes effectively regionalrather than local? In this sense a definition of local government mustrecognise that there is no sharp dichotomy between local authoritiesand other agencies. Rather, there is a set of continua on whichorganisations are more or less local or national, self-funded or centrallyfunded and elected or appointed.

It is much easier to define local government in one country in oneperiod than to build a definition that can be used for a wider com-parison. The search for a perfect definitive phrase or concept toencapsulate the meaning of local government is almost certain to endin failure. However, it is possible to make valid comparisons providedthat the problems discussed in this paper are recognised, and thecriteria of which organisations are to count as local government aremade explicit and justified. Whatever the purpose of the analysis, it is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

25 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


important to recognise that even it you think you know what localgovernment is, the meaning of the term is far from self-evident.

NOTES

1. See A. Cochrane, Whatever Happened to Local Government?, (Buckingham: OpenUniversity Press, 1993).

2. See A. Nuiton, International Handbook of Local and Regional Government (Alder-shot: Edward Elgar, 1994).

3. For a summary see G. A. Boyne, 'Central Controls and Local Autonomy: The Caseof Wales', Urban Studies, No.30, (1993), pp.87-101.

4. For example, in the major recent text, Norton (op. cit., p.xix) simply states thatthe core of local government 'as is understood in economically advanced liberaldemocracies lies in the concept of self government and administration, as exercisedby the inhabitants of territorial areas through the election of councillors'.

5. C. Hood, A. Dunsire and S.K. Thompson, 'So You Think You Know WhatGovernment Departments Are?, Public Administration Bulletin No.27 (1978), p.20.

6. G. Bowen, Survey of Fringe Bodies, Civil Service Department, 1978.7. Public Bodies 1994: 1994 Non-Parl. Cabinet Office.8. Hood, Dunsire and Thompson, op.cit., p.22.9. J.J. Clarke, Outlines of Local Government in the United Kingdom (London, 1949),

p.l.10. W.A. Robson, The Development of Local Government, 1st edn. (London, 1931),

p.8.11. W.O. Hart, Hart's Introduction to the Law of Local Government 4th edn. (London,

1949), p.8.12. Ibid.13. V.D. Lipman, Local Government Areas 1834-1945 (Oxford, 1949).14. J.J. Clarke. The Local Government of the United Kingdom. 1st edn. (London.

1922).15. K.B. Smellie, A History of Local Government, 1st edn. (London, 1946).16. I.H. Seeley, Local Government Explained, (London, 1978).17. H. Finer, English Local Government, 3rd edn. (London, 1946).18. I. Jennings. Principles of Local Government Law, 3rd edn. (London, 1947), p.l.19. Jennings, op.cit., p.3.20. Byrne, op.cit., p.2.21. Ibid.22. B.C. Smith and J. Stanyer, Administering Britain (Oxford, 1976), pp. 112-14.23. Smith and Stanyer. op. cit., p.l 12.24. S. Humes and E. Martin, The Structure of Local Government, 1st edn. (The Hague,

1961), p.28.25. Humes and Martin, op. cit., p.27.26. Jennings, op. cit., p.1.27. Ibid., p.2.28. G. Stoker, The Politics of Local Government, 1st edn. (London. 1988), p.52.29. Ibid.30. R. Mayne (edn.), Handbooks to the Modern World: Western Europe (Oxford,

1986), p. 138.31. B. Dudley, An Introduction to Nigerian Politics (London, 1982), p.332.32. D. Robertson, A Dictionary of Modern Politics, 2nd edn. (London, 1993).33. G.T. Kurian, Encyclopedia of the Third World Vol III, 3rd edn. (Oxford, 1987),

p.2057.34. Ibid., Vol. I, p. 479.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

25 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


35. Ibid., Vol.II, p.1248.36. Ibid., Vol.I, p.551.37. Ibid., p.210.38. Ibid., op.cit., pp.129.39. J.F. Bernt, 'Norway', in D.C. Rowat, (ed.), International Handbook on Local

Government Reorganisation (London, 1980), p.143.40. D. Hague, W. Mackenzie and A. Barker (eds.), Public Policy and Private Interests:

The Institutions of Compromise (London, 1975), pp.3-4.41. G.T. Kurian, op.cit., Vol. III,p.2058.42. Ibid., p. 1700.43. R. Sakwa, Soviet Politics: An Introduction (London, 1988), p. 155.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

25 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Documents

So you think you know what local government is?