Analytical tool

Analytical tool

for assessing the autonomy of first-tier local authorities

Study of the European Committee
on Local and Regional Democracy (CDLR)

Prepared with the collaboration of Gérard Marcou

Professor at Paris I Panthéon Sorbonne University

Introduction

Proposed method: background, objectives and target groups

The report The Extent and Nature of Local Authority Powers and Responsibilities in Council of Europe Member States, by Prof. Gérard Marcou and adopted by the European Committee on Local and Regional Democracy in 2007, presents a new approach to comparing the powers and responsibilities of local authorities in Council of Europe member States.

What emerged from the report was an analytical method for assessing the autonomy of first-tier local authorities. The method is based on cross-referencing the substantive competences (functions) and the powers and resources of local authorities, taking into account the institutional constraints within the various legal and political systems. A sectoral approach is adopted, bearing in mind that the degree of autonomy (or decentralisation) may vary considerably from one sector to another within the same country. In addition, local authorities’ powers and responsibilities may be analysed using four competence profiles.

This dual analytical method facilitates more detailed analysis of shared competences, which constitute the largest category in all countries.

National administrations responsible for local authorities can expect the following results when using the method:

- The re-examination of the distribution of competences between different administrative levels, in the light of international comparisons;

- The positioning of the system of competences of local authorities in the country with regard to other European countries;

- The facilitation of exchanges and co-operation with neighbouring countries on the basis of a common methodology;

- The facilitation of the consideration of decentralisation when evaluating public policies.

Interested administrations should identify a civil servant with sufficient experience and authority to oversee the use of this method. That person should co-ordinate the analytical work using the competence profiles, then draw conclusions on the extent of powers and the degree of autonomy involved in carrying out the competences.

This method may also be useful for several other types of users, beyond the Council of Europe and the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities. Such users may include:

- parliaments;

- associations of local authorities or locally elected representatives;

- specialised journalists;

- academics and researchers.

Analytical tables

Format and content of the tables

The analytical method is based on the following four competence profiles: social affairs, economic affairs, town planning and environment, and police and security. A table is given for each profile, in which substantive competences (functions) are broken down and linked to categories of powers and categories of conditions or relationships (such as supervision and contracts) affecting the autonomy of local authorities. The tables were established on the basis of research on various European systems of local government and their particular features.

Owing to the method’s highly synoptic approach (replies are given in the form of symbols or just a few words), a guide is needed to assist the people filling in the tables and those wishing to use them subsequently.

Approaches tailored to each competence profile

The competence profiles vary in format. In the town planning and environment and police and security profiles, most functions take the form of legal, regulatory or individual acts. This makes it impossible to distinguish as clearly between functions and between powers and resources, as in the other two tables; a different matrix has therefore been adopted.

In the town planning and environment table, the columns show indicators for the degree of autonomy of local authorities with regard to the functions listed. In the police and security table, it seemed preferable to have indicators for the types of authorities and administrative supervision related to the various functions involved in this competence profile: legal acts, public security, emergency services, and public health and hygiene. Legally speaking, policing is also a cross-sectoral function, an aspect that cannot be reflected in the tables: there are numerous police powers associated with the town planning and environment field, for example. The indicators adopted here seem acceptable, however, given that the purpose of this study is to assess the degree of autonomy with which local authorities fulfil their remit in the competences assigned to them.

Quantifying the degree of autonomy of local authorities

The tables are supplemented by a score that quantifies the degree of autonomy of local authorities. Points for autonomy are awarded or subtracted on the basis of the information given in the tables; a country’s local authorities can then be positioned on a scale of autonomy for a given competence profile. The assessment calculates a degree of autonomy, which may be combined with a measure of the extent of local authorities’ powers and responsibilities (corresponding to the competence profile in terms of the powers and responsibilities exercised by the local authorities in question); the performance and quality of the administrative setup in specific sectors are not evaluated. The maximum degree of local autonomy is not always an optimum, as the tables will show.

Guide to using and interpreting the tables

Glossary

Definitions should be given for certain terms that may be interpreted differently from one country to another:

Competence: delegated	competence exercised by a local authority on behalf of a higher-level authority (such as the State or region), in accordance with directives or instructions issued by the latter
Competence: own	competence exercised by a local authority on its own responsibility, in accordance with laws and regulations but not subject to directives or instructions from higher-level authorities; such competences may be mandatory, where their exercise is a statutory obligation, or optional, where their exercise depends solely on a decision by the competent local authority
Competence: shared (or sharing of competence)	refers to a situation in which a higher-level authority enjoys operational or decision-making powers in the same field as the local authority in question; depending on the circumstances, the exercise of such powers may be neutral in terms of the latter’s freedom of action, or may influence its decisions
Co-operation agreement	a contract between public corporations on the organisation of a joint venture rather than an exchange of services
Decentralised agencies	administrative authorities within a local area that are subordinate to central or regional government, and to which certain decision-making powers are delegated

Financing, earmarked	financing from budgetary revenue intended for a specific item of expenditure, as an exception to the principle of budgetary universality. In some countries, this may take the form of a supplementary budget covering revenue and expenditure specific to a particular department, in which case the supplementary budget is based primarily on revenue from users, with budgetary assistance constituting a secondary source of revenue
Housing policy	policy designed to meet housing needs, in terms of both location and composition of housing stock; ensuring that housing is incorporated into town planning policies
Individual decisions: mandatory/discretionary	a decision is mandatory if an administrative authority is obliged to take it by law (this is checked in each case); it is discretionary if the law requires the administrative authority to assess each case, or where the administrative authority’s decisions are not subject to any requirements (a situation that is becoming less and less common)
Local authority	a public law entity, freely administered by at least one body that was elected directly by the citizens of its territorial area of responsibility and exercises the competences attributed by law, under control of the State. Federal entities and autonomous regions are non-local authorities. The notion of “territorial authority” is sometimes used as a synonym of “local authority”
Non-ministerial national (regional) body	administrative authority or public or private body to which the law has entrusted certain powers within the purview of one or more ministries, and which has a nationwide (or regional, in the case of a federal State or one with autonomous regional entities) remit
Planning	meeting a need for projection and co-ordination. This may take the form of a document, or set of documents, which serve as a basis for individual or specific decisions in a given geographical area or sphere of activity, or both
Regulatory power	power assigned to an administrative authority to lay down general legal rules; in some countries, this comes within what is known as standard-setting power, which can take a number of forms (including the power to make laws or issue administrative regulations); in the tables below, a distinction is made in respect of each field according to the purpose of the regulatory power
Standards	norms intended to guide behaviour. Standards do not specify an obligation to act or not to act. An example might be: “the regular, punctual operation of buses and the comfort of travellers”, which can be evaluated using specified indicators
Supervision: general/ specific	a distinction is made in the analysis between general supervision of acts by local authorities and subject-specific supervision
Supervision: prior	supervision exercised before an act has taken effect. This includes explicit or tacit prior approval or the taking of measures by a higher-level authority instead or on behalf of the local authority in question (in the event of the latter’s failure to act)
Supervision: subsequent	supervision exercised once an act has taken effect, for instance the power to set an act aside or refer it to a court with the power to set it aside

Expected replies

The tables are designed for simple replies that fall into the following categories:

· yes/no;

· the symbols corresponding to options in the table:

− a, b, c, etc.

− 1, 2, 3, etc.;

· a single word, or a few words if necessary.

The total number of points resulting from the application of the scale is noted in the box.

The method is designed to accommodate specific national features and complex situations.

In many cases, more than one reply can be given, for example:

· where the local authority is able to regulate the organisation of the function in question and the procedure for securing certain rights, and to set standards (see tables 1 and 2, column 5);

· where the function is financed by charging users a fee set by the local authority (see tables 1 and 2, column 12).

In some cases, the table requires combined replies (for example, columns 13 and 14 of tables 1 and 2). The proposed replies are set out in order of increasing autonomy for local authorities.

The categories in the rows are often divided into sub-headings, in which case a reply should be given for each sub-heading, according to the procedure described above, unless the sub-heading in question is not applicable, in which case the reply should be “n”.

Those filling in the tables may amend the row or column headings as appropriate to their own country, giving an explanation in their comments. At the end they can briefly summarise the result of the assessment and comment on it.

Scoring: basic principle

The indicators given in the tables are used to develop a scoring (points) system that reflects the extent of local authorities’ substantive competence and the degree of autonomy they enjoy.

Scores must be calculated for each table; the tables cannot all follow exactly the same model, owing to the nature of the powers and responsibilities in question.

Firstly, information is obtained about the particular sectors covered and about how many of the functions listed in the table are applicable.

Comparisons of local authorities’ powers and responsibilities should be confined to each competence profile, or even – to adopt a still more rigorous approach – to each row of the table, since there is no way of weighting the breakdown of substantive competences by competence profile. Subject to this proviso, one point may be allocated for each row.

Point allocation and type of results obtained

Points for autonomy are allocated according to a scale drawn up for each column (see below). A slightly different method is used for competence profiles 3 and 4, however, given that, as a rule, it is impossible to separate substantive competences from specific legal powers.

For example: if we combine the measure of the extent of French municipalities’ competence with the degree of autonomy they enjoy, we find that they have limited competence in the public health field, but enjoy a greater degree of local autonomy with regard to outpatient care (an optional competence) than public hospitals, even though, legally speaking, the latter are local institutions. This type of analysis can be applied to any competence.

The point allocation grid allows the competence in question to be positioned on a scale of autonomy in relation to the maximum number of points that could be allocated.

It should be emphasised that the method’s scope is strictly limited to its purpose: it enables us to ascertain the extent of the powers and responsibilities exercised by a country’s local authorities, within a given competence profile, and whether they enjoy a low or high degree of autonomy in the context of that profile. It is often the case, however, that extensive powers and responsibilities in a given area are coupled with a lesser degree of autonomy, and that the greatest degree of autonomy is enjoyed in areas seen as less important, or those of purely local interest (such as sport and leisure). Moreover, in some cases, the maximum degree of autonomy may have undesirable effects: in the area of primary and secondary education, for example, nobody would want local authorities to have the power to make individual decisions about students.

The measure of the extent of local powers and responsibilities and the degree of local autonomy is not an assessment of the organisation of the sector or function in question, or the quality of its operation. Such assessments must be conducted by other means. Nevertheless, it is helpful to compare the systems of local government and decentralisation (the degree of autonomy enjoyed by local authorities) in different countries and sectors.

The degree of decentralisation within a given competence profile may be assessed by adding the number of points allocated for the extent of local authorities’ powers and responsibilities and the number of points allocated for autonomy. In order to facilitate comparison, the baseline scoring results should be 100. This allows for a fair comparison of the extent of powers and the extent of autonomy.

The number of points to be allocated is given before each table.

Limitations of the proposed analytical method

Before discussing how the tables and their scoring systems apply to national situations, the limitations of the proposed method should be clarified.

While it is true that the tables are not intended to be comprehensive, the function headings and sub-headings were chosen because they are representative of local powers and responsibilities and the variations found across Europe (see the aforementioned report The Extent and Nature of Local Authority Powers and Responsibilities in Council of Europe Member States).

It would be paradoxical, however, to state that systems and fields that are mandatory because of their importance and in which local authorities exercise wide-ranging substantive competences are more centralised. In order to avoid such an outcome without distorting assessments of the degree of autonomy in local decision-making, two points instead of one should be counted for the scope of the competence where the headings and sub-headings correspond to mandatory competences. This approach should only be used for the social and economic affairs profiles, however; in the case of the town planning and environment and police and security profiles, staff management may simply come under local government resources.

In various fields – in particular the main competences in the social affairs profile – responsibility for staff management is a key variable when it comes to assessing the extent of local authorities’ powers and responsibilities. If the competent local authority is responsible for staff management, points for powers and responsibilities should therefore be added to the score. This approach should be systematically followed in all the countries in which the analysis takes place.

Points should only be assigned to the column on the management and allocation of resources for staff and facilities directly used in the provision of a service to the public, not those used for general administration.

It is also important to bear in mind the institutional constraints arising from the impact that the powers and responsibilities exercised by deconcentrated bodies, non-ministerial bodies answerable to central (or regional) government or other local authorities have on the exercise of local powers and responsibilities. Such sharing of competence may either be neutral in terms of its effect on the local authority in question, or it may reduce the local authority’s freedom of action and the extent of its powers and responsibilities. Replies should therefore include an assessment of this aspect.

A similar problem arises in relation to the power to raise taxes, which is a key component of local government. It appears in column 12 of the social affairs and economic affairs competence profile tables, which concerns local authorities’ ability to modify the resources they commit in exercising their powers and responsibilities. It is a general power, however, unlike the power to charge fees, which always applies to a specific function. There is a case for having two separate columns, but this would be an unnecessary complication

as, even in a separate column, the existence of the power to raise taxes would have to be noted with regard to each competence, as it contributes to their financing; and cases in which the power to raise taxes is exercised specifically for taxes whose proceeds are earmarked for certain items of expenditure would be left out. Given that the analytical tool focuses specifically on powers and responsibilities, the solution adopted seems preferable.

Analytical tables for the four competence profiles

Table 1: Social affairs competence profile

Preliminary remarks

This table identifies substantive competences using a standardised format. Details about the country in question should be specified in an appendix; where necessary, the headings used in the tables may be adapted. This should cover the following, for example:

- whether families and children are covered by the same regulations as far as local powers and responsibilities are concerned;

- whether a distinction is made between the general social protection system and social welfare, or whether such a distinction does not exist;

- whether the distinction made in the table between different levels of education is relevant; if not, the specific situation should be described.

Instructions for filling in the table

Columns 1 to 3

Background information designed to assess the extent to which powers and responsibilities are shared among three separate categories of institutions.

Column 3 is confined to local authorities in the true sense; federated States and autonomous regions are covered in columns 1 and 2

Columns 4, 5 and 6	Closely interrelated information designed to assess the degree of autonomy enjoyed by local authorities in the exercise of powers; replies are set out in order of increasing autonomy for local authorities; only one reply is possible in columns 4 and 6; more than one reply is possible in column 5
Column 7	Existence or otherwise of a planning function based on a text
Column 8	Replies are weighted as follows: one point for an affirmative reply, two points for two affirmative replies, no points for no affirmative replies (see proposed weighting system further down)
Columns 9 and 10	Column 9 requires a yes/no answer (can the local authority choose the form of management adopted with regard to the function in question?). Column 10 ascertains whether the use of public- or private-sector enterprises is a legal requirement or one of the choices available. The public and private sectors are grouped together, since in either case the enterprise is outside the local authority’s control
Columns 11 and 12	Column 11 deals with how the function is funded: earmarked resources or financing by users or third parties are taken to indicate less autonomous management, since such financing is outside the local authority’s control; financing from the local authority’s general budget indicates a greater degree of autonomy, but is not secure and depends on the authority’s total resources and expenditure. Column 12 indicates whether the local authority has the power to raise taxes and/or set fees
Columns 13 and 14	Column 13 covers the purpose of supervision (legality or expediency) and column 14 covers the timing of supervision. Supervision for legal reasons is regarded as neutral in terms of local autonomy, as is subsequent supervision, but supervision of expediency and prior supervision reduce the degree of local autonomy (-1)
Column 15	This column covers contracts or agreements with higher-level authorities (such as the State or region); the nature of the other contracting party and whether the signature of such contracts is optional or a statutory obligation should be stated. The existence of such contracts is neutral in terms of the degree of autonomy enjoyed by local authorities, as is, therefore, the ability to enter into them; one point is subtracted, however, for the obligation to enter into such contracts

Scoring

Tables 1 and 2 use the same scoring system, set out below. In particular, when calculating the number of points allocated, a distinction is made between cases in which the score is graduated (only one reply possible), alternative (yes/no) or cumulative (more than one reply possible).

Scoring for tables 1 and 2

Column	Subject	No. of pts	Comments
1 to 3	Sharing of competence	0 to -1	Graduated 0: the authority in question plays a monitoring role and participates in the supervision mentioned in columns 13 and 14, with no effect on local autonomy -1: the authority exercises decision-making power and/or plays an operational role which affects the exercise of local powers and responsibilities or reduces their scope
4	Type of competence	1 to 3	Graduated 1: where some form of competence is enjoyed; delegated competence corresponds to the lowest level of autonomy 2: mandatory own competence 3: optional own competence: in general, such competences are less significant but more autonomous
5	Regulatory power	0 to 2	Cumulative 0: no regulatory power 1: confined to organisational and sometimes procedural aspects 1: including the setting of service standards and the nature of entitlements/services
6	Individual decisions	0 to 2	Graduated 0: no power to take individual decisions 1: mandatory power 2: discretionary power In some cases, however, mandatory powers are more advantageous for those concerned
7	Planning	0 or 1	Alternative 0: no power to draw up plans 1: power to draw up plans
8	Management and allocation of resources	0 to 2	Cumulative 0: no power 1: facilities, infrastructure 1: staff
9	Choice of form of management	0 or 1	Alternative 0: no choice 1: freedom of choice (even if subject to restrictions)
10	Delegation to the public or private sector	0 or 1	Alternative 0: mandatory 1: optional
11	Financing	0 to 2	Cumulative 1: local authority’s general budget 0: earmarked external financing, budget or third parties In the former case, local authorities are in control of financing, subject to the constraints of their own budgets; in the latter case, financing is secure but outside their control 1: where third-party financing is coupled with fees set, at least to some extent, by local authorities
12	Financing	0 to 2	Cumulative: 1: existence of the power to raise taxes in their own right, regarded as significant in the light of financing needs (to be evaluated) 1: power to set fees, at least to some extent 0: no power to raise taxes or set fees
13	Supervision	-1, 0 or 1	Graduated -1: supervision of expediency 0: supervision of legality 1: no supervision by a higher-level authority In this context, supervision is a power exercised by a higher-level authority; it may be considered to reduce the degree of autonomy (supervision of expediency) or to be neutral (compliance with the law is required in any case – in theory). The absence of supervision by a higher-level authority is considered to boost the degree of autonomy. This may have adverse effects (less compliance with the law), but that is not what we are attempting to measure here
14	Supervision	-1 or 0	Alternative -1: prior supervision reduces the degree of local autonomy 0: subsequent supervision is neutral
15	Co-operation agreements	-1 or 0	Alternative -1: an obligation to conclude agreements reduces the degree of autonomy 0: the ability to conclude agreements is neutral
Total number of points that can be allocated		17	This total represents the maximum degree of autonomy with regard to a given substantive competence; it is not the optimum score. Comparisons can then be drawn between the different competences in terms of the degree of decentralisation, and between countries in terms of the same substantive competences

NB: For certain issues, it will be considered that no significant charges are generated by staff in the public sector (for the “prevention” competence in the field of public health and for the “conservation” competence in the field of culture) because the cost of staff and facilities used for these powers and responsibilities are included in general administration charges.

Table 1: Social affairs competence profile

Table 2: Economic affairs competence profile

Preliminary remarks

The difference between the substantive competences (functions) in table 1 (the social affairs profile) and those in table 2 (the economic affairs profile) lies in the predominantly market-based focus of the economic affairs profile, which is not a feature – or only to a marginal extent – of the social affairs profile. This aspect does not imply the use of the private sector: in the social field, public authorities may also purchase services aimed at the general public that are not provided on a market basis; market services may be offered by local public enterprises, which may be run by the State.

Instructions for filling in the table

Columns: same comments as for table 1.

Explanation of the functions:

Function 3: energy	Renewable energies come under “electricity”, because they are generally primary energy sources (wind or solar) Distribution is a network function, so it comes under “facilities” in the columns: in the case of France, for example, the fact that municipalities have to delegate the management of distribution networks (gas and electricity) to companies designated by the State (by law) means the answer should be “no” in the column headed “choice of form of management” and “(a)” (statutory obligation) in the column headed “delegation to the public or private sector” (even though the companies in question are government corporations)
Function 5: public transport	The table is confined to local authorities’ powers and responsibilities, meaning that in some countries, responsibility for regional links will not appear. In order to avoid a distorted picture resulting from the omission of certain information, it is possible to specify the competence of the regional authority and its nature
Function 6: housing	Distinction between three different areas of competence: - housing policy (see glossary); - building and management of social housing; - allocation of social housing.
Function 7: measures to promote economic development	This heading can cover various forms of action to promote economic development, including activities outside the economic sphere. It may be appropriate to include a specific function regarded as an instrument of economic development, provided that it is not included in another table

Scoring

The scoring system is the same as for table 1 (see above).

For certain powers and responsibilities, no significant charges should be considered as generated by staff and facilities outside of those relating to general administration that are directly assigned to the public sector. These powers and responsibilities are: “management of municipal properties assigned to communications” (roads); “housing policy” and “allocation of public housing” (housing); “business grants” and “provision of sites” (measures to promote economic development).

Table 2: Economic affairs competence profile

Table 3: Town planning and environment competence profile

Preliminary remarks

Table 3 differs from the previous two tables because most of the functions relate to legal powers. For instance, the section on powers and resources focuses primarily on aspects of the competent local authority’s relationships with other authorities and bodies in the sector in question. Administrative supervision is covered in three separate columns.

Where a substantive competence (function) is associated with specific legal powers (such as the adoption of binding or non-binding plans or the issue of permits), a degree of autonomy is inherent. This has certain implications for the way the score is calculated.

Instructions for filling in the table

Not every aspect is relevant to all the functions listed. Accordingly, column 1 asks whether the function in question is exercised by local authorities. The rest of the columns should only be filled in if that is the case.

The information requested under columns 2 and 3 differs from that in tables 1 and 2, but serves the same purpose: ascertaining the limits of the competence of local authorities.

Column 5	does not apply to function 2
Column 6	does not apply to function 2
Column 9 :	does not apply to function 2, which are normally part of general administration.
Column 10 :	(a) should be given as the answer if this is perceived to exist. Then (b) or (c) should be given to specify whether this falls to the owner or the builder. If both (b) and (c) are given, an explanation should be provided.
Colonnes 11 à 13 :	More than one answer may be given in columns 11 to 13. If more than one body is listed in column 10, corresponding information should be given for each of them in columns 11 and 12. .
Lines 1 – 5	Each line is a separate important function in the Urbanism and Environment competence profile; Not all of the aspects listed in columns 4 to 13 apply to all five functions in this table, but information provided in the columns should correspond to the function subheadings. .

Scoring

Given that each substantive competence is associated with certain powers, one point is allocated for each competence exercised. Additional subheadings should be added if there is not enough room in the table for competences considered significant; these will each count for one extra point.

Although “infrastructure” is given as a separate substantive competence, in operational terms it comes directly under the “planning” competence. In some countries, however, planning is the responsibility of national bodies. The inclusion of ”infrastructure” here should allow cases where competence for planning is more limited (confined to amenities and sale of land) and not exercised by local authorities to be indicated. It is also possible that local authorities may not have any powers or responsibilities in the area of planning.

The points allocated in each column may increase or decrease the degree of local autonomy associated with each function. For example: when a country’s municipalities are responsible for granting planning permission, no points will be given if municipalities can only prepare and propose decisions, one point will be given if this is a delegated competence (permission is granted on behalf of a higher-level authority such as the central or regional government), two points will be given if it is a mandatory own competence, and three points will be given if it is an optional own competence.

As regards competence for issuing planning permission, it is possible that a country’s legislation may only allow one type of permission. In this case, so as not to distort comparisons, each item identified under function 2 (permission) should be treated as a separate procedure. Where necessary, another type of authorisation may be added if it is not covered by those already listed in the table; this will count as an extra point.

Scoring for table 3:

Column	Subject	No. of pts	Comments
1	Existence of the competence	1	One point if the local authority has this power; 0 or cell left empty if it does not
(A) Starting point (maximum number of points that can be allocated if all the functions listed in the table are exercised by local authorities)		13	This total will be higher if other functions are added. In the “plans” function, however, local and detailed plans will count for just one point, as the law providing for detailed plans does not appear to indicate a greater degree of autonomy with regard to town planning
2	Derogation procedures	-0.5	Half a point is subtracted if applying such procedures reduces the degree of local autonomy
3	Existence of a binding development plan issued by a higher-level authority	-0.5	Plans issued by higher-level authorities reduce the degree of local autonomy but do not take away local authorities’ competence
4	Nature of competence	0 to 3	Graduated 0: limited to proposals and drafting 1: delegated competence 2: mandatory own competence 3: optional own competence
5	Research/ development bodies under local authorities	0 or 1	Alternative 0: none 1: existence, since this contributes to autonomy Fill in only the cell(s) for the competence(s) concerned
6	Relationship between planning permission and plans	1 or 2	Graduated 1: obligation to comply, since the plan’s effectiveness contributes to autonomy with regard to local planning policy 2: discretion, which allows a greater degree of autonomy (for instance, “relevant consideration” in the UK) Relates only to function 2 (permission)
7	Exercise of functions	1 or 2	Graduated 1: competence exercised exclusively by local government (subject to column 4); administrative capacity contributes to autonomy 2: option of using private sector
8	Co-operation agreements	0 or 1	Graduated: 0: no agreements 0: agreements between public corporations – neutral, because they can either contribute to autonomy and extend the sphere of competence, or reduce the degree of autonomy 1: development contracts with operators: this is a means of monitoring the activities of developers and builders, thereby boosting the degree of autonomy of local authorities
9	Financing	1 to 2	Cumulative 1: financing by means of earmarked grants – extending the resources available to the authority, in particular in the areas of planning and development 1: from the local authority’s general budget – it decides on its investment with regard to town planning and the environment
10	Financing by interested parties	0 to 1	Alternative 0: no duty payable 1: duty payable – contributes to autonomous exercise of the competence; it should be assessed whether such duty is significant enough to be worth mentioning
11	Body with supervisory power	0	The nature of the body has no effect on local autonomy
12	Purpose	-1 to 1	Graduated -1: control of usefulness 0: legal control 1: absence of control by a superior authority The control mentioned comes under the powers of a superior authority: such control can reduce autonomy (control of usefulness), be neutral (through respect for the law), or increase autonomy through its absence. The latter could have negative effects (laws may be respected to a lesser extent), but this is not the object of the present analysis
13	Nature of supervision: prior/ongoing/subsequent	-1 or 0	Alternative: -1: prior supervision reduces the degree of local autonomy 0: ongoing or subsequent supervision is neutral
(B) Maximum number of points for autonomy that can be allocated in the columns		13
(A) + (B): Maximum number of points for autonomy for the town planning and environment profile		26	The maximum of 26 points is not the optimum score; it is simply the top of a scale on which local authorities may be positioned in terms of the degree of local autonomy they enjoy with regard to town planning

Column 1 is to identify the existence of the functions mentioned in the table. There are 13 different functions, so a maximum of 13 points is possible in column 1.

The columns allow for the attribution or deduction of points of autonomy. Taking into consideration the scale proposed in the table presented below, the maximum score is 13.

The extent of powers and degree of autonomy related to these powers result in a maximum total of 26 points but, as mentioned before, this maximum is not an optimal score.

Table 3: Town planning and environment profile

Table 4: Police and security competence profile

Preliminary remarks

Several types of police authorityappear in the police and security table, in order to provide scope for recording the complex institutional arrangements often found in this field. In some countries, reforms in recent decades have tended to result in a form of organisation involving specialised institutions over which local authorities no longer have sole control. The same applies to the emergency services.

Column 1 is designed to highlight areas in which competence is shared and indicate the relative roles of local and higher-level authorities. Columns 5 to 7 place police and security within the general institutional framework of local government.

Instructions for filling in the table and scoring

As in the town planning and environment profile, competences are associated with certain powers. In the police and security profile, the degree of local autonomy may be assessed according to the nature of the competent bodies and the supervision exercised as well as the type of functions assigned.

When it comes to the functions, restrictions are specified that will influence the replies. The police and security field is one in which the central government or higher-level authorities always enjoy some competence: this analysis concerns the areas or powers assigned to local authorities, the scope of which is determined by law and cannot be measured in this kind of table. Local competence should therefore only be noted where it is deemed significant enough to be representative of local powers and responsibilities in general. The aim is to measure local powers and responsibilities in terms of the degree of autonomy, not as an alternative to the competence exercised by central government or higher-level authorities.

Column 1 shows the competence enjoyed by central (regional) government in those areas in which local authorities also exercise powers and responsibilities. The aim is not to draw up a list of central government competences in the police and security field; the existence of central government competence is recorded with a 0, reflecting a neutral score when measuring local autonomy. If the powers of the central government are competing with those of local authorities at the local level, it is possible, however, to subtract one point from local autonomy, given that central government powers will reduce the autonomy of the local authority by imposing co-ordination or co-operation.

Under function 1 (a), for instance, a 0 will be noted in the “central (regional) government authority” column (column 1), since most acts punishable under regulations are dealt with by central (or regional) government authorities that are at a higher level than local authorities. Generally speaking, however, local powers and responsibilities are assigned to a decentralised local authority or a joint authority, for example.

Similarly, a local security policy may be implemented by central government authorities, in addition to a local security policy implemented by joint bodies in which local authorities are involved. In this case, there is competition at the local level, which leads to a reduction in the autonomy of local authorities. In this case, -1 is noted in column 1.

In functions 2(a) to 2(d), restrictions on the public security powers of the local police force, as compared with those of the national force, affect decisions by the local authority beyond traditional modes of supervision (columns 5-7) and will, for example, imply a reduction of autonomy, despite the existence of local forces. Accordingly, half a point is subtracted where such restrictions exist. In order to take into consideration such restrictions, the corresponding column on central (regional) government authority shall contain the score -1.

In this competence profile, the degree of local autonomy may, in fact, be assessed according to the nature of the bodies vested with the competences under consideration. The more supervision that local authorities exercise over these competences, the higher the degree of autonomy they enjoy; conversely, the inclusion of local authorities in joint bodies alongside central government implies central government supervision, corresponding to a lesser degree of autonomy. If there are several replies to any of the functions listed, a memorandum or specific comment should be included.

In order to reflect the degree of supervision that local authorities exercise over different competences, one point is allocated for competences assigned to joint local bodies, two points for those assigned to local bodies answerable to local authorities and three points where local authorities enjoy direct competence. The impact of supervision is assessed in the same way as for the previous tables: supervision of expediency and subsequent supervision each result in the subtraction of one point for autonomy; supervision of legality and subsequent supervision are neutral when it comes to measuring local autonomy; and no supervision (which is never found in the police and security field) is awarded one point for autonomy.

Where higher-level authorities have the right to take measures instead and on behalf of local authorities, this may be indicated in column 5. It is nevertheless a form of subsequent supervision, intended to address local authorities’ failure to act. It may, however, be triggered on grounds of expediency, where this is allowed by law. This form of supervision directly affects local autonomy, but to varying degrees, depending on its purpose and nature (columns 6 and 7); it is used only in exceptional circumstances. Accordingly, half a point is subtracted where such a supervisory power exists.

Scoring for table 4:

Column	Subject	No. of pts	Comments
1	Central (regional) government authority	0 or -1	0 expresses the fact that the powers of these authorities are neutral with regard to local autonomy; the column remains empty if these authorities are not competent -1 expresses the reduction of local autonomy through competition with central (regional) government authority
2	Joint local bodies: central (regional) government/ local authorities	1	Competence is shared
3	Local bodies answerable to local authorities	2	Local autonomy is recognised
4	Local authorities	3	In this case, police and security matters (depending on the function in question) are a purely local competence
5 to 7	Administrative supervision	-1 to 1	Graduated: -1: control of usefulness 0: legal control 1: absence of control by a superior authority The control mentioned here comes under the powers of a superior authority: such control can reduce autonomy (control of usefulness), be neutral (through respect for the law), or increase autonomy through its absence. The latter could have negative effects (laws may be respected to a lesser extent), but this is not the object of the present analysis
Total number of points that can be allocated for autonomy		14 x 3 = 42 points	The maximum number of points is obtained if the competent authority is always the local authority (column 4), i.e. there is no restriction on the powers of the local police force compared with those of the national force, and subsequent supervision of legality is the only form of supervision. It should be emphasised that the maximum number of points is not necessarily the optimum score

Table 4: Police and security competence profile

Table 5: Summary of the scores obtained by the municipalities of [name of country] for tables 1 to 4

Table 5 summarises the results of the tables on the four competence profiles. It gives the maximum number of points for each table, including those that might have been added if a country has justified the addition of one or several competences in order to better reflect their situation. The points obtained for the country examined are then added together.

The maximum points for the sub-total, the total autonomy points and the general total are given as 100 per cent, so a certain percentage can be assigned to the points for each given country. The percentages make it easier to calculate the relative importance of the scope of the competence on the basis of the degree of autonomy with which these competences are exercised (giving them equal weight). These percentages also make it easier to compare the degrees of decentralisation by competence profile and between countries. The results may be also be plotted on graphs or charts for further comparison.

The results could then be seen on a graph in the form of elongated areas, using the y axis for competence coordinates and the x axis for autonomy coordinates or by plotting the countries by competence profile as coordinates between these two axes. By defining the coordinates, the relative importance of the scope of the competence can be balanced against the degree of autonomy with which the competence is exercised.