Sub-Municipal Governance in Europe

In Europe, different countries developed a rich variety of sub-municipal institutions. Out of the plethora of intra- and sub-municipal decentralization forms (reaching from local outposts of city administration to “quasi-federal” structures), this book focuses on territorial sub-municipal units (SMUs) which combine multipurpose territorial responsibility with democratic legitimacy and can be seen as institutions promoting the articulation and realization of collective choices at a sub-municipal level.

Country chapters follow a common pattern that is facilitating systematic comparisons, while at the same time leaving enough space for national peculiarities and priorities chosen and highlighted by the authors, who also take advantage of the eventually existing empirical surveys and case studies.

Today, Belgium counts one local government with sub-municipal units on its territory: Antwerp. Its nine SMUs—labelled districts—are operational from the 1st of January 2001 onwards in the fields of public affairs; youth, culture and sports policy; senior policy; traffic policy; public works; festivities; and communication. Over the years, the Antwerp city government has granted more autonomy to the districts, be it little by little. The chapter explores this historic and unique pathway towards sub-municipal decentralization, thus revealing why typical issues concerning the districts’ governing capacity, their finances and communication with the city centre still pop up today.

The aim of this chapter is to analyze the function of sub-municipal units (SMUs) and to identify the drivers or initiators of the creation of SMUs and the role SMUs play in terms of representative democracy and multilevel governance in the Czech Republic. The study addresses the following issues: How often do Czech statutory cities decide to organize sub-municipal councils? What is the role of the SMUs in the provision of local government functions? What is the level of citizens’ interest in the SMUs? The chapter concludes with a discussion on whether the SMUs could be the appropriate instrument, partially counterbalancing the negative effects of the Czech fragmented municipal structure.

Local government in England has a long tradition of experimentation with decentralisation and devolution within its own territorial boundaries. Those experiments have partly been driven by political values that favour passing functions and responsibilities from the town hall to local communities and partly by the need to compensate for the large scale of English local government. The creation of sub-municipal units takes a range of forms and purposes most of which are controlled, shaped and organised by the council which formed them and which can abolition them if it chooses. Parish and own councils stand unique among the sub-municipal units in English local government as they are statutory bodies with their own set of roles, powers and functions which are not the property of another municipality. The chapter explores the diverse nature of the types of sub-municipal units that exist in English local government and examines the contribution they make to service delivery, decision-making and local democracy.

Sub-municipal units (SMUs) in Germany differ in German Länder. In Berlin, Hamburg and München Metropole Districts fulfill a number of quasi-municipal self-government rights and functions. They have their own budget and strong councils, as well as mayors. In all other Länder, most sub-municipal councils were subordinated under the municipal council and directly elected mayor heading the administration. SMUs were introduced as a kind of compensation with different territorial reforms in the 1970s. Although directly elected, sub-municipal councilors are weak, and their advisory role competes with other newly established advisory boards. Here the focus remains on traffic and town planning. Some sub-municipal councils fulfill smaller administrative functions and become more relevant and important in recent decentralization strategies of neighborhood development.

This chapter discusses the evolution of sub-municipal governance in Greece, which has been top-down conceptualized and implemented. Starting from big cities and the “participatory euphoria” of the eighties, sub-municipal institutions increased spectacularly by numbers with the two major waves of amalgamations in 1998 and 2010. Top-down conceived and imposed, initially differentiating big cities and rural areas, these institutions developed in a muddling through manner that created a complex situation. For the biggest part, sub-municipal institutions were supposed to facilitate comprehensive amalgamation reforms and to compensate for the loss of municipal independence. We argue that these institutions are trapped between identity politics and the politics of scale. Local authorities are reluctant to intra-municipal decentralization, often restricting sub-municipal entities to symbolisms. The lack of meaningful representation at the sub-municipal level is already leading to visible disintegration in many cases and to restrain from local politics. Therefore, a reform debate was initiated, but the final outcome remains an open question.

Oslo is the only city in Norway where a wide range of tasks and functions are decentralized to sub-municipal units (SMUs) headed by an elected local political body. The 15 districts employ about 21,000 people and serve a key function in providing the capital’s residents with key welfare services. While Oslo’s district system has proved its viability by remaining in place through almost three decades, the aim of boosting democratic participation and political involvement through establishing sub-municipal political arenas remains elusive.

The chapter discusses development of sub-municipal units (SMUs) in Poland after the 1990 decentralization reform. It discussed major elements of legal setting and variation of local policies toward SMUs. It stresses the difference in the position of SMUs in rural areas and in urban setting. The difference is related to two factors: (1) depth of historical traditions, (2) support of the central level (rural SMU receives support from the central budget through Village Fund, while such a support is absent in case of urban SMUs). Presently Polish SMUs play only marginal role in local politics and in provision of local public services, and their role in invigorating local democracy is also very limited. This chapter discusses factors behind the variation of the position of SMUs in different cities.

This chapter aims to contribute to the debate about sub-municipal units (SMUs) in Europe by presenting and discussing the characteristics of Portuguese freguesias. These parishes stand out as a special case in the European landscape, since all municipalities have SMUs that have evolved to become full-fledged, lower-tier local government units. We argue that these SMUs are—de facto—a division of the municipal territory into small units of governance and of democratic representation, significantly under the discretionary authority of the municipality’s government. The chapter describes their historical evolution, legal framework, and organization, as well as competencies, services, and finances. A special attention is given to the recent territorial reform that reduced their number significantly. The analysis is—finally—focused on the future of SMUs in Portugal.

This chapter presents sub-municipal units in Slovenia, not only since their establishment in 1994, but the path-dependency since old socialistic regime that lead to partial continuity of the sub-municipal system. Currently, the sub-municipal map is vibrant. There are almost 1,200 sub-municipal units in 212 municipalities (out of 212, 138 municipalities have implemented them), with population ranging from 9 to 34,340. Aside establishment of sub-municipal units and legal framework chapter also provides meta-analyses on two aspects of sub-municipal units functioning: how these units are utilized as mechanisms for participation and to what extent are they endowed with authority to undertake their tasks. In conclusion, the authors provide opinion on the existing system of sub-municipal units in Slovenia and changes recently adopted strategy of the development of local self-government in Slovenia 2020 will bring to this system.

This contribution analyzes the two types of sub-municipal units of government in Spain. The typical units in rural areas (EATIMs) and those implemented in big cities (districts) express specific answers to different circumstances. While the first are the consequence of historically rooted institutions that have evolved up to the present without much change, the second emerged recently to give an answer to the functioning of big cities trying to put local democracy closer to citizens by decentralizing tasks and implementing citizens’ participation mechanisms. The chapter explores their contrasting origins, legal framework, functioning, election and representation systems, transferred tasks, and financial systems.

Sub-municipal units (SMUs) play a relevant, but still underexplored, role in European local government landscape, whether from the perspective of historical self-government entities or the contemporary boundaries when dealing with new challenges of governance. This volume investigates the diversity of the models that have been developed and tested in different European countries. This rich intranational variety should be further explored in future research, since in many countries a challenging sub-municipal, “Lilliputian” world of governance, often covered by the shadow of parent municipalities, is waiting to be explored. SMUs may be very important for the future of the welfare state, for social innovation and resilience. Sub-local community development already plays an important role in the sustainability development strategies, for example in the areas of energy and transport.