Irrespective of the degree of regional autonomy bestowed upon the regional government, Public Administration literature distinguishes between four main functions of regional government (Toonen et al., 1998). They are presented in this section 3.3. Please note that the terms ‘function’ and ‘purpose’ of regional government are used interchangeably.
61 3.3.1 Regional government as an expression of ‘community’
A first function of regional government is that of being the institutionalised expression of regional identity, of the region perceived as ‘community’. For many, it is the most classical function of regional government (Toonen et al., 1998). According to this purpose, “government is an expression of community and the demand for self-rule on the part of normatively distinct, territorially based groups” (Hooghe et al., 2010:53). As Hooghe et al. point out “regional parties [such as, for example, the Scottish National Party in the United Kingdom, the Basque Nationalist Party in Spain, and Party of the Corsican Nation in France] are ideologically diverse, but single-minded” when it comes to “campaigning for more regional authority and a greater share of resources for their region” (Hooghe et al., 2010:84-85).
Governing the regional community according to the community’s preferences is the prototype concept of ‘democracy’. ‘Participative’ democracy sees the direct participation of ‘civil society’ as the best guarantee to serve regional interests and solve common problems (Toonen et al., 1998). This direct participation can take many forms ranging from lay politicians, to holding referenda, to involving stakeholders. Accessibility of regional government for civil society and transparency in how regional decisions are made are considered important values.
Aware of the potential of ‘arbitrariness’ when governed by the regional community directly, ‘representative’ democracy prefers governing on behalf of the community and sees rule-by-law as the best guarantee for defending and implementing regional preferences. This entails safeguarding components such as regional checks-and-balances, dismantling local power monopolies, and respecting rules and procedures (Toonen et al., 1998).
Several scholars have pointed out that “although the Southern European states Italy, Spain and Portugal can be considered as examples of the Napoleonic type of state, they have a number of economic, social and political characteristics in common that makes them distinctive” (Magone, 2003). This led Magone (2003) to conclude that a distinctive Southern model of politics and administration exists, one that first sees regional government as the expression of ‘community’. Characteristics of the ‘South-European family’, such as “political control of administration, relations between politicians and bureaucrats, political nominations of officials, party patronage and clientelism”, render administrations in Southern European countries “fundamentally differ[ent] from the political practice in the rest of Western Europe (…) where trained and qualified professionals run a rational, professional, ‘neutral’ administration” (Kickert, 2008:226). According to Kickert (2008:225), “legalism and formalism were historically introduced as counter-balance against political interference, and in highly politicised Southern administrations that is still the case.”
3.3.2 Regional government as a manager of resources ‘to deliver public goods and services’ The second purpose of regional government is to provide public goods and services, a view of regional government as ‘public service deliverer’. The characteristics of public goods and services are such that neither individuals acting independently nor markets coordinating demand and supply will be able to deliver these public goods, such as homeland security or the preservation of nature (Hooghe et al., 2010; Wolfson, 1988). Because of economies of scale and externalities affecting neighbouring jurisdictions, the intermediate regional level is considered the optimal policy level for the provision of a certain numbers of public goods and
62
services, such as urban planning and land use, infrastructure planning, environmental protection, economic development, utility services, and the like.
In this conceptualisation, regional government is perceived less as an autonomous ‘political-administrative entity’ within a larger, multi-layered governance system and more as an ‘organisation’ in charge of managing resources in order to deliver public goods and services (Toonen et al., 1998). In the typology of state traditions, the ‘Anglo-Saxon family’ views regional government first and foremost in its function of ‘public service deliverer’ with the United Kingdom being the prime example of this tradition. As Kickert (2008:228) points out “(…) the development of the British state from night watch, via paternalistic, to welfare state, and the recent moves to contract and plural state, [has] consequences (…) for the specific British way of public service provision.”
3.3.3 Regional government as a distinct ‘political-administrative entity’ within a larger government system
The third conception of the purpose of regional government is being a ‘political-administrative entity’ for a given territory, in its own right and in its relation to other tiers of government. ‘Region’ is seen in terms of territorial demarcation of power. The territorial distribution of competencies across government tiers defines the extent to which regional government can be attentive to contextual conditions. Regional Innovation System scholars mostly refer to this conceptualisation of regional government.
Viewing regional government as a ‘political-administrative entity’ in its own right being an integral part of a wider governmental system corresponds to the ‘Continental-European family’ within the typology of state traditions (Toonen et al., 1998:19). The ‘Continental- European family’ of state traditions encompasses countries such as Austria, Germany, and France, but also the Netherlands, where the heritage of the legalistic Napoleonic and the Germanic Rechtsstaat models of state government still shapes current administrative and governmental behaviour (Kickert, 2008).
In this conceptualisation, regional government is perceived as an intermediate government layer, subject to super-ordinate governance of some kind and part of a larger system. For European regions, the process of European integration has meant that the ‘wider governmental system’ includes the European Union. Within a globalising world, regions – not only European ones – are increasingly exposed to ‘multi-level governance’. Multi-level governance refers to “the dispersion of authority away from central government — upwards to the supranational level, downwards to sub-national jurisdictions, and sideways to public/private networks” (Hooghe & Marks, 2002:3). Although ‘power’ can be a facilitating factor, different modes of operating and different skill sets are required for regions to excel in these wider, multi-actor, multi-level governmental systems.
3.3.4 Regional government as an ‘architect of change’
A fourth and final function of regional government centres around its ability to handle change. Change can be interpreted as ‘crisis’ in which government becomes an institution of ‘last resort’, the only organisation ‘still standing’, managing the crisis, ensuring business continuity. However, managing a crisis is different from managing change. A crisis entails an element of surprise (non-planned, non-routine), poses an immediate threat to the organisation and its high-priority goals, and requires a short response time (Rosenthal et al., 2001; Ulmer et al.,
63
2007). Managing a crisis is acute, and its success depends, amongst other things, on the organisational capacities already in place (Hermann, 1963). Managing change, on the other hand, is a planned, intentional process with a purpose of translating external demands on the organisation into changes within the organisation. The post-World War II era is characterised by an ever-increasing pace of change affecting economy and society alike. According to the latter interpretation of change, and the one more relevant to this study, three developments in particular have affected regional government in Europe, namely processes of increasing ‘regionalisation’, ‘globalisation’, and ‘Europeanisation’.
Firstly, changes induced by ‘regionalisation’ – a process that increases regional autonomy – have affected regional governments worldwide. Regionalisation “has reshaped the structure of government in every country that is not small [in terms of population size] or already regionalised” (Hooghe et al., 2010:63). Almost 70% of the forty-two countries investigated saw an increase in their Regional Authority Index, a composite indicator developed by Hooghe & Marks that measures the extent of authority exercised by all levels of government below the national level with an average population greater than 150,000 (Schakel, 2009). The increase in regionalisation is linked to the unparalleled expansion of government policy portfolios from the 1960s onwards of which some were considered most efficiently delivered at the regional level such as economic policy, cultural, educational, and/or welfare policy (Hooghe et al., 2010). The changes induced by regionalisation are not merely ‘dry’ legislative changes ‘on paper’. These changes in the attribution of power and policy responsibilities to sub-national policy tiers have to be managed appropriately, often requiring new capacities and capabilities within regional administrations.
Secondly, the increasing ‘globalisation’ of the economy has accelerated from the 1980s onwards, aided by ever more sophisticated information and communication technologies (ICT), and has induced change through its restructuring effect on the sources of competitiveness of firms, sectors, regions, and nations. This process of increasing integration in world markets has given firms access to larger markets, but also exposure to fiercer competition. Firms have relocated different functions (research and development; production; assembly and testing; transportation and after-sales services, to name a few) to different geographical locations, according to costs to specific expertise sought or to closeness to new markets (ETEPS, 2011). Regions have felt the impact of globalisation ‘at their doorstep’ with firms closing down or relocating to other regions, and have been competing with other regions to attract new firms, or trying out different policy recipes to restructure regional economies, with varying degrees of success. The changes induced by globalisation put new organisational demands on regional administrations: developing ‘marketing’ strategies for the region, building up in-house strategic intelligence and/or contracting out to external consultants, lobbying business leaders, conceiving attractive fiscal packages, comparing and benchmarking one with other regions and so forth. It also positioned ‘innovation’ as a change- coping mechanism at the regional level in an increasingly global world.
Thirdly, the process of European integration has reduced the ability of national governments to insulate regions from market competition due to “EU rules curbing state aid and prohibiting national discrimination in public procurement” (Hooghe et al., 2010:59). As such, the European integration process has impacted upon regions, leaving them exposed to intensified economic competition at the national, EU, and world-global level. At the same time, the European integration process has also enlarged ‘redistribution’ possibilities through its Structural Funds for regions, as well as institutionalised ‘democratic’ possibilities, giving regions access to EU decision-making processes. Since the 1993 ratification of the Maastricht
64
Treaty, which established the Committee of the Regions for that purpose, regions have found themselves becoming part of a European multi-level governance framework. Being given the ability to circumvent national authorities – and interact with the European Union institutions directly – has acted as a reform catalyst at regional level. The changes induced by the European integration process laid bare a need to develop a ‘capacity for strategy’ at the regional level irrespective of the extent of regional authority granted within the nation-state (Hooghe et al., 2010; Dror, 2001, 2004). Acting within a multi-level governance framework means being able to position oneself vis-à-vis others, understanding regional needs, developing a vision on the region’s future, knowing who to ally with, fostering learning, and renewal.
The three developments outlined above – ‘regionalisation’, ‘globalisation’, and ‘Europeanisation’ – have affected all government organisations, national and regional alike, and tested their ability to be an ‘architect of change’.