Analysing territorial policies in Western Europe.: The case of France, Germany, Italy, and Spain

European Journal of Political Research 25: 389-41 1 , 1994. 0 1994 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Analysing territorial policies in Western Europe The case of France, Germany, Italy, and Spain

RICHARD BALME, PHILIPPE GARRAUD, VINCENT HOFFMANN- MARTINOT, STEPHANE LE MAY & EVELYNE RlTAINE Institute for the Study of Politics, Bordeaux, France

Introduction

The object of this work is to report the scientific literature dealing with territorial policies in Western Europe in the last decade. That is to say, the public programmes whose goal is the management of territories in their political and socioeconomic dimensions. A large part of the central government intervention (on the subject of industry, agriculture. tax or transport for example) has, of course, territorial implications. In order to delimit the field of our study, we have chosen the most explicit policies on the subject. This means, first, the institutional reform policies of local or intermediate governments, and, second, programmes aimed at reducing spatial disparities - structural planning, regional planning or regional development policies according to the terms used. Facing the difficulties in making an exhaustive study, we have centred our approach on four big European countries, Ger- many, Spain, France, Italy; but we should mention that the choice in no way underestimates the importance of these problems and the vigour of scientific debates in the ‘small’ countries.

The first of these two aspects of territorial policies, the institutional character of local governments and their reform, is well covered by the literature (MCny 1984; Page & Goldsmith 1987; Dente & Kjellberg 1988). Structural planning or regional development policies are, on the contrary, not often dealt with in comparative analysis, and seldom considered from the angle of their articulation with political relations between the centre and the periphery. By confronting these two problems, we hope to open up the field of study. While international contacts between researchers continue to develop, comparative analysis so far remains most of the time a juxtaposition of empirical studies whose results are difficult to synthesise and whose theoretical implications are difficult to perceive. The result is a sort of isolation of local government experts within their respective disciplines, and a lack of consolidated progress in methodology and results. Nevertheless, in each of the chosen countries territorial issues are major political problems giving rise to rich works in political and administrative science, in sociology and in economics.

We analyse here, in particular, the paradigms dealt with in each of these

390

countries, all notions, concepts and sometimes techniques organising the scientific debate related to territorial policies. We emphasise their specificity, their evolution and their convergence points. It is beyond doubt that the cultural context and the subject of study confer a special tone to the interpretation and condition the conceptual tools of the observers. In this respect one can point to the thesis of ‘peripheral power’ elaborated in France before decentralisation, the success of the interorganisational paradigm in the interpretation of the German federal system, or even the reasoning in terms of ‘fragmentation’ in the analysis of the political system in Italy. It is, however, possible to see exchanges, mutual influences and points of agreement between all these studies. We try to clarify them, even if it is evident that the vast character of the subject would require more detailed developments, and that generalisation based on such a vast and diverse literature runs the risk of being simplistic. It is worth trying the exercise, but it is necessary to take into account an important number of works for which we consequently provide, in the following sections, more of a synthesis than of an extensive criticism.

Concerning the paradigms used, we can first see a weakening of scientific cleavages in each of the countries. As is generally the case in political science, confrontations between Pluralists, Marxists and Institutionalists active in the 70s, without completely disappearing, have more or less toned down. We can see there the advantages of a stronger consensus between analysts, and possibilities of dialogue between different perspectives, and thus finer and more detailed interpretations. One can also regret a form of theoretical regression which has led to a flight to empiricism, at the best backed up by ‘intermediate theories’ whose more general interest for social scientists is not very evident. However, some themes recur in the form of problematics and in some concepts.

First of all, many of these works directly stem from, or are strongly influenced by, the sociology of organisations, and apply to the study of intergovernmental relations notions of interorganisational analysis, by emphasising limited rationality, action systems and networking. These have been important developments in France and in Germany (Crozier & Thoenig 1975; Scharpf et al. 1976; Hanf & Scharpf 1978) and provide an important contribution, by application to the relations between the centre and the periphery, to the sociology of organisations. Explicitly or implicitly, these themes are, without doubt, the strongest point of consensus between the authors. The second recurrent problematic concerns relations between the local governments and organised interests whose most theoretically integrated version is the debate on corporatism, considered at the local level but also at a more general European level (Streeck & Schmitter 1991). Here it is a question of analysing-the role of local and intermediate governments in the articulation of interests, as well as the new regulations produced by public policies in view of the recomposition of economic exchanges and its territorial incidences. Even though there is here no consensus similar to that

39 1

derived from organisation theory, it is the notion of corporatism that structures the debate and underlines the importance in these studies of the question of regulating interests. Finally, these works consider more and more precisely the local determinants of policies, notably the influence of local political cultures on leadership and institutional performance in implementing public programmes. The concept of ‘neo-localism’ in Italy shows perfectly this process (Trigilla 1985), and finds significant echoes in the other countries. The integration of these three problematics will allow progress in the under- standing of territorial policies.

In terms of interpretation now, what general conclusions has this literature drawn? Above all, the established fact of a partial convergence in the institutional relations between the centre and the periphery. The policies of decentralisation in the strongly centralised states (France and Spain), the increasing overlapping of policies and government levels in Germany and the progress of Italian regionalisation, all point to developing integration between the centre and the periphery. Local or intermediate governments increase their autonomy where they were once most dependent, and see their interdependence with the centre develop where they were once most autonomous. This convergence is only a limited evolution, in no case does it mean the disappearance of differences, notably because the unitary states and the federal or semifederal systems are still clearly separated. But this evolution is sometimes spectacular, as in the case of Spain. Witnessing this increasing interdependence, observers also note the juridicisation, or at least the development of juridical litigation, between the state and local governments, a development reflecting the enlargement of transactions and negotiations between government levels.

1. France: Emergence of local development

The tenth anniversary of the 1982-1983 decentralisation laws has given rise to an important scientific production in France: ‘the local theme is in fashion’, especially in its political dimensions and is the subject of new modes of public policy (Briquet & Sawicki 1989). This local actuality is particularly confirmed by the problem of reduction of spatial disparities in the context of decentralisation.

Nothing would, however, be more inexact than to date the beginning of the decentralisation process from the early 1980s. In her political and administrative history of decentralisation. V.A. Schmidt (1990) notes: ‘when informal rules become formal roles’. Previously, other authors, with different approaches, had apprehended the existence of a distinct local political level (Mabileau 1985; MCny 1985): the works of the C.S.O. (Centre de Sociologie des Organisations) on the interdependence of central and peripheral actors (Worms 1966; Crozier & Thoenig 1975; GrCmion 1976); and the authors of Marxist sociology analysing urban community power (Castells & Godard

392

1974). These works already clashed with a legal and institutional approach, long hegemonic, limiting politics at the nation-state level, according to which local communities were exclusively confined to administrative acts, a view confronted besides with the history of French aminagement du territoire (structural planning) (Laborie et al. 1985; Lacour et al. 1985) marked by its centralism and interventionism. Today, several converging parameters con- firm the blossoming of local governments and their ability to contribute to the reduction of spatial disparities.

Indeed, the unequal regional economic development (Greffe 1984; Uhrich 1987), the reinforcement of European integration tropism (Muller 1992) and the increasing irrelevance of state economic interventions for territorial communities alter the status and practices of regional planning. It is not completely eliminated from the political agenda, but has found a new, more distinct place. In this context, French political science research devoted to this theme has undergone mutations, by the paradigms used as well as by the moves towards other fields (economics, planning or geography). They are often characterised by an approach in terms of evaluation and better efficiency, by a return to empiricism, to local typology and observation. These works prove to be frequently in search of new modes of operation for public policies (Wachter 1989a).

The problems arising in recent works cannot be approached without re- calling a dual context. On the one hand, decentralisation causes the sharing out of effective competences at different local levels, without however the disappearance of spatial disparities, especially to the detriment of vast rural regions. On the other hand, structural planning undergoes a change and allows economic monitoring from below. On the whole, a vast practical paradigm of local development, consensual yet uncertain, can be identified The works dealing with these phenomena are often inspired by legal, institutional or decisional approaches. Others widen the range of questions to the efficiency of the strategies of local authorities and on the optimal organisa- tional structure for local government. Overall they record the maintenance of state regulation and its necessity for certain authorities or underprivileged regions.

Changing political and economic territories

Towards the end of the 1970s, researchers of the CERAT (Centre for research on politics, administration and territory, Grenoble) had already underlined the existence of a territorial organisation model in which the centre and local representatives were in contact, and local demands were a major preoccupation (D’Arcy 1979). The state would make it active in alternance with a sectorial model (i.e. based on sectorial policies interventions) according to phases of change and stability. At the beginning of the 1980s, decentralisation laws legalised and institutionalised the local system. The 1982 law accelerated the principle of economic intervention in local communities,

393

particularly in favour of the region, associated with the elaboration of the national plan. On the whole, observers agree on the attribution of the function of services provider to the commune, of the organisation of local solidarity to the department and of structural planning and economic and social development to the region. This consensus is also current in the development of economic interventions of local communities (Gerbaux & Muller 1992) and the initiatives and innovations of urban or rural mayors (Faure 1991; Padioleau 1991). But we should note that decentralisation is now less the concern of sociologists than of legal or political analysts, even of regional geopolitics (Giblin-Delvallet 1990).

The economic and spatial context still remains very unequal. The paradigms of geography and economics underline the change of territorial determ- inism in the European context, particularly in a North-South axis (‘the re- venge of the South’), and the polarisation of development around the central European axis, nicknamed ‘blue banana’ by the Gip-Reclus (Lacour et al. 1985; Brunet 1989; De Gaudemar & Prud’homme 1991). A more political paradigm insists also on the modernisation of management of urban problems and the relations of the central state (Lorrain 1991).

In a context of requestioning the distribution policies of the Welfare State, the idea of local development appears as a largely consensual paradigm in the speeches and practices of local policies, just as is the case with the analysts of this phenomenon (Pecqueur 1989). This paradigm is particularly based on the small local dimension, on the idea of endogeneous development, on the concept of ‘environment’, on the non-exclusively market-type relations organised as networks and districts (Benko & Lipietz 1992). The main factors in local development policy are often a relative autonomy of decision, local resources, a favourable population composition, some sort of consensus on local policy, even a historic situation of opposition to central power (Benoit- Guilbot 1991). We can besides link the spreading of this paradigm to the movements of the specialists who deal with it. They are mainly economists, planners. geographers, often providing expertise for public policy.

Uncertainties in the interpretation of local development

Beyond the consensus on the appropriation of economic policies by local representatives, decentralisation as an ‘incremental process of reform’ (Thoe- nig 1992) limits the initiating power of local governments. The ‘new rhetoric of good management’ (Schmidt 1990) implies first of all a fundamental role for communication in emphasising territories and transforming them into networks (Bakis 1990). This requirement of the ‘symbolism of change’ (Marie 1989), if it has practical effects in terms of power and legitimacy, cannot hide the unequal capacities of local authorities to conduct public policies. Numerous authors thus agree on the hierarchy existing between representatives (Rondin 1985) and between local communities, small neighbouring communes, for example, being supervised by the central town, or small

394

rural communes by the department (Thoenig 1985). They also underline the unintended side effects of competition between local communities and the risk of self-based development policies (Tequeneau 1991).

Looking for reduction of regional disparities, particularly when confronted with the setting up of a new European public space and its subsidiary norm, the confirmation of territories at a loss gives rise to the need for a state regulation (Balligand & Macquart 1990). The technical control of urban planning services, the contractual procedures between state and localities or the measures of financial adjustment adopted in 1991 to make up for the disparities between local communities are interpreted as signs of a recentralisation (Douence 1988). While admitting the calling into question of regional planning policy, the network vision, the new pragmatism of a state which is not the unique initiator of planning policies, Wachter also agrees on the administrative and institutional position consolidated by the DATAR (DCICg- ation a 1‘Aminagement du Territoire et 2 I’Action Rigionale) in the state machinery. It is, according to him, the sign of its stability and permanence in the policies of local and regional development (Wachter 1989b).

Lastly, the orientation law on the territorial administration of the Republic, adopted on 24 January 1992, finds its place in the adjustment of the state to local management. Means are put in place for the cooperation between local communities: commune and town communities, interregional agreements and trans-frontier cooperation - especially in a view of structural planning and economic development. Priority is also given to deconcentration which increasingly structures the decentralisation policy, and to the reinforcement of the role of the state at a regional level. This renewal of state authority, through prefects, for example, as ‘conductors’ (GrCmion 1991), affirms its vocation to better coordinate ‘on the field’ interministerial relations.

On the whole, with this dialogue far from being stabilised between the state and local communities, the proliferation of local political systems makes it difficult for researchers to theorise the debate on territory in general terms. However, an approach in terms of induced effects, picking up changing events which significantly structure the modes of regulation of the system, allows us better to appreciate decentralisation (Thoenig 1985). By aban- doning the causal framework of public policy decision, one can point out interferences, perverse effects and dysfunctions their aggregation giving so many decisive indicators of decentralisation.

The relations between the state and local and regional governments thus show a positive-sum game between players in a context more and more restricted by European integration. Decentralisation has not entirely aban- doned the functions of the state to the exclusive benefit of local communities. We witness rather a widened interdependence. So the works concentrate less on the functional hierarchy between local governments than on interactions, modes of cooperation and network actions. This precise interorganisational paradigm allows the relativisation of the ideological aspect of local develop-

395

ment as well as a local ‘fundamentalism’ exclusively considered in its autonomy or autarky (Benko & Lipietz 1992).

2. Germany: searching for the inner dynamics of territorial policies

If it were measured by the works which have been published in the past twenty years, the analysis of territorial politics and policies would appear as one of the most dynamic branches of contemporary German political science. Since the end of the 1960s the ‘discovery’ of local politics has mainly taken place through the follow up and interpretation of intergovernmental relations, on the one hand, and of urban renovation policies, on the other. Since then, the specialists of the lokale Politikforschung have succeeded in creating an active field of scientific production, judging by the quality of the numerous works published, the numerous symposiums and workshops, and the permanent interaction between academic research and public policy experience.

Since the first fumbling years, often more characterised by ideological affirmations and oppositions - particularly between Pluralists and Marxists - than by theoretical and methodological innovations, this field of research has seen relentless progress. In parallel to research concerning the analysis of local and regional political systems, we see the progressive development of a series of works relating, on the one hand, to the dynamics of intergovernmental relations, and more recently to the analysis of territorial public policies.

The analysis of local and regional political systems

We have witnessed in Germany since the end of the 1960s the ‘renovation’ of local politics which has considerably energised the management of local and regional governments. This increased legitimation of local government was accompanied by an unprecedented mobilisation of citizens organised in Burgerinitiativen and numerous associations, politically followed by the Griine movement, which became in the 1980s the leading European ecologist party. This major alteration of West German politics has been directly at the base of the ‘relocalisation’ of ideologies, activities and strategies of the traditional parties (CDU/CSU, SPD, FDP), investing more and more in the local levels of government.

Political analysts have made numerous attempts to understand this increase in the power and importance of local socio-political systems. It is the central theme of the collective work edited by Joachim Jens Hesse (1986) with the help of 16 contributions by experts and university researchers close to the SPD. It focuses on three main themes: the modification of the traditional partisan system caused by the emergence of new social movements and of

396

the Grune; the filling up and blocking of the federal system caused by the juridicisation and the bureaucratisation of society, as well as by counter- trends of decentralisation and regionalisation; the transformation of economic and socio-cultural structures leading to a revaluation of local governments. These themes are taken up and developed by more recent works: those devoted to new or ‘alternative’ forms of political regulation (Bullmann 1991); to the emergence and practice of new urban social movements (alternative groups, feminists, squatters) displacing the long prevailing class-cleav- age; to innovating politics led in towns co-managed by the Grune (renewal and disposal of household waste, public transport, protection of the environment, integration of ethnic minorities and women) (Bullmann et al. 1991).

Re-localisation also encompasses re-regionalisation. Within some Lander like Lower Saxony (Niedersachsen) or North-Rhine Westphalia (Nordrhein- Westfalen), regions, conceived here as intermediary units between the Lander and local governments, but which in Germany do not have an institutional physiognomy as clearly defined as their Italian or French counterparts, are invested with more and more prerogatives, notably to reinforce the efficiency of state policies: there would not be an exclusive movement towards centralisation or, on the contrary, decentralisation but a combination of these tendencies. The regions (in the sense of structure-forums for coordination and grouping of towns and local communities) become so much a bridging tool between the private sector, the state and the communities that Furst talks of ‘die Okoligisierung von Fachpolitiken’ (ecologising of sectorial policies,. cf. Furst et al. 1990).

Does this pronounced tendency towards the decentralisation of public activities benefit the citizens as much as their elected representatives or bureaucrats? This question is at the heart of the evaluation of the vast territorial and functional reforms of the 1960s. For ten years, the number of communities was divided by 3 and that of the Kreise by about 2. The reform process was, however, very different depending on the Lander. Those of Hesse (Hessen), North-Rhine Westphali3 and of the Saar region (Saarland) proved to be most radical, abolishing 75 to 85 percent of existing communities, and almost all those with less than 1000 inhabitants. By contrast, Rhinel- and-Palatinate (Rheinland-Pfalz) or Schleswig-Holstein were resolute in pro- tecting small local communities. The least urbanised, like Bade-Wurttemberg (Baden-Wurttemberg), where petitions of the population and lawsuits filed by the communities against the Land increased, favoured the solution of intercommunal association instead of the great commune. Lothar Albertin and his associates (1982) have drawn up a review of the reform in the region of Northern-Lippe Westphalia underlining its democratic deficit; essentially of technocratic inspiration, its central objective was to reinforce the existing administrative tools and only marginally to consolidate the structures of democratic representation.

The participation of citizens in the territorial policy process does not seem to have further progressed in the field of urban planning despite affirmation

397

and reinforcement through the law (Bundesbaugesetz) of their rights to participate in decision making. Decentralisation does not necessarily go together with democratisation, as illustrate the numerous detailed monographs of Buckmann and Oel (1981: 20 case studies, including Munich, Berlin, Stuttgart, Bonn and Wuppertal), as well as Wehland (1984: survey by ques- tionnaire in 534 German communities completed by 37 case studies). Con- cerning the different dimensions and political and iiistitutional forms of citizens’ participation in local politics, one should refer to the important collective works directed by Oscar W. Gabriel (1983, 1989).

The dynamics of intergovernmental relations

The modern analysis of federal systems has de-emphasized the importance of the separation of competences, and underlined the mechanisms and con- straints in interactions between the Federation and the states. West German scientists and experts have imported from the USA the concept of coopera- tive federalism to express the institutionalisation of relations combining the actions of the Bund, the Lander and territorial communities. Elaborating this profitable path, Fritz W. Scharpf and his associates (1976) have popul- arised the concept of Politikverflechtung, which encompasses and makes sense of increasing interrelations, institutionalised or not, between communes, Lander and Bund.

The interpretation in terms of Politikverflechtung, initially applied to the interdependence of Bund and Lander policies, has since been extended to specific interactions between the local level and superior regional ones. De- spite the legal barrier against the official representation of communes by the Lander and the Home Office in Bonn, the mayors often get direct access to the federal capital where they are associated with (or participate in) the elaboration of numerous public policies. The main factors determining their influence are the pressure exerted by the communes’ associations and the interpenetration of local and national political and administrative personnel. The fact that in a federal system the communities are confronted with not one but two state levels does not mean that their autonomy is twice bounded and threatened. On the contrary, this dual structure favours the strategies of these communities by offering them, depending on circumstances, oppor- tunities to join evolving and multiple coalitions. Depending on policy sectors, state members either manage to reinforce their control of regional and local communities (Quentmeier 1983) or remain subject to the numerous pressures from their local partners and their Spitzenverbande (Hesse et al. 1983; Furst et al. 1984; Jaedicke et al. 1991).

The overlapping of responsibilities, resources and initiatives of public territorial authorities, seem to increase throughout the years. Vertically, it also integrates an increasing number of sectoral policies at a further level with the EEC (cf. Furst 1991). In an important essay, Scharpf (1988) attempts to understand the causes of the freezing of community institutions and tenden-

cies towards the immobility of the German federal system. But policy over- laps and intergovernmental relations also grow horizontally, the ‘intercommunity’ process taking place in Germany as in other industrialised countries to face the issues of large cities’ urban growth. In the relatively numerous works published in the recent years on the key-theme of European territories, it is more particularly recommended to read the three studies devoted to socio-political and institutional conditions of the efficiency of intercommunity and regional cooperation, one being limited to three structures of the Frei- burg region (Rapior 1984), the other two more ambitious, comparing the performance of models of interorganisational lay-out from the monographs published in different Lander (Benz 1982: Furst et al. 1990).

The analysis of territorial public policies

The high level of overlapping of different territorial levels in Germany (‘mar- ble cake’ or ‘picket fence system’), resulting in particular from the important role attributed to the Bundesrat and the principle of vertical division of responsibilities between Bund and Lander, has stimdated several analyses of territorial public policies.

First, there appeared fundamental works for the development of this new orientation of political science. That concerning implementation directed by Renate Mayntz (1983) comprised the results of a research programme launched in the 1970s, in parallel to works of the same type conducted in the USA, and analysing, through an inductive method, the conditions and localised effects of implementation for different sectors, policies and programmes. In a similar way the Hellstern and Wollmann studies (particularly 1984) helped introduce evaluation as an object of analysis in public policies in the Federal Republic of Germany, by calling into question the largely accepted conception according to which evaluation would support a naive belief in the ideal administration while legalising the existing authority.

These first founding works were followed by a great variety of productions, very specific, and generally devoted to sectoral policies. What should be underlined is that most of their authors find now in the territorial political systems, be they local or regional, a greater autonomy of action than the Politikwissenschaft or the Kommunalwissenschaften had long thought. Thanks to this change in paradigm (of domination, hegemony of national/ state forces to neo-localism), they try to answer crucial and apparently simple questions: - do public policies vary according to partisan ideology in territorial com-

munities (‘does politics matter?’): many years after the pioneer but sole work of Fried, an American, this problem inspires studies of budgetary policies (Gabriel et al. 1990), of housing (Gruner et al. 1988), and of

. social help (Jaedicke et al. 1991). - what is the impact of the internal distribution of institutional and political

resources (more or less centralised executive leadership) on policy out-

399

puts? More precisely, are the towns of Bavaria and Baden-Wiirttemberg richer and better managed than those of the North not only because of the economic environment, but also because they are governed by strong mayors, nicknamed ‘little Bismarcks’? (Banner 1984; Kunz and Zapf- Schramm 1989).

- how do local communities intervene on a regional basis in the economic and other policies of ‘management of the crisis’?: struggle against unem- ployment (Maier & Wollmann 1986; Blanke et al. 1987), social welfare (Jaedicke et al. op. cit.), housing (Adalbert et al. 1983)?

Finally, in Germany as in the other industrialised countries, the growing intervention of local communities in the policies of economic development has attracted the major part of public policy analysis. These have been particularly considered since the integration of 5 new East Lander mani- festing itself by a sudden accentuation of the regional disparities of economic development, previously presented in a global way and, probably grossly, in terms of opposing the North and South Lander (on the scheming of this current distinction, refer to Heinze & Voelzkow 1991a). These works, frequently based on post-fordism and regulation theories, deal in particular with the mechanism of mobilisation by the territorial communities (enterprises, banks, associations, . . .), considerably widening the traditional conception of Kommunalpolitik (Mayer 1990). Analysing this Politik der dezentralen Eigenentwicklung, Heinze and Voelkow (1991b) wonder especially about the emergence of ‘local and regional corporatism structures’.

3. The fragmented Italian state

All regional issues in Italy are subject to a double contradiction. The first basic one is that of an unsuccessful national integration: all regional policies and politics are upset by this problem and, as a result, are under the influence of the hazards of related political interests. The second contradiction is due to the relative anarchy of political institutions thus created: regional policies can be great failures (for example the development policy of Mezzogiorno) as well as prove to be a model of pragmatic success (like the policy of central regions). Italian studies have therefore tried to analyse these contradictions and, in the process, have nearly always been forced to go beyond the analysis of people in charge and institutions. They stress rather the underlying socio- political foundations.

Centre and peripheries: history of a dificult Nation-State building

As Cassese (1986) writes ironically: ‘If one goes deep into the matter in scientific terms, one finds that a periphery can be central (. . .). The centre can also be multicentral. But the other term does not have a one-to-one sense either, as there is not only one periphery but many. And the relations

400

between them are no less important than those between the centre and one suburb. In brief, all roads don’t lead to Rome’. The explanation of the complexity between these relations in Italy can be found in the history of the state and its territory, which has been characterised as multicentral or fragmented (Tarrow 1977, 1979; Dente 1985). Without this historical dimension, it is impossible to understand the hazards of the regionalisation mentioned in the Constitution of 1948 which was only partly implemented in the following years with the creation of five regions of specific status. It was afterwards vetoed for twenty-five years until the 1970-1972 laws which set up fifteen regions with ordinary status (ISAP 1983; Mazzega & Musitelli 1980). It is not possible either to understand a regional planning policy, indecisive at the best, totally corrupted as concerns the development attempt of Mezzogiorno (Allum 1981).

The rooting up and development of regional ideology in Italy is particularly revealing. It indeed shows the regional, even federal idealism with which the fathers of Italian unity were imbued, and indicates that only the great insta- bility of a country artificially unified forced them to adopt Napoleonic centralisation. Fascism reinforced this tendency, reinforcing opposition to regional ideas. It is this inspiration that has been taken up by the 1948 Constitution in search of counter-authoritarianism and in need of confronting an ever- pressing meridional question (Gambi 1977; Bonora 1984). The political freezing of regionalisation, destined to preserve Christian-democrat hegemony from the power of the Left in the peripheries, has thus further accentuated the misunderstanding between Italy and its history. Its application has been an attempt to overcome the severe political crisis of the 1970s as well as being ‘nothing less than a step to national unification, affirmation of institutional pluralism, and a means to integrate centrifugal forces’ (Mazzega & Musitelli 1980). This reconciliation with history has quickly revealed itself as a difficult path: governmental institutions always try to limit and control authority conferred to regions (let us add that these regions have practically no local resources); political networks, traditionally organised around the municipal and provincial governments, are slow in devoting themselves to development on a regional basis. One talks of incomplete decentralisation and paradoxical regionalisation (Tarrow 1979; Trigilia 1989). The development of the movement of regional leagues, in the north of the country, a protest and pro- federal movement, confirms the ill that still gnaws at the natural Italian integration today: the rich regions protest, not so much in the name of a regional movement, but in the name of the rejection of the centre and its poor surroundings (Mannheimer 1991).

Institutional pragmatism politics

The works of Tarrow (1977, 1979) had already shown that the implementation of a Jacobin political and administrative model was confronted with the strength of the local networks enriched by municipal, community or

401

business appartenances: the weakness of a central authority has allowed the setting up of local networks aiming at monopolising public resources. Elected representatives, as a result, have to behave like ‘policy entrepreneurs’, trying to maximise their resources by exploiting the different areas under the central authority. This is why political parties have long been able to present themselves as preserving central interests: through partisan groups a vertical political exchange takes place, by means of which the peripheries manage to control the centre. So, the present crisis of political parties in Italy is actually a major sign of the crisis of the whole political system. More recent studies prove that intensive political exchange is the key to the success of the system as well as to its failures. Through his studies of exchanges between different levels of government Dente (1985) shows that the ‘fragmentation’ of Italian politics has to some degree anticipated the contemporary complexity of intergovernmental relations, and that it can be the source of institutional efficiency if it is accepted and mastered. By contrast, business exchanges (colonisation of bureaucracy by parties, clientelistic allocation of resources, misappropriation of collective goods) cause the complete inefficiency and failure of public policies in the Mezzogiorno region (Graziano 1980; Caciagli 1975; Catanzaro 1983).

The long observation of regions with ordinary status by an Italo-American team has furthered our knowledge of Italian pragmatism (Putnam, Leonardi & Nanetti 1985, 1992; Nanetti 1988; Putnam 1988). Focused on ecological analysis of institutional output, these studies classify the regions according to their institutional performance, from the most efficient (Emilia-Romagna & Lombardy, Umbria, Tuscany, Venezia) to the least (Calabria, Molise, Campania). The degree of efficiency is strongly correlated to the level of economic development for the poorly developed and less efficient regions. An important demographic alternative can explain the counter-performance of certain rich regions (Piedmont, Liguria, Latium). But on the whole, it is the strongly mobilising political culture which appears as the point of institutional success: ‘Social activism and civic solidarity traditions explain the socioeconomic development, and not the contrary. It is the political culture and not the socioeconomic structure which determines institutional output’ (Putnam 1988). These studies of political institutions thus join the strong wave of regional sociology which has developed for some years in Italy.

The diversity of socio-political territories

Typical studies in socio-economy have established the existence of ‘three Italies’ (Bagnasco 1977; Fuh & Zacchia 1983). Those three distinct socio- territorial institutions exhibit distinct modes of economic development and socio-political regulation. The northern region, centralised with big cities, corresponds to the type comprising classical industrialisation, urbanisation, social differentiation and acquired status, sectoral mobilisation, opinion voting. The Mezzogiorno region (south of Rome and the isles) is characterised

402

by a marginal and assisted economy, social planning organised around the family unit, a different type of collective mobilisation, market-type political exchange and a vote of allegiance (concerning the whole debate round Mez- zogiorno, cf. Catanzaro 1983). Together with this typical dichotomy inherited from meridionalism is the third Italy of the central and North-Eastern regions. It is characterised by efficient networks of small enterprises, an important cities network, a reticular social regulation including personal participation, a strong associative mobilisation and identity voting (stability of local political cultures): the originality of this socio-territorial and regional institu- tion has been the keypoint of numerous works (Bagnasco 1988; Bagnasco & Trigilia 1984, 1985; Ritaine 1989). It is within this theoretical context that we find the debate on the reduction of inequalities of development, debate which is mainly focused on the Mezzogiorno theme (Cafiero 1989), and henceforth, as we know, calling into question the capability of the Italian state itself.

This regional differentiation is, in some economic terms, further com- plicated by the existence of regionalised political subcultures, particularly evident in the third Italy (Trigilia 1981, 1986). The works dealing with these have shown a great continuity in their political orientation since unification, as well as important social grouping, mobilisation and a permanent political socialisation process by the family and collective action structures. These elements give their specific colour to Italian regions, ‘red’ (socialo-commu- nists) in Central Italy and ‘white’ (Christian Democrats) in North-Eastern Italy (Caciagli 1988). Of course, these homogeneous political contexts are upset by the present lack of interest in politics; no elaborate work however indicates that these sociological resources won’t be reinvested differently, and they remain, as we have seen, at the base of the institutional success of certain regions. It is thus not surprising that Italian research has been directed these past years towards an intermediate concept which makes it possible to analyse the capacity to organise and to mobilise for the defence of local interests. The local and regional politicians seem to be imbued with a strong political culture which often allows them to overcome institutional defects, as shows the remarkable performance of the Emilia-Romagna region which, still in a homogeneous political context, is able to cooperate with all the different socioeconomic forces (Leonardi & Nanetti 1990). It is again this capacity lacking in numerous Italian regions which denies them efficiency (Trigilia 1989; Dematteis 1989; Schmitter & Lanzalaco 1988; Cammelli 1990). So, this ‘neolocalism’, a sort of local regulation between the economic market, social and political institutions, set up in parallel to neocorporatism, is at present still well-illustrated locally (Trigilia 1985).

4. Spain: ‘the state of autonomies’

In Spain. since the democratic transition following the death of Franco in 1975, the relations between the centre and the periphery have changed

403

rapidly, and in a manner quite unlike other Western European countries, making Spain quite a singular case. These changes have given rise to extremely varied and abundant work, not only in Spanish but also in English and French, making any inventory necessarily selective. We will first consider the Spanish ‘autonomic process’ of decentralisation before dealing with the regional nationalisms issue which is largely at the base of the re-establishment of relations between the centre and the periphery. Thirdly we examine the transformation of territorial policies destined to reduce the important interregional disparities which have always marked the development of Spain.

The creation of autonomies (Autonomias) as a specific form of decentralisation

The Spanish process of regionalisation has suddenly replaced, in a few years, what was a model of central-local relations characterised by the centralisation, simplicity, stability and homogeneity of territorial structures, with a quite different, extremely decentralised one (with legislative power of autonomous communities). This latter model is complex and conflicting, very strongly differentiated in various fields (efficiency, status, territories and even calendar), and dynamic as part of a decentralisation process % la carte’, involving variable forms and taking place at different speeds (IFRI 1989; Leguina Vila 1984). In this field, it is clear that the introduction of the 1978 Constitution has led to a change in the trend of centre-periphery relations in Spain (Bon & Moderne 1981) to such a point that the nature of the present Spanish state itself gives rise to quite numerous debates. The complexity of the process has no comparison with what can be observed in Western Europe, even in France where the decentralisation strategy followed in the 1980s sounds, compared to Spanish reorganisation, like ‘marginal change’ (d’Arcy & Baena del Alcazar 1986).

From 1979 to 1983, seventeen Autonomias were created following different procedures with different levels of evolving competences, reflected in a legal status specific to each Autonomia, and reorganising the Spanish territory in a heterogeneous and non-uniform manner (Clegg 1987; Sole-Vilanova 1989). Besides the ten autonomous multiprovincial communities (Autonomias), we count seven regions contained in only one province.

If the Constitution counts the 32 exclusive state competences, and 22 potential ones of the Autonomias, these competences are, in fact, very broadly defined. In reality, numerous competences are shared, even if they vary from one autonomous community to another. This gives rise to permanent confusions and interactions (Castells 1989; Subra de Bieusses 1990) at the base of important and endless juridical conflicts between the state and the autonomous communities. Their relations are characterised by a great complexity, legal and political (Valles & Cuchillo Foix 1988), and, in this field, the notion of ‘organised anarchy’ seems to find a particularly good application. In this respect, the autonomic process affects quite directly the

404

relations between autonomous communities and provinces (Rebollo 1984). These relations are themselves unequal and differentiated: legitimacy deficit of diputaciones provinciales whose members are only elected indirectly amongst the municipal councillors; opposition between different majority political parties; difference of legitimacy on a provincial level according to autonomous communities. Thus the Generalitat of Catalonia (Martin 1990) has tried to make the provinces disappear for the benefit of a new territorial level, the comarca, while by contrast the Basque provinces benefit from a strong historic legitimacy linked to special fiscal rights.

The autonomic process has been accompanied by a series of conflicts. The Constitutional Court plays an essential role in their legal regulation but this type of dealing does not appear sufficient to make up for the lack of provision in the Constitution, nor to solve the essentially political tensions (Garcia de Enterria 1984; Moderne 1990). The ‘nearly federal’ or ‘potentially federal’ state appears then as some sort of legal hybrid monster, neither unified nor federal, or, more exactly, half-unified, half-federal. In this quite specific Spanish autonomic process, it clearly appears that the political circumstances of ‘democratic transition’ have been of a determining weight. It is then necessary to see how the institutional and territorial organisation of Spain is linked to the dynamic process of what is often called ‘regional states’.

The question of regional nationalisms: a Spanish particularity

The autonomic process as a specific means of regional decentralisation, and the territorial reorganisation of Spain which it has caused, originate from a context and a debate originally of political and ideological, rather than administrative, nature (Diaz 1986). I t - is necessary to agree on the best territorial organisation of the state but, more concretely, to find a politically plausible institutional answer to the use of regional nationalism in a dramatic context marked by terrorism and threat of military ‘coups d’Etat’ (Moxon- Browne 1989). The territorial regionalisation of the traditionally centralised Spanish state can be interpreted as resulting from a process of political construction. Safe for the particular Basque question, which will be dealt with later, different authors indeed underline the relative artificiality of the ‘national-regional’ question as being an important problem of general politics in Spain and rather mention the hypothesis of a ‘reinvention’ of this issue (de Blas Guerrero 1989).

The beginning of the 1970s saw the development in Western Europe of numerous ‘alternative’ movements (regional, ecological. anti-nuclear, anti- military), all calling into question of the legitimacy of central states. In Spain, because of the particular political context, these movements had important repercussions in the last years of the Franco regime. Specialised works have given an intellectual legitimacy to this opinion wave by rewriting and idealis- ing the history of Spanish ‘regional states’. The left central parties have used this theme to mobilise the Spanish middle class which had developed in an

405

important manner during the Franquist rule. This is how the claiming of a federal state and of the right to autonomous rule of regions appears in the programmes of the left-wing parties, and the problems of the regional structure of Spain are mentioned in the political agenda (de Blas Guerrero 1989).

But this newly adopted political strategy of left-wing parties gives rise to flourishing nationalist and regional autonomist parties which have to distin- guish themselves from central political organisations to maintain their political place. This radicalisation is therefore due to the competition between central and regional political parties. In particular, because of a collective regional identity exceptional in Spain, this revaluation has taken a radical form in the Basque region, especially with the terrorist ETA political strategy which dramatises strongly the national-regional problem and increases its supporters (Moxon-Browne 1989).

In this context, the 1978 Constitution provides an answer, allowing a compromise between the left-wing socialists and the centre aiming at dedram- atising and ‘dissolving’ the specificity of the Basque problem by giving it an institutional content extended to all Spain. The urgent need to respond to this problem, quite specific to the Basque region, as well as the necessity to give it a legal and political shape, thus tightly condition the autonomy process and the particular form it will take: ‘A la carte’, in various shapes and at different speeds. But once the process is initiated, the door is open to competition and to an institutional dynamic which tends, under the cover of parties and their regional heads, to develop an imitation of and a succession of Autonomias to express themselves (Diaz Lopez 1986; Garcia de Enterria 1984). These phenomena lead, on the one hand, to the criticism of autonomous communities having a weak or non existent regional identity (Madrid, Cantabria, Rioja, Castile-La Mancha, Castile-Leon, in particular), and on the other hand, multiply tensions and conflicts between the central states and the autonomous communities, thus increasing hereby legal litigation.

The transformation of regional policy

Numerous works have studied the disparities in the development of different regions - disparities that characterised Spain at the beginning of the century under the Franquist rule, and still today. The answer to the question, whether there has been a reduction or an accentuation of such interregional disparities, is complex and depends, for a large part, on the indicators considered. But globally, the development gaps do not seem to have been substantially reduced (Cuadrado Roura 1988; Rey Julia 1992). Today, we consider ‘Four Spains’ (Alcaide Inchausti 1988): a Spain under crisis (Basque region, Astu- ria, Cantabria), one that prospers (Mediterranean part and Madrid), one that survives (Galicia, Andalusia) and one that is being depopulated (Extra- madure, La Mancha and centre except for Madrid).

Confronted with these regional development inequalities, temtorial policy in Spain is long established. It started to develop in the 1960s, following the

French model of indicative planning but paradoxically without any regional political and administrative basis. At the end of the Franquist rule, the regionalisation policy was halted, because of increasing economic and political unrest, and also because of the fear of sowing ‘separatist seeds’ (Richard- son 1975). During the democratic transition, regional policy was put aside because of the accumulation of political tensions, the reorganisation of the state and the absence of a well defined legal framework. It is not a governmental priority. The question only arises again with the autonomic process having stabilised and in the wake of the integration of Spain into the EEC. Different measures (interregional compensation fund created in 1984, law for the regional measures encouraging the correction of interregional economic imbalance voted in 1985), have forced each autonomous community to adopt a regional development plan (RDP), all the RDPs being integrated into one national document presented to the EEC, to benefit from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)). The aim is complementary actions and funds for the central state, the autonomous communities and the EEC (Fernandez Diaz 1990; Saenz de Buruaga 1990; Tamames 1991).

As one sees, these works have different orientations, more complementary than opposed, and involve distinct academic fields: law, political science, sociology, economics. As a result of this limited integration of knowledge, it is difficult to show clearly the main paradigms, or definitely state the main concerns in the study of central-local relations in Spain. What further complicates the matter is the recent character of this field of research, the different scientific cultures of Spanish, Anglo-Saxon and French authors, and the number of works dealing globally with Spanish regions, and not only with Catalonia or the Basque region. Beyond historical and legal questions, it now seems important to collect more precise data and to build more explicit theories.

Acknowledgements

The research whose results are presented here has received financial help from the DClCgation 2 1’AmCnagement du Territoire et ?i 1’Action RCgionale. We would also like to thank Maryse Ducournau, Florence Galli-Dupis, Barbara Lessing (for the translation) and Christiane Pucheu for their contribution to this work as well as the Journal editor for his help with this translation.

References

Adalbert, E., Lange, H.-G. & Wollmann, H., eds. (1983). Kommunale Wohnungspolifik. Basel,

Albertin, L., Ens, K. & Werle, R. (1982). Die Zukunft der Gemeinden in der Hand ihrer Boston, Stuttgart: Birkhauser Verlag.

407

Reformer. Geplante Erfolge und politische Kosten der kommunalen Neugliederung. Fallstud- ien in Ostwesrfalen-Lippe. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Alcaide Inchausti, J . (1988). Las cuatro Espaiias economicas y la solidaridad regional, Papeles de Economia EspaAola 34: 62-81.

Allum, P. (1981). Thirty Years of Southern Policy in Italy, Political Quarterly 52. d’Arcy, F. (1979). Territoires en gestation. D.G.R.S.T. d’Arcy, F . & Baena del Alcazar, M. (1986). Dkcentralisation en France et en Espagne. Paris:

Bagnasco, A. (1977). Tre Italie. La problematica territoriale dello sviluppo italiano. Bologna: I 1

Bagnasco, A. (1988). La costruzione sociale del mercato. Bologna: II Mulino. Bagnasco, A. & Trigilia, C. (1984). Societa e politica nell’aree di piccola impresa. 11 caso di

Bagnasco, A. & Trigilia, C. (1985). Societa e politica nell’aree di piccola impresa. I1 caso della

Bakis, H., ed. (1990). Communications et territoires. Pans: La Documentation Fraqaise. Balligand, J.-P. & Maquart, D. (1990). La fin du territoire jacobin. Paris: Albin Michel. Banner, G. (1984). Kommunale Steuerung zwischen Gemeindeordnung und Parteipolitik am

Beispiel der Haushaltspolitik, Die offentliche Verwaltung: 364-72. Benko, G. & Lipietz, A. (1992). Les regions qui gagnent. Paris: P.U.F. Benoit-Guilbot, 0. (1991). Les acteurs locaux du dkveloppement tconomique local: y a-t-il un

‘effet localitk’?, Sociologie du Travail 4: 453-59. Benz, A. (1982). Regionalplanung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Eine empirische Untersu-

chung zur Organisation und Problemlosungsfuhigkeit. Miinster: Universitat Miinster. Blanke, B., Adalbert, E. & Wollman, H. eds. (1986). Die Zweite Stadt. Neue Formen lokaler

Arbeits- und Sozialpolitik, Leviathan: Sonderheft 7. Blanke, B., Heinelt, H. & Macke, C.-W. (1987). Grofitadt und Arbeitslosigkeit. Ein Prob-

lemsyndrom im Netz lokaler Sozialpolitik. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Blas Guerrero, A. de (1989). El problema nacional-regional espafiol en la transicion, pp. 587-

609, in: J.F. Tezanos, R. Cotarelo & A. de Blas (eds.), La transicion democratica espafiola. Madrid: Sistema.

Bon, P. & Moderne, F. (1981). Les autonomies regionales dans la constitution espagnole. Pans: Economica.

Bonora, P. (1984). Regionalita. I1 concetto di regione nell’ Italia del second0 dopoguerra (1943-1970). Milano: Angeli.

Briquet, J.-L. & Sawicki, F. (1989). L‘espace du local, Politir, 7-8 (octobre-dtcembre): 3-15. Brunet, R., ed. (1989). Les villes europkennes. Paris: La Documentation Fraqaise. Biickmann, W. & Oel, H.-U. (1981). Burgerbeteiligung bei kommunalen Planungen. Miinchen:

Minerva Publikation. Bullmann, U. (1991). Zur ‘Identitat der lokalen Ebene’. Aussichten zwischen kommunaler

Praxis und politikwissenschaftlicher Theorie, pp. 72-92, in: B. Blanke (ed.), Staat und Stadt. Systematische, vergleichende und problemorientierte Analysen ‘dezentraler Politik’. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Bullmann, U., Gitschmann, P. & Henkenborg, P. (1991). ZwisLhenbilanz rot-griiner Politik in den hessischen Kommunen, in: R. Roth & H. Wollmann (eds.), Grun-alternative Kommunal- politik in der Bundesrepublik - eine Zwischenbilanz. Basel, Boston, Stuttgart: Birkhauser Verlag.

Economica.

Mulino.

Bassano. Venezia: Arsenale Editrice.

Valdelsa. Milano: Angeli.

Caciagli, M. (1975). Democrazia cristiana e potere nel Mezzogiorno. Firenze, Guaraldi. Caciagli, M. (1988). Quante Italie? Persistenza e trasformazione delle culture politiche subna-

Cafiero, S. (1989). Tradizione e attualita del meridionalismo. Bologna: II Mulino. Cammelli, M. (1990). Regione e rappresentanza degli interessi: il caso italiano, Stato e Mercato

zionale, Polis 3.

29.

408

Cassese, S. (1986). Centro e periferia in Italia. I1 grandi tornanti della lora storia, Rivista

Castells, J.M. (1989). Las administraciones autonomicas en la nueva fase. Revista vasqua de

Castells, M . & Godard, F. (1974). Monopolville. Paris. La Haye: Mouton. Catanzaro, R. (1983). Struttura sociale, sistema politico e azione collectiva nel Mezzogiorno,

Stato et Mercato 8. Clegg, T . (1987). Spain, pp. 130-155, in: E. Page & M. Goldsmith (eds.). Central and local

government relations. London: Sage. Crozier M. & Thoenig, J.-C. (1975). La regulation des systtmes organisis complexes. Le cas

du s y s t h e de decision politico-administratif local en France, Revue Francaise de Sociologie

Cuadrado Roura, J. (1988). Economic growth and regional disparities before and after the crisis: the Spanish case, pp. 231-43, in: G. Gorzelak (ed.), Regional dynamics of socio-economic change. University of Warsaw: Institute of space economy.

Dematteis, G . (1989). Regioni geografiche. articolazione territoriale degli interessi e regioni istituzionali, Stato et Mercato 27.

Dente, B. (1985). Governare la frammentaiione. Stato, regioni e ente locali in Italia. Bologna, II Mulino.

Dente, B. & Kjellberg. F. (1988). The Dynamics of Institutional Change. Local Government Reorganization in Western Democracies. London: Sage.

Diaz Lopez, C. (1986). Center-periphery structures in Spain: from historical conflict to territorial-constitutional accommodations, pp. 236-72, in: Y. Meny & V. Wright (eds), Center-periphery Relations in Western Europe. London: Allen and Unwin.

Douence, J.-C. (1988). L’action konomique locale, dkentralisation oic recentralisation? Paris: Economica.

Faure, A (1991). Pouvoir local en France: le management mayoral h I’assaut du clientClisme. Politiqices et management public 3 (septembre): 115-32.

Fernandez Diaz, A. (1990). Politica de planificacion, pp. 233-53, in: L. Gamir (ed.), Politica economica de Espaiia. Madrid: Alianza.

FuB, G. & Zacchia, C., eds. (1983). Industrializzazione senza frarture. Bologna: II Mulino. Fiirst, D. (1991). Stadt und Region in Verdichtungsraumen. pp. 93-112, in: B. Blanke (ed.),

Staat und Stadt. Systematische, vergleichende icnd problemorientierte Analysen ‘dezentraler Politik’. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Fiirst, D., Hesse, J.-J. & Richter, H . , eds. (1984). Sradt und Staat. Verdichtungsriiume im Proze5 der foderalstaatlichen Problemverarbeitung. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

Fiirst, D., Klinger, W., Knieling, J., Monnecke, M. & Zeck, H. (1990). Regionalverbande im Vergleich. Schriften zur Kommunalen Wissenschaft und Praxis, Vol. 4. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

Gabriel, O . W . , ed. (1989). Kommunale Demokratie zwischen Politik und Verwaltung.

Gabriel, O.W., ed. (1983). Biirgerbereiligung und kommunale Demokratie. Miinchen: Minerva. Gabriel, O.W., Kunz, V. & Zapf-Schram. T. (1990). Bestirnmungsfakroren des kommunalen

Gambi, L. (1977). Le ‘regioni’ italiane come problerna storico, Quaderni storici. Garcia de Enterria, E. (1984). El futuro de las autonomias territoriales, pp. 99-120. in: E.

Garcia de Enterria (ed.), Espatia: un presente para el ftcticro. Vol. 2: Las instituciones. Madrid: Instituto de estudios economicos.

Gaudemar, J . de, & Prud’homme, R . (1991). Spatial impacts of deindustrialization in France, pp. 105-36, in: L. Rodwin & H. Sazanami (eds.), Industrial change and regional economic transformation. The experience of Western Europe. Londres: Harper Collins.

Gerbaux, F. & Muller, P. (1992). Les interventions Cconomiques locales, Pouvoirs 60: 99-114. Giblin-Delvallet, B. (1990). La rPgion, territoires politiques. Le Nord-Pas-de-Calais, A u bout

trimestriale di diritto public0 36.

administracion publica 22: 69-86.

16: 3-32.

Miinchen: Minerva.

Investitionsverhaltens. Miinchen: Minerva.

du tunnel. Paris: Fayard.

409

Graziano, L. (1980). Clientelismo e sistema politico. Milano, Angeli. Greffe, X. (1984). Territoires en mutation. Paris: Economica. Grtmion, C. (1991). Que reste-t-il des administrations dtconcentrtes?, Journee #Etude L e

modele franqais d’administration est-il en crise ? Paris: Association Franqaise de Science Politique, 7-8 fevrier 1991.

Grtmion, P. (1976). Le pouvoir periphkrique. Bureaucrates et notables dans le systkme politique francais. Paris: Seuil.

Griiner, H., Jaedicke, W. & Ruhland, K. (1988). Rote Politik im schwarzen Rathaus? Bestim- mungsfaktoren der wohnungspolitischen Ausgaben bundesdeutscher GroBstadte, Politische Vierteljahresschrift 29( 1): 42-57.

Hanf, K. & Sharpf, F.W. (1978). Interorganizational Policy Making. Limits to coordination and central control. London: Sage.

Heinze, R.G. & Voelzkow, H. (1991a). Regionalisierung der Strukturpolitik in Nordrhein- Westfalen, pp. 461-76, in: B. Blanke (ed.), Staat und Stadt. Systematische, vergleichende und problemorientierte Analysen ‘dezentraler Politik’ . Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Heinze, R.G., Voelzkow, H. (1991b). Kommunalpolitik und Verbande Inszenierter Korpora- tismus auf lokaler und regionaler Ebene?, in: H. Heinelt & H. Wollmann (eds.), Brennpunkt Stadt. Stadtpolitik und lokale Politikforschung in den 80er und 90er Jahren. Basel, Boston, Stuttgart: Birkhauser Verlag.

Hellstern, G.-M. & Wollrnann H. , eds. (1984). Evaluierung und Erfolgskontrolle in Kommunal- politik und -verwaltung. Basel, Boston, Stuttgart: Birkhauser Verlag.

Hesse, J.-J., ed. (1986). Erneuerung der Politik ‘von unten’? Stadtpolitik und kommunale Selbstverwaltung irn Umbrztch. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Hesse, J . - J . Ganseforth, H., Fiirst, D . & Ritter, E.H., eds. (1983). Staat und Gemeinden zwischen Konflikt und Kooperation. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

IFRI (1989). De I’Espagne une ISAP (1983). La regionalizzazione (2 vols.). Milano: Giuffre. Jaedicke, W., Ruhland, K., Wachendorfer, U., Wollmann, H. & Wonneberg, H. (1991). Lokale

Politik im Wohlfahrtsstaat. Zur Sozialpolitik der Gemeinden und ihrer Verbande in der Beschdfttigungskrise. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Laborie, J.-P., Langumier, J.-F. & de Roo, P. (1985). La politique d’amknagement du territoire franqais. Paris: La Documentation Franqaise.

Lacour, C.. Delfau, P. & Lajugie, J. (1985). Espace rkgional et amknagement du territoire. Paris: Dalloz.

Leguina Villa, J. (1984). Escritos sobre autonomias territoriales. Madrid: Tecnos. Leonardi, R. & Nanetti, R.Y., eds. (1990). The Regions and European Integration. The Case

Lorrain, D. (1991). De I’action rkpublicaine au gouvernement urbain, Sociologie du Travail 4:

Mabileau, A. (1985). Les institutions locales et les relations centre-ptriphtrie, pp. 553-98, in: M. Grawitz & J . Leca (eds.), Traite‘ de science politique, Vol. 2. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Maier, H.E. & Wollmann, H., eds. (1986). Lokale Beschuftigungspolitik. Boston, Stuttgart: Birkhauser Verlag.

Mannheimer, R., ed. (1991). La Lega Lombarda. Milano, Feltrinelli. Marie, J.-L. (1989). La symbolique du changement, pp. 109-50, in: A. Mabileau & C. Sorbets

Martin, E. (1990). La Catalogne. Paris: La Documentation fanqaise. Mayer, M. (1990). Postfordismus und lokaler Staat, in: H. Heinelt & H. Wollmann (eds.),

Brennpunkt Stadt. Stadtpolitik und lokale Politikforschung in den 80er und 90er Jahren. Basel, Boston, Stuttgart: Birkhauser Verlag.

Mayntz, R., ed. (1983). Implementation politischer Programme 11. Ansatze zur Theoriebildung. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

I’Espagne plurielle, Ramsks 90, Dunod: 312-27.

of Emilia-Romagna. New-York: Pinter (Publication of the European University Institute).

461-84.

(eds.), Gouverner les villes moyennes. Paris: Pedone.

Mazzega, D. & Musitelli, J. (1980). L’organisation regionale en Italie. Paris: La Documentation

MCny, Y. (1984), La Reforme des Collectivites Locales en Europe: Strategies et Rksultats. Paris:

Meny, Y . (1985). Les politiques des autorites locales, pp. 423-65, in: M. Grawitz & J. Leca

Moderne, F (1990). L’Etat des autonomies dans ‘I’Etat des autonomies’, Revue francaise de

Moxon-Browne, E . (1989). Political change in Spain. London: Routledge. Muller, P. (1992). Entre le local et I’Europe la crise du modkle franGais de politiques publiques,

Nanetti, R.Y. (1988). Growth and Territorial Policies: The Italian Model of Social Capitalism.

Paci, M., ed. (1980). Famiglia e mercato del lavoro in una economia periferica. Milano. Angeli. Padioleau, J.-G. (1991). L’action publique urbaine moderniste, Politiques er management public,

Page, E.C. & Goldsmith, M.J. (1987). Central and Local Government Relations. A Comparative

Pecqueur, B. (1989). Le dtveloppement local. Paris: Syros/Alternatives. Planque, B., ed. (1983). Le dkveloppemenr dkcentralise. Dynamique spatiale de I’economie et

Putnam, R.D. (1988). Rendimento istituzionale e cultura politica, Polis 3. Putnam, R.D., Leonardi, R. & Nanetti, R.Y. (1993). Making Democracy Work. Civic Traditions

in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Putnam, R.D., Leonardi, R. & Nanetti, R.Y. (1985). La pianta e le radici. I1 radicamento dell’

istiruto regionale nel sisrema politico italiano. Bologna: I1 Mulino. Quentmeier, R. (1983). Regionalplanung im Planungsverbund. Zur Funktion des Bezirks-

planungsrates im Rahmen der Politikverflechtung. Miinchen: Minerva Publikation. Rapior, R. ( 1984). Interkommunale Zusammenarbeir. Eine empirische Untersuchung uber die

Stadt-Umland- Beziehungen in der Stadtregion Freiburg. Miinchen: Minerva Publikation. Rebollo, L.M. (1984). La administracion local, pp. 267-81 in: E. Garcia de Enterria (ed.),

Espaiia: un presente para el futuro, Vol. 2: Las insrituciones. Madrid: Instituto de estudios economicos.

Rey Julia, J.M. (1992). Les causalit& circulaires et cumulatives. Le cas de I’Espagne: 1955- 1987, Revue d’Economie Meridionale 157: 77-96.

Richardson, H. (1975). Regional development policy and planning in Spain. Farnborough: Saxon House.

Ritaine, E. (1989). La modernit6 localiste? LeGons italiennes sur le developpement regional, Revue Francaise de Science Politique, 2.

Rondin, J. (1985). Le sacre des notables. La France en decentralisation. Paris: Fayard. Saenz de Buruaga, G . (1990). Politica regional, pp. 473-95, in: L. Gamir (ed.). Politica econ-

omica de Espaiia. Madrid: Alianza. Scharpf, F.W. (1988). The Joint-Decision Trap: Lessons from German Federalism and European

Integration, Public Administration, Vol. 66, Autumn: 239-78. Scharpf, F.W., Reissert, B.. & Schnabel. F. (1976). Politikverflechtung: Theorie und Empirie

des kooperativen Foderalismus in der Bundesrepublik. Kronberg/Ts.: Scriptor Verlag. Schmidt, V. (1990). Democratizing France: the political and administrative history of decentraliz-

ation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schmitter, P.C. & Lanzalaco, L. (1988). L’organizzazione degli interessi imprenditoriali a livelo

regionale, Stat0 e Mercato 22. Sharpf, F.W., Reissert, B. & Schnabel, F. (1976). Politikverflechtung: Theorie und Empirie des

Kooperativen Foderalismus in der Bundesrepublic. Kronberg/Ts: Scriptor Verlag. Sole-Vilanova, J. (1989). Spain: developments in regional and local government, pp. 205-29,

in: R. Bennet (ed.), Territory and administration in Europe. London: Pinter Publishers.

FranGaise.

La Documentation FranGaise.

(eds.), Traite de science politique, Vol. 4. Pans: Presses Universitaires de France.

Droir constitutionnel 2: 195-21 1.

Revue FranCaise de Science Politique, 2 (avril): 275-97.

London, Pinter.

3 (septembre): 133-46.

Analysis of West European Unitary States. London: Sage.

planijcation rkgionale. Paris: Litec, collection GRAL.

41 1

Streeck, W. & Schmitter, P.C. (1991). From national corporatism to transnational pluralism: organized interests in the Single European Market, Politics and Society 19(2): 133-64.

Subra de Bieusses, P. (1990). Espagne: les autonomies dix ans aprks, Pouvoirs locaux 4: 116- 23.

Tamames, R . (1991). Estructura econornica de Espafia. Madrid: Alianza. Tarrow, S. (1977). Between Center and Periphery: Grassroots Politicians in Italy and France.

Tarrow, S. (1979). Decentramento incompiuto o centralismo ristoratc? L’esperienza regionalis-

Tarrow, S., Katzenstein, S. & Graziano, L., eds. (1978). Territorial Policies in industrial nations.

Tequeneau, P. (1991). Les territoires aprts la dkentralisation: le dessous des cartes, Hirodole

Thoenig, J.-C. (1985). Le grand horloger et les effets de systtme: de la dtcentralisation en

Thoenig, J.-C. (1992). La dtcentralisation, dix ans aprl.s, Pouvoirs, No. 60: 5-16. Trigilia, C. (1981). Le subculture politiche territoriale, Quaderni Feltrinelli 16. Trigilia, C. (1985). La regolazione localistica: economia e politica nelle aree di piccola impresa,

Trigilia, C. (1986). Grandi partiti e piccole imprese. Comunisti e democristiani nelle regioni a

Trigilia, C. (1988). Le condizioni ‘non economiche’ dello sviluppo: problemi di ricerca sul

Trigilia, C. (1989). II paradosso della regione: regolazione economica e rappresentanza degli

Uhrich, R. (1987). La France inverse? Les rkgions en mutation. Paris: Economica. Valles, J. & Cuchillo Foix, M. (1988). Decentralisation in Spain: a review, European Journal

of Political Research 16 (4): 395-407. Volker, K. & Zapf-Schramm, T. (1989). Ergebnisse der Haushaltsentscheidungsprozesse in den

kreisfreien Stadten der Bundesrepublik, pp. 161-89, in: D. Schimanke (ed.). Stadtdirekror oder Burgerrneister. Beitrage zu einer aktuellen Konrroverse. Basel, Boston, Stuttgart: Bir- khauser Verlag.

Wachter, S. (1989b). Ajustements et recentrage d’une politique publique: le cas de I’amtnage- ment du territoire, Sociologie du Travail 1: 51-74.

Wachter, S., ed. (1989a). Politiques publiques et territoires. Paris: L’Harmattan. Wehland, G. (1984). Stadtplanung Partizipation und kommunale offentlichkeit. Z u m politischen

Stellenwert von biirgerschaftlicher Mitwirkung im BauleitpIanverfahren. Berlin: Instituts fur Stadt- und Regionalplanung, Universitat Berlin.

London: Yale University Press.

tica in Italia e in Francia, Rivista italiana di scienza politica 9.

New York, Praeger.

62: 44-63.

France, Politiques et management public, 1 (mars): 135-58.

Stato e Mercato 14.

economia diffusa. Bologna: I1 Mulino.

Mezzogiorno d’oggi, Meridiana 2.

interessi, Meridiana 6.

Worms, J.-P. (1966). Le prtfet et ses notables, Sociologie du Travail 2: 249-276.

Address for correspondence: Richard Balme, Centre d’Etude et de Recherche sur la Vie Sociale, Institut d’Etudes Politiques, Domaine Universitaire, B.P. 101, F-33405 Talence, France Phone: (56) 84 42 81; Fax: (56) 37 45 37

Analysing territorial policies in Western Europe.: The case of France, Germany, Italy, and Spain

Documents

Transcript of Analysing territorial policies in Western Europe.: The case of France, Germany, Italy, and Spain