The comparative study of local governance institutions is dominated by aconcern to comprehend the range of local government systems and as a result we
certainly know more now than Wfty years ago about how the position of
local government varies between states. Lidstrom ( 1999 , 98 ) refers to Samuel
Humes and Eileen Martin as the ‘‘post-war giants in theWeld’’ which might be
somewhat of an exaggeration but their book (Humes and Martin 1969 ), which
oVers a comparative study of local government in eighty-one countries, does
show an impressive range of knowledge of systems. Other work that has not
quite got the encyclopedic quality of Humes and Martin, but nevertheless has
added to the richness of our descriptive understanding of local government in
various parts of the world, includes the very impressive overviews provided
by Hesse ( 1991 ) and Norton ( 1994 ). Further insights can be gleaned from the
work of Bennett ( 1989 , 1993 ), Chandler ( 1993 ), and Batley and Stoker ( 1991 ), all
of which track practices in several countries and make a number of comparative
observations.
These overviews have commonly been criticized on two grounds (Lidstrom
1999 ). The descriptions contained within them can inevitably lack a certain
depth and any capacity to examine the underlying more informal practices
going on beneath the surface. Second, because they are mainly descriptive
studies, they often oVer little in the way of explanatory theory. When they do
attempt to explain why diVerences might exist they do so in a relatively unsystem-
atic way, with references to history or some dramatic event in the countries under
comparison.
Both these criticisms are accurate but they reXect in many respects the sheer
challenge of the study of comparative local governance. Even within one country it
is possible to spend a lot of time and eVort in describing internal diVerences in
institutional form and practice. Nation-state comparison is tough enough
but at least in terms of democracies there are only 121 of them (Diamond 2003 ).
Within any one country there might be several diVerent tiers or levels of local
government and the form of each might vary according to local choice or local
circumstances.
To illustrate the challenge just think of the case of France (Borraz and Le Gale`s
2005 ). There are 36 , 565 municipalities, almost 98 percent of which have popula-
tions of less than 10 , 000. The diVerences between local government in the big cities
and the surrounding rural areas in terms of access to technical capacity and style of
politics are considerable. And so too is the layered institutional complexity.
Because of the need to develop cooperation between many small municipalities,
there are a little over 20 , 000 ad hoc associations of municipalities. In addition there
are several meso level institutions with 100 departments and twenty-two regions
plus four overseas regions. The complexity is further compounded by a range of
other organizations that operate in a vast world of quasi-autonomous governance.
There are publicly owned associations of service providers. There are the mixed
comparative local governance 497