2 Explaining Difference and
Identifying Reform Trends
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
Beyond classiWcation, the focus in the institutional analysis of comparative local
governance has been on trying to explain diVerences and identifying new trends.
The former approach tends to draw on the continuity and historical embeddedness
of institutional arrangements. The latter looks at the other side of coin and is
focused on how organizations are changing, and changing in similar directions. In
the previous section it emerged that we are in the foothills when it comes to
classiWcation. The conclusion in this section is that we are only just about walking
on the level when it comes to two of the central issues of comparative institutional
analysis: why institutions are set up as they are and how they are changing.
Page ( 1991 ) and Page and Goldsmith ( 1987 )oVer a systematic explanation of
diVerences in local government systems even if it is within the more contained
framework of European local government. Broadly, there is a distinction drawn
between the functions or responsibilities taken up by local government systems, the
extent of discretion that is provided to them in decision-making, andWnally their
access to central government. Some systems such as those of northern Europe score
high on theWrst set of criteria but low on the last one. Other systems—primarily
those of southern Europe—score low on theWrst two criteria but higher on the last
one. As to why the systems evolved in this way, the institutional starting point for
Page’s analysis is, as Lidstrom ( 1999 ) points out, a focus on path dependency and
institutional inertia. History entrenched a certain response in diVerent countries.
Northern European systems developed more formal and extensive welfare-based
local government, while southern European systems were more community fo-
cused, with limited responsibilities but a fruitful clientelistic relationship with
central authorities.
The problem is that it appears that systems are not so path dependent as the
analysis would imply. The French (Borraz and Le Gale`s 2005 )andItaliansystems
(Bobbio 2005 ) over the last two decades have undoubtedly gained considerably in
terms of formal responsibilities, technical capacity, and autonomy from central
government. Northern systems, such as that of Britain, have slipped back in terms
of responsibilities and formal autonomy although perhaps gained increased access to
central government, especially under New Labour since 1997 ,withoutpositive
beneWt. In short the broad framework provided by Page and Goldsmith is insightful
and helpful in providing a focus on key deWning factors in judging the state of
comparative local government systems. It is less advantageous because of its focus on
issues of path dependency and institutional continuity rather than the issue of
institutional change.
When it comes to the forces of institutional change, the work of Peter John
( 2001 ) has blazed a trail, although again the focus is speciWc to Western Europe.
comparative local governance 501