Advertisement

Administrative Supervision

  • Andreas Ladner
  • Nicolas Keuffer
  • Harald Baldersheim
  • Nikos Hlepas
  • Pawel Swianiewicz
  • Kristof Steyvers
  • Carmen Navarro
Chapter
Part of the Governance and Public Management book series (GPM)

Abstract

This chapter examines the supervision of local authorities’ actions by upper levels of government. The starting point is that all regional or national authorities exercise a certain type of administrative control over the activities of local governments. However, there is diversity among systems both in the scope (legality v. expediency) of supervision and in the tools (a priori v. a posteriori) that they use for this control. The empirical analysis concentrates on the first aspect and shows both that most European countries limit the supervision to controlling only the legality of local acts and that there have been barely changes over time in this dimension of local autonomy. A closer look to country specificities shows, though, how along these positive values and remarkable stability a subtle trend towards a growing supervision on financial management stands out as an emerging pattern in a non-negligible number of the cases analysed.

Keywords

Administrative supervision Control of legality Control of expediency Control of opportunity Administrative systems Local financial management 

References

  1. Council of Europe. (1985). European Charter of Local Self-Government (n°122). Retrieved from http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/122.htm. Consulted in 2018.
  2. Council of Europe. (1999). Supervision and Auditing of Local Authorities’ Action. Report by the Steering Committee on Local and Regional Democracy. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
  3. Greve, E. (2012). Denmark. In Á. M. Moreno (Ed.), Local Government in the Member States of the European Union: A Comparative Legal Perspective. Madrid: INAP.Google Scholar
  4. Hertzog, R. (2012). France. In Á. M. Moreno (Ed.), Local Government in the Member States of the European Union: A Comparative Legal Perspective. Madrid: INAP.Google Scholar
  5. Himsworth, C. (2012). United Kingdom. In Á. M. Moreno (Ed.), Local Government in the Member States of the European Union: A Comparative Legal Perspective. Madrid: INAP.Google Scholar
  6. Kuhlmann, S., & Wayenberg, E. (2016). Institutional Impact Assessment in Multi-level Systems: Conceptualizing Decentralization Effects from a Comparative Perspective. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(2), 233–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kuhlmann, S., & Wollmann, H. (2014). Introduction to Comparative Public Administration: Administrative Systems and Reforms in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  8. Ladner A., Keuffer N., & Baldersheim, H. (2016). Self-Rule Index for Local Authorities (Release 1.0). Final Report, Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  9. Loughlin, J., Hendriks, F., & Lidström, A. (Eds.). (2011). The Oxford Handbook of Local and Regional Democracy in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Moreno, Á. M. (2012). Local Government in the Member States of the European Union: A Comparative Legal Perspective. Madrid: INAP.Google Scholar
  11. Peters, B. G. (2011). Governance Responses to the Fiscal Crisis – Comparative Perspectives. Public Money & Management, 31(1), 75–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Scente, Z. (2012). Hungary. In Á. M. Moreno (Ed.), Local Government in the Member States of the European Union: A Comparative Legal Perspective. Madrid: INAP.Google Scholar
  13. Vandelli, L. (2012). Italy. In Á. M. Moreno (Ed.), Local Government in the Member States of the European Union: A Comparative Legal Perspective. Madrid: INAP.Google Scholar
  14. Velasco, F. (2009). Kingdom of Spain. In N. C. Steytler & J. Kincaid (Eds.), Local Government and Metropolitan Regions in Federal Systems (pp. 299–328). Montreal/Kingston: MacGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Ladner
    • 1
  • Nicolas Keuffer
    • 1
  • Harald Baldersheim
    • 2
  • Nikos Hlepas
    • 3
  • Pawel Swianiewicz
    • 4
  • Kristof Steyvers
    • 5
  • Carmen Navarro
    • 6
  1. 1.IDHEAPUniversity of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  3. 3.National and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece
  4. 4.Department of Local Development and Policy, Faculty of Geography and Regional StudiesUniversity of WarsawWarszawaPoland
  5. 5.Department of Political ScienceGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  6. 6.Department of Political ScienceUniversidad Autónoma de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations