Difference Between Unitary Government And Federal Government With Table

This means that the sub-national units have a right of existence and powers that cannot be unilaterally changed by the central government. As there is an equal division of powers, chances of rifts and disagreements between the central and the state authorities are common. For this purpose, a judiciary with special powers is established, known as the special judiciary. Historically, various types and forms of government prevail all around the world.

In contrast to local governments, which are often general-purpose, it is not uncommon for intermediate tiers to be deconcentrated, possess dual executives, or have more limited autonomy, particularly in unitary countries. There are also single purpose or special purpose local jurisdictions in several countries (e.g. for education, health and sanitation boards and agencies, and public/private utilities. Public management reforms aim at re-organising subnational government administrative and executive processes, including human resources management, financial management, e-government, etc. In theory, democratisation is the basis for genuine decentralisation as decentralisation involves local elections based on pluralism and greater participation of citizens.

The significance of experimentation at the state and local level should be neither overlooked nor overstated. Most countries with large municipalities have a structured sub-municipal level that allows them to maintain a certain level of proximity and local democracy despite large municipal governments. These are for example characterised by civil “parish-type” municipal administrative subdivisions under public law and may have their own delegated budget and elected representatives . These may even have their own staff but do not have full local autonomy, as they are creatures of the municipality3.

This was, for example, the case in some countries during the recent financial crisis, when some social tasks were decentralised without real fiscal compensation, hence forcing local governments to play a “social buffer” role (“decentralisation of the crisis”). Most of the time, this type of approach results in an incomplete decentralisation process, with either the political or the fiscal dimensions missing. The economic approach to decentralisation emphasises the improvement of local public services. The idea is that local governments have better information regarding local spending needs and preferences, and hence may better satisfy certain needs of the population, at a lower cost, than the central administration . Sometimes the motivations are not positive, as a number of countries have decentralised expenditures to shift deficit downwards. Historically, highly decentralised states were often the result of compromises required in countries with a diverse population, in part to ensure political stability.

No matter how seasoned and capable a governor may be, travails like these are not the same as those likely to be faced by anyone who aspires to lead the country, never mind the international community. Other things equal, however, a stint as the chief executive of a large place may offer a somewhat better test. Yet, more or less indiscriminately, the process of political recruitment in the United States seems to regard states large and small as equally promising springboards. ” asked the late Martin Diamond in a famous essay written thirty years ago. Countries must make this important decision about which structure of government to employ before working on the details of how this organizational structure will carry out the basic functions of governing.