MODELS OF PUBLIC AUTHORITY DECENTRALIZATION

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32782/2523-4269-2024-86-8-11

Keywords:

public power, decentralization, high degree of decentralization of power, medium degree of decentralization of power, low degree of decentralization of public power

Abstract

The article examines the problem of decentralization of public power. The author singles out three main models: with a high, medium and low degree of decentralization. Each model is characterized, the main principles of the distribution of power by levels of government are analyzed. It was concluded that the model with a high degree of decentralization correlates with the federal form of the state system, organizationally assumes a high degree of decentralization, but in practice its results depend on many factors. The scope of powers granted to constituent units; the degree of their fiscal independence; level of central government control; the degree of intervention of the central government in the affairs of the territorial unit determines the real degree of decentralization of power. The second model assumes an average degree of decentralization of public power and repeats the characteristics of the first with the difference that a minimum of legislative power is transferred to the subnational level of power. The state has a single system of legislation, and the codes of laws are the main source of law. Sub-national levels of government have autonomy in administration or law enforcement, the central government retains full power, but partially delegates it to sub-national units. A model with a low degree of decentralization of power involves the least degree of decentralization, the central government retains full power, but partially delegates it to subnational units. Delegated powers can be legislative, administrative or a combination of them. It is relatively easy for the center to interfere in the affairs of structural units, so it is necessary to define mechanisms to limit unnecessary interference and ensure responsibility for it.

References

Litvack, J., & Seddon, J. (1999). Decentralization Briefing Notes: World Bank Institute Working Papers. Retrieved from: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/873631468739470623/pdf/multi-page.pdf [in English].

Freille, S., Haque, M.E., & Keller, R. (2007). Federalism, Decentralization and Corruption. Retrieved from: http://ssrn.com/abstract=951110 [in English].

Dinan, J. (2006). United States of America. In K. L. Roy, Ch. Saunders, & J. Kincaid (Eds.), Legislative, executive, and judicial governance in federal countries. McGill– Queen’s University Press. pp. 316–344. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780773560147 [in English].

Rajeev, Dh., & Rekha, S. (2006). Republic of India. In K. L. Roy, Ch. Saunders, & J. Kincaid (Eds.), Legislative, executive, and judicial governance in federal countries. McGill-Queen’s University Press. pp. 165–198. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780773560147-008.

Sunita, P., & Barry, W. (1997). A Comparative Theory of Federalism: India. Virginia Law Review, 83(7) [in English].

Oeter, S. (2006). Federal Republic of Germany. In K. L. Roy, Ch. Saunders, & J. Kincaid (Eds.), Legislative, executive, and judicial governance in federal countries. McGill-Queen’s University Press. pp. 135–165. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780773560147 [in English].

Murray, С. (2006). Republic of South Africa. In K. L. Roy, Ch. Saunders, & J. Kincaid (Eds.), Legislative, executive, and judicial governance in federal countries. McGill-Queen’s University Press. pp. 258–289. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780773560147 [in English].

Lyon, A. (2011). Municipal Decentralisation in the Republic of Macedonia: Preserving a MultiEthnic State? Federal Governance, 8(3) [in English].

Published

2024-05-21

How to Cite

Stohova, O. (2024). MODELS OF PUBLIC AUTHORITY DECENTRALIZATION. Law Journal of Donbass, (1), 8–11. https://doi.org/10.32782/2523-4269-2024-86-8-11

Issue

Section

THEORY AND HISTORY OF THE STATE AND LAW. CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW