Decentralisation scrutinised: Research reveals downsides of small-scale governance
On 16 May, three researchers from Leiden University will present their findings on the democratic consequences of decentralisation at a workshop in Leiden. Their research project, Downsize My Democracy?, shows that decentralisation does not automatically lead to a stronger democracy. On the contrary, it can actually weaken democratic participation, competition and accountability.
Want to join the workshop on 16 May?
Sign up here.The project, funded by the Dutch Research Council (NWO), was carried out by professor by special appointment Wouter Veenendaal and PhD students Hannah Kuhn and Denny van der Vlist. The team studied four countries and eight municipalities – one small and one large municipality per country in each case – to analyse how scale and governance structure affect the functioning of democracy. On 16 May, they will organise a workshop to present the results, which will be the starting point of an international tour in which the researchers will also engage with local administrators and policymakers in Italy, Norway and Switzerland.
Scale and participation
Hannah Kuhn focused her sub-study on the influence of scale, or municipal size, on political participation. ‘In smaller municipalities, citizens are often personally acquainted with candidates,’ Kuhn explains. 'This social proximity is an important voting motivation. However, these close ties reduce substantive considerations in determining voting choices.'
While that personal contact promotes trust in politicians, Kuhn says it does not necessarily lead to substantive involvement in policy. 'Voting choice is often based on who you know, not on what someone wants. This puts the original idea of political representation on the backburner.'
What is striking is that turnout in elections in small municipalities is usually higher than in large ones, but lower than at the national level. ‘If decentralisation means that important policy issues shift to a tier of government where fewer people come to vote, that is a loss of democratic engagement,’ Kuhn concludes.
'Close ties to politicians reduce substantive considerations in determining voting choices.'
In addition, the small scale of municipalities also proved challenging for the fieldwork itself. For example, the researchers thought they had found an ideal municipality in Switzerland, only to learn from the mayor that the entire village had collectively decided not to cooperate. Fortunately, when they chose another municipality, they were received more warmly there. ‘Although the survey there had failed,’ Kuhn points out, ‘because the turnout of citizens was simply too low.’ It also proved difficult to interview people on the street. ‘So that closed-mindedness of small municipalities, which we also expected, came out very much there,’ Kuhn concludes. In the end, she chose to get in touch with people through associations, which proved successful. She spent a day with the cultural association and even an evening with the local shooting club.
Competition under pressure
Whereas Kuhn mainly looked at the behaviour of citizens, Denny van der Vlist focused instead on the behaviour of politicians. In his part, he examined how scale affects political competition. His conclusions are clear: ‘In small municipalities, competition is limited. Fewer parties participate, there are fewer substantive differences, and often decision-making is concentrated around a few dominant figures.'
It is precisely the lack of substantive differences that can be a disadvantage, according to Van der Vlist. 'If there is little to choose from, citizens cannot properly hold politicians accountable. Democracy requires alternatives, but in small communities these are often absent or barely visible.'
Moreover, in close-knit communities, citizens and politicians experience social pressure to conform. 'In a village where everyone knows each other, it is not easy to openly have a dissenting opinion. That makes it harder to organise opposition.'
'If there is little to choose from, citizens cannot properly hold politicians accountable.'
The researchers experienced a particular example of this in a small municipality in southern Italy. ‘In that village there was a two-party election,’ van der Vlist explains, ‘but it turned out that one of those two parties had been set up by the other party.’ That has to do with the fact that if a party is the only one competing there, a certain turnout has to be achieved. 'So the list leader had called up some friends, asking them to set up a party too, but not put in any other effort. We discovered that by chance through our research there.'
Administrative blurring
Wouter Veenendaal studied the effects of decentralisation on multi-level governance. His analysis makes clear that allocating tasks to subnational tiers of government does not automatically lead to more democratic control. ‘What you see instead is that powers fragment and decision-making often takes place in informal or unelected bodies,’ says Veenendaal.
In countries like the Netherlands and Italy, decentralisation has often led to the emergence of regional partnerships in which local councillors have little influence. ‘Instead of citizens getting closer to government, decision-making actually disappears from view,’ Veenendaal warns.
‘Without financial capacity and clear division of tasks, decentralisation becomes a paper reality that undermines rather than strengthens democracy.’
Comparisons with Norway and Switzerland show that decentralisation can only work well if municipalities have sufficient resources and autonomy. ‘Without financial capacity and clear division of tasks, decentralisation becomes a paper reality that undermines rather than strengthens democracy.’ With this, Veenendaal points precisely to the situation in the Netherlands and Italy, where decentralisation was accompanied by large-scale budget cuts.
Practical relevance
The researchers hope their work will not only feed scientific debate, but also reach policymakers. ‘Decentralisation is often seen as the way to give citizens more influence,’ says Veenendaal. 'It is a very dominant assumption in both science and society without being empirically researched. Our research now shows that it also has significant drawbacks.'
The workshop on 16 May will provide an opportunity to go deeper into these insights, together with administrators, officials and other stakeholders. The team will then travel on to the other countries studied, to engage in dialogue with practitioners there too.
"We need to ask ourselves what decentralisation means for the quality of democracy."
‘Decentralisation goes to the heart of how we organise our democracy,’ Veenendaal concludes. ‘This is precisely why it is essential that we scrutinise assumptions, and look at what actually happens in practice.’ Especially in these times, he stresses: ‘we are living in a time of democratic erosion, worldwide. So we need to ask ourselves what decentralisation means for the quality of democracy.'