0

Local government in foreign countries

COURSE WORK

SUSU - 08ХХХХ.6Х. 2014. XXX. VKR

Supervisor,

/ /

"_____" _______________ G.

group student

Standards inspector, Ph.D.,

/ /

"_____" _______________ 201

Chelyabinsk 2016

Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education "South Ural State University (National Research University)"

Higher School of Economics and Management

Department of "Economic Theory, Regional Economics, State and Municipal Administration""

Specialty 38.03.04 “State and municipal management”

EXERCISE

for course work of a student of the ZEU group - 320

Davletshina Diana Uralovna

1. The topic of the project is “Local self-government in foreign countries”
2. The deadline for the student to submit the completed work is “__” January 2017.
3. Initial data for the project

Articles, scientific works, monographs, such authors as Baglay M. V., Darkhambaeva A. D., Leushin M. E., Merkushova N. I.

1. List of questions to be developed

1 Theoretical foundations of local government

1.1 Concepts, types and powers of local government

1.2 Modern models of local government in foreign countries

1.3 Experience of foreign countries in organizing local self-government

1. Date of issue of the task: October 20, 2016

Head _____________________________________ M.V. Kozina

The task was accepted for execution by __________________ D.U. Davletshina

CALENDAR PLAN

Head of the department V.S. Antonyuk

Project Manager M.V. Kozina

Student D.W. Davletshina

Davletshina D.U. Local government in foreign countries. - Chelyabinsk: SUSU, ZEU - 320, 37 pp., bibliogr. list - 17 names.

The course work clarifies the essence, types and powers of local government; modern models of local self-government in foreign countries are described; foreign and domestic experience in organizing local self-government was reviewed; problems were identified and recommendations were developed to improve the organization of local self-government; methodological approaches to assessing the effectiveness of measures to improve local self-government are summarized.

INTRODUCTION 6

1 THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT. 7

1.1 Concepts, types and powers of local government. 7

1.2 Modern models of local government in foreign countries. eleven

1.3 Experience of foreign countries in organizing local self-government. 15

2.2 Methodological approaches to assessing the effectiveness of measures to improve local self-government. 27

CONCLUSION. 35

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL LIST. 36

INTRODUCTION

The relevance of this topic lies in the fact that in the Russian Federation one of the main problems in the sphere of relations between society and the government is currently the lack of trust of the authorities in its institutions. The population's trust in the work of government structures directly depends on the effectiveness of local self-government. Foreign countries have accumulated significant experience in the operation of various models of local self-government. These models differ in the order of formation of local self-government bodies, the subjects of local self-government, the nature and characteristics of the relationship between local government bodies and state authorities.

Knowledge and generalization of foreign experience in organizing local self-government will objectively help develop recommendations for increasing the efficiency of the organization and activities of local self-government in the Russian Federation.

The object of the course work is local government.

Research objectives:

1. clarify the essence, types and powers of local government;
2. describe modern models of local government in foreign countries;
3. consider foreign and domestic experience in organizing local self-government;
4. identify problems and develop recommendations for improving the organization of local self-government;
5. summarize methodological approaches to assessing the effectiveness of measures to improve local self-government.

1 THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT.

1.1 Concepts, types and powers of local government.

Local self-government is a system of organization and activity of citizens for independent (under their own responsibility) resolution of issues of local importance, management of municipal property, based on the interests of all residents of a given territory, its historical, national-ethnic and other characteristics based on the constitution and laws of a given state.

The system of legal regulation of local self-government is determined by the form of the territorial-political structure of the state, the degree of centralization and decentralization in the implementation of the law-making function. In federal states, three levels of legal regulation of local self-government have developed: federal; regional; municipal.

In unitary states, the legal regulation of local self-government is carried out respectively at two levels: state; municipal.

The forms of legal regulation of local self-government in foreign countries are constitutions, laws, by-laws of state executive bodies, judicial precedents, charters (statutes) of municipalities, administrative agreements, customs and traditions. The constitutions of modern states enshrine and guarantee local self-government as one of the foundations of a democratic system of governance. It most fully allows for the implementation of the constitutional provision that the only source of power is the people.

Local self-government can be carried out in a variety of organizational forms, but a prerequisite is the presence of a representative body (community council, zemstvo, landrat, etc.), or an elected official (burgomaster, mayor).

Types of local government organization:

• By number of levels of elected local bodies

• three-level, in federations - two-level, typical for medium and large states (Italy, Spain, Romania, Germany, France, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Czechoslovakia in 1945-1992, Poland, Hungary in 1945-1982. , Greece, Albania in 1947-1991, East Germany in 1949-1990, Yugoslavia in 1920-1932 and 1945-1963, Far Eastern Republic in 1920-1922, Ukraine, Belarus, Russia);
• two-level, in federations - one-level, typical for small states (Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Czechoslovakia in 1920-1945, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Belgium, Portugal, Austria, Switzerland, Croatia, Bulgaria in 1945-1990, Estonia in 1920-1933 and 1990-1993, Russia in 1997-2006);
• single-level (Bulgaria, Iceland, Finland, Serbia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania).
• By type of charter:
• with predominant powers of the council, in this case the head of the executive body is usually elected by the council, less often by the population, while the executive body itself may be collegial (Italy, Spain, Greece, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Poland, Czech Republic, Hesse in Germany, Serbia, the Netherlands, Belgium, Russia in 1864-1918 and 1936-1989, Yugoslavia in 1921-1963, East Germany in 1949-1990, Romania in 1945-1990, Hungary in 1949-1989 ., Far Eastern Republic in 1920-1922, Bulgaria in 1945-1990);
• with predominant powers of the head of the executive body, in this case the head of the executive body is elected by the population and in most cases is the sole leader (France, Romania, Denmark, Germany, Austria, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hungary, Finland, Bulgaria, Croatia, Great Britain , Ireland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Russia).
• By type of relationship with appointed representatives of the central government:
• there are no appointed representatives of the central government, and their functions are performed by elected local governments (Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Hungary, USA, Russia in 1937-1993, Czechoslovakia in 1945-1992, East Germany in 1949-1990, Romania in 1945-1990, Far Eastern Republic in 1920-1922, Bulgaria in 1945-1990);
• appointed representatives of the central government are combined with elected local governments (Italy, France, Romania, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ukraine, Belarus, Russia in 1864-1918);
• appointed representatives of the central government replace local governments at the levels of larger local units (Bulgaria, Iceland, Finland, Serbia, Russia in 1997-2006)

The main meaning of the formation and activities of local self-government is that local government bodies should solve the problems of improving the living standards of residents much better than state bodies and officials under centralized management.

Main features:

• election;
• independence in the management of local affairs (the presence of its own executive apparatus, a material base in the form of municipal property, the right to establish and collect local taxes, and issue regulations).

The powers of local government bodies are usually secured by special laws. In the most general form, they can be established in constitutions. In federal states, the powers of local authorities are most often regulated by acts of the constituent entities of the Federation. In Anglo-Saxon countries - by judicial precedents.

Procedure for granting powers:

• according to the principle of “positive regulation” of the activities of local authorities (USA, UK) - the scope of powers is established by a detailed listing of their rights and obligations.
• according to the principle of “negative regulation” (in countries of continental law) - local authorities have the right to carry out all actions not expressly prohibited by law.

Classification of powers of local government bodies:

• in the field of financial and economic relations:
  • adoption of the local budget,
  • local planning,
  • establishment of local taxes and fees,
  • regulation of activities in the field of municipal services.
• in the field of public services:
• transport development,
• traffic regulation,
• sanitation,
• sewerage,
• street cleaning, etc.
• in the social sphere:
• construction of low-cost housing for the poor, schools, hospitals,
• organization of trade, public catering,
• maintaining public order.

In the most general form, in the legislation of countries of the modern world, the powers of local representative bodies are usually divided into:

• Mandatory (those that are of national importance and must be complied with): water supply, transport, public safety, healthcare, maintenance and cleaning of streets.
• Optional (at your discretion, depending on specific financial authority. Typically related to the social and cultural sphere): maintenance of public parks, libraries, tree planting, construction of houses for the poor and disabled.

The general trend is a reduction in public utility affairs and an expansion of mandatory powers, i.e. integration of local bodies into the state mechanism, their adaptation to solving, first of all, problems of national importance.

1.2 Modern models of local government in foreign countries.

In the modern world, those systems of local self-government have become widespread, the classification of which is based on the development of relations between local government and central authorities. Thus, the following models of local self-government have become widespread:

• Anglo-Saxon model. It is considered to be classical, and it is typical for a number of modern states: the USA, Great Britain, India, Canada, Australia, etc. It is characterized by the election by residents of the corresponding administrative-territorial units of a council (board) and a number of officials (sheriff, attorney, treasurer, etc. ) to resolve local affairs and the absence of representatives of the central government in the localities who control the activities of local elected bodies. Mayors of cities under such a system are usually elected either directly by the population or by specified councils, numbering several dozen representatives in large cities.

The features of this model include a number of characteristic features, such as:

• a high degree of autonomy of various levels of government and a clear definition of the competence of bodies at each level;
• lack of local authorities (agents) of central government authorities;
• election of a number of local government officials;
• exercising control over the activities of local governments using indirect methods or through the courts.
• Continental model. It has become widespread in the countries of continental Europe (France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Poland, Bulgaria, Turkey, Mongolia), as well as in most countries of Latin America, the Middle East, and French-speaking Africa. At lower levels (communities, communes, etc.) only elected councils and elected mayors operate, and at higher levels of the administrative-territorial system - either elected local government bodies or a state administration official appointed from the center , or only the specified official. An appointed representative of the president, government or the Ministry of Internal Affairs exercises local government power and at the same time controls the legality of the adopted acts of the local government body.

This model of local self-government is characterized by the following features:

• high degree of centralization of power, subordination of lower authorities to higher authorities;
• the connection of state administration and local self-government (for example, manifested in the appointment by the government of the country of officials to local government bodies, supervision of their work and submission of reports);
• the powers of local government bodies are determined on the basis of the negative principle of legal regulation (the principle “everything is permitted that is not directly prohibited”);
• the presence of a special person exercising state control over the activities of local government bodies;
• in a number of artificially created territorial units that are not geographical objects, local government bodies may be completely absent.
• Iberian management model. It operates in Brazil, Portugal, Mexico and other Spanish-speaking countries in Latin America. This model is characterized by a peculiar interweaving of elements of state administration and local self-government, within which we can talk about a certain combination of both and the predominance of the role of the former. Under the conditions of this system of local self-government and management, the population of all administrative-territorial units elects the council and the main official of this administrative-territorial unit (alcade, mayor, prefect, regidor, etc.). Sometimes such an official is elected by the council. The elected one becomes the chairman of the council and at the same time is approved by government authorities as a representative of government power in a given administrative-territorial unit. The mayor of the community is also approved as such representative. He has the right to control the activities of the council. The approved chairman of the council concentrates significant powers in his hands, acting not only as the executive body of the council, but also as a representative of the state.
• Soviet model of local government. It is fundamentally different from others, primarily in that it, in essence, denies local self-government, and places the management of local affairs on local government bodies, although they can also be elected by the local population, like local government bodies. Both the assembly of people's representatives and local people's governments act not as a body of local self-government, but as organs of the state, although they are elected and the appointment of government officials from the center to the localities is not made. They are part of a hierarchical system of government bodies with strict subordination of lower bodies to higher ones. Unconditional recognition and implementation of the principle of the leading and guiding role of the Communist Party also leaves no opportunity for the development of a system of independent local self-government. This model is still in effect in some foreign countries (China, Cuba, North Korea).

The characteristic features of this model are:

• denial of the principle of separation of powers and proclamation of the sovereignty of representative authorities at the appropriate territorial level;
• executive bodies are bodies of double subordination - to a higher executive body and the corresponding Council;
• real power lies with the party organizations, and elections involve the election of one of several candidates proposed by the ruling party organization.

The existence of different models of local self-government does not contradict the essence of local self-government itself, as enshrined in the European Charter of Local Self-Government. Despite the variety of local issues and problems that are intended to be resolved locally, the main essence enshrined in the Charter is the isolation of local government and the decentralization of power. Thus, an important feature of local self-government, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter, is the right and ability of local territorial communities to independently control and manage a significant part of public affairs.

1.3 Experience of foreign countries in organizing local self-government.

The presence of effective local self-government is necessary for the normal functioning of any democratic state

Organization of local government in the USA.

It is widely recognized that the organization of local government is one of the basic elements of the entire infrastructure of American democracy. Historically, freedom, democracy, and self-government were the foundations of the country's political life.

In the USA, counties are administrative-territorial divisions of all states except Connecticut and Rhode Island, and serve mainly to govern non-urban areas. The vast majority of other local government units are located within counties. Counties are artificial entities that were created to solve two main problems: assisting states in performing such functions as administering justice and holding elections; providing services to rural residents, including the construction of rural roads and maintaining order.

Counties include municipal corporations (city, borough, village and town). The exception is 39 cities, which are separated from counties. Their municipalities perform the functions of municipal corporations and counties.

The next large link of local government units - townships and towns equivalent to them - exists in 20 states. In Maine, these units are called plantations; in New Hampshire, they are called locations. At this level, bodies of general competence are created, i.e., having the authority to carry out many functions.

A special category of local government units are school and special districts. There are 14,721 school districts and 29,532 special districts in the United States. They create bodies of special competence to perform certain functions. Based on this criterion, 19 types of main districts are distinguished. The most common: fire, water supply, soil conservation, housing construction, drainage, sanitary, including sewer.

Special districts are created to depoliticize a particular area of ​​activity, as well as to provide the population with those services that local governments do not provide. The boundaries of special districts often do not coincide with the boundaries of administrative-territorial units and can occupy a wide variety of areas: from a small territory to several counties. With the help of special districts, it is possible to partially overcome strict financial restrictions.

In the USA there is no subordination between all these management units. At the same time, we can talk about a certain dominance of counties in the implementation of certain municipal functions in accordance with the powers of the states. In addition, the administrative-territorial structure and the system of municipal bodies tied to it are increasingly losing touch with the demographic and economic structure of their territory, changing as a result of urbanization, economic and social changes.

The process of forming municipalities (incorporation) in most states is very simple:

1. A minimum population requirement must be met (from 70 to 300 people in different states);
2. A petition must be drawn up from residents asking for
   incorporation, containing an indication of the boundaries and population of the proposed municipality;
3. The petition is required to collect signatures of 20-25% of residents,
   having the right to vote;
4. It is necessary to hold a general vote of the settlement on the issue of incorporation.

A municipality is formed only if a majority of voters are in favor. If this proposal does not pass the vote, then the next attempt at incorporation is allowed only after a certain time.

In the USA, the functioning of local government is regulated exclusively by the states. Therefore, local governments are created in accordance with state laws and their powers come from the states. State governments, without coordination with the federal government or other state governments, determine the legal status, territorial boundaries, organizational forms and powers of local authorities. Thus, in the USA there are no principles of administrative-territorial division, organization and functioning of local bodies that are uniform for the entire country. Hence the extreme diversity of organizational forms of local self-government and their adequacy to local conditions.

Provisions regulating the activities of local government are contained in the constitutions of all subjects of the federation. The degree of regulation of various aspects of local government in individual states is by no means the same, as a result of which two main groups of such provisions are distinguished.

• Constitutions containing a small number of rules relating to local authorities (Alabama, Mississippi, etc.).
• Constitutions characterized by detailed regulation of governance. Along with fixing the basic principles of the activities of local bodies, the subject of constitutional regulation of states also includes rules regulating the internal organization of municipalities (for example, New Mexico).

The functions of local government can be divided into two large groups:

• in the field of social services and public utilities (organization of schooling, management of libraries, public parks, health care, social security);
• administrative and managerial functions (maintaining
  order, fire protection, administration of justice, collection of taxes, holding elections, civil registration, quality control of goods, construction and urban planning, management of the civil service).

Depending on the nature of the interaction between county councils and administrative staff, three main forms of county government are used:

1. The “mayor-council system,” which operates in more than half of all self-governing cities in the United States. In this case, we can talk about a “strong” mayor and a “weak” mayor. The amount of power of the mayor and his position in the system of municipal government are influenced by such factors as the procedure for his election (the mayor is either elected directly by residents or by the municipal council; another way of electing the mayor is also possible - the municipal councilor who received the largest number of votes in the elections in advice); term of office of the mayor (this can be either four years or two years); the mayor's right to veto council decisions, etc.
2. “Council-manager system” (or “city manager”). This form of city government is used in almost 40 percent of cases. The mayor and city council hire a professional managerial official (city manager) who directs the city administration and runs the city as a private enterprise. The municipal council and the mayor are the political bodies that determine the overall political line.
3. “Commission” is quite rare, in small towns. City government is carried out by a commission usually consisting of five members elected by popular vote. Members of the commission simultaneously perform the functions of the council and the heads of the main divisions of the municipal government apparatus.

All the variety of forms and methods of administrative control of states over local governments can be divided into two types:

• Straight. American theory and practice include requirements for preliminary approval by the state of the actions of local government bodies to this type of control; the appointment or removal by the state of local officials; publication of orders and decrees mandatory for local governments; maintaining various standards through staff inspections; temporary replacement of local administration with a full-time agent; transfer of local government functions to the state administration.
• Indirect administrative control includes the following: providing local authorities with advice and information; the requirement of administrative agencies, states and local governments to provide them with reports on a variety of issues; review of decisions of local authorities; providing local government with a targeted subsidy from the state on the condition of strict compliance with certain requirements and standards.

State judicial control over local government is carried out through the adoption by state courts or local courts (they are part of the state judicial system) of the following basic decisions: a court order to an official of a local government body to fulfill the demands of the plaintiff; injunction against a decision or other illegal action of local authorities and their officials.

Organization of local government in Germany.

The formation of the local government system in Germany was influenced by the long-term period of state fragmentation, as well as reforms that were carried out repeatedly and gradually.

The local government system includes representative and executive bodies. The minimum size of a community where a representative body can be elected is 200 people. The number of elected councilors can be from 8 to 80 people, depending on the scale of the territory and population. The right to vote is from the age of 18, and to be elected - most often from the age of 21.

A feature of the German system is the presence four models of executive bodies:

1. Wrong magistrate. This model operates in Hesse, in cities in Schleswig-Holstein, in some cities in Rhineland-Palatinate and in Bremenhaven (district of Bremen). It is used primarily in urban areas. The council, elected by universal suffrage, elects the chairman of the council from among its members. The chairman of the council presides over meetings and prepares the order of the day. At the same time, the council appoints, by voting, a collegial executive body - the Magistrate - from among professional managers. In Hesse, a member of the magistrate cannot be a member of the council; in other lands, on the contrary, the magistrate is elected from the council. The magistrate is appointed for a period of 6 to 12 years in different communities. The magistrate is a collegial body of executive power: he represents the community in relations with citizens, other authorities, in court, prepares and executes decisions of the council (including the budget), and manages the administration of the community. All decisions of the magistrate are made by voting. The council appoints (usually upon the recommendation of members of the magistrate) a burgomaster, who is headed by the magistrate. However, his role is relatively small: he presides over meetings of the magistrate, represents the magistrate in the council, and has the right to a decisive vote in the magistrate (if there is an equal number of votes). He is not a superior to the members of the magistrate. Finally, the council can distribute areas of activity among the members of the magistrate, entrusting each with an individual area of ​​​​work corresponding to the competencies of the community and the structure of administrative services; The burgomaster can also distribute areas of activity among the members of the magistrate, but has no right to interfere with the distribution made by the council.

Within this system, there is consistent control over the legality of decisions made: the magistrate can protest and refuse to carry out an illegal decision of the council; the burgomaster can appeal the unlawful decision of the magistrate, and the final authority in the dispute is the council.

1. North German Council. This model applies in the states of North Rhine-Westphalia and Lower Saxony. Its main features copy the English system of organizing local government.

The community council elects a burgomaster or chief burgomaster from among its members. The mayor presides over community meetings and performs representative functions. At the same time, the council appoints - for a period of 6 to 12 years - a professional manager to the position of community director (Gemeinedirektor) or city director (Stadtdirektor). In large cities, the council also appoints assistant directors, to whom they can assign certain areas of activity; they are hierarchical subordinates of the director. The community director personally manages the administration, prepares and implements council decisions.

There is also a strict system of control over the legality of decisions made: the council has the right to protest and cancel the director’s decision (except for the state powers delegated to him), the burgomaster has the right to both protest the director’s decision (by appealing to the council) and to protest the council’s decision (with a suspensive veto ). Finally, the community director can appeal the illegal decision of the council.

1. Burgomaster. This model of local government organization is common in the states of Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland and in rural communities of Schleswig-Holstein. The council elects from among its members a burgomaster (Ober-burgomaster), who is simultaneously the chairman of the council and the head of the executive branch of the community. At the same time, the council appoints a council from among professional managers and from its own members, which includes the burgomaster. The task of the council is to prepare decisions of the council, to lead - under the authority of the burgomaster - the community administration. The burgomaster and the council can appeal each other's decisions, and the burgomaster has the right of suspensive veto.
2. South German Council. Model adopted in Bavaria, Saxony, Baden-Württemberg and most of the states of the former GDR. The burgomaster is the head of the administration and chairman of the community council. In general, the characteristics of the burgomaster model are repeated here, but the burgomaster (chief burgomaster) is elected by the population through direct general elections.

As a rule, a two-round majority system is used, with a threshold for participation in the second round. The burgomaster also combines the functions of head of the executive branch and chairman of the council; he also represents the community. The council also forms - partly from its own members, partly from officials - a council or other collegial body with the participation of the burgomaster, subordinate to him in matters of executive activity and participating in the preparation of council decisions.

Taking into account the type of local administration and the nature of its relationship with the representative body, models of local self-government are formed:

1. The chief burgomaster council is an analogue of the “Strong Mayor-Council” model.
2. The council magistrate - burgomaster for 6 years, and the representative body - for 4 years. The magistrate's board employs advisers who carry out their activities on a voluntary basis.
3. The council - community director - management committee exercises control over the activities of the community director. It functions as a collegial body.
4. Meeting of community residents - burgomaster. The residents' meeting performs the functions of a representative body, and executive and administrative functions are assigned to the burgomaster, elected by the population.

Thus, an analysis of the theory and practice of local government in foreign countries reveals some opportunities for reception, taking into account national legal traditions. Most democracies retain autonomy for local governments. In exceptional cases, relative autonomy has been identified, in which the leading element of a local government body is an official performing executive functions in a given administrative-territorial territory.

Analysis of foreign experience also revealed trends in the continuous process of improving the institution of local self-government, expressed in legal reforms that consolidated democratic principles of governance. The emphasis of reform in foreign countries is not on the subordination and coordination of the functions of central and local authorities, but on coordination—the consistency of the functions of the components of the political system of the entire society.

In many subjects of the federation, local government becomes a formal government body that little expresses the interests of citizens living on its territory.

Here are some problems that stood in the way of the implementation of the Federal Law on local self-government:

1. Geographical differences between regions determine their differences in economic opportunities.
2. Differences in the practice of intergovernmental relations and transfer of powers.
3. The vertical of power from the head of the subject of the federation and down to the heads of districts, city districts and heads of settlements follows the superior-subordinate principle. The financial and functional dependence of local governments in the implementation of the powers delegated to them has led to the practical nationalization of local government. Essentially, local self-government administrations became territorial administrations of the subject of the federation.
4. There is a limited set of issues that local government can resolve without a higher vertical of power.
5. The tax autonomy of local governments is severely limited, and municipalities receive the bulk of their funds in the form of financial targeted assistance from higher budget organizations.
6. Municipalities have become responsible for issues that should be resolved at the federal state level, these are: education, medicine, fire protection, etc. At the same time, municipalities do not have the means to resolve these state issues and do not have the legal right to make decisions independently.

1. Combining the vector of interests of all levels of management. The current model of power in Russia separates the interests of various levels of government. This is due to the fact that taxes are divided into federal, regional and local. Moreover, the higher the level of management, the more reliable the sources of tax revenues. Settlements are assigned the least collected taxes with low collection potential. As a result, the principle of democratization of inter-budgetary relations is ignored, without which decentralization of management is impossible.
   The unification of tax interests of all levels of government will contribute to increasing the efficiency of interbudgetary relations. Such a combination of vectors of interests will lead to the fact that higher authorities will be interested in the success of lower ones and vice versa. As a result, this will strengthen the system of power in the country, without which the development of democracy in Russia is impossible.
2. Democratization of interbudgetary relations.
3. Improving the tax system. The tax system should be liberal, development-stimulating, simple, understandable, transparent and stable. The implementation of this measure will improve the transparency of the economy, the quality of business planning in enterprises, as well as the effectiveness of government economic development programs.
4. Improving the structure of local government bodies. The structure of local governments at the district level is complex, which hinders the effective functioning of their employees.
5. Concentration of local government functions within one ministry.
6. Creation of a vertical of local self-government.
   The experience of developed countries shows the feasibility of creating a vertical of local self-government in Russia, covering all levels of government.

Estimated results of measures to improve local self-government in Russia:

• Rational distribution of powers and responsibilities across levels of government
• Uniting the interests of management levels and strengthening the system of power in the country
• Increasing the activity and efficiency of government bodies
• Realizing the potential of local governments and the population
• Formation of civil society
• Active development of territories
• Increased economic transparency, decreased corruption
• Reducing social tension
• Growth of budgets at all levels of management
• Increasing the effectiveness of government economic development programs

2.2 Methodological approaches to assessing the effectiveness of measures to improve local self-government.

An urgent modern problem for municipal authorities is the assessment of its effectiveness. At the legislative level, activities to assess the effectiveness of municipal self-government bodies are regulated, first of all, by the following documents:

1. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of April 28, 2008. No. 607 “On assessing the effectiveness of local governments of urban districts and municipal districts.” It determines the need for heads of administrations annually, before May 1 of the year following the reporting year, to evaluate activities according to 32 indicators with the submission of reports to the highest executive body of state power of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation within the boundaries of which the city district or municipal area is located;
2. Order of the Government of the Russian Federation dated September 11, 2008 No. 1313-r, in order to implement the decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated April 28, 2008. No. 607 (contains a methodology for monitoring the effectiveness of local governments in urban districts and municipal districts) It complements the proposed list of indicators due to the following: the range of indicators characterizing, for example, the development of small and medium-sized businesses has been expanded; new groups of indicators have been identified, for example, in the field of energy efficiency and investment attractiveness of territories.

To assess effectiveness, according to the documents under review, quantitative indicators are used (for example, the number of municipal educational institutions, including in urban and rural areas) and relative indicators, which are given per capita or calculated as a percentage of the established volume or quantity (for example , the volume of investment in fixed capital per capita).

In addition to the legally approved methodology discussed above, there are also methods developed by the business community and public organizations, which can also be applicable to assessing the effectiveness of measures to improve local self-government:

1. Assessment of the competitiveness of the region (there are several versions of this assessment, which were developed by the World Economic Forum, the AK&M and Expert RA agencies) The assessment methodology is based on the analysis of a set of parameters that affect the productivity of the regional economy and the economic development of the region;
2. Assessment of the investment attractiveness of the region (“Expert RA”). An interconnected assessment of two main components of the investment climate: risk (conditions for the investor) and potential (opportunities for the investor provided by the territory);
3. Rating of subjects according to the Human Development Index (UN). The HDI methodology is based on the assertion that the main criterion for assessing the quality of life in a country and region, which directly depends on the effectiveness of public policy, is human development through expanded opportunities for choice due to increased life expectancy, education and income;
4. Rating of socio-economic development of municipalities (“RIA Rating”). The degree of satisfaction of district residents with the quality of municipal services (housing and communal services, medical, educational and consumer), assessed based on the results of regularly conducted sociological surveys of the population.

There are also studies in which the authors try to justify the need to consider efficiency from the point of view of enlarged components. For example, it is proposed to consider efficiency from the perspective of three measurable components:

1. Technical. It is determined by the degree to which the set goals of the activity are achieved, taking into account public interests. It reflects the compliance of public administration with the requirements of the external environment, taking into account the impact it has on the state of society, and is associated with quantitative and qualitative indicators, the important characteristics of which are their efficiency and regularity.
2. Economic. It is defined as the ratio of the cost of volumes of services provided to the cost of volumes of resources attracted for this purpose. It reflects the internal state of affairs in the public administration system, its own activities.
3. Social efficiency.

When assessing the effectiveness of the activities of municipal self-government bodies, it is important to take into account external “indirect” results, such as improving the quality of life of citizens, mortality rates, birth rates, real incomes of the population, the normal development of management objects (commercial and non-profit organizations), the moral and ideological influence of management activities on “external” environment, to the control object. It is advisable to evaluate “indirect” results according to the criteria of technical efficiency. Technical efficiency is associated with the end result - progress towards the desired goals - and is determined by the degree to which the goals of the civil servant’s activities are achieved in relation to the resources spent on achieving them.

Thus, when assessing economic efficiency, “internal factors”, the civil servant’s own activities, are taken into account, while when assessing technical efficiency, the compliance of this activity with the requirements of the external environment is analyzed, taking into account the impact that the activity of the civil servant has on the management object. The broad understanding of technical efficiency practically coincides with the third type of efficiency, often identified in the scientific literature - social efficiency.

Evaluating the effectiveness of improving local self-government based on the following methods:

1. Assessment of the degree of achievement of the main goals of municipal government. The efficiency of the municipal management system using this method is calculated using the formula:

E c = K uv x K uz x K unpch

E c is the generalized coefficient for achieving the goals of the municipal government system.

K uv is the coefficient of survival level of the population of the corresponding municipality. Characterizes the conditions of survival that have developed as a result of the activities of municipal authorities operating on the territory of the municipality.

K is the coefficient of living standards of the population in the corresponding territory.

K UPCH is the coefficient of the level of human rights violations in the corresponding municipality for a certain period.

1. Method of correlation between need, effective and cost efficiency. The ratio of achieved results to the set goal (target efficiency) and the ratio of resources to these results (cost and resource efficiency) exhaust the effectiveness of management. However, it is not enough to distinguish between effective (expedient) and economic (costly) efficiency. It is also necessary to analyze the validity of the goals of activity themselves, that is, the effectiveness of municipal activities in terms of compliance of its goals with normative ideals and value norms accepted by the local community at a certain stage of its development; this effectiveness is called need-based.
2. A method for assessing the effectiveness of a municipal management system based on assessing the effectiveness of management in each subsystem included in it. The problem comes down to solving particular problems of assessing the effectiveness of the management system in individual areas of municipal activity and deriving an aggregate assessment based on the rating values ​​of the importance of individual areas. Rating values ​​in each case can be determined by experts, based on the severity of individual problems in a particular municipality and in a certain period of time.

There are also indicative and criterion approaches to assessing the effectiveness of the regional management system, based mainly on the assessment of the managed subsystem of the management system. The most used currently is the indicative approach to assessing the effectiveness of the regional management system, which is based on comparing real indicators of the level of development of the region with target indicators initially set at the time of planning in accordance with the main goal of the territory's development.

Another approach currently used to assess the effectiveness of the regional management system is the criterion approach. The following groups of criteria are recommended as the main indicators for assessing the effectiveness of the mechanism of state management of the regional economy: indicators of the final effect, indicators of intermediate results, indicators of work processes, indicators of expended resources, the level of effective use of the resource potential of the region when a certain state of socio-economic development of the region is achieved.

Indicative and criterion-based approaches to assessing the effectiveness of a regional management system are based on assessing the indirect impact of the management subsystem on the managed subsystem, and do not take into account the effectiveness of the management subsystem itself.

They also determine that in studies of the effectiveness of public administration, state bureaucracy and state institutions, several theoretical and methodological approaches can be distinguished that link efficiency with certain factors, namely:

1. Leadership approach. Representatives of this direction link the effectiveness of an organization with leadership skills, management style, individual characteristics and qualities of government leaders, selection systems, assessment of task performance, motivation and professional development of civil servants.
2. An approach developing the theory of Weber's rational bureaucracy. From the perspective of this approach, attention is focused on the hierarchical structure, functional specialization, and the presence of clear principles for regulating the professional activities of civil servants, which are considered as necessary prerequisites for the effective functioning of government structures.
3. The approach to performance efficiency associated with the theory of life cycles consists of considering the effectiveness of public administration in conjunction with assessing the influence of constantly and cyclically forming coalitions or pressure groups in government bodies. The nature of decision-making in bureaucratic structures and their effectiveness are considered in the context of the life cycles of organizational development.
4. Within the framework of the concept of professionalism, effective activity is directly dependent on the professionalization of public authorities, the presence of career (professional) officials, and the level of their professionalism and competence.
5. An economic approach that connects increasing the efficiency of government bodies with the presence of a competition mechanism among departments, a system for introducing innovation, as well as political and social accountability of government bodies, primarily to taxpayers.
6. An ecological approach, which emphasizes that the results of the bureaucracy depend on the nature of the external environment (the ecology of the organization) and the ability of public authorities to manage change and innovation in order to adapt to these changes.
7. An approach based on the concept of quality management. Within the framework of this approach, the main focus is on creating a system of continuous improvement of processes and public services in government bodies; involving civil servants in this activity, making maximum use of their creative potential and organizing their group work. Quality management is based on the relationship between the potential of public authorities and performance results with constant correlation with strategic goals and the involvement of employees in quality processes, their training, increasing their competence and motivation.

Thus, on the one hand, the need to assess the effectiveness of municipal government is beyond doubt; on the other hand, the currently existing theoretical, methodological and practical developments in this area are very diverse, which reflects the complexity of the phenomenon under study in management. In general, all of these approaches are characterized by the definition of a certain system of indicators and indicators and rules for their aggregation.

CONCLUSION

During the work, local self-government in foreign countries was examined. It was shown that local administrations are a complex mechanism that, being to a certain extent autonomous (which is expressed in the election of local representative bodies, the presence of their own executive apparatus, the institution of municipal property, etc.), ultimately functions under the control of central authorities and, to a large extent, integrated into the state mechanism, performing many functions of national importance, the number of which increases with the expansion of the social functions of the modern state.

Centralization of power, although it has its negative features, nevertheless ensures unified management, free from local political disputes and preventing abuse of power. In addition, sometimes the centralization of power allows for better coordination of the activities of local services.

The legal basis for the organization of self-government in foreign countries is the relevant provisions of constitutions, national laws on local government and self-government, and in federal states - also the laws of states, lands, and other subjects of the federation. An important legal basis for self-government for all European countries is the European Charter of Local Self-Government.

In relation to Russia, the experience of solving problems of local government organization should be borrowed with a certain degree of convention and correspond to reality and everyday practice.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL LIST available in full version of the work

Download: You do not have access to download files from our server.

FOREIGN EXPERIENCE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

In capitalist states, it is customary to distinguish between the Anglo-Saxon type of local government (USA, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) and the French type (France, Italy, Belgium, Holland, Spain, Portugal, a number of Latin American countries). In Italy and Japan, local government has features of both the Anglo-Saxon and French types.

Anglo-Saxon the type of local government is characterized by deeper autonomy of local bodies and the absence of a pronounced subordination between them and the center, and French type - primarily a developed system of administrative control of the central government over local authorities.

Local government bodies (municipalities) of a modern capitalist state belong to the traditional institutions of bourgeois democracy, are, along with parliament, representative bodies of the state and are closest to the population.

At the same time, it is believed that the presence of central administration bodies and local self-government bodies at the same level creates the most favorable conditions for the subordination of local bodies to the center.

When analyzing the forms of organization of local government, the following points are of particular interest:

• historical continuity in the formation of the structure of local government bodies in a separate state;
• distribution of management functions between central and local authorities;
• ensuring real financial independence of local governments;
• differences in local governance between urban and rural areas.

The evolution of the formation of local government in the leading European capitalist states (Germany, Great Britain, France) dates back to medieval ideas of managing separate territories. In this regard, the system of local governments in these states, along with modern features, contains a significant number of archaic elements, which is especially typical for Great Britain and Germany. Local government in the United States is also characterized by historical continuity of individual organizational forms of local government.

In general, the structural organization of local government in the listed countries is very diverse and does not lend itself to clear classification. It can be noted that municipalities have the right to exist in rather small settlements and, in principle, any municipal council has the opportunity to somehow participate in the management of its territory.

Local government in the first stages of its development is usually built on two levels:

• 1) at the top level - county, department, district, city-district;
• 2) at the lower level - parish, commune, community.

However, gradually such an administrative-territorial division ceases to meet the needs of economic development and the policy of developing new territories. In this regard, there is a need to establish governing bodies at the regional level. Economic development regions have been created in the USA, France, and Great Britain over the past 30-40 years.

Regional management must ensure the uniform organization of regional peripheral services and balanced economic development of the regions, and implement plans for the development of new territories.

It is generally accepted that a truly democratic system of local government organization is one that not only declares, but also provides real opportunities for operational influence on local government affairs on the part of representative bodies of lower-level government, i.e. community, municipal and other councils.

Certain democratic principles are present in the organization of local government in all developed countries:

• formation of representative bodies of self-government units on the basis of general elections;
• the right of representative bodies to participate in solving many issues of local life;
• availability of local authorities' own financial resources.

All developed countries have a long history of various forms of relationships between central and local authorities and the implementation of local self-government functions.

At the same time, in the process of evolution of the distribution of management functions between the “center” and “locals”, the tasks of achieving the autonomy of local self-government have always come to the fore. This process was justified by two arguments:

• firstly, only self-government is capable of identifying the potential of each individual and ensuring the effectiveness of its activities;
• secondly, self-government is the only direct guarantee that social needs become the immediate goal of society.

In states with centuries-old traditions of local self-government, local units of government look like “republics in miniature”, they are enclaves of democracy, opposing the bureaucratic authorities of the center.

Of course, traditional historical forms of local government organization cannot contradict the latest needs and tasks of the economic development of the country as a whole. Therefore, all developed countries are constantly working to improve local government systems.

Every government that comes to power pays close attention to how adapted local government is to the changed conditions of economic development of the state and society.

Industrially developed countries are characterized by the existence of permanent commissions on local government affairs in parliaments and other representative bodies, which indicates a constant readiness to further improve the organization of local government, guaranteeing against erroneous decisions in this area of ​​government.

The most typical areas for modernization of local government in developed countries in order to increase its efficiency and effectiveness:

• introduction of managerial forms and methods of management into municipal practice;
• the creation of regional government bodies as a pillar of the central government for coordinating the economic activities of municipal bodies;
• withdrawal from the jurisdiction of low-power municipalities of a number of economic and social services and their transfer to higher municipal bodies or local bodies of the relevant ministries;
• active search for the most reasonable combination of centralized and decentralized forms of management.

A number of reforms aimed at strengthening central power and transferring the functions of managing certain industries from local to state bodies are sometimes perceived as an attack on the institutions of bourgeois municipal democracy. However, this kind of infringement of bourgeois democracy is interpreted as an inevitable price to pay for increasing the efficiency of municipal government, strengthening its competence and efficiency.

As for the distribution of management functions between central and local authorities, it is closely related to the real financial capabilities of municipalities at various levels.

The following functions have been transferred to the jurisdiction of local governments: provision of pre-school care for children and primary education, sanitary supervision, police functions, fire protection, provision of housing, water, gas, traffic services and road maintenance, creation of socio-cultural and sports facilities. etc. Moreover, as a rule, the functions of local government are divided into mandatory and voluntary, and the jurisdiction of municipal authorities primarily includes issues that are not of direct economic interest to the private capitalist sector. In the legislation of France and Germany, municipalities are prohibited from organizing public services that could compete with private business.

The limitation of the functions of municipal bodies is the result of increased legislative regulation by the central authorities; planned instructions of higher management bodies; inviolability of private property; weaknesses in the financial base of municipalities.

The implementation of the functions assigned to them by local governments mainly depends on the availability of the necessary financial resources.

As a rule, local authorities do not have enough of their own funds to cover their expenses, and they receive subsidies from central authorities, resort to loans and borrowings, and also try to increase local tax rates or introduce additional taxes.

In general, familiarization with modern forms of organization of local government in the leading countries of the world allows us to identify the main characteristics of local government, as well as the difficulties that local authorities encounter in their activities, and possible ways to resolve them.

A complete understanding of the current state and development of state and local government in developed countries is impossible without mentioning the foundations of the bourgeois constitutional system.

Western researchers understand modern constitutionalism as a way of distributing state power, organizing its branches and elements, and their mutual balancing, as required by the principle of separation of powers.

Constitutional principles can be classified as follows:

• sovereignty of the people;
• legality or rule of law (rule of law);
• separation of powers;
• consensus;
• legitimacy;
• pluralism.

In all federal states, the principles of federalism and the supremacy of federal law are added to these principles.

Sovereignty of the people - this is the sovereignty of the people, i.e. the people's possession of socio-economic and political means that comprehensively and consistently ensure their real participation in managing the affairs of society and the state.

The principle of the rule of law - This is the principle of the “dominance” of law over the state. This means that a bourgeois state is, first of all, the rule of law, therefore state bodies and state officials are only interpreters and executors of the law. Likewise, the highest representative body, which theoretically has unlimited legislative powers, is an institution for giving legal form to law that exists independently of state power.

The principle of separation of powers presupposes the organizational independence of the three branches of government - legislative, executive, judicial - and the delimitation of relevant functions between them. This principle is implemented through the so-called system of “checks and balances”, based on the ideas of mutual control and balancing of authorities in their interaction.

Under the principle of consensus In bourgeois constitutionalism, the consent of the population with a given form of government, with a given constitutional system is understood. Bourgeois state science divides modern states into consensual, partially consensual and non-consensual. At the same time, the assessment of the degree of consensuality of the state is based on how long the society develops without revolutionary upheavals that destroy the consensus, and without the people accepting the current constitution.

Legitimacy- characteristics of the current forms of government in the state. Legitimate is the system that currently in a given country corresponds to the prevailing ideas among the population about the most suitable form of government. In general, by the principle of legitimacy, the bourgeois government understands the acceptance of a given state power by its subordinate subjects and the recognition that this power corresponds to the general ideas of the majority of citizens about a fair political system. The principle of legitimacy means that in a given constitutional and political system, state power should be exercised primarily without the use of violence. On the contrary, the lack of a “sense of legitimacy” leads to an increase in social contradictions and conflicts.

From the above, it is obvious that there is a connection between the principle of legitimacy and the concept of “consensus” (the agreement of the population with a given form of government, constitutional system). If consensus prevails in society, then the existing form of government is legitimate.

Pluralism - a characteristic of the political system of a society in which all social groups have organizational (institutional) opportunities to express their interests through their representatives. The content of the principle of pluralism in bourgeois constitutionalism comes down to the following thesis: in a capitalist society, the number of interest groups operating in the political and economic spheres is constantly growing. This corresponds to an increase in the number of government bodies and influential centers, which means that political and state power is increasingly dispersed - it becomes pluralistic. Numerous "interest groups", including political parties and government agencies, compete and balance each other in the process of making political and economic decisions on the basis of a democratic order, the observance of which, conditioned by consensus, is an important condition for pluralism.

Associated with the concepts of consensus and legitimacy is the theory of “constitutional-political alienation” developed by Western political scientists, according to which, with a low degree of consensus in society, individual citizens and entire social groups become alienated, beginning to look for other ways of political and social self-expression than participation in existing political and state institutes.

Local self-government bodies of a modern state are among the traditional institutions of bourgeois democracy, since, along with parliament, they act as representative bodies of the bourgeois state. These bodies generally have such features of representative bodies as election and collegial composition, a certain legal status that allows them to carry out the function of representing the population within administrative-territorial units.

Based on the characteristics of autonomy and the degree of recognition of “local freedoms,” local government can be classified into five main types:

• federalism;
• self management;
• decentralization;
• centralization;
• deconcentration.

Federalism - this is the highest form of autonomy of a part within the state whole; It is precisely with federalism that the existence of original management regimes in local collectives is associated. The states that are part of the federation have three main characteristics:

• 1) independence of state bodies (usually ensured through elections);
• 2) the presence of autonomous competence in the constitutional and legislative fields (with the exception of issues within the competence of the federation), as well as in the field of administration;
• 3) status of a legal entity, including its own financial resources and autonomous budget.

Self management - a form of autonomy similar to federalism, since all local authorities are formed on the basis of elections and the rights of a legal entity are recognized for local groups, but with self-government, unlike federalism, the autonomy of local entities is not constitutional, not legislative, but only administrative in nature. However, their administrative autonomy is absolute, i.e. local teams have a full range of management functions. This means that government services operate within the framework of primarily political tasks (defense, foreign relations, national finance), and all administrative functions (education, health care, maintaining order, road maintenance, etc.) are transferred to local authorities. In addition, the government does not have the right to control local authorities, since the latter do not act as part of the state, but as completely autonomous entities, in some cases acting on equal terms with the state. The only form of control in this case is the activities of the legislative and judicial authorities.

Decentralization as a type of management has a completely different concept than the two previous types, since local collectives in this case have a dual character: they remain free self-governing collectives and at the same time act as geographically separate divisions of the state, i.e. their authorities ensure the interests of the local population itself and at the same time are representatives of the state in the district.

Compared to previous systems of management organization, decentralization has the following distinctive features:

• local authorities, as in self-government, remain elected, but the election may be incomplete, i.e. Along with elected bodies, there may also be appointed bodies;
• administrative autonomy of decentralized authorities exists, but it is limited by law, i.e. government bodies perform some management functions in full, while other functions are divided between the state and local government groups. In addition, local authorities are subject to a guardianship regime, which includes control over the legality of both the appointment of officials and their activities;
• local collectives have the status of a legal entity and are given budgetary autonomy, although guardianship is exercised here too.

Deconcentration - a weakened form of centralization, implying the presence of local bodies that are functionally dependent on the government and in the order of subordination of their officials. In deconcentration, dependence of officials means that the leadership of local authorities is appointed by the central government and can be removed by it. All reforms in the field of organizing local government carried out in recent decades in leading capitalist countries are carried out under the slogan of strengthening and developing bourgeois democracy.

Proponents of the concept of a social-legal state have developed approximate criteria on the basis of which the level of democracy should be assessed:

• whether the majoritarian system is reduced to a formal majority, without taking into account the rights of individuals and minorities;
• whether the principle of equality is applied comprehensively, not only as equal opportunities for everyone, but also as ensuring real conditions for their implementation, taking into account social status, education, health;
• are all civil rights guaranteed not only to the majority, but also to individual citizens and minorities, including those in opposition to the existing establishment;
• whether there are equal rights for minorities related by a common language, ethnic character, religion, culture, philosophy and political views;
• what is the situation of the least advantaged sections or groups of society, for example young people;
• what are the possibilities for direct participation of a citizen in making decisions affecting him;
• how freedom of speech, information and opinion is actually ensured;
• how freedom of association and the possibility of pursuing public and personal interests are ensured;
• whether constitutionality and legality ensure the rights of citizens; whether there really is a power of law, and not of people;
• whether there is a democratic environment in this society, based on the trust of the people in state power and state power in the people;
• Is the private life of a citizen fully guaranteed;
• is the political and state system always ready for confrontation with reality and for open correction of mistakes made;
• whether the given political system is capable of adequately satisfying the interests and needs of the people;
• whether the system is sufficiently responsive and capable of responding to the requests, needs, initiatives and demands of the people;
• whether employment, economic stability, and a minimum standard of living corresponding to the level of development of civilization are ensured.

Summarizing the above, it should be said that the further development of democracy should guarantee members of a democratic society a fair share of the achievements of civilization in all aspects of life.

Test questions and assignments

• 1. What is the state and civil society?
• 2. What are the characteristics of a state?
• 3. What are the characteristics of civil society?
• 4. What is the principle of separation of powers?
• 5. What is the principle of mutual responsibility of the state and the individual?
• 6. What is the political system of civil society?
• 7. Name and disclose the functions of the state in management.
• 8. List the functions of government administration.
• 9. List the functions of local government.
• 10. Reveal the essence of public administration and local self-government.
• 11. What are the methods of managing and regulating youth policy?
• 12. What are the organizational and legal forms of local government?
• 13. Evaluate foreign experience in youth policy management.
• 14. Compare domestic and foreign practices in managing and regulating youth policy.
• 15. Name the constitutional principles of state youth policy.

Models and trends of development

In modern foreign countries, local self-government represents a system of decentralized organization of local government, which has developed as a result of long-term, mainly evolutionary, development. The formation of centralized states led to the division of public power into state and municipal. Based on the interaction of various levels of public authority, the achievement of effective management of public affairs is ensured.

Considering the development of single-order groups of social relations in various countries, comparing them with the current state in the Russian Federation, we get the opportunity, along with familiarization with the unique features of various models of local self-government, to identify a number of general patterns that have universal, universal humanitarian significance.

First of all, the international historical experience of implementing the idea of ​​democracy testifies to the constant search for a balance between two dialectical opposites - self-government (local, regional) and statehood. The fight against centralism and the state bureaucracy it generates is a thing of the past. Opponents of centralized, regulated power are people of different convictions and orientations who are united in one thing: they have a negative attitude towards the phenomena generated by centralism - supposedly the only rational power is the power of the “elected” at the national level, and the actual management functions involve mechanical implementation - and advocate creating conditions to ensure an active life position for citizens.

It is very significant that researchers of the American experience of government do not idealize it, but, on the contrary, assess the current state of American democracy as a crisis. The reason for the crisis is precisely that, unlike in the old days, people have begun to rely too much on the central government and federal laws, on the fact that someone “at the top”, wiser than themselves, will solve their own problems for them . This poses a serious threat to democracy and freedom, regardless of whether the state is ruled by autocrats or rulers elected by the people *(70).

Despite serious differences in the starting points representing the formation and development of local self-government in different countries, the systems of organizing local self-government themselves have much in common that unites them and indicates general patterns of development. They are as follows:

1) comprehensive development of decentralist tendencies, the desire to limit administrative centralization (period of revolutionary transformations);

2) transition to strict administrative centralization, the creation of a clear, strictly organized administrative hierarchy of executive bodies;

3) establishing a certain balance between centralist and decentralist tendencies in the development of local authorities;

4) constant attempts to reorganize and modernize local government, associated with increased bureaucratic centralization;

5) transition from decentralization (understood as the expansion of the functions and competence of local government bodies and, accordingly, the limitation of the powers of central government bodies) to deconcentration (understood as the transfer of decision-making powers to lower levels of management in centralized systems of government bodies).

Acting as a relatively isolated part of the constitutional mechanism of state power in modern Western democracies, local self-government has the following features:

firstly, it is based on representative principles;

secondly, it does not depend on government bodies in matters of a local nature;

thirdly, it is limited by the requirements of the law;

fourthly, it has independent property and its own sources of income;

fifthly, the formation of local government bodies occurs without state guardianship.

Modern government scholars are unanimous that the origins of local self-government go back to the municipal reforms of the 19th century; At the same time, they note the continuity of medieval ideas of partnerships, associations, free cities, etc. The emergence of local representative bodies is associated with the processes of transition from feudal formation to capitalism. At the initial stage of its development, local government was characterized by strong autonomy in relations with the central government. For our days, “the functional convergence of the activities of municipalities and the central executive apparatus, as well as the development of elements of administrative subordination between them, indicate the transformation of municipal bodies into a subsystem of the public administration mechanism headed by the government” * (71).

Depending on the position of local government in interaction with government bodies, the following models of local government are usually distinguished: Anglo-Saxon, continental (French), mixed (German).

The Anglo-Saxon model of local government (Great Britain, USA, Canada, Australia, etc.) is considered a classic municipal form. This type of local government organization is characterized by:

high degree of its autonomy;

lack of direct subordination between municipal bodies of different levels;

absence of local authorized representatives of the central government who look after local authorities;

election by the population not only of representative bodies, but also of individual municipal officials;

a combination of administrative and judicial control over the legality of actions of municipal bodies * (72).

The continental (French) model (continental Europe, French-speaking Africa, Latin America, the Middle East) is characterized by the following features:

a combination of direct public administration (public administration) at the local level and local self-government;

a strict system of local administrative control;

bureaucratic subordination between bodies at various levels of government;

wide possibilities of administrative influence of the central government: preliminary control over decisions of local government bodies, the possibility of canceling decisions made, their temporary suspension and revision, replacement of local government bodies, their recall, resignation, dissolution, etc. * (73)

Local government reform carried out in the early 80s. last century in France, significantly increased decentralization, eliminated the institution of prefects, and reduced the possibilities of administrative influence of higher levels of management on lower ones.

The mixed (German) model (Austria, Germany, Japan) combines some features of the Anglo-Saxon and continental (French) models, and also has its own characteristics. For example, in Germany, a clear interaction between local government and self-government is ensured by a system of relations between the heads of government districts (Regierungsprasident) and the heads of administration of the basic level of local government at the district level - landrat or district directors, who are both state officials and heads of executive bodies of municipal self-government (this also applies to cities in the rank of districts). Thus, districts and cities at the rank of districts, forming the basis of communal self-government, simultaneously serve as a link in the state management system.

At the same time, there is a subordination of higher and lower municipal bodies. In a number of government districts, limited rights of local self-government are allowed * (74).

Under the influence of integration processes that predetermine many aspects of the development of modern states, the differences between these models cease to be fundamental. Municipal reforms carried out in the last quarter of the 20th century indicate a significant convergence between these models. This is confirmed by the adoption of the European Charter of Local Self-Government, signed in Strasbourg on October 15, 1985.

Despite the serious organizational and legal differences between local governments and some archaic nature of the territorial organization, we can talk about general modern trends in their position and development. This is most fully expressed in competence, role characteristics of participation in the implementation of state functions, and financial situation.

In foreign unitary states, issues of regulation of local self-government are under the jurisdiction of the central government, in federal states - under the jurisdiction of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

As noted by G.V. Barabashev, the general principle of the derivative of municipal powers from the power of parliament in Great Britain (“...municipalities are not autonomous entities. They exercise the power entrusted to them by parliament”) in the USA resulted in the formula “municipalities are creatures and agents of the corresponding states.” The constitutions of the vast majority of states enshrine the right of the legislature to create and abolish municipalities, provide for their jurisdiction and specific powers, supplement and change them at any time * (75).

Describing the American legal doctrine in relation to municipalities, Thomas Dye writes: “Local government is not mentioned in the US Constitution. Although we consider the American federal system as a combination of federal, state and local levels of government, from a constitutional point of view local government is part of the state bodies. Communities do not have a constitutional right to self-government, all their powers legally emanate from the state, to the extent that local governments collect taxes, regulate the life of the population and provide services, they, in essence, perform the functions of the state, which the latter delegated to them in constitution or law"*(76).

The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany provides (paragraphs 1, 2 of Article 28) for the creation of representative bodies in lands, communities and community unions. And in this case, legal regulation is concentrated at the level of subjects.

In the USA and Germany, the number of local self-government systems is equal to the number of subjects (one should not think that, respectively, in the USA - 50, in Germany - 16 local government systems - according to the number of subjects of these federations; we are talking about something else - about the right of a subject to independently choose for himself a suitable option, and in reality there are not so many of them).

The system of municipal bodies in most cases is determined by administrative-territorial division. Currently, the most common is a two- or three-tier administrative-territorial structure; four or five-tier ones are also found, which affects the complexity of the system of elected local government bodies. In modern democratic states, there are both systems organized on the basis of the principle of subordination of multi-level municipal bodies (for example, in France, Germany, Italy, Japan), and systems based on the principle of autonomy and there is no normative subordination (for example, in the USA, Great Britain).

Representative bodies of local self-government are not formed in every administrative-territorial unit. One can observe a variety of approaches in the formation of representative bodies in the so-called natural (i.e., historically established) and artificial (i.e., created through unification) administrative-territorial units. We are talking about a departure from the settlement principle (city, village, town and other natural formations) and the possibility of creating representative bodies of local self-government at the level of administrative-territorial units of a regional nature - cantons and districts (France), districts (Germany), voivodeships (Poland ) and so on.

The system of local self-government largely depends on the desire of the central government to increase the efficiency of public administration through the territorial reorganization of communities through their significant consolidation. Thus, in Germany, the goals of the reform were defined as follows: “State and municipal administrations must be adapted to increasing demands. They need to be strengthened and rationalized. Municipal administration must be strengthened so that each community resolves all issues on its own. Eliminate the disproportion between the volume of work and capabilities.” *(77). The consolidation of communities was carried out through so-called regulatory measures, which included: the destruction of “unpromising communes”, promotion of voluntary community associations, etc. Territorial reform in Germany significantly reduced the number of districts and communities. If at the beginning of the reform (1963) there were 24,278 communities in the country, then by its completion (1974) only 10,979 communities remained. The number of districts decreased from 425 to 250*(78).

In the USA and Great Britain, the modernization of the system of municipal authorities is also recognized as one of the pressing issues of the domestic political situation.

In France, special intercommunal formations have been widely developed: syndicates, city districts, and extended city communes.

Improvement of the local government system in different countries has not been completed. The presence of outdated administrative-territorial forms makes it difficult to solve socio-economic problems and does not contribute to increasing the efficiency of local self-government. They try to achieve efficiency through the heads of local administration combining the functions of a government official and a local government official.

Structure of local government bodies

Local governments constitute one of the significant elements of the state organization of modern countries. Representative bodies (councils, meetings of representatives, deputies) at the lower and middle levels are elected for a term of two to six years. The grassroots level is represented by compact urban and rural communities. The main criteria for obtaining the status of a municipal entity are population size, historical significance, general level of development, the presence of economic prerequisites, etc.

Large cities have a two-level system of local self-government: citywide and district (district) - Paris, Brussels, etc. Some cities have dual status: federal subject and municipal entity (Berlin, Bremen, Hamburg in Germany, Vienna in Austria).

The criteria for distinguishing urban and rural municipalities by population are very relative. In different countries they range from 500 to 2000 people. Often at the same level there are “dwarf communities” and communities that, based on the number of residents, can claim a higher status.

Representative bodies of local self-government act as the core of the municipality. In Great Britain, Germany, France, the USA and a number of other countries they are called county, city, district, municipal, and communal councils.

In France, the municipal council has from 9 (minimum for communes with 100 inhabitants) to 69 members (minimum for communes with a population of over 300,000 people). An exception is made for Paris, Marseille and Lyon; the number of municipal councils is 163, 101 and 73 members respectively*(79).

In Austria, the size of the municipal council ranges from 9 to 45 members. The country's 15 largest municipalities have up to 61 members on their councils. The Vienna Council consists of 100 people. In Belgium, the number of municipal councils ranges from 5 to 55 members, in Italy - from 15 to 80, in Holland - from 7 to 45, in Norway - from 13 to 85 * (80).

In Germany, the number of community councilors is set to 80. In England, parish councils include from 5 to 21 people. The largest city councils have more than 150 members. Such representation indicates the creation of conditions for representatives of various social strata to enter the councils.

In the USA, unlike Great Britain, the numerical composition of municipal councils is determined without any connection with the requirements and possibilities of reflecting the social structure of society. The average size of city councils in the United States is five to seven members. It is typical that even in large cities with a population exceeding 500,000 people, the average composition of the council is 13 people; the most common councils are 9 elected ones. County municipal councils typically have three or five members, with occasional councils of nine and very rarely 30, 50 or more members. The population of the largest county of Los Angeles in California (approximately 6.5 million residents) is represented by a council of five elected officials. The largest city council in the United States is Chicago, consisting of 50, and the New York City Council of 35 people * (81).

The direct relationship between reducing the number of elected officials and increasing the role of the executive apparatus is obvious. In the old days, the size of municipal councils in the United States was much larger - in some cases, councils numbered over 200 people.

Traditional forms of work of representative bodies of local self-government are sessions. In lower-level municipalities, sessions are usually held monthly, and in middle-level municipalities - once every three months. There is a practice of holding extraordinary sessions. They can be convened on the initiative of the relevant state administration, a certain number of advisers - members of the representative body or the head of the executive body * (82).

The practice of forming permanent and temporary sectoral, functional or territorial commissions (committees, working groups, advisers) by representative bodies is widespread. Current practice indicates a fairly broad functional purpose of commissions. In countries where the continental (French) model of self-government predominates, the main functions of the commissions are preparatory and control. In some countries where Anglo-Saxon or mixed models of local government are common, commissions may also be vested with administrative functions.

D. Garner considers the advantage of the British system to be the ability of committees to manage many areas of municipal activity. Committees actually play the role of executive bodies to which the council delegates many of its powers * (83).

The dual position of committees, combining representative principles with executive activities, creates the opportunity to soften the usual confrontation between representative bodies and the executive level of local self-government.

The modern trend of shifting decision-making centers from representative bodies to their administrative apparatus is equally characteristic of all models of local government organization.

The actual position of each of the municipal bodies is determined primarily by its competence, as well as the functional relationship of the elected boards and executive bodies.

In Germany, based on the structural features of the executive apparatus and the relationship of executive bodies with representative bodies, the following types of municipal organization can be distinguished, used in different lands: council - mayor (burgomaster); council - magistrate (collegial executive body); council - community director - management committee; meeting of community residents. It should be noted that the tendency to strengthen the bureaucratic principle is characteristic to one degree or another of all these forms. Although the legislation on local self-government declares the leading role of community councils, in reality the key positions are transferred to the municipal bureaucracy. Evidence of this are numerous examples of the actual exclusion of councils from resolving the most important issues. They are deprived of the possibility of independent appointment to positions - in the vast majority of cases, appointments can be made in agreement with the burgomaster. In practice, councils for the most part do not participate at all in deciding the issue of official appointments, leaving it to the burgomasters and community directors. The rights of councils in the budgetary sphere are limited; they do not have effective means of monitoring the activities of executive bodies.

The strengthening of the role of the burgomaster as the head of the municipal apparatus is noticeable in all areas of municipal activity. As a rule, burgomasters are also chairmen of councils and have the right to protest council decisions and, in connection with this, suspend their execution. The burgomaster is the manager of finances, and his exclusive responsibility includes issues delegated to the community by the land apparatus. The dominant position of the burgomaster is also explained by the fact that he is not only the highest official of local government, but also a representative of the central land administration. That is why the council is elected for a shorter period of time than the burgomaster. This type of succession ensures stability in the implementation of the policies of the state administration bodies and the federation.

In the “council - burgomaster (burgomaster)” model one can see significant similarities with the American “strong mayor - weak council” form. It should be noted that in Germany, unlike the United States, the system of the “strong council - weak burgomaster” type has actually been eliminated. While maintaining a number of external features (for example, election not by the population, but by the council), its actual position is no less significant than in cases of election directly by the population.

The role of the council is also diminished in the “council-magistrate” model. The magistrate is a collegial executive body elected by the municipal representative from among its ranks, consisting of the burgomaster, full-time advisers and voluntary advisers. The mayor and staff councilors are elected for a term of six years, i.e. for a period 1.5 times longer than the term of office of the representative body and members of the magistrate on a voluntary basis. The real possibilities of the executive level in this municipal mechanism are evidenced by the fact that the magistrate has the right to protest decisions of the meeting of deputies, and the burgomaster has the opportunity to delegate the powers of the council to the magistrate.

The type of municipal administration: “council - director - management committee” is relatively new for Germany.

The Institute of municipal managers (managers) is now used in many countries of both continental and Anglo-Saxon models of local government. Such a person is actually entrusted with all the main functions of the head of the municipal economy and the municipal government apparatus; he performs the corresponding tasks, distracted from political preferences. The head of the municipality - the mayor, burgomaster, landrat - in such a system does not occupy a leading position in the management of the municipal unit, he mainly leads the council and performs representative functions (and in a broad sense - he represents the population, the local government body, also personifying the political party, successful in municipal elections).

A comparison of the organization of local self-government in modern countries indicates that the above models are reflected in certain modifications. In most countries, all known models can exist simultaneously. Historical and geographical continuity in the organization of municipal bodies in no way creates conditions that counter modern processes of optimizing local management.

Competence and financial base of local governments

In accordance with the legislation, the responsibility of municipal authorities in foreign countries includes tasks of local importance. This formulation is of a general nature. In fact, the limits of the municipal sphere of activity are established not by the territorial principle and the local nature of affairs, but by the permissible possibility of participation of municipal bodies in the economic and social areas of state activity.

The powers of self-government bodies are secured both by special laws and by laws regulating certain branches of public administration (education, health care, etc.).

In the Anglo-Saxon model, the source of competence is also judicial precedents and “private laws”.

In the USA, some municipalities have special charters of self-government, which are developed and adopted by the municipality itself, but require approval by the state legislature.

In countries of the Anglo-Saxon model of local self-government, the limits of the powers of local authorities are established by a detailed listing in regulations of their areas of competence, rights, and responsibilities. Here the principle of “positive regulation” was established - what is prescribed (provided for) by law is permitted. Actions of local government bodies beyond the boundaries of what is permitted are considered illegal.

In countries with continental and mixed models of local self-government, the principle of “negative regulation” prevails, according to which self-government bodies have the right to carry out any actions not prohibited by law. Beyond the external breadth of powers defined by this formula, it should be noted that their volume and content are determined by the so-called residual principle, i.e. residual free space that is not provided by law to other government agencies. The Constitutional Court of Germany, commenting on paragraph 2 of Art. 28 of the Basic Law, which establishes that “communities must be given the right to regulate, within the framework of the law, under their own responsibility, all the affairs of the local community,” stated: “Communal bodies must be guaranteed the right to deal with all matters that are not granted by law to other governing bodies.” According to experts, both German and other countries, the principle of “negative regulation” means nothing these days *(84). The number of legal prohibitions is so great that there can be no talk of independent activities of communities. Pointing to this circumstance, some authors note: “In Germany, where this principle has been adopted, municipal activity is no less constrained than in Great Britain, where the principle of “positive regulation” has been adopted * (85).

Local government bodies are directly responsible for municipal property, municipal finances, public utilities, consumer services, municipal healthcare and education, charitable organizations, etc.

The tasks of local self-government, taking into account the current legislation, can be divided into two groups: mandatory and optional (voluntary). In a number of countries, a third group of cases is added to them - assigned (delegated). The third group includes issues that cannot be considered directly local and form the so-called delegated sphere of influence. The assignment of any state tasks to the community in each specific case is carried out according to the legislative act of the state (Germany), which must necessarily regulate the necessary financial issues.

The general trend is the predominance of mandatory and assigned cases in the entire volume of cases performed by local governments.

The financial base of local self-government is a relatively independent system, which is ensured by the presence of its own budgets, revenue sources, and the right to establish and collect local taxes and fees. Legislation and generally accepted principles of economic activity establish a limited framework for the financial separatism of local self-government.

Municipal budgets are not an integral part of the state budget. The absence of a consolidated state budget that combines income and expenses at all levels of state and municipal financial management makes it difficult to analyze financial resources at all levels of government.

The financial base of local self-government in most modern countries is dualistic in nature. This means that one part of municipal revenues is generated from its own revenue sources, the other from general and special-purpose subsidies received by municipalities from higher budgets. This opportunity serves, on the one hand, as a way to redistribute national income, performing the functions of financial equalization between municipalities, and on the other hand, it provides the regulatory influence of the government on municipal bodies.

The most important source of own revenue for local governments in many Western countries is taxes. The share of local taxes in the own income of municipal authorities is: in the USA - 65, in England - 50.4, in Denmark - 46, in France - 41.7, in Japan - 41.6, in Belgium - 36, in Germany - 21 %. The largest tax revenues are provided by property tax, real estate tax in the USA and Great Britain, trade tax and land tax in Germany. Other local taxes, and their number in different countries is sometimes innumerable, are not significant. The figures given above indicate that in the clear majority of countries there is no need to talk about the financial independence of local governments.

An important source that provides a significant part of local budgets and, in general, local expenditures in Western countries is not only their own income, but also revenue from higher budgets. They are: in the USA - 23, in Japan - 40, in Germany - 45.3, in France - 33.8, in Belgium - 54, in Denmark - 44% * (86) (such revenues primarily include subsidies, i.e., non-refundable amounts transferred to the budgets of municipalities, as well as subventions - funds transferred for pre-designated purposes, their use must be accounted for, financing the participation of municipalities in the implementation of national programs, etc.).

In modern conditions in all civilized countries, the development of centralist tendencies at the same time entails a system of means of state response to the local community’s compliance with the requirement of its “benevolence” towards public interests. A powerful mechanism of influence has emerged. It should include: financial dependence, legal regulation, control activities, national programs, delegated powers, etc.

Local self-government abroad has quite diverse forms, depending on how integrated it is into the public administration system and the degree of its autonomy.

An interesting fact is that not all countries have the term “local government”. In Anglo-Saxon countries, the concept of local or municipal government is used (in the USA and Great Britain only city self-government is called municipal), in Japan the analogue of this concept is “local autonomy”, in France - territorial decentralization, in Spain and Turkey - local government.

The Belgian Constitution of 1831 played a significant role in the spread of the ideas of local self-government in European countries. It contained a special article devoted to community management. Along with the legislative, executive and judicial powers, a fourth power was recognized - municipal. Currently, in world practice, two models of local self-government are distinguished - Anglo-Saxon and continental (French). If the first has become widespread in the UK, USA, Canada, Australia and other countries with an Anglo-Saxon legal system, then the second is popular in continental Europe, French-speaking Africa, Latin America and the Middle East.

The first type of municipal organization is formed from below, due, first of all, to the civil initiative of the population. L.A. Velikhov characterized it as follows: “In states that were formed from smaller units and did not break with their past (Switzerland, Norway), local self-government was built from the bottom up, and the states recognized what was created by life itself. In such states, local self-government grew firmly into everyday life.”

According to the Anglo-Saxon model, local representative bodies act as formally acting independently within the limits of the powers granted to them in the absence of direct subordination of lower bodies to higher ones. There are no representatives authorized by the central government on the ground, and control over local government bodies is carried out indirectly, in particular through the courts. The state ensures that local regulations do not violate national legislation.

The main role in the management of local affairs belongs not so much to local government bodies as a whole, but to the specialized committees and commissions formed by the deputies of this body; It is these structures that decide, for example, whether to open a kindergarten in a locality and whether to accept immigrants for permanent residence.

The population elects not only deputies, but also other local government officials. This is how in the USA local residents elect their sheriff, municipal treasurer and some other functionaries. Thus, the Anglo-Saxon type is distinguished by a deeper autonomy of local authorities and the absence of expressed subordination to a higher level of government. Local governments have their own competence and are not subordinate to state authorities.

The Continental (Romanesque) type is characterized by a developed system of control by the central administration. The separation of state power and local government bodies is not expected; the latter are, as it were, a continuation of the state branch of government. Part of the state functions are transferred to local governments, the execution of which is controlled by local government structures.

Within the framework of the continental model, there is a direct subordination of lower levels to higher ones. In particular, in France, the Commissioner of the Republic and his deputies function as local representatives of the center, and the mayor additionally has the status of a representative of the central government, responsible for the execution of government affairs entrusted to him. The Romanesque model is characterized not just by a high, but by a directive role of the state.

The functioning of the Anglo-Saxon model can be examined using the example of Great Britain, which has solid historical experience in the development of self-government. Already in the 19th century. A. Vasilchikov called English institutions a positive example of local self-government. Another Russian economist of the 19th century V.P. Bezobrazov also spoke approvingly of English self-government, calling it “the basis of the entire state order in Great Britain, the envy of all nations.” In his opinion, all administrative power in Great Britain rests on the principles of local self-government, ensuring its inviolability and legality, and with it the freedom of every subject of this country.

Observance of customs and traditions has long been considered a national feature of English statehood. Therefore, the source of civil rights in this country is not so much the legal norms granted by the king or parliament, but rather the historically established legal consciousness of citizens.

English cities have long waged a successful struggle against state power, which was constantly inferior to them, issuing numerous charters to the cities that confirmed their privileges and freedoms. During the course of European colonial expansion, English legal culture took root in North America, Australia and other states of the former British Empire.

The ancient English self-governing community was first aristocratic and then bourgeois in origin, which was manifested during elections in which only “gentlemen” who owned property and paid taxes participated. As a result, according to L.A. Velikhov, the principle of self-government, in which the majority of the population did not participate, served as powerful support for the ruling class. These properties contributed to limiting self-government not from the outside, but from the inside and served to organize the dominance of one class over another. However, over time, “the principle of self-government and community has become so ingrained in the flesh and blood of the British that they do not find it necessary to define it, or talk about it, or even establish its norms in legislation.” The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is called the "country of councils". Here are the city county councils, the metropolitan district councils, the parish councils, and it is they who have the real power. They set priorities and form executive structures. “English cities are literally riddled with committees, forums, and associations, with the participation of which everyone can solve their problems if they wish. Once created, the system of involving ordinary citizens in the management of their territory works flawlessly.” The system of control over power is based on the constantly operating principle of rotation, so that deputies cannot “go wild when they get to power.” The basis of the structure of local government in England is the political culture of ordinary citizens and the pathological inability to shift responsibility for their lives to others. In Great Britain, the formally monarchical state has a deeply developed democratic essence, ensuring the successful functioning of public institutions that form the basis of civil society.

If we talk about the status of local authorities in states belonging to the Anglo-Saxon system, then formally they have only those powers that are granted to them by parliamentary institutions. Any action of local authorities must be justified by reference to the relevant act of parliament. Thus, to obtain any additional powers, local authorities in the UK have the right to apply to Parliament with a request to issue an appropriate law. English traditions have taken root particularly successfully on the American continent. The French thinker A. Tocqueville believed that the very history of the United States ensured its development along a democratic path, which dates back more than two centuries.

Being the possession of the English crown, some colonies on the coast of North America by the end of the 16th century. received the right to establish a civil political society under the auspices of the metropolis, as well as the right of self-government in everything that did not contradict English laws. Sometimes colonies were formed without any assistance and practically without the knowledge of England, and only 30-40 years later a royal charter legalized their existence. The emigrants themselves appointed officials, made peace and declared war, regulated the activities of the police, and passed laws. By 1650 the community was fully and finally established in New England. The colonies still continued to recognize the supreme power of the metropolis, the states were still governed by the laws of the monarchy, but the republic was already fully developing within the community.

The Declaration of Independence, adopted in 1776 in the United States, authored by natural rights advocate Thomas Jefferson, established the right of citizens to self-government. Two years later, the Constitution of the new state was adopted, which is the “oldest” written constitution currently in force. And although the country’s Basic Law looks like a moderately democratic document, in many respects of democracy inferior to the constitutions of Western Europe and other regions of the modern world, this does not prevent the United States from having fairly stable functioning civil institutions and a democratic system of statehood.

Alexis de Tocqueville characterized the development of the process of self-government in America in the 19th century: “Over all existing institutions and modern social political structures of the United States there is a supreme power - this is the power of the people, which destroys or changes them at its discretion. In America, the people themselves choose those who create the laws and those who execute them, and they also elect a jury that punishes those who break the law. The people directly elect their representatives to government bodies and do this, as a rule, annually, so that their elected representatives are more completely dependent on the people. All this confirms that it is the people who rule the country. And although government has a representative form, there is no doubt that in the daily government of society the opinions, prejudices, interests and even passions of the people are freely manifested.” The system of government in the United States is based on the principle of separation of powers - a system of checks and balances. Modern legal doctrine in the United States considers municipal governments to be creatures of the state. Municipalities have only those rights granted to them by the state legislature. The role of the “municipal constitution” (charter) is played by municipal charters, which are based on state legislation. Municipalities have the right to “home rule”, i.e. the power to create, apply, and amend charters. The pluralism of forms of local democracy is manifested in the fact that municipalities have the opportunity to choose their own governance structure. These charters are adopted by municipal councils or by referendum and are subsequently approved by the state parliament. However, the strengthening of municipal autonomy and the strengthening of parochial tendencies goes in parallel with another process - the weakening of the influence of the federal subjects on resolving issues of importance within the state. Home Rule does not contribute to the development of intermunicipal cooperation. American experience in this area generally suggests that “too much local autonomy can create problems no less serious than its lack.” Today in the United States, the territory of all states except three is divided into counties. The role of self-government bodies in counties is performed by councils elected by the population or formed from elected officials of lower-level self-government bodies.

On the territory of the state, especially in small towns, such a form of local government as city meetings remains popular. Here, issues of local, rather than national, importance are discussed: the conditions of maintenance of educational institutions, the state of drinking water, roads, and others. Another example of the functioning of the Anglo-Saxon model can be seen in Canada. The Constitution of Canada does not contain a word about local self-government; municipal bodies receive all their powers from the hands of the provincial government. Each province of Canada has adopted its own municipal act (law) regulating the scope of local government.

In the Canadian context, a "municipality" is a political and legal unit that governs an area. Urban regions may include several municipalities. For example, Vancouver has 21 municipalities, while Montreal has more than 100.

In practice, Canadian provinces can do whatever they want with their municipalities - change boundaries, assign additional responsibilities to them, reduce funding. However, this is still an Anglo-Saxon model, since within the limits of their powers, Canadian municipalities are free and independent, and the community remains the primary unit of social organization.

Municipalities in Canada operate under the principle of open government: council meetings are invariably open to the public, with members of the public always able to speak in debates. Local plebiscites are widespread in Canada, during which citizens are invited to vote at the ballot box to resolve local issues, such as the closure or opening of the local airport, store opening hours on weekends, etc. The results of such an expression of the will of citizens do not oblige the local council to anything, but serve as a powerful means of putting pressure on deputies. Plebiscites are accompanied by public forums and open discussions, during which people are given the opportunity to clarify their own point of view and become acquainted with other positions.

In local politics, various pressure groups play a special role: neighborhood associations, protest groups, advertisements created to solve a specific issue. As a rule, a chamber of commerce and industry is created in each municipality, in which the position of the business community on the problems of municipal development is formed. Of course, their opinion is very significant, since it is entrepreneurs who form the tax base of local authorities. The organization of local government in Spain can also be attributed to this model of organizing local self-government. The new national Constitution of 1978 recognized local government in Spain as one of the main elements of government. The principle of autonomy was proclaimed as indispensable for local governance in accordance with the own interests of the population. In the main legislative act of the country, autonomy is defined as the ability of a subject (in this case, local government) for self-regulation and self-determination. The initial principle of the provisions was an orientation towards the needs of the regions, their clear understanding and satisfaction.

The main components of local government are municipalities and provinces, which have the rights to self-regulation and self-organization. The fairly high status of local authorities is confirmed by the fact that the National Commission on Local Administration has the opportunity to appeal and challenge decisions in the Constitutional Court that, in its opinion, harm local autonomy. In all cases, the importance of local interests, and therefore the satisfaction of “public goods,” is proclaimed as a priority.

Three types of citizen participation in the work of Spanish municipalities can be distinguished:

Organic, giving the right to express one’s opinion on certain issues in the relevant municipal bodies;
- functional, when citizens act as assistants to municipal officials;
- cooperative, providing for stimulation and regulation by the local administration.

The emphasis is on involving ordinary people in the activities of municipalities and periodically informing citizens about their work. Thus, each state developing along the Anglo-Saxon path has its own characteristic features, but in general they are distinguished by the active involvement of the population in the work of municipalities, municipal activities with a deeper autonomous character and the absence of pronounced subordination of local authorities to a higher level.

The continental model can be considered using the example of France. The sphere of local self-government in this state includes such levels of power as: regions, departments, communes.

Since France has always been famous for its traditions of centralism, this circumstance could not but affect the peculiarities of municipal life. Subordinate organizations here, although to a lesser extent than before, depend on their superiors.

The processes of democratization in France were seriously influenced by the teachings of J. J. Rousseau, who defended the principles of direct democracy. Rousseau believed that legislative power should be exercised only by the people. In his opinion, the better the state is structured, the more citizens should be concerned not so much with personal problems as with public ones.

All the values ​​that Rousseau defended - the sovereignty of the people, the personal participation of citizens in solving public problems, equality before the law and access to any public position solely depending on existing abilities and virtues - contributed to the formation of a new social thinking of his contemporaries and were reflected in the provisions of the Constitution IV of the French Republic.

Modern local government in the West is usually associated with the idea of ​​subsidiarity. Its essence is that decision-making functions, if possible, should be delegated to the level closest to the one affected by these decisions, i.e. If local communities are able to competently solve their problems, higher authorities do not have the right to take these decisions upon themselves. The shorter the administrative distance between the decision-making body and the scope of that decision, the better, although this is opposed by the bureaucracy, which does not want to give up its powers at the local level. The principle of subsidiarity is also observed in the French constitutional and legal doctrine, which entrusted the state with issues of national importance, obliging territorial communities to solve problems related to their local affairs that directly affect the everyday interests of residents of a particular area. The desire of citizens to take the reins of local government into their own hands led to the adoption of the Law on the Rights and Freedoms of Decentralized Territorial Collectives of 1982. Self-government in France today is carried out at the level of departments, of which there are 95 in the country, and at the level of urban and rural communes, which are the lower administrative unit. Departments and communes have the status of self-governing territorial collectives with their own elected bodies - general councils of communes. In relation to these collectives, the Constitution adheres to the principle of “free government”, in which the management of local affairs is entrusted to local authorities.

At the same time, a representative of the central government - a prefect - is appointed to each department. He monitors the observance of national interests, ensures the implementation of the powers of central government bodies in the department, informs the government about the political situation in the territory entrusted to him, is responsible for property owned by the state, and monitors the implementation of regulations of the central government. In the 80s of the last century, however, there was a reduction in the influence of prefects and a weakening of the control of higher organizations over lower ones. Now their care is strictly regulated. Consideration of the state structure of Germany and the development of such a civil institution as local self-government is of particular interest to us, due to the fact that, according to experts, Russia has some positions similar to Germany, namely:

Proclamation of federalism as the main principle of government, and the German model in many ways became the prototype of the constitutional concept of modern Russian federalism;
- the continental system of law, to which Germany belongs, is closest to the Russian legal system;
- German and Russian municipal systems have a number of common historical roots: the introduction and subsequent development of zemstvo and city self-government in Russia in the mid-19th century was carried out in the image of the Prussian reforms of Baron von Stein.

Here, self-government develops in line with the continental model and exists at the level of communities and their associations, called communal self-government. A characteristic feature of the German concept of self-government is the idea of ​​“participation”, i.e. involving the widest possible range of citizens in solving public administrative tasks. This idea was laid down at the beginning of the 19th century by Baron von Stein and found practical implementation in the reforms he proclaimed.

In modern German literature, two main concepts of communal self-government have been established: democratic - parliamentary and administrative (state).

Within the framework of the democratic-parliamentary concept, communal self-government is defined as civil self-government, a relatively independent public power that exists in parallel with the state. Administrative (public) management considers communal self-government as indirect public administration, i.e. implementation by state authorities of their tasks through municipal self-government bodies. However, the democratic - parliamentary direction is becoming increasingly widespread in German legal and political literature. The differentiation between direct and indirect public administration, which includes local governments, is an important structural principle of the German government system. The right of local self-government is enshrined in the Federal Constitution of 1949 and the constitutions of individual states. “The structure of local government is dominated by the concept of a strong executive.” Unlike other states that experienced authoritarian and totalitarian regimes (Spain, Portugal, Russia, Romania, etc.), the institutions of direct democracy were not included in the Basic Law of this state, but the right to local self-government was enshrined in the Constitution

In order to supervise the implementation of federal laws, authorized governments are sent not only to the supreme lands, but also to lower authorities. The purpose of introducing this rule is to monitor compliance with the law and not violate it. The introduced mechanism of responsibility for the implementation of legislation contributes to the full functioning of civil institutions, in particular local government.

If we compare Japanese and Russian local government, then a strong preference for the continental model is manifested in the installation of “strong” governors and mayors. Self-financed sources of municipalities provide only 30% of their expenses, and the rest is covered by various types of transfers. From a financial perspective, Japan's experience is interesting in that depressed (weak) areas are effectively supported not by a subsidy policy, but by lending for targeted programs. Moreover, the loan is provided not in the form of money, but from income sources, which does not encourage dependency, but awakens interest and initiative. Local government in the Scandinavian countries has a long tradition. Due to the fact that these states have strong traditions of self-organization, primarily in the sphere of managing the affairs of church communities, the church administrative division of countries into parishes was used to create territorial units of local self-government.

Thus, in Finland, local government began to take on its most modern forms in the 19th century, when issues related to education and health care became the responsibility of communities. Local self-government in the Scandinavian countries is based on universal municipalities, which perform a wide range of functions and are the social security authorities for the population. Local authorities are particularly politicized. Almost all municipal councilors are members of political parties, and each party is given a seat on all elected municipal bodies. “Although politicians may have poor understanding of professional and technical issues, they have a strength: they are able to act as experts in coordinating all conflicting interests in the local community, including conflicts between experts.” In comparison with local services of central authorities, local government is valued because it:

Increases the number of rights and freedoms in society;
- enhances the ability of citizens to participate in local affairs;
- promotes management efficiency.

The fact of the existence of one community in Denmark is unique. In the very center of Copenhagen is the free city of Christiania. The community council decides all important issues here. There is no police in the city and soft drugs are allowed, the sale of which is officially taxed. The Danish People's Party is trying to close Christiania on the grounds that criminals feel free in this city. However, the local community has more than once defended the right to exist of the community, even taking such measures as setting up barricades.

Meetings of municipal councils in the Scandinavian countries are held openly, which contributes to the development of civic activity and ensuring public control over the activities of local authorities. The state also exercises control over the activities of municipalities. They are required to submit many of their decisions to regional or government authorities for consideration, although this type of control is not “strict” in nature. In general, local government in the Scandinavian countries is becoming an increasingly integral part of the national organization for the provision of services. Municipalities have lost their role as autonomous local units dealing exclusively with their own affairs. At the same time, their importance in the political system of the Scandinavian countries is undoubtedly growing. As can be seen, the system of local organization in foreign countries is built in accordance with the administrative-territorial division, which in unitary states falls under the competence of the central government, and in federal states - more often than subjects of the federation. Local self-government is formed, as a rule, at the grassroots level - city, district, village. The basis of the system of local self-government in foreign countries are local representative bodies formed by the population as a result of free elections.

The term of office of representative bodies of local government can be one year (some provinces of Canada), two years (Mexico, Bolivia), three years (Sweden, Estonia), four years (Norway, Hungary, Japan), five years (Turkey, Cyprus) or six years (France, Belgium, Luxembourg). Elections to the local parliament of Great Britain are held every 3-4 years according to one of two schemes: either deputies are elected simultaneously, or annual rotation takes place. So if residents of a district need to elect three deputies to the local metropolitan council (city district - author's note), then they can choose one of the three every year. It turns out that every year the composition of the council changes by one third, and this gives the opportunity for deputies with experience to receive an influx of “fresh forces”. For a long time, the country had a unified territorial organizational system, according to which city councils and “under them” district councils were elected in the counties. However, after the 1974 reform, metropolitan councils were created in six counties with a large number of inhabitants, contrary to the generally accepted pattern. On the one hand, a short term of office allows one to control one’s elected representatives rather tightly. On the other hand, in a short period of time, deputies do not have time to get up to speed and master the skills of municipal work. A longer term for local councils is also preferable from a financial and organizational point of view.

The role of self-government bodies in counties, into which almost the entire territory of Great Britain is divided, is performed by councils elected by the population or formed from elected officials of self-government bodies at a lower level.

World practice presents a wide variety of organizational schemes used at the local level. One of the common forms of local government organization is “strong council - weak mayor,” when the mayor’s rights are significantly limited. General management, coordination and control over the activities of the executive apparatus is carried out by the city council. The Council has great powers in the field of management, in economic, financial matters and especially in matters of appointment to positions.

The election of the head of the executive body of local self-government by the council is typical for countries such as Austria, Denmark, France, the Czech Republic, and Spain. In France, the municipal council elects a mayor and a deputy mayor from among its members for a term of six years. In Great Britain, too, it is not the population, but the deputies who elect mayors from among their ranks for a period of 1 year. This practice has become widespread in Mexico, as well as in some African countries (Egypt, Tunisia).

In many countries, local councils can elect from among their members a mayor, burgomaster, major, etc., who solely exercises executive functions. (England, some lands of Germany, Austria, Denmark, Spain). The mayors of English cities are elected not by residents, but by local council deputies from among their ranks for a period of one year. Elections to the local parliament are held every 3-4 years, then it announces a competition for the position of executive director, in our opinion the head of administration. The director recruits a staff that coordinates the work of municipal services.

In other countries, councils elect collegial executive bodies from among their members. In Italy this is the executive committee of the Giunta Council. In a number of German states, this is a magistrate who is elected by a local representative body from among its members, including the burgomaster.

Most major cities in the United States have a strong mayor-council system. The mayor is elected by the entire population and is fairly independent from the council. He has great real powers, which include the right to appoint and dismiss heads of the municipal apparatus, often without the consent of the council. The mayor also has the right to impose a difficult veto on the council's decisions; he draws up a draft budget and takes the necessary actions to implement it. The mayor has a staff of professional assistants who daily monitor the work of the heads of municipal departments. Such a system also exists in some provinces of Canada and Japan. In Belgium, Holland, and Luxembourg, the mayor (burgomaster) is appointed by the head of state - the monarch - at the proposal of the municipal council. This emphasizes the importance of the mayor not only as the head of the local administration, but also as a representative of the central government, who plays an important role in exercising control over local authorities.

The “council-manager” system is that the council appoints a professional official - a manager - for a certain period of time. The manager selects people for important positions in the municipal apparatus, develops a program of its activities, and controls its implementation. The mayor under this system performs only representative functions. In addition to the USA, the Institute of Municipal Managers exists in Canada, Germany, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, and Finland.

Despite the variety of organizational forms, Americans still have problems, both in matters of organizing local government and in the relationships between various government bodies.

Analysts studying this practice conclude that it is necessary for municipal government bodies to be small in scale. In this case, in their opinion, officials will be as close as possible to voters, and this will force them to energetically respond to all proposals and statements of citizens. In rural areas, the organization of local self-government has slightly different forms. In small-sized territories with a small population, representative bodies of government may be absent. The most important issues of the life of the territorial community are resolved here through direct democracy at general meetings and referendums.

In the USA, in rural areas there are towns and townships (from the English “town” - a small city). Towns are governed by decisions made by a meeting of adult residents or their representatives. They elect a council of 3-5 people, which is also the executive committee. In some rural communes in France, for example, the part-time secretary of the mayor's office is performed by a local teacher.

It is not individual residents who interact most productively with local governments, but associations of citizens. Activists create temporary groups of a purely protest nature that oppose a specific action or initiative of the authorities. In Canada, such associations are called “only - not - in - my - yard.” Such groups are not characterized by a generally valid approach to the problem, but are an element of civil society, reflecting the interests and sentiments of a certain part of its residents. Sweden is an example of developed local self-government. The organization of life in this country is at such a level that Stockholm does not even have a mayor, since this is not necessary. If a problem arises, a committee is created to solve it. Deputies decide how much money is needed and, as a rule, allocate the required amount. Good financing is explained by the fact that the country has high taxes, and most of the local budget is formed through taxation of individuals. Despite the different systems of organizing local power, the countries discussed above are characterized by a well-developed economy and a fairly high standard of living of society, which is the defining goal and main criterion when creating any political system. Consequently, one of the main points is not so much the choice of government model, but whether the necessary conditions have been created and whether all measures have been taken for the practical implementation of this model. The chosen model is improved over time, expanding the capabilities of the institution of local self-government.

Not a single type of local government, of course, arose out of nowhere. It can be said that they were all generated by the social and political conditions of their time. The chosen management order was based, as a rule, on historical traditions and the way of life of society, combining an evolutionary approach with the principles of continuity and consistency. The process of introducing innovations is based on civil initiative and is adopted taking into account existing behavioral stereotypes and existing trends in society. The viability of a particular model of government, including the system of local self-government, is ensured by the actually functioning mechanism of the legal doctrine of the state.

In some countries, the institutionalization of local self-government occurred naturally (Great Britain, USA), in others it was introduced by directive from above (France, Germany). The created system has evolved with the development and improvement of democratic processes in society, as well as the growth of the legal consciousness of citizens.

We consider the principle of separation of powers, which underlies the US government, as one of the main ones. In our opinion, until Russian civil society is formed and structured, the use of this principle at the local level is mandatory (meaning the representative and executive branches of government). On the other hand, the example of the United States requires taking into account the fact that the autonomy of the local community must constitute a reasonable balance of state power at the level of the subject of the Federation in order to ensure an even distribution of political forces in society.

The desire of Russian regional leaders to put pressure on municipalities without recognizing their independence contributes to the preservation of the traditions of centralized management and impedes the progressive institutional development of local self-government. In this regard, the idea of ​​subsidiarity (France, etc.), which consists in transferring the right to make decisions to the level closest to the one affected by these decisions, seems to us to be very relevant for Russia.

It should also be taken into account that the efficiency and usefulness of the functioning of civil institutions, including local self-government, is possible with the simultaneous construction of a rule of law state, as was the case, for example, in Germany. Here, the institution of government plenipotentiaries ensures not the creation and maintenance of a vertical power structure, but the implementation of supervision over the implementation of federal legislation. Respect for the law and non-violation of it guarantees the development of society along the chosen path.
Summarizing the above, we can conclude that considering and taking into account foreign experience in the development of local self-government enriches the possibilities of forming a theoretical basis and one’s own position on this issue, and also creates conditions for comparative analysis and adaptation of norms acceptable to Russian reality.

In particular, the most important thing for us is to study the technology of the process of involving the population in the work of municipalities, which solves the problem of public control over the authorities. In this regard, of particular interest are countries where the established system of organizing municipal government operates effectively (Great Britain, Germany, Spain, Canada, USA). Despite the fact that each state relies on its own basic principles when building a system of local power, the active role of the local community in this process is clearly outlined. Thus, the socio-political component of local self-government finds its manifestation in the creation of a network of public associations in the UK, in the way towns and townships function in the USA, in the active actions of protest groups of residents in Canada, in the implementation in practice of the German idea of ​​“participation”, etc. .d.

At the same time, we should not forget that the history of the development of each state determines the mentality of its inhabitants and therefore the use of foreign experience must be deeply thought out and balanced. Russian statesman of the 19th century A.D. Gradovsky warns against blind borrowing or imitation. He draws attention to the fact that no matter how much any foreigner is carried away by the examples of foreign countries, this idea is processed according to the conditions and temperament of each country. A. Vasilchikov suggests making it a rule “not to unconditionally extol orders that instantly triumphed over others or to imitate them just because they triumph.” Percy Ashley also pointed out the need to take into account the historical experience, traditions of the state, and the worldview of its citizens: “Local institutions, to a much greater extent than central institutions, reflect the influence of historical factors, economic and social conditions, as well as national traditions. As a result, no institution can arouse the sympathy of citizens and really become stronger if it indicates a break with the past, if historical customs and popular consciousness are not taken into account when creating it. A reformer can count on success only when his actions combine forward movement with continuity.” Consequently, in order to select the optimal model for the development of local self-government, a deep and meaningful study, first of all, of one’s own historical experience in the area under study is mandatory.

Among the reforms and transformations currently being carried out in Russia, one of the most significant places is occupied by the reform of local self-government. Over the last century, modern Russia is seeking for the third time to find an optimal form of local government. Today, more than ever, the need to create new effective forms and systems of municipal government and local self-government is obvious. However, the formation of a modern municipal model is going through certain difficulties, which is partly caused by insufficient knowledge of domestic experience in organizing local government.

Over the course of the thousand-year history of the Russian state, due to the peculiarities of the development of society, the management system was characterized by excessive centralization of state power, the constant dominance of executive structures, and the absence of a developed system of self-government. At the same time, the existing structures of local self-government practically did not reflect the interests of the population, often being a brake on overall development. At the same time, in the history of Russia there were enough models and systems of self-government that had a positive effect on the socio-economic development of the territory.

Traditionally, there are three domestic models of local self-government: zemstvo, Soviet and new (modern). However, the system of local self-government began to take shape at earlier stages of the development of national history.

The contours of local self-government manifested themselves quite clearly in connection with the adoption of Christianity in Rus' (988), the circle of subjects of local self-government expanded, and along with industrial and territorial forms of self-government, monastic and church self-government appeared. Local self-government of this period plays the role of a management institution, the development of which was associated with the consolidation of administrative units and the creation of large political centers. Significant changes to the existing system of self-government were made by the Mongol-Tatar invasion, which destroyed representative power - the very basis that united the Slavic communities.

Ivan’s reforms occupy a special place in the history of local self-government TV: lip reform, zemstvo reforms, abolition of the feeding system. At the same time, attempts were made to establish the dependence of local authorities on the central government, and the oprichnina was introduced. In general, the measures of Ivan the Terrible did not lead to the formation of an integral system of local self-government.

A complete model of local self-government did not emerge during the reign of Peter I. Despite the fact that measures were taken to promote the development of local self-government (for example, each city was assigned the right to independently dispose of city land, management of communities was transferred to the communities themselves), measures were also taken to limit the competence local authorities (establishment of guardianship of the administrative administration over communities). The goal of the reforms of Peter I was to create an integral state with a fairly effective management system that met the requirements of the political elite of that time, which largely explains the “zigzags” in relation to the institutions of local government.

The period of the reign of Catherine II is rightly considered a major milestone in the development of domestic self-government. It was at this time that the foundations of self-government were constructed, which were consolidated in such acts as the Establishment of Governorates (1775), the Charter of the Nobility (1785), the Charter of rights and benefits of cities (1785), which reformed local institutions on the basis of self-government according to the class principle. The existing system of local government functioned before the creation of the zemstvo model of local self-government.

Zemstvo model existed in Russia for more than half a century, from 1864 to 1918. The scale of zemstvo institutions was great: at the beginning of the 20th century. Zemstvos existed in 34 provinces of the European part of Russia, and on the eve of the February Revolution - already in 43 provinces. It is possible to distinguish several periods in the development of the zemstvo model of local self-government.

1. The formation of the zemstvo model of local self-government began in connection with the reforms of Alexander P. Before them, only the rudiments of self-government existed. Zemstvo (1864) and city (1870) reforms led to the decentralization of government and the development of local self-government;

2. The second period is associated with the strengthening of central power. The “New Regulations” introduced in 1890 significantly strengthened the administration’s control over the activities of zemstvos, limited the powers of zemstvos, and changed the election procedure, as a result of which there were no elected people from the population. In 1900, the “Approximate Rules for Maximum Zemstvo Taxation” were adopted, which dealt a blow to the financial basis of the zemstvos: they were prohibited from increasing the estimate by more than 3% compared to the previous year;

3. The next period was characterized by the consolidation of the zemstvo movement in response to the actions of the central government. The catalyst for this process was major defeats in the Russo-Japanese War, the growing political crisis and revolutionary situation. In 1904, 1905, 1906 Constant congresses of zemstvo and city self-government were held, at which demands were put forward for the convening of popular representation with legislative functions, the provision of civil liberties, equality of estates and the expansion of the powers of local self-government.

In his manifesto of October 17, 1905, Nicholas II accepted the demands of the zemstvos to convene a representative assembly. By decree of March 15, 1917, Prince Lvov appointed representatives of provincial and district governments as commissars of the Provisional Government, its local authorized representatives. For the first time in their history, zemstvos received political power through official means. This period is considered the time of the highest flowering of the zemstvo model. The local government system was an extensive and fairly effective apparatus for managing the local economy.

4. The last period in the history of zemstvos is associated with their liquidation. By the fall of 1917, the influence of parallel local government bodies—the Soviets of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies—had increased. The crisis of power that arose - dual power: the Soviets and the Provisional Government, whose commissars were mainly zemstvo leaders - ended in the victory of the Soviets. The process of eliminating provincial, district and volost assemblies and councils practically began as soon as the armed uprising in Petrograd was defeated, and after the Third All-Russian Congress of Soviets it unfolded on a massive scale. In general, the process of liquidation of zemstvos ended in the summer of 1918.

The zemstvo model of local self-government had the following features: 1) the functioning of zemstvo institutions outside the system of state bodies; 2) the existence of the zemstvo system only at two administrative levels - district and provincial; 3) the presence of significant powers in zemstvo bodies; 4) the zemstvos have a strong financial and economic base; 5) clear legal regulation of the zemstvo system, etc.

Zemstvo and city administration complied with all the canons of self-government that existed at that time, and the economic independence of zemstvo institutions had no analogues in the whole world. Zemstvos were a unique phenomenon not only in the life of Russia, but also in the world practice of local self-government.

Soviet model local self-government, which replaced the zemstvo model, existed in Russia from 1917 to 1993. Its evolution also went through several periods.

1. The first period was associated with the creation of a new system of local governments. The Bolsheviks, having taken power in 1917, began to build a new state, relying on the Marxist-Leninist thesis about the need to initially demolish the old state machine. After the liquidation of the zemstvo, there was an urgent need to create a new structure for managing the local economy: the entire country was covered with a network of Soviets created in all, even the smallest territorial units. Delegates from the grassroots Soviets created volost authorities, volost delegates created district authorities, district delegates created provincial authorities, and so on until the All-Russian Congress of Soviets. At this stage, the Soviets were essentially local bodies of political and economic power of the center.

2. The next period went down in history as the period of NEP. The New Economic Policy allowed for elements of private property, which led to more complex forms of economic activity and, in turn, caused changes in local authorities. The Decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee “On replacing appropriation with a tax in kind” (1921) and the “Order on STO (Councils of Labor and Defense) to local Soviet institutions” noted the particular importance of maximizing the development of creative initiative and initiative of local government bodies, taking into account experience and wide dissemination of the best examples of work Soviets. A powerful impetus to the development of city self-government was given by the Regulations “On City Councils”, adopted in 1925, which defined the Councils as “the highest authority in the city within its competence” and provided them with relative independence.

3. The next period was characterized by the almost complete elimination of the real system of local self-government and its replacement by a system of totalitarian party-state leadership. In 1933, a new Regulation “On the City Council” was adopted, which finally “nationalized” local authorities. According to these Regulations and the Constitution of 1936, the Soviets were defined as “bodies of the proletarian dictatorship” designed to carry out the policies of the center on the ground. Issues of regulatory regulation were transferred from the Soviets mainly to the highest executive bodies and bodies of the Communist Party. Local Soviets turned into simple executors of the will of the center.

With the coming to power of N. S. Khrushchev (1894-1971), the question was raised about increasing the role of the Soviets, which by this time “were increasingly acting as public organizations.” The next program of the CPSU directly linked the development of local self-government with the expansion of the rights of local Soviets. However, in practice, attempts to transfer some management issues to local councils for final decisions ended in failure. Instead of expanding the rights of local Councils, attempts were made to abolish village Councils and replace them with public elders. In addition, the role of the Soviets in the general management of subordinate territories was sharply weakened by the following measures: the transfer of local industry to the Economic Councils, the division of regional and regional Councils into industrial and rural ones, the withdrawal of agricultural management bodies from the system of district Councils, the strengthening of local bodies not subordinate to the Councils, etc. . P.

4. The last period is associated with reforms of the state and political structure of Russia. An important role in the formation of local self-government during this period was played by the USSR Law “On the General Principles of Local Self-Government and Local Economy in the USSR” (1990) and the RSFSR Law “On Local Self-Government in the RSFSR” (1991). Under these laws, the Soviets received significant powers, their own budget and property, which did not correspond to Lenin’s understanding of the Soviet type of power and, in fact, meant the elimination of the Soviet model. The final point in the process of its liquidation was set by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of October 26, 1993 No. 1760 “On the reform of local self-government in the Russian Federation,” which declared the cessation of the activities of city and district Councils of People's Deputies, and transferred their competence to the relevant local authorities.

The Soviet model of local government had the following features: 1) local government bodies are state-owned and represent the “lower floor” of the state mechanism; 2) lack of own competence; 3) strict centralization of management; 4) the principle of paternalism, etc.

In modern Russia, the reform of local self-government has not yet been completed, but a number of periods have already emerged in its course:

1. Mid-1980s – early 1990s. – maturation of the prerequisites for a new model of local self-government; the adoption of the laws “On the General Principles of Local Self-Government and Local Economy in the USSR” (1990), “On Local Self-Government in the RSFSR” (1991) and the Constitution (1993), which became a turning point in municipal reform;

2. From 1995 (the adoption of Federal Law No. 154-FZ of August 28, 1995 “On the general principles of the organization of local self-government in the Russian Federation”, hereinafter in this chapter – the Law on Local Self-Government of 1995) – until 2000. In this period, it is possible to distinguish three directions: a) development of the main issues of federal legislation in the field of local self-government (for example, the adoption of Federal Laws of September 25, 1997 No. 126-FZ “On the financial foundations of local self-government in the Russian Federation”, dated January 8, 1998 No. 8-FZ “On the fundamentals of municipal service in the Russian Federation”, etc.); b) development of legislation on local self-government at the level of constituent entities of the Russian Federation; c) development of local rule-making.

3. Since the summer of 2000 (for example, amendments to Federal Law No. 154-FZ on August 28, 1995), a new period has emerged in the modern reform of local self-government, which continues to this day. The key event of this period was the adoption of the new Federal Law of October 6, 2003 No. 131-FZ “On the General Principles of the Organization of Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation” (hereinafter in this chapter - the Law on Local Self-Government of 2003), developed on the initiative of the President of the Russian Federation .

In this regard, the new model of local self-government has the following features and characteristics:

1) the separation of local government bodies from the system of state authorities (Constitution, Article 12) presupposes their independence in resolving issues of local importance. At the same time, according to the new legislation, state authorities have the right to exercise local self-government in cases where local authorities were liquidated in an emergency situation, if their debts exceeded 30% of their own income and in case of misuse of subventions allocated for the implementation of certain state powers ( section 75 of the Local Government Act 2003);

2) two-level model of local self-government (the lower level is urban and rural settlements, the upper level is the municipal district);

3) clearly defined municipal systems at the federal level: the principle of separation of powers is introduced at the municipal level and the system of local self-government bodies is regulated in detail, up to the determination of the number of deputies of representative bodies of local self-government and the procedure for occupying the position of head of the local administration;

4) according to the Law on Local Self-Government of 2003, the responsibility of local government bodies and officials to the population and the state increases. The mechanism for recalling elected officials of local self-government by the population of the municipality is fixed (Article 24), the procedure for the dissolution of a representative body of local self-government and the removal of the head of a municipality from office by government bodies and officials is simplified.

The Law on Local Self-Government of 2003 fully came into force on January 1, 2006. Until that time, the law provided for a transition period and established a calendar for municipal reform (Article 85).

The formation of a new model of local self-government in Russia is a complex and lengthy process, as it is largely determined by the internal characteristics of the state, historical traditions, national characteristics, political and economic factors, as well as the mentality of society. Municipal reform is far from complete; the regulatory framework of local self-government needs to be finalized, and a lot of work remains to be done to implement it in practice. To successfully carry out modern municipal reform and build a new model of local self-government, it is necessary to use all the positive domestic experience in organizing local government.

9.2. Comparative analysis of foreign experience of local self-government

In connection with the reform of local self-government in the Russian Federation, quite a lot of attention is paid to foreign experience in organizing local government, and in particular to foreign models of local government.

The model of local self-government is a system of horizontal and vertical relationships between subjects of local government. Local government was first legally formalized in Rome in the first century BC. e. Currently, almost every country has its own model of local government. The main foreign models are rightfully considered to be the Anglo-Saxon and continental models of local self-government.

Anglo-Saxon model local government is a modern foreign system of local government that originated in the UK and is currently operating in the UK, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other countries. It is characterized by the following features: 1) decentralization of management; 2) multi-level model of local self-government (the existence of two and sometimes three levels of local government); 3) a high degree of autonomy of various levels of government; 4) a clear definition of the competence of bodies at each level; 5) election of a number of local government officials; 6) the powers of local government bodies are determined on the basis of the positive principle of legal regulation (the principle of inter vires, from Latin - to act within the limits of their powers). The principle of inter vires is embodied in Dillon's rule. This is the rule for granting powers to local authorities, according to which municipal authorities have the right to do only what the law directly allows them to do (only what is expressly prescribed is allowed); 7) absence of local regulatory authorities and representatives of the central government; 8) exercising indirect control with the help of financial levers and through the judiciary; 9) municipalization of many services (for example, transfer of services from the private sector to the jurisdiction of the municipality), etc.

Continental model local self-government is a modern foreign model of local self-government, which originated in France and is currently operating in continental Europe, France, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East. This model is characterized by the following main features: 1) high degree of centralized management; 2) multi-level model of local self-government;

3) subordination of the lower level of power to the higher level; 4) the lack of a clear definition of the competence of bodies at each level (it happens that the same issues in some regions are decided by elected local authorities, and in others - by representatives of state authorities); 5) a combination of election and appointment of local authorities; 6) the principle of ultra veries (from Latin - to act in excess of authority), embodied in the rule of negative regulation. This is the rule for granting powers to local authorities, according to which municipal authorities are allowed all actions that are not directly prohibited by law and are not within the competence of other authorities (everything that is not prohibited is permitted); 7) a combination of state administration and local self-government within the same administrative-territorial units; 8) exercising direct control over the activities of local authorities with the help of regulatory authorities; 9) municipal service is considered as a type of public service.

The remaining foreign models: German, Italian, Japanese, etc., are considered as mixed forms of Anglo-Saxon and continental models of local self-government, since they contain signs of both systems, and, in addition, their own characteristics.

For example, Germany is a federal state, so the government structure consists of three independent levels: federal administration, land administration And municipal management. Each level of government has its own autonomous range of tasks.

Utility management in turn, it is also divided into three levels: community, district and supra-district. Local self-government means the implementation by local bodies, in accordance with the law, under their own responsibility, of their own and the state tasks assigned to them. Communities are the main subject of municipal management. The tasks facing community government bodies are divided into two types: 1) own tasks. These include both mandatory tasks (for example, construction and operation of school buildings, fire protection, road maintenance, sanitary supervision) and voluntary (including the construction of socio-cultural facilities: libraries, museums, nursing homes, sports grounds, etc. . P.); 2) tasks delegated by public authorities.

Thus, local authorities perform functions both as institutions of self-government and as state bodies within the framework of the powers delegated to them.

In a number of Latin American countries (Argentina, Mexico, Colombia, Brazil) there is Iberian model local government. In countries with a socialist system (Cuba, China) it has been preserved Soviet model local government. In developing countries (India, Malaysia, Kenya) it has become widespread direct government in places. In Muslim countries, the local government system is based on a religious approach.

The ways of forming local authorities are also different. The most common are the following: organizational forms.

1. “Strong mayor - weak council”: the mayor is elected directly by the population, which predetermines his broader powers in relation to the representative body of local government. The mayor independently decides many issues of local importance and has the right of suspensive veto on the council's decisions.

2. “Strong council - weak mayor”: the mayor is elected from among the deputies of the representative body of local government, which determines the limitation of the mayor’s powers (especially in coordinating the activities of local government bodies). In this form, the mayor is mainly assigned representative and operational-executive functions. The council in this case has a large amount of rights in the field of management, in economic and financial matters, and especially in matters of appointment to positions.

3. “Council-manager”: the population of the municipality elects a representative body, which elects a chairman from among its members - the mayor - and appoints the head of the executive-administrative body - the manager (manager). The relationship of the council with the manager is determined by an agreement (contract). As a rule, the manager is given fairly large powers in the formation of the local administration and determining the main directions of its activities. This form is most common in countries with the Anglo-Saxon model of local government. According to many researchers, this form reflects the desire to “cleanse” city politics, to eliminate corruption and authoritarian rule, since the manager is a politically neutral figure, a professional in the field of municipal management. At the same time, the disadvantage of this form is the inability of the population to influence the policies pursued by the manager.

4. Commission form: the commission is formed from elected officials, each of whom simultaneously manages a department of the local executive body. This model does not provide for the presence of a senior official. The disadvantage of this organizational form may be that commission agents lobby for the interests of only their departments, which can lead to destabilization.

Along with the above systems, there are also various combined organizational forms of local government. For example, such a form has become widespread when the manager (head of the executive body) is appointed by an elected official (mayor) and directly reports to him, and not to the council. In this form, unlike the “Council-Manager” form, residents have a direct opportunity to influence municipal policy, since by voting “for” or “against” the mayor, who appoints and removes the manager, they thereby vote for the preservation or replacement of the city administration.

The specifics of foreign models of local self-government, the features of their organizational forms and systems, the degree of interaction between state authorities and local governments largely depend on a number of factors: historical development, geographical location, national traditions, cultural values, economic opportunities, political interests, etc. P.

However, some researchers also highlight the following general trends in the development of foreign models of local government.

1. Strengthening the executive power of local self-government through the representative system (for example, a greater amount of power is assigned to executive bodies, representative bodies transfer part of their functions to representative bodies). This causes, on the one hand, an increase in the influence of the bureaucracy, and on the other, an increase in professionalism in municipal government.

2. The emergence of the problem of forming a strong financial and economic base for local self-government, despite the fact that each municipality has its own property (land and other), and local authorities actively stimulate business structures and widely use in their work such economic levers as tax pressure, licensing, contracts with private companies, etc.

3. Changes in the functions of local government bodies: a) new functions appear, the need for which there was no need before (for example, environmental functions); b) part of the functions of local governments is transferred to public associations and private companies (for example, waste collection and disposal, landscaping and landscaping); c) some functions are being eliminated due to the reduction in the number of rural settlements and the growth of urban settlements, which is caused by urbanization and demographic changes; d) the role of local authorities in resolving social issues is narrowing.

4. The emergence of a “free consumption effect”, when certain services are used by those for whom they are not intended and who do not pay for them. For example, residents of suburban areas enjoy almost all the benefits of the city.

5. Modification of the territory of local self-government: disaggregation of large cities and merging of rural settlements.

6. Active implementation of intermunicipal cooperation, combining the efforts of municipalities in solving common problems.

It should be noted that Russia has always gravitated towards borrowing and using foreign experience, especially in the field of local self-government. One of the most striking examples was the adoption of Law No. 131-FZ of October 6, 2003. The developers of this law managed to achieve a reasonable combination of the positive aspects of domestic experience in the creation and functioning of a system of local government and elements of best practice in organizing local government, borrowed from abroad.

Thus, the 2003 Local Self-Government Law was based on the German model of local self-government, characterized by a variety of forms of local government exercise combined with significant government regulation. In addition, a two-tier model of local government was created and the competence of each level was clearly defined, as in the German and Anglo-Saxon models of local government. Also, for the first time in Russia, such an organizational form as “Council-Manager”, which arose and received its maximum distribution in the United States, was legislated.

An analysis of foreign experience in organizing local government and the possibilities of its adaptation in modern Russian conditions will largely mitigate the difficulties of carrying out municipal reform in the Russian Federation.