Tony Valcke

Municipal Amalgamations in the Low Countries: Same Problems, Different Solutions

Abstract Municipal amalgamations in Belgium took place some time ago and the local council elections of 8 October 2006 marked the thirtieth anniversary of this thorough overhaul of the local administrative landscape. The municipal amalgamations of 1976 were undoubtedly the biggest reform the local level in Belgium has ever faced. The Netherlands also underwent municipal amalgamations, but there the amalgamation process followed a different pattern, taking longer, with discussions conducted in a different way. This article examines the principal similarities and differences between these two countries with regard to municipal amalgamations. The first part of the article looks at the different scales of local government in several European countries; in the sections following, the Belgian and Dutch experience with municipal amalgamations is discussed in greater detail. In the last section an attempt is made to answer the question of why the processes in the two countries were so different.

All Politics is Local, Partisan or National? Local Lists in Belgium

“All politics is local.” This saying of former US House of Representatives Speaker Thomas O’Neill Jr. (Heywood 2002: 157), might sound to many political science students as somewhat of an exaggeration. Yet, the local level is often identified with a number of surpluses not so easily found at the other layers of government. Local self-government is seen by many as a necessary liberty to a place bound community, underpinned by considerations of democracy and efficiency. Being close to citizens, the local level is deemed to breed unique opportunities to influence daily-life decisions, and to apprentice other forms of participation (Beetham 1996). At the same time, local knowledge and the multipurpose character of local government, place it in the optimal territorially position, to allocate local services most efficiently (Walsh 1996). Today, this appeal of legitimacy seems to be reinforced, albeit through other means, as the local level often functions as a laboratory for politics and policy to face problems that often surpass the municipal level (Pilet et al. 2005).

Mayors in governance: Heading for efficiency and democracy? The Belgian case

Abstract In many countries local government is perceived to be shifting towards local governance. This article tries to link three dimensions of governance using data from the Belgian context. While New Public Management tries to improve the efficiency of government, more direct and issue-specific forms of citizen involvement aim at democratic renewal. Strengthening the executive puts leaders in a pivotal position in dealing with the former both in evaluative and deliberative terms. Our evidence for Belgian mayors shows a somewhat conservative attitude towards the studied dimensions of governance. Redefining their role in a strategic direction might provoke a perceived loss of power in an environment only hesitantly adapting to governance. The balance between NPM and democratic renewal is less clear-cut in mayoral belief systems. Different factors seem to explain attitudes on both dimensions.

Leadership, Governance and Legitimacy at an Intermediate Government Level: The Case of Belgian Governors

Abstract This article tries to analyse the impact of some important changes in recent decades on the context in which Belgian governors function. On the one hand we can observe an internal shift in legislation, strengthening the democratic control and executive power of the elected politicians, while on the other hand there is the alleged external shift towards network policy and multi-level governance. At first sight the internal change seems to indicate a loss of (formal) power, illustrated by the fact that the governors lost their voting rights in 1997 and even lost the position of chairman in the Walloon provinces in 2004. But when we take a closer view, the institutional changes seem to have induced a shift in the selection process, as the political profile of the (recently) nominated governors is more pronounced. Moreover, our research indicates an important leadership role for governors brought about through the complex interactions of formal and informal structures at the intermediate government level. Governors play their leadership role by focusing on partnerships as a means to achieve the goals of a particular public policy.