Local governance under the Conservatives: super-austerity, devolution and the ‘smarter state’
Local governance under the Conservatives: super-austerity, devolution and the ‘smarter state’
复制标题
保守党领导下的地方治理：超级紧缩、权力下放和“智慧国家”
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
A. Gardner
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Vivien Lowndes;A. Gardner
通过雄心勃勃的权力下放计划，保守党在重组地方政府方面表现出了新的自信，这与前联合政府的自由放任态度形成了鲜明对比。虽然联盟试行权力下放，但其标志性的“地方主义”和“大社会”政策侧重于非国家行为者，为社区提供挑战地方政府和建立自己服务的权利和机会。保守党正在推动权力下放，将其作为一项在更大的次区域自治权和提高英国各地之间竞争力的基础上刺激经济增长的战略。“联合政府”有机会捍卫地方身份，并从白厅获得新的经济发展力量。但权力下放可能是一种分散紧缩的策略，将责任转移到地方一级，以实现更大幅度的削减（到2020年削减56%）和不可避免的服务削减。地方政府面临着“超级紧缩”，新的削减在以前的削减之上，加剧了原有的影响，创造了危险的（和不均匀的）乘数效应。保守党的“更聪明的国家”政策旨在“少花钱多办事”，只不过是对新的公共管理命令的循环利用。新出现的拼凑的“权力下放交易”挑战了赠款制度的再分配假设，并可能使贫困地区面临特别的失败风险。“地铁市长”旨在提供可见和负责任的领导;但地方选举产生的议员的作用以及社区和公民参与的前景仍不清楚。公众尚未充分参与这场有可能成为技术官僚式权力转移的运动。
ABSTRACT Through their ambitious devolution programme, the Conservatives show a new assertiveness in relation to restructuring the local state, in contrast to the laissez-faire approach of the previous Coalition government. Although the Coalition piloted devolution, its signature policies of ‘localism’ and the ‘Big Society’ focused on non-state actors, providing rights and opportunities for communities to challenge local government and establish their own services. The Conservatives are promoting devolution as a strategy to stimulate economic growth based on greater sub-regional autonomy and increased competitiveness across and between English localities. ‘Combined authorities’ have the opportunity to champion local identities and acquire new economic development powers from Whitehall. But devolution could be a strategy to decentralise austerity, shifting responsibility to the local level for deeper cuts (56% by 2020) and inevitable service reductions. Local government confronts ‘super-austerity’, where new cuts come on top of previous ones, compounding original impacts and creating dangerous (and unevenly spread) multiplier effects. The Conservatives’ ‘smarter state’ policies, aimed at delivering ‘more for less’, amount to little more than a recycling of new public management diktats. The emerging patchwork of ‘devolution deals’ challenges the redistributive assumptions of the grant regime and could leave disadvantaged areas at particular risk of failure. ‘Metro mayors’ are intended to provide visible and accountable leadership; but roles for locally elected councillors, and prospects for community and citizen engagement, remain unclear. The public has yet to be adequately engaged in what is in danger of becoming a technocratic transfer of power.