Introduction
Although all federal systems of government shares a three-level government system, consisting of the federal, state/provincial, and local governments, the functions of these governmental levels, particularly that of the local government, can vary widely as adopted in various federations around the world (Steytler, 2005), such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Germany, and South Africa, and as these government are transforming from the nation state into the market state (Treverton, 2005). Nevertheless, the constitutional allocation of powers to the three government levels plays a crucial role in the similarities and differences of their respective functions (Steytler, 2005), be it organizational, managerial, administrative, and operational functions. This paper attempts to explore these similarities and differences across various functions and governmental levels and across federal nations whenever possible. The point, however, is to understand the distinctiveness of their functions in relation to the other levels in the organization within the federal system.
Analysis of the organizational function
Steytler (2005) observed that the federal systems around the globe are moving towards a multi-level system from the dual (federal-state) system of government. Expectedly, the organizational functions vary accordingly with differences in organizational structures across the three governmental levels, particularly within the local government organization. This is true particularly in the case of the United States, which had a total of 87,849 distinct units within the local government level alone as of 2002 (Libonati, 2005). These units vary from the more fundamental local units (e.g. cities, counties, towns, townships, etc.) into larger local units, such as districts (including special purpose districts), authorities, and commissions. While these local units have the same public service delivery objectives, their approaches to the delivery of public services across the organization vary considerably, a detailed exploration of which is beyond the scope of this paper. Given this diversity, a single model of local government organization cannot be defined with their contextual functions. Nevertheless, their organizational functions are often recognized and entrenched in the state constitution and often in federal legislations as well. In the U.S., the home rule principle provides initiative and immunity to certain local governments (e.g. Colorado) from state and at times federal interference while did not in other states (e.g. Pennsylvania) (Libonati, 2005). Overall, each level must be capable of interacting effectively with its internal and external environments to better serve their respective service population.
Analysis of the management function
The managerial function of the local government centers on the efficient delivery of public services in the community or local jurisdiction (Nickson, 2011). Related to this managerial function is the statutory obligation to manage the cost of services with productive efficiency through the utilization of locally available resources at lower unit costs in the construction, maintenance, and administration of public services. Moreover, this managerial function is a delegated state management function in relation to the delivery of public services within the state, which is in turn a delegation of the federal managerial obligation to the citizens of the nation. Thus, this delegation function implies an inherent political subordination of the local government function in the public service delivery to the boundaries set by the state and the federal governments (Nickson, 2011).
Conversely, while the managerial function of the local government largely defined by the state- and federally established boundaries, both the state and federal managerial functions center primarily in the legally defined allocation of resources to the lower levels of government within the nation. It is through the political exercise of supervision, such as standard setting, support, performance monitoring, and the like (Steytler, 2005), establishes whether the local organization is autonomous or not or to which degree. In a sense, the federal managerial function determines, within the boundaries of federal laws, the allocation of resources for public services delivery to the respective states as politically intermediaries to the final beneficiaries, which are the local governments within the states. Nevertheless, the local government has some limited level of managerial discretion in allocating these resources for the selection of specific local beneficiaries that will receive specific types of public services. However, since the local government has the largest share in the total public expenditure, it has large discretionary power over locally generated resources in the allocation of public services to the local community (Nickson, 2011).
Analysis of the administration function
The administration function of the different levels in the government organization is essentially a subsidiary function of their respective managerial function. By definition, the administration of public services in the local level refers essentially to the delivery of these services outside the consideration of costs and objectives, which are within the ambit of the organizational level’s managerial function. In this sense, public services administration is principally the function of the local government and not of the state and federal governments, for certain specific cases as exceptions, even if the general obligation for public services administration rests upon the state and the federal governments at various degrees (Nickson, 2011). Thus, the administrative function of the state and the federal governments are effectively and largely delegated to the local government subject to specific exceptions.
Moreover, this also means that the amalgamation of the local governments in the entire nation represents the administrative hand of the federal government through the respective member states (Nickson, 2011). From the perspective of the federal organization, then state represents a territorial administrative organization with political power to delegate such administrative function to its respective local governments or administrative units (cf. BCA, 2006). Thus, when this system of administration is well communicated to the citizens, the state and the federal governments can claim credits for the delivery of public services within each local administrative units even to the point of establishing stronger political debt of the local citizens to the state and federal governments than the local governments (Nickson, 2011). However, this is not particularly true in the American federal system wherein the value of non-partisan delivery of public services are strictly observed and enforced. Nevertheless, the local government shares the obligation for public service delivery with the state and the federation.
Analysis of the operation functions
The operational functions of the three levels of government within the federal system are largely determined by their level of autonomy in relation to each other through the supervisory functions often exercised by higher levels of government over those in the lower levels. These functions vary widely across different federal systems employed in different countries around the world. In Europe, for instance, legal supervision is exercised with more emphasis compared to the political nature of control practiced in North America (Steytler, 2005). In Austria, control over the administrative and financial allocation functions are more emphasized. In terms of taxation, certain states in the United States (e.g. Virginia) refused to provide clear taxing authority to its local government units. Providing infrastructural services (e.g. construction and operation of street railroads, telegraphs, telephones, and even power plants) to local communities are also prohibited in certain U.S. states (e.g. Utah). Meanwhile, the federal government has the exclusive function to print money, declare war, establish armed forces, establish post offices (and issue postage), make enforcement laws for the Constitution, and many more. The State also has the exclusive power to ratify amendments to the U.S. Constitution, provide for public health and safety, and issue licenses (e.g. driver’s, marriage, and the like), among others (Libonati, 2005). Both share operational functions, such as establishment of courts, build highways, and the like.
Moreover, the intergovernmental relationship between these governmental levels are commonly hierarchical in nature wherein local governments tend, if not expected, to relate only with the state and not directly with the federal government (Steytler, 2005). Thus, operationally, the federal system operates vertically through the various governmental levels. However, this unnecessarily means that the local government is essentially cut off from the federal government, which is true in Australia. And yet the Canadian operational relationship is unstructured.
Conclusion
The current exploration of the various functions of the local, state, and federal levels of government with the federal system has clearly noted the essential impact of each level’s powers and functions in determining its specific role and status within the federated system (Steytler, 2005). It is clear, however, that the source of local government resources are highly similar, which is a combination of local revenues (e.g. real estate and income taxation) and a mix of state and federal allocations, obtained through value added taxation, and increased the local capacity to deliver public services. At the local government level, leadership must possess a clear sense of policy direction and mission clarity in order to avoid public cynicism to the government’s capability to fulfill its obligation to provide the expected public services (cf. NCPS, 2005; Robbert, 2005). State leadership must similarly exhibit this characteristic at a broader scope to guide public service delivery throughout the state. Meanwhile, federal leadership must ensure the creation of operational policies that will ensure support on the federal workers’ delivery of their respective jobs, upholding mission morale and motivation to serve the country (Gates, 2005).
References
Business Council of Australia (BCA). (2006). Appendix 1: Intergovernmental relations in
federal systems. Melbourne, Australia: Business Council of Australia.
Gates, S.M. (2005). Chapter five: Organizing for reorganizing. (pp. 139-160). In: Klitgaard, R. &
Light, P.C. (Eds.), High-performance government: Structure, leadership, incentives. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.
Libonati, M.E. (2005). State constitutions and local government in the United States. (pp. 11-26).
In: Steyler, N. (Ed.). The place and role of local government in federal systems. Johannesburg, Republic of South Africa: Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung.
National Commission on the Public Service (NCPS). (2005). Chapter two: Urgent business for
America: Revitalizing the federal government for the 21st century. (pp. 9-88). In: Klitgaard, R. & Light, P.C. (Eds.), High-performance government: Structure, leadership, incentives. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.
Nickson, A. (2011). Where is local government going in Latin America? A comparative
perspective. ICLD Working Paper No. 6. Visby, Sweden: Swedish International Centre for Local Democracy.
Robbert, A. (2005). Chapter nine: Developing leadership: Emulating the model. (pp. 255-280).
In: Klitgaard, R. & Light, P.C. (Eds.), High-performance government: Structure, leadership, incentives. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.
Steytler, N. (2005). Introduction. (pp. 1-10). In: Steyler, N. (Ed.). The place and role of local
government in federal systems. Johannesburg, Republic of South Africa: Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung.
Treverton, G.F. (2005). Chapter Three: Governing the market state. (pp. 89-112). In: Klitgaard,
R. & Light, P.C. (Eds.), High-performance government: Structure, leadership, incentives. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.
