SOURCES OF INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY AND CONTRADICTIONS OF COUNTY GOVERNANCE: ANALYZING THE ESTONIAN EXPERIENCE.

• Author: Sootla, Georg

1. Introduction

   In the last decades studies of subnational government have focusedmainly either on the developments of municipal (Amna and Montin, 2000; Loughlin, 2001; Caulfield and Larsen, 2002; Kersting and Vetter, 2003; Denters and Rose, 2005) or regional tiers of government (Keating, 1998; Loughlin, 2001). Studies of county level governance have focused on its single components--either on the state administration (Hajnal and Kovacs, 2013; Bogumil and Kuhlmann, 2013) or the institution of the prefect at the county/province level (Knapp and Wright, 2006; DeMontricher, 2000; Bjorna and Jenssen, 2006) or on county self-governing institutions (Aalbu, Bohme and Uhlin, 2008; Blom-Hansen et al., 2012). There have been only few attempts to analyze county governance as a system of interaction of institutions and actors (Leemans, 1970; Reigner, 2001; Knapp and Wright, 2006). There are at least two reasons why academic interest in county level government should not fade, especially in Central and Eastern Europe. Firstly, there is increasing need to analyze relations between central and local government from the perspective of multi level governance (Piattoni, 2009; Peters and Pierre, 2001), in which the county level is the critical link in creating balancing mechanisms between tiers. Secondly, in many CEE countries the reforms of local government in the beginning of the 1990s aimed to create the municipal self-government as a democratic counterweight to the state administration (Horvath, 2000). As a result, the capacity of local governance was dissipated among large number of fragmented local authorities (except in Lithuania and Bulgaria) (Lankina, Hudalla and Wollmann, 2008). The capacity of the county government was either intentionally diminished (as in the Baltic States) or it was reorganized, but not so profoundly as the municipal level (Horvath, 2000). In the 2000s profound reorganizations of county level governance were launched (in Latvia, Estonia, Hungary, Slovakia, Eastern Germany) in parallel with the amalgamation of municipalities (in Eastern Germany, Latvia, Denmark, Greece) or the establishment of regions (in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland). However, in Denmark, Latvia, Finland and Lithuania counties as administrative units were abolished (Baldersheim and Rose, 2010; Meklinand Pekola-Sjoblom, 2013) and the impact of this measure on intergovernmental relations deserves a special study.

   Estonia has been within the period of 1917-1940 and since 1989 a great laboratory of experimentation of various patterns and practices of county governance. In this paper we do not intend per se to introduce the history of Estonian county governance but instead to analyze it as an empirical case in order to understand variables of internal integrity as well as controversies of different patterns. Besides, we intend to develop further a framework for the analysis of county governance as an integrated system and to identify basic patterns of interactions between its actors, roles and tasks.

   Research and data. In the analysis of county governance in Estonia in the interwar period we draw on the legislation, articles and public debates in the press, first of all in local government associations' journals, and minutes of county council meetings. The analysis of post-communist developments is based, supplementary to these sources, on the data archive which our research team (Saar, 2006) started to com pose from 2006 onwards. To its core is the collection of documents from government archives and from personal archives, concerning local government developments, different research reports, as well as targeted interviews with actors, including with county governors and municipal leaders within last decade.

2. Organization of politico-administrative space at the county level

   The county, as a governance tier and unit, is not only differently named as county, district, province, department etc., but in EU statistics (NUTS classification) some of them are treated -depending on size of population--as the lower regional units NUTS-3 (German Kreise, French departement, etc.) whereas others are considered as upper local level units (LAU 1) (Polish powiat, Estonian maakond) (Eurostat, 2007). Nevertheless, it is the second tier of governance which has specific actors, roles and patterns of interaction clearly different from municipal as well as regional tiers.

   2.1. Actors

   At the county level there are four institutional actors (Knapp and Wright, 2006, p. 352), whose interaction determines the character of governance at the county level.

   The first (also, historically, the earliest) is the county prefect who is primarily representative of the state in the county. The symbolic and informal legitimacy of the prefect as the highest state official in the county plays a crucial role in determining its other roles (Knapp and Wright, 2006; De Montricher, 2000). Very important for the legitimacy of the prefect is who appoints the prefect: the President as the head of state, like in France, or the Government on the proposal of a minister within routine civil service appointment, like in Estonia.

   The second set of actors are central government field services which can be organized as a fragmented set of functional agencies of ministries or as a more or less integrated multifunctional state office in a county (like in Hungary and some Lander in Germany). True, sometimes the territorial service area of a field agency and the territory of a county may not coincide. In order to contribute to the development of counties as an integrated space there is a need to coordinate activities of these agencies and to adapt ministerial policies to the local needs.

   The third actor is devolved county self-government, i.e., county council and its executive (Hoene, Baldassare and Shires, 2002; Kemp, 2008; Knapp and Wright, 2006) which accomplishes (1) specific local tasks which presume a larger scale than municipalities can provide; (2) the central government tasks delegated to county council's executive, and (3) assistance of smaller municipalities due to their insufficient capacity, especially through professional advice, thus contributing additionally to territorial integrity of administration (Wollmann, 2000).

   Fourth, Knapp and Wright (2006) consider that important actors are various local private or voluntary organizations, associations, boards, and development councils, which can influence the integrity of the development of a county's politico-administrative space.

   2.2. Roles

   There are three broad sets of roles the actors have at the county level: (1) governing roles; (2) service provision roles; and (3) balancing role in horizontal/territorial and intergovernmental power networks.

   In the research literature several governing roles are identified. The first is--as indicated --representation of the state and assurance of certain uniformity and common values/standards among all actors at the county level (Bjorna and Jenssen, 2006). The second is supervision of activities of local self-government authorities (Devas and Delay, 2006; Bjorna and Jenssen, 2006) as well as of state field agencies and other actors concerning their compliance to laws and regulations. Usually both of these roles are accomplished by the prefect. However,in some countries (Hungary, Germany, Poland, Estonia), the head of the county council's executive is charged with the supervisory role. Sometimes the county council's executive body, as we see in Estonia, may be assigned the role of a representative of the state. There is a widespread belief, that --especially in small countries--the merger of different governing roles is justified because of economy of scale. However, as we see later, this may result in controversies of the governance and its frequent reshuffling without a clear purpose, involving substantial governing gaps. Third, county authorities (usually both the prefect and council) are in charge of allocating central resources (i.e., EU funds) and developing local strategies/priorities for different sectors and municipal authorities (Lidstrom, 2011; Sharpe, 1993).

   The fourth important governing role is the coordination of activities of different actors and planning of the county's development (Sharpe, 1993; Hulst, 2005; Lidstrom, 2011) in order to reduce functional fragmentation and duplication of policies. In some countries both roles are assigned--due to the absence of county level--to the board of municipalities (Finland) or development councils (Lithuania). The fifth--the county authorities can be responsible for organizing national elections at sub-national level. Hence, the prefect or county governor faces a conflict between its administrative and political roles (Knapp and Wright, 2006; De Montricher, 2000).

   County level actors are also responsible for provision of public services (Devas and Delay, 2006). This includes two broad classes. First are administrative services, including technical-legal supervision, enforcing standards, issuing licenses and permits and professional assistance in areas of ministerial responsibility, which are usually accomplished by state field offices. Second are local public services, the provision of which presumes larger scale or specific competence that is available at the county level (Lidstrom, 2011, p. 21; Sharpe, 1993; Hoene, Baldassareand Shires, 2002). There are many ways for division of competences and tasks between state agencies and self-governing actors in provision of services at the county level even in a single country (Bogumil and Kuhlmann, 2013). In countries with a strong municipal tier of self-government the second tier has only selected tasks, most often managing health sector, regional roads, high schools, planning/zoning, land issues, etc. In continental countries more tasks may be assigned to the councils, but in service delivery these authorities/officials are usually accomplishing fused roles as...