Integrated Decentralization: Models of the Prefectoral System

THERE are many ways of decentralizing the functions of government. They run along a scale from the constitutional division of powers in federalism, past the statutory devolution of powers to elected local authorities, to the administrative delegation of functions to the field services of central government. Questions of administrative decentralization are likely to occur in any case. Most West European countries, certainly, are facing broadly similar problems : how to rationalise an increasingly complex and overextended administration; how to decentralize as a counter to inefficiency at the centre, either because it is choked with work or because it i s out of touch with needs on the ground; how to coordinate a system that tends to become increasingly specialized as it becomes more complex, both at the centre and-with decentralisation-at other levels also; how to plan effectively for economic growth, land use and balanced regional development. Demands of efficiency combine with demands of democracy in the call for modernisation of administrative systems. This article arose out of an interest in ways of decentralizing the decisionmaking functions of government, and a study of the French prefectoral system as a particular solution to problems of decentralization at the administrative end of the scale.' The decentralization of functions presupposes the existence of decentralized governmental institutions. Obviously all central government systems require a network of administrative services outside the capital-field services-though their extent varies a good deal from country to country. In their simplest form, indeed, they may be little more than branch offices of their ministries, staffed by subordinate personnel and responsible only for the routine execution of centrally-made decisions. The interest here lies in that form of decentralization which entails a genuine transfer of administrative authority, as well as functions, to senior officials and their services in the field. Such decentralization, again, can take a variety of forms and a typology has recently been suggested by Brian Smith.z Field services can be more or less extensive as regards their number and the density of their organization; they can be more or less powerful, depending on the seniority of their staff and the degree of authority they are given. The intention here is to look at a strong system, one that is solidly organized and has decision-making, as well as executive, functions. Even at this end of a scale, different systems can be found. Decentralized administration is likely to be functionally organized, that is to say each ministry or broad sphere of governmental activity is likely to have its own field services, structurally the extension of a ministry, though at the other end of this scale it is possible to have a unified field service acting on behalf of all ministries. Somewhere between the vertical decentralization of specialist services and horizontal decentralization to a single all-purpose area service, there is a point of overlap where horizontal coordination is imposed on vertical structures. This is the integrated model of administrative decentralization as found in the French prefectoral system and forms the subject of the present study. The intention is to consider analytically the ways in which a strong system of integrated decentralization can be organized. Smith calls this the integrated prefectoral system, taking prefect as a convenient title for the central government's chief representative in the county, province or whatever territorial area is used as the basis of decentralization. In its ideal-type form, the system has a number of charac-