This article is prompted by reading Sam Freedman’s book Failed State, which has attracted considerable attention among the chattering classes.[1] I had thought to write a review of the book because I agree with a lot of his diagnosis but, equally, I believe that he is profoundly wrong as soon as he attempts to go beyond pure description.
The Birmingham City Council case was greatly exacerbated by disastrous financial management by the council. Other councils have dealt with the consequences of this ruling rather better. Remember too this was not the consequence of central direction but a (probably unintended) consequence of poorly drafted legislation - what is work of equal worth?
Part of the problem is that large authorities think they are too big to fail. That is one of my objections to the usual ideas of devolution - think of the behaviour of the GLA and the Mayor of London with respect to Transport for London - first lower fares and then ask to be bailed out.
Some large Italian communes are equally bad. A number of metropolitan areas are classified as metropolitan cities which function like provinces. But there is usually one large commune for the central city - e.g. the communes of Naples and Milan. Milan is relatively well run, whereas Naples is another story with endless political drama involving the mayor, unions, the Mafia (colloquially), etc. The centre has little or no power over communes. This is exercised by either regions or provinces. I have never heard of the kind of central direction of communes that is a regular occurrence in the UK.
Your example is a good one. Many Italians from the North regard Rome (and the South) as something they have to bear. That is why the Lega Nord has been so strong in the regions of the North, though the current Fratelli government is reducing its support. On the other hand, it is important to remember that regional differences in Italy are very large. A lot of the resentment in the North focused on what were regarded as corrupt and inefficient mechanisms to level up in the British terminology.
Your point about disease control is a reflection of the fact that staff in municipalities are locals. They know their neighbours. Voters see them daily at the local store or bar so there is immediate feedback on what works and what doesn't. For some people this is all rather intrusive - villages in which everyone knows everyone else's business. The balance is difficult but, in my experience, having a local authority where most staff work 60 km away from the areas they are supposed to serve is far worse. Anonymity is all very well but in practice it means that public services are mostly blind.
Excellent article. The depth of control on local authorities is profound. Birmingham City Council is bankrupt because the Supreme Court decided that it owed many (women) carers and cooks, back pay because they were not given the same bonuses as (male) refuse collectors, road workers, and street cleaners. One wonders how often communi would subject to such central direction.
Thank you Gordon - a very informative read as always.
Maybe 20 years or so ago an Italian with clearly a formidable command of English was being quizzed on BBC radio about yet another constitutional crisis in Italy. On being asked whether it was serious, he replied that it was extremely serious, but not important, which I took to mean that for ordinary Italians, life would go on as usual.
I haven't verified this, but during the dark days of the Covid pandemic, I heard a claim that local authorities were once adept at disease control, involving shoe leather and door-knocking. As we remember, this had been replaced by Matt Hancock and an app that didn't work.
I recently learned that the Cabinet Office, which conjures up an image of a back room with a few people sitting at screens, employs around 10,000 civil servants.
The Birmingham City Council case was greatly exacerbated by disastrous financial management by the council. Other councils have dealt with the consequences of this ruling rather better. Remember too this was not the consequence of central direction but a (probably unintended) consequence of poorly drafted legislation - what is work of equal worth?
Part of the problem is that large authorities think they are too big to fail. That is one of my objections to the usual ideas of devolution - think of the behaviour of the GLA and the Mayor of London with respect to Transport for London - first lower fares and then ask to be bailed out.
Some large Italian communes are equally bad. A number of metropolitan areas are classified as metropolitan cities which function like provinces. But there is usually one large commune for the central city - e.g. the communes of Naples and Milan. Milan is relatively well run, whereas Naples is another story with endless political drama involving the mayor, unions, the Mafia (colloquially), etc. The centre has little or no power over communes. This is exercised by either regions or provinces. I have never heard of the kind of central direction of communes that is a regular occurrence in the UK.
Your example is a good one. Many Italians from the North regard Rome (and the South) as something they have to bear. That is why the Lega Nord has been so strong in the regions of the North, though the current Fratelli government is reducing its support. On the other hand, it is important to remember that regional differences in Italy are very large. A lot of the resentment in the North focused on what were regarded as corrupt and inefficient mechanisms to level up in the British terminology.
Your point about disease control is a reflection of the fact that staff in municipalities are locals. They know their neighbours. Voters see them daily at the local store or bar so there is immediate feedback on what works and what doesn't. For some people this is all rather intrusive - villages in which everyone knows everyone else's business. The balance is difficult but, in my experience, having a local authority where most staff work 60 km away from the areas they are supposed to serve is far worse. Anonymity is all very well but in practice it means that public services are mostly blind.
Excellent article. The depth of control on local authorities is profound. Birmingham City Council is bankrupt because the Supreme Court decided that it owed many (women) carers and cooks, back pay because they were not given the same bonuses as (male) refuse collectors, road workers, and street cleaners. One wonders how often communi would subject to such central direction.
Thank you Gordon - a very informative read as always.
Maybe 20 years or so ago an Italian with clearly a formidable command of English was being quizzed on BBC radio about yet another constitutional crisis in Italy. On being asked whether it was serious, he replied that it was extremely serious, but not important, which I took to mean that for ordinary Italians, life would go on as usual.
I haven't verified this, but during the dark days of the Covid pandemic, I heard a claim that local authorities were once adept at disease control, involving shoe leather and door-knocking. As we remember, this had been replaced by Matt Hancock and an app that didn't work.
I recently learned that the Cabinet Office, which conjures up an image of a back room with a few people sitting at screens, employs around 10,000 civil servants.
Here is a few minutes-worth of documentary posing as comedy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzfNEF0e-y4