Local State

The local state has been used in geography and related disciplines since the late 1970s. The concept was first employed in a Marxist analysis of political practices in a borough of London. Although sometimes used synonymously with local government, it has broader meanings encompassing local judiciaries and other local authorities, QUANGOS (quasi-nongovernmental organizations that are financed by government but operate independently), local offices of central governments, and even (in certain cases) public–private partnerships and nonprofit organizations. Use of the term local state has become less common during recent years, and it has been partially superseded by the language of regulation theory. Some object to the term because it seems to imply local sovereignty, whereas the local state is ultimately limited in its capacity for independent action.

The local state serves in part as an agent of the central state. That there are very few central states without governmental units at smaller scales suggests the utility of local state structures. Placing authority for the provision of some public goods and services at the local level increases local participation in decision making and, at least theoretically, allows for local solutions to local problems. Local solutions can be more efficient than a “one size fits all” central solution. In a heterogeneous country with wide spatial variations, the local state can be seen to provide a measure of self-determination. Local electoral politics, regulations, and taxation provide a measure of local autonomy. But it is also argued that if problems and crises are segmented spatially into separate localities, blame for failure also rests locally, protecting the central state from criticism. Local government reorganizations (as occurred in the United Kingdom in 1968 and 1974) and shifting responsibilities between different levels of government are ways in which the central state maintains remote control of the local state.

Some see a significant role of the local state as legitimizing the actions of the central state and acting as the central state's agent. The local state is seen as an attenuation of the central state's political apparatus, enabling the central state to maintain social control. In fact, the relative autonomy of the local state to act independently of the central state varies from country to country and over time. In some cases, the local state merely enforces the rules of the central state and derives its funding from the same source. In the United States, the federal government's welfare policies enable it to retain a high degree of control through regulation of eligibility and accounting, even though the local state administers many of the programs. In other cases, local authorities have taxing, spending, and rule-making powers and can act relatively independently of the central state. Land use zoning is an[Page 281] example of mainly local control with few central government regulations. In still other cases, local nongovernmental entities, citizens groups, and other social movements may be influential enough to introduce local regulations—whether gay marriage in Massachusetts or vehicle entry fees to central London—that are counter to central government policies. Such actions by local states that conflict with central state policies are not uncommon when opposing political parties control local and central governments. For example, in the United Kingdom, when Conservatives in central government want to reduce public expenditure, Labor-run urban governments resist cuts in services. And in the United States, Republican cuts in federally funded welfare programs are opposed by local Democratic administrations.

...