Regional & Federal Studies

Transcription

1 This article was downloaded by:[university of North Carolina Chapel Hill] On: 1 June 2008 Access Details: [subscription number ] Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: Registered office: Mortimer House, Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Regional & Federal Studies Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: Appendix B: Country and Regional Scores Liesbet Hooghe ab ; Arjan H. Schakel b ; Gary Marks ab a University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA b Free University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Online Publication Date: 01 April 2008 To cite this Article: Hooghe, Liesbet, Schakel, Arjan H. and Marks, Gary (2008) 'Appendix B: Country and Regional Scores', Regional & Federal Studies, 18:2, To link to this article: DOI: / URL: PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

2 Regional and Federal Studies Vol. 18, No. 2 3, , April June 2008 Appendix B: Country and Regional Scores LIESBET HOOGHE, ARJAN H. SCHAKEL & GARY MARKS University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA and Free University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Free University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Tables 1A and B set out the coding schemes for self-rule and shared rule, which together constitute regional authority. Table 2 aggregates scores for all regional units to the country level for 42 countries. Eight dimensions of regional authority are coded on an annual basis for years in which a country was independent and (semi-)democratic from 1950 to The algorithm for combining regional scores is described in Hooghe et al. ( Operationalizing Regional Authority..., this issue, pp ). Table 3 provides disaggregated scores scores for all regional levels below the national level having an average population greater than , scores for asymmetrical arrangements and scores for special autonomous regions. The population of countries/years is the same as for Table 2. Correspondence Address: Liesbet Hooghe, Department of Political Science, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA. Fax: þ , Tel.: þ hooghe@unc.edu or l.hooghe@fsw.vu.nl ISSN print/ online DOI: / # 2008 Taylor & Francis

3 260 L. Hooghe et al. Table 1A. Self-rule Self-rule The authority exercised by a regional government over those who live in the region The extent to which a regional government is autonomous rather than deconcentrated. Policy scope The range of policies for which a regional government is responsible : no functioning general-purpose administration at regional level 1: deconcentrated, general-purpose, administration 2: non-deconcentrated, general-purpose, administration subject to central government veto 3: non-deconcentrated, general-purpose, administration not subject to central government veto 0 4 0: no authoritative competencies over economic policy, culturaleducational policy, welfare state policy 1: authoritative competencies in one area: economic policy, cultural-educational policy, welfare state policy 2: authoritative competencies in at least two areas: economic policy, cultural-educational policy, welfare state policy 3: authoritative competencies in at least two areas above, and in at least two of the following: residual powers, police, authority over own institutional set-up, local government 4: the regional government meets the criteria for 3, and has authority over immigration or citizenship The extent to which a regional government can independently tax its population : the central government sets base and rate of all regional taxes 1: the regional government sets the rate of minor taxes 2: the regional government sets base and rate of minor taxes 3: the regional government sets the rate of at least one major tax: personal income, corporate, value added or sales tax 4: the regional government sets base and rate of at least one major tax: personal income, corporate, value added or sales tax. Representation The extent to which a region is endowed with an independent legislature and executive. 0 4 Assembly: 0: no regional assembly 1: an indirectly elected regional assembly 2: a directly elected assembly : 0: the regional executive is appointed by central government 1: dual executives appointed by central government and the regional assembly 2: the regional executive is appointed by a regional assembly or directly elected

4 Appendix B: Country and Regional Scores 261 Table 1B. Shared Rule a Shared Rule The authority exercised by a regional government or its representatives in the country as a whole. Law making The extent to which regional representatives co-determine national legislation : regions are the unit of representation in the legislature 0.5: regional governments designate representatives in the legislature 0.5: regions have majority representation in the legislature 0.5: the legislature with regional representation has extensive legislative authority The extent to which a regional government co-determines national policy in intergovernmental meetings. The extent to which regional representatives co-determine the distribution of national tax revenues : no routine meetings between central and regional governments to negotiate policy 1: routine meetings between central and regional governments without legally binding authority 2: routine meetings between central and regional governments with authority to reach legally binding decisions 0 2 0: regional governments or their representatives in the legislature are not consulted over the distribution of tax revenues 1: regional governments or their representatives in the legislature negotiate over the distribution of tax revenues, but do not have a veto 2: regional governments or their representatives in the legislature have a veto over the distribution of tax revenues The extent to which regional representatives co-determine constitutional change : the central government and/or national electorate can unilaterally change the constitution 1: a legislature based on the principle of regional representation must approve constitutional change; or constitutional change requires a referendum based on the principle of equal regional representation 2: regional governments are a directly represented majority in a legislature which can do one or more of the following: postpone constitutional, introduce amendments, raise the decision hurdle in the other chamber, require a second vote in the other chamber, require a popular referendum 3: a majority of regional governments can veto constitutional change. a Shared rule criteria are adjusted for special autonomous regions, as detailed in Appendix A.

5 262 L. Hooghe et al. Country Year Table 2. Regional Authority Index (RAI) for 42 countries: scores aggregated by country a Policy scope Law making Representation Selfrule Shared rule Albania Australia Austria RAI Total Belgium Bosnia and Herzegovina Bulgaria Canada Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic

6 Appendix B: Country and Regional Scores 263 Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland (Table continued)

7 264 L. Hooghe et al. Country Year Policy scope Table 2. Continued Law making Representation Selfrule Shared rule Italy Japan RAI Total Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia Malta Netherlands New Zealand Norway

8 Appendix B: Country and Regional Scores 265 Poland Portugal Romania Russian Federation Serbia and Montenegro Slovakia Slovenia Spain (Table continued)

9 266 L. Hooghe et al. Country Year Policy scope Table 2. Continued Law making Representation Selfrule Shared rule Sweden Switzerland Turkey UK RAI Total USA a Reform/years are listed as separate rows when the shared rule score and/or the self-rule score changes by 0.1 or more. Scores are rounded to one decimal place, causing occasional summing inequalities.

10 Appendix B: Country and Regional Scores 267 Country Region Type Year Table 3. Regional Authority Index (RAI) for 42 countries: scores by region Policy scope Law making Representation Selfrule Albania Qarku I Australia States I Northern Territory C! A Australian Capital.I! A Territory Shared rule RAI Total Austria Länder I Belgium Provincies I! II Vlaamse Gemeenschap I Communauté française I Deutsche Gemeinschaft I Note: I, highest regional tier; II, second-highest regional tier; III, third-highest regional tier; A, special autonomous region; C, colony, dependency;! indicates a change in status over the time period;. indicates a region which is scored separately from its tier. (Table continued)

11 268 L. Hooghe et al. Country Region Type Year Table 3. Continued Policy scope Law making Representation Selfrule Belgium (cont.) Région Wallonne I Brussel Hoofdstedelijk I Gewest/Région Bruxelles-Capitale Bosnia and Herzegovina Entities I Shared rule RAI Total in Federacija B. i H.: II Cantons Bulgaria Oblasti I Canada Counties, Regions II Provinces I Northwest Territories C! A Yukon C! A Nunavut A

12 Appendix B: Country and Regional Scores 269 Croatia Županije I Cyprus Czech Republic Kraje I Denmark Amter I Grønland I! A Færøerne A Estonia Finland Läänit I! II Maakuntien I Kainuu I Åland A France Départements I! II Régions I Corse A Germany Kreise III Regierungsbezirke II (Table continued)

13 270 L. Hooghe et al. Country Region Type Year Table 3. Continued Policy scope Law making Representation Selfrule Germany (cont.).nordrh. Westfalen II Länder I Greece Nomoi I! II Peripheria I Hungary Megyék I! II Tervezési-statisztikai I régiók Iceland Shared rule RAI Total Ireland Regional authorities I Italy Province I! II Bolzano Bozen/ I! A Trento a Regioni a statuto I ordinario

14 Appendix B: Country and Regional Scores 271 Regioni a statuto A speciale b Trentino Alto A Adige/Südtirol Japan Todofuken I Latvia Lithuania - I Apskritys Luxembourg Macedonia Malta Netherlands Provincies I New Zealand Regions I Auckland I Wellington I Norway Fylker I Poland Województwa I a The autonomous provinces of Bolzano and Trento constitute the autonomous region of Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol. b Sardegna, Sicilia, Valle d Aosta/Vallée d Aoste and, since 1963, also Friuli-Venezia-Giulia. Trento-Alto Adige/Südtirol is scored separately. (Table continued)

15 272 L. Hooghe et al. Country Region Type Year Table 3. Continued Policy scope Law making Representation Selfrule Portugal Distritos I! II Comissões de desenvolvimento regional Shared rule I Açores, Madeira A Romania Judete I! II Regiuni de dezvoltare I Russian Federation Respubliki I! II RAI Total Subwekty federacii I! II Okruga I Serbia and Montenegro Republics I in Serbia: Okruzi II in Serbia: Vojvodina A in Serbia: Kosomet A Slovakia Kraje I Samospravne kraje Slovenia

16 Appendix B: Country and Regional Scores 273 Spain Provincias I! II Comunidades I autónomas c Pais Vasco I Catalunya I Galicia I Andalucia I Navarra I Asturias, Cantabria I Ceuta, Melilla A! I Sweden Län I Switzerland Cantons I c La Rioja, Murcia, Valencia, Aragón, Castilla la Mancha, Islas Canarias signed their statute in 1982, and the Balearic Islands, Castilla y Leon, Extremadura and Madrid signed in (Table continued)

17 274 L. Hooghe et al. Country Region Type Year Table 3. Continued Policy scope Law making Representation Selfrule Turkey Iller I UK Counties I! II Regions I Greater London Authority Shared rule I Northern Ireland A Scotland A Wales A RAI Total USA Counties II Regional councils II States I Alaska, Hawaii A! I Washington DC.II # A