Les chambres régionales des comptes

I- STRUCTURAL DATA OF THE LOCAL SYSTEM OF ACTION : LOCAL COMMUNITIES, THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE STATE, THE REGIONAL ROOM OF THE ACCOUNTS

THE PHÉNONEME OF DECENTRALIZATION AND THE CONTROL OF THE ACCOUNTS

The Cabinet of the Council Arthur Andersen, within the framework of one « Common mission of information charged to draw up the assessment of decentralization and to propose the improvements likely to facilitate the exercise of competences local », realized in partnership with elected officials of the nation, the result of an investigation presented, via its Director associated, Eric Woerth, person in charge for the local communities, in front of the Mr. Jean-Paul Delevoye, Chairman.

During his intervention, Mr. Woerth outlined a comparative typology of the local communities in Europe and distinguished three groups from country : countries in unit matter (Denmark, the United Kingdom), strongly regionalized countries (Spain, Italy) and countries in federal matter (Germany), testifying to the diversity of the European administrative organizations.

France- and it are thus confirmed by the actors of the private sector - belongs to the group of the unit countries, in spite of measurements which softened its politico-administrative operating mode. The laws of 1982 operated in France a decentralization of competences in favor of the local communities. This conferring of powers specific to the various levels - commune, department, area - is historically deeply innovative in a country marked by a powerful administrative centralization.

The French administrative framework remains unit besides in oneself, on the administrative level, with the recourse to the principles of devolution, and compared to the other European countries^11(*), in particular those having a federal framework. The difference existing between the principles and the applications of decentralization, on the one hand, and the principles and the applications of devolution, on the other hand returns, obviously with the organization of the political order but raises especially of a different philosophy.

Devolution^12(*) returns to the idea, simple, of qualitative and quantitative improvement of the State. That allows in particular, of the savings of time, thanks to the absence of return ticket between the center and the periphery, and a better efficiency of the public action grace a better knowledge of the ground by the local civils servant. If it makes it possible to realize better and more quickly, it also poses, as it will be seen some problems.

Decentralization concerns another logic. Policy by nature, it generates political problems which inevitably have an impact on the organization of the authorities, the realization of the missions of public utility or the general interest existing however for a long time. It contribute of this fact to reorganize the methods of the local government, such as they are exerted by the various communities present on a given territory. This innovating dimension of the policy of decentralization besides was clearly perceived by the actors^13(*) since whom one passed from reforms by small keys to a reform « by the structures », impelled by the center.

It is true that the former attempts, at the time of the years 1960 with regard to the areas and at the beginning of the years 1970 for the communes, with the supposed device to support the regrouping of the communes, inevitably did not give the anticipated results^14(*). The action of Gaston Deferre thus will be largely innovative insofar as she breaks with the fallen through attempts of the past to give to the various territories new rules of the game. The system of action which results from this thus will be restructured by the texts founders of decentralization.

* ¹¹ Sylvie Hel-Thelier, «  Organization of the capacities and public management  : a comparison of the European Convention country  », State and public Gestion, CAE, Doc. Frenchwoman, 2000.

* ¹² See on this subject S. Verclytte, Devolution in France, French Documentation, 1995.

* ¹³ J.C. Thoenig, «  the Institutional innovation  »,  The Public action, under the direction of François Laced, ED. Harmattan, 1996.

* ¹⁴ P. Duran, J.C. Thoenig, «the State and territorial public management  », Re-examined French of Political Sciences, 4, 1996.