Territorial Administrative Reform of Lithuania and Its Setback: Specific Position of Suburban

Territorial Administrative Reform of Lithuania and Its Setback: Specific Position of Suburban Municipalities

Liudas Mazylis, Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania

Abstract

The question of further development of suburban territories in Lithuania falls into broader problem of unfinished territorial administrative reform. In 2002, general number of municipalities expanded up to 60, and then the reform stopped.

Necessity of territorial reforms became evident already in early post-communism reasoning by two groups of arguments. One, quality of administration and public services (decision made closer to consumer is more effective), another, giving more legitimacy to local level (Illner, 1999). These arguments might be combined: providing services on the possible lowest level is more effective due to better respond to community needs; self-perception of community is enhanced by that (Goldsmith, 1997; Mazylis and co-authors, 2002).

When municipalities in neighboring CEE countries are, typically, too small, in Lithuania they have above 50000 inhabitants in average. Thus, the task is to establish new well functioning municipalities (up to 100). Here, status of suburban territories is quite specific post-communist relict: so-called „band municipalities” surrounding big cities. Problems of institutional „ex-territoriality”, use of infrastructure objects by inhabitants of two municipalities, as well as city development problems typically occur. Government proposes, fragmenting „band territory” by amalgamation of closer territories with the “core” city.

The aim of this paper is, to analyze systemically perspectives of suburban territories within context of territorial administrative reform evaluating appropriateness of Government’ criteria, taking into account experience of recent reform, position of different actors involved as well as tendencies of public opinion. Main methods: opinion polls analysis followed by semi-structured interviews with state and municipal employees and politicians, and mass media content analysis.

Recent reform experiences are, from a point of view of suburban territories, rather limited: only one (mainly agriculture) “band” territory was amalgamated to date. Unified quantitative criteria for establishing new municipalities (general number of inhabitants of municipality and its center, distance between two centers in kilometers, indicator of financial capacity) do not become stimulus to continue territorial reform.

Media content analysis shows, arguments against amalgamation of suburban territories are lacking economic, political and administrative logics. However, with long drawn reform process, they can raise apathy, or resistance, among general public. When in first amalgamated territory arguments like “city authorities will take less care of them” were rather occasional (Mazylis, Povilaitis, 2002), now, in “preliminary unofficial” Governmental poll in 2007 they tend to dominate. Turnout in particular suburban territories were bigger compared with elections to the parliament or local council, with total unity of participants against “attribution to the city”. This seems to be result of long-term lobbying of “band municipalities” elites against amalgamation using opinion polls as a tool of political manipulations. It may have negative influence to long-term public attitudes towards local government (Swianiewicz, 2001) reinforcing perception of municipalities as units with only administering but not self-government purposes. At the moment, Mayors, local councils, Association of Local Authorities are united against any territorial reforms. For legitimacy of further reform, long-term program is recommended to be developed enabling flexible solution of fund allocation both between central government and municipalities as well as between latter and sub-municipal units as additional factor preventing further territorial divide.

Introduction

Trying to interpretterritorial reforms, two groups of arguments might be developed (Illner, 1999). One is based on the quality of public services delivered (decision made closer to the service user is more effective). Another group of arguments can be called „legitimacy-based“: by that, more governing functions should be given to the local level. Functional arguments do exist, too. Citizenry is being stimulated by decentralizing governance; more citizen needs, and solutions more acceptable to them are possible; enables formation of local elites; counter-balances efforts of authoritarian ruling; allows experiments when introducing new governing structures and policy spheres (Baldersheim, 1999). Other authors do suggest similar arguments, too. Delivering public services on the lower level is more effective and better corresponds the needs of community; community sense is formed (Goldsmith, 1992). Also, arguments of effectiveness (Bogason, 1996), and legitimacy (Swianiewicz, 2001) can be combined.

When analyzing problem on a more pragmatic level, discussing optimal size and number of local self-government units, the aforementioned arguments do work, in principle, as well.

Additionally, the problem was actualized by democratic transformations in post-communist space. After totalitarian government, efforts to introduce principles of West European institutional models based on enrooted communities and long democratic traditions, question of reforming administrative division of state territory is becoming its importance. For new Center East European democracies, here, European Charter on Local Self-Government became important (ratified in Lithuania relatively late, in 1999). Particularly, its article 5 (preliminary consultations with interested local communities before changing municipal borders, or local referenda) her is to be taken into account, though formulation itself of aforementioned article 5 allows quite broad interpretations. In Lithuania, having weak self-government traditions, growing tendencies for unitary state by limiting decentralization, territorial administrative reform is becoming, finally, endless process (Mazylis, Rabinovich, 2008).

Thus, when developing concept of administrative division of the territory of state, different aspect are important: economic, rationality of governance, community self-government, also political ones.

Necessity of territorial reforms in CEE became evident already in early post-communism. Differences of size of municipal units can be explained by a number of factors such as density of population, earlier territorial administrative structures, etc. In the post-communist societies of Center East European countries, reforming administrative territorial division and fragmenting municipalities was proceeding by the initiative of community and was showing, partly, strive for decentralization and willingness of communities to come back to traditional territories where the inhabitants are identifying themselves as single community (Vilka, 2005). The fragmentation process can be explained as a reaction of local inhabitants to the former amalgamations based on mainly economic rationale. For majority of post-soviet states hyper-fragmentation of the territory is typical at the moment. Typical example: Armenia now has a task to seek for average size of municipality 20 thousand inhabitants as a minimum (Harutunyan, 2008), similar situation is in Latvia (Vilka, 2005).

Thus, typical municipality in neighboring CEE countries is too small (can be interpreted as a counter-reaction to amalgamation with a strive for economic rationale, as mentioned above) but Lithuania makes a kind of exception having the biggest municipalities with average 50000 inhabitants (dividing number of Lithuanian inhabitants by 60 – the today’s number of municipalities).

Table 1 about here.

In total, the territorial reform in Lithuaniawould lead to increase of number of municipalities, up to 90 or even more than 100. Criteria for establishing new municipalities are defined by the Government such as ability to provide public services, financial capability, and local community interests (see below). But when about suburban territories, there is not a case to propose formation of new municipalities. In opposite, amalgamation of their territories with urban ones is planned, as a rule. Status of suburban territories is quite specific post-communist relict: they keep since Soviet times so-called „band municipalities” surrounding big cities. For all of them is typical, using the same objects of infrastructure for both two municipalities, city and “surrounding”; this leads to mutual misunderstanding between both two authorities, creating constraints for service users. Doubling municipal institutions are located „ex-territorially“ within the city; problems of use of infrastructure objects by inhabitants of two municipalities, as well as city development problems typically occur. Government proposes, fragmenting „band territory” with forming one or more new municipalities with remote, as a rule, center, and attaching closer territories to the city.

To understand in-depth constraints for territorial administrative reform is quite an interesting academic problem. Though a number of projects were in process, there is unclear why the reformed stopped, indeed. Interpretations are rather superficial, sometimes politicized. Data are, typically, quite fragmented, especially when about suburban territories: analysis typically was carried out within broader problems of the reforms (Mazylis, Povilaitis, 2002). When about problem of political will, there is a question who should become crucial initiator: governing political parties, interested communities or/ and local council (-s)? Quite surprisingly, experiences of the reform efforts – so-called “experimental” phase of the reform in 2000 – are of limited interest for any political actors. Rather, experiences are ignored by them. Even after successful (relatively, at least) proceed of fragmentation and/ or amalgamation of particular territories in 2000, experiences of the reform is further of interest rather for local politicians and administrative staff of newly formed municipalities but not for the political community of the Lithuania as the whole.

The aim of this paper is, to analyze systematically pros and contras of administrative territorial reform of suburban territories within broader perspective of Lithuania’s, as one of post-soviet states, case.

Objectives: analysis of to date reform performance; taking into consideration experiences of simplification of territory administration, also economic criteria; aspects of eventual enhancing legitimacy and political representation, community cohesiveness; problems of political will and political responsibility for reform; sketching possible further scenarios of development.

Methods: analysis of legal documents, first, Lithuanian Government decisions, legal acts of particular municipalities, positions of the Association of Local Authorities of the Republic of Lithuania; meta-analysis of economic data; analysis of opinion polls; mass media content analysis; semi-structured interview with state and local officials and politicians.

1. Rationale of territorial administrative reform: context for reforming governance of suburban territories

After entering into force of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania in 1992, reforming territorial units seemed to be among one of the necessary steps, similar to, for instance, judicial reform. Detailed calculations and projects started already in 1993. First stage of the reform looked like successful: 10 so-called „upper level“ (regional) territorial institutions (apskritys) were successfully established, and part of the municipal functions delegated to this „upper“ level not possessing, by the way, self-government rights (quite unusual aspect within European Union context, by the way), with much slower process of decentralizing few ministerial functions as another part of this stage of the reform.

The process seemed to continue and finish by establishing new municipalities by territorial fragmentation and, in a number of cases, amalgamation of municipalities, 56 to that date. Approaching local elections of 2000, the year 1999 seemed acceptable for, at least „experimental“, establishing of a number of municipalities. Final choice of the Government was, creating 5 new municipalities and to liquidate one, „band municipality“Marijampoles rajonas (surrounding Marijampole city): two new remote municipalities‘ centers were established, and suburban territories amalgamated with the city. Quite ironically, this first “experimental” stage was at the same time the last, until now.

Already in 1993, Institute of Economy and Privatization has made a project “Calculations of State and Inhabitants’ Expenses of Variants of Administrative Division of the Territory of the Republic of Lithuania: Complex Evaluation of Variants” coming to the conclusion about optimal number of municipalities, namely, 100.

For establishing of new municipalities, all the following conditions must be fulfilled:

state is able to assign budget for that purpose;
administrative and financial capacities can ensure all statutory functions;
the political will is expressed by the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, President of the Republic and the Government of the Republic;
initiative of the inhabitants should be present.

Principles of establishing new municipalities:

second stage of the reform of administrative units can be continued prior to the local elections, allowing possibility to establish new municipalities also after elections until the aims and objectives for the second stage of the reform will be fulfilled;
new municipalities are established or liquidating, or boundaries of municipalities are changing according to law not in contradiction to the aims of reform of administrative units of the Republic of Lithuania and according to the Decision of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania No I-586 „On the enacting of the Law of administrative units and their boundaries of the Republic of Lithuania“;
territory of the new established municipality is formed, as a rule, from the one part of existing territory of the municipality, and, if the opportunity exists, incorporating localities requesting it;
territory of new formed municipality consists of the city which will become center of new municipality, also surrounding localities connected with it by different ties;
center of each municipality should be located within borders of territory administered by it;
city borders not necessary are identified with territories administered by municipalities;
there must be in the budget of the Republic of Lithuania allocations enabling establishing new municipalities:

- for opinion polls;

- for acquiring administrative buildings (constructing, re-constructing or buying, renewing);

- acquiring inventor of municipal administration and equipment;

- acquiring transport;

- acquiring administrative quarter for state institutions territorial divisions in the new municipalities;

- financing organizational work of municipalities (establishing municipal borders, preparing plans of territories, seminar organizing etc);

- decisions connected with establishing new municipalities and allocating of state budget for their establishing are adopted not later than 1.5 year prior municipal elections.

Table 2 about here.

While specifically about „band“ („ring“) municipalities, there were a number of specific recommendations how to reform them, but mainly simply enumerating existing problems. The main problem, according to authors of the study of 1993, was, administration of “band” municipalities (Alytus, Kaunas, Panevezys, Siauliai, and Vilnius) has its headquarters outside the territory administered, in fact, within the city surrounded. Another problem, a number of municipal institutions, libraries, health and other institutions, are located in the corresponding cities, too. This lead to different problems, for instance, developing of infrastructure. Also inconveniences of taking pre-school institution services of city municipalities by inhabitants of surrounding municipalities occur. Budget allocations are assigned from city budgets, and it limits possibilities to use these services by inhabitants of other territory. When about state subordinated territorial institutions such as police or employment exchange, they are already one for both two municipalities.

Later on, criteria for establishing new municipalities were slightly changed and formalizedadopting Concept of Refinement of the System of Administrative Units of the Territory of the Republic of Lithuania (Decision of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, 2003). When establishing new municipalities, following criteria must be fulfilled:

No less than 20 per cent of the budget of new municipalities (grants of the Government appropriated for the budgets of the Republic of Lithuania not included) must be formed from the personal taxes of the inhabitants of this particular territory, because financial capacities of the municipality is being evaluated according to the ratio of the average tax capacity with the average of the state. (Here should be taken into account that in most surrounding countries tax incomes are the main, or even alone, source of financing of natural functions of local government; state does allocate its grants for specific purposes from its budget, as a rule).
Administrative and financial capacities are sufficient for fulfilling their own functions and those delegated by the state.
Total number of inhabitants must be no less than 3 thousand inhabitants (here exceptions can be made) because it has appropriate influence when recruiting qualified state officials for the work in the municipal administration.
Center of the new municipality must be not closer than 20 kilometers from the center of the municipality under reform.

For new suburban municipalities, it is clear that process of establishing of them is hindered by applying, for instance, criteria 4: for Lithuania’s big cities would be difficult, simply mechanically, to fulfill it.

2. Changes in the administration when fragmenting and amalgamating “band” suburban territory: case of Marijampole

On December 12, 1999, Decision of the Government of the Republic of Lithuaniawas published about establishing two new municipalities instead of Marijampoles rajonas; six sub-municipal units immediate near to the Marijampole city and surrounding it were amalgamated with former MarijampoleCityMunicipality. Reactions of the inhabitants were dual. Local media analysis shows, inhabitants were informed not enough and too late, there was not appropriate opinion poll conducted. Typical media comments, “Seimas voted in facilitate way followed by Presidential act, and main rights and freedoms of the people were violated by that”, they commented. The argument was, consultations should take place according both European Charter of Local Authorities, and Law on Local Self-Government of the Republic of Lithuania. There was no opinion poll conducted, though it was foreseen by the Order of the Government. The opposite meaning expressed by, mainly, local and regional officials, was like this: plans of reform were far not new, municipalities under reform had enough time to prepare themselves for it. Everything was according to the legal acts; for instance, Law on Administrative Units of the Territory of the Republic of Lithuaniais very old one, it came into force 1994, they argued. Although meanings were opposite, there was a time to enact the decisions. For local government institutions, three practical questions were of the biggest importance: staff manning table; property and financial duties, loans of liquidated municipality among them; borders and subordination of sub-municipal units, seniunijos.

Factual decisions were made by agreements of newly established municipalities of Kalvarija and Kazlu Ruda, and MarijampoleCityMunicipality. For instance, movable estate was divided proportionally according to personal income tax proportion. Real estate was divided according to territory it was situated. Division of the loans was connected with the size of budget, and newly established municipalities became “aggrieved party” by that. On municipal officials: because two processes were under way in parallel, for the officials of municipality work in the new municipalities was proposed. (Speculating on eventual analogies of the biggest cities of Lithuania, more sensitive problems would occur. For instance, in Marijampole case, only 20 per cent of employees of liquidated municipality were newly employed in the new Marijampole municipality after amalgamation. This might be an explanation why municipal officials of the municipality planned for liquidation were delaying most important decisions, even to agree with a perspective, and thus, studiedly or not, were spreading similar meaning within community. When then, quite suddenly, all the processes started, there was a feeling that the reform is not properly prepared. Opinion polls, in fact, were not exhaustive enough. Moreover, as our analysis showed, even after months after reform, the big part of the population did not perceive the reform took place already: they did not feel any changes, they physically did not feel that. (Quite reasonable, because big part of services is delivered by sub-municipal units; they were not changed neither in their borders, nor in personnel, as we will see further).