Introduction
Until the year 1975, Spain was under the dictatorial rule of Francisco Franco, who died in power (Agranoff 2007: 5). After his death, democracy started to take root in this country.
It is perhaps the experience that Spanish nationals had under the dictatorial rule that made them averse to a centralised government, where power is concentrated in the hands of a single individual. Spain is regarded as one of the most successful cases of devolved and decentralised system of government in Europe.
In 1978, Spain passed a constitution that created 17 regions, which are referred in this country as the autonomous states (Redaccion 2008: 4). This means that in Spain, political power is shared between the central government in Madrid and the 17 autonomous communities (Redaccion 2008: 4).
The autonomy of the communities is enshrined in the second article of the 1978 constitution. The constitution provides for the rights of the regions and nationalities to govern themselves, meaning that each of the regions has an executive, legislative and judiciary arm of government. The same article of the constitution recognises the indissoluble unity of Spain as a nation (Smith and Heywood 2000: 22).
The seventeen autonomous regions, together with the two autonomous cities, have become a remarkable feature of devolved governance in the European continent. This is especially so considering the fact that Spain is a member of the European Union. Some of the autonomous regions were formed by the amalgamation of two or more provinces that shared either cultural or historical backgrounds.
The process of creating autonomous regions in this country took place between 1979 and 1983 (Argullol 2004: 218). In the year 1966, the creation of more regions came to an end with the passing of the autonomous status for the last two regions. These were Ceuta and Melilla, and they brought the total number of autonomous regions to 17 (Braun 2003: 78).
An autonomous community was supposed to adhere to provisions of the constitution touching on its operations. For example, article 145 of the constitution denies an autonomous region to join or federate with another region (Braun 2003: 78).
The creation of the autonomous region brought into fore a special relationship between the regional administrations and the central government. The two governments interact at different levels, with specific features discernible in these interactions.
For example, when it comes to public spending, the central government provides for 18 percent of the total expenditure (Agranoff 2007: 3). The regional governments pay for thirty eight percent of the total public expenditure, while the local councils meet thirteen percent of the expenditure (Murcia News 2011). The social security system takes care of the other part of spending.
The dynamics of the relationship between the central government and the regional administrations since the establishment of the autonomous communities in 1978 has attracted a lot of scholarly attention.
Analysts such as Agranoff (2007: 9) are of the view that this interaction takes place at three different levels. They conceptualise these levels as macro, meso and micro levels of intergovernmental relations.
The interaction between the two governments, and the division of jurisdiction between them, has over the years evolved through several developments. This is for example changing in legal frameworks, the country’s constitutional tribunal and the daily intergovernmental relations (Agranoff 2007: 9).
This paper is going to look at this dynamic of relationship between the two governments since the year 1978. The paper will look at some of the features and highlights of this interaction, with justifications for the same given where necessary.
Spanish Intergovernmental Relations since 1978
The relationship between the central government in Madrid and the regional governments is defined by several features, and this has been observable since the creation of the devolved government in Spain. The interaction between these two governments has been defined by conflict and cooperation in equal measures (Fossas and Velasco 2005: 96).
As earlier indicated, Agranoff (2007: 4) conceptualises this dynamic of intergovernmental interaction at three basic levels.
These are the macro, meso and micro level. It is noted that macro intergovernmental relations takes place as political interactions that brings together regional leaders and their national counterparts (Braun 2003: 70). This is the interaction that is observable at the international and national level.
Meso interactions, on the other hand, are not as visible as the macro one. It involves official to official contacts between the regional government and the national government. Lastly, micro interaction is covert, out of the public’s view (Agranoff 2007: 9). These three levels of relationship will be analysed in detail below:
Macro Intergovernmental Relation
This form of interaction between the regional and the national governments is very visible to the public, both international and local. It involves such major issues like territorial divisions and concurrence of power between the two governments (Agranoff 2007: 9).
When interacting at this level, the two governments also take care of issues such as regional strife among others. The latter involves identity conflict, governmental authority and issues to do with financing within the region (Fossas and Velasco 2005: 121).
It has also been noted that the regional governments do interact with the central government’s parliament at this level (Redaccion 2008: 7). This is for example when they are negotiating for deals to form coalitions with other regional governments.
Political struggles have always defined intergovernmental interaction at this level since 1978. This is for instance when the regions are agitating for more autonomy from the central government. According to Agranoff (2007: 4), the political contest between these two governments can sometimes become volatile.
A case in point is when the Basque region was agitating for greater autonomy from the central government. This was in mid-2007, when the region’s opposition figure Mariano Rajoy was making claims that the central government had encroached on the “sovereignty” of this region.
The central government, through the Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodraguez Zapatero, was said to have entered into a pact with Basque ETA terrorist group without the knowledge of the regional government (Agranoff 2007: 3).
According to Mariano, this act on the part of the central government was like “………playing with the structure of the (Spanish state)……as if it was a Meccano set” (Agranoff 2007: 2).
This is an indication of the fact that regional leaders have always used the devolution aspect of the constitution to interact with the central government. According to Redaccion (2008: 5), ambitious regional leaders have emerged over the years to demand further decentralisation and devolution of powers from the central government in Madrid.
Territorial politics also do define the interaction between the two governments at this level. It is noted that the central parliament sitting in Madrid do pass legislations that affect the operations or interests of the regional governments. A case in point is when the parliament approved the country’s entry into the European Union.
This was in the year 1986, and it was noted that the entry affected government’s policies, both at the central and the regional level. Whereas the two governments had to contend with each other, the entry of the country into the European union brought on board a third player.
The central government, given that it was the one that was interacting with the European union on behalf of the Spanish population, needed to make policies and legislations taking into account the provisions of the European union.
Several aspects of the country’s operations, touching on land use, solid waste disposal and such other areas. Given the fact that these policies affect the whole country, regional governments are likely to react to the legislations passed by the central government (Sanchez 2001: 17).
Another feature of intergovernmental interaction at this level is the fact that some powers and authorities are not “neatly compartmentalised” as Agranoff (2007: 4) puts it. This means that such powers that are not clearly devolved appear to impact on more than one level. Braun (2003: 78) cites a study that was conducted on a set of 74 policies.
It was noted some of the policies fell exclusively under the jurisdiction of the central government (17 out of 74), while 19 of them were exclusively under the regional governments (Agranoff 2007: 9). The rest of the policies in the study (38 out of 74) were found to be shared between the two governments (Fossas and Velasco 2005: 111).
The last group of policies was found to be touch on core issues such as transportation, health, financing and such others. A case in point was when the region of Murcia was protesting the failure of the central government to allow it to finance its debt (Murcia News 2011: 7).
Ramon Luis Valcarcel, the president of this region, was protesting on February 2011 that the central government was denying the region to finance its debt the way it was doing for the other regions such as Catalunya (Murcia News 2011: 7).
Macro intergovernmental relation, as this discourse revealed, attracts the attention of the national and international media. It is an overt interaction, and it is visible to the public.
Meso Intergovernmental Relation
The structure of the government in this country provides a sophisticated interlocking feature. The central government’s legislations are complemented and regulated by the regional communities. This is done by the regional governments passing additional legislations that help in implementations of the central government laws (Smith and Heywood 2000: 22).
With such a structure in existence, it is evident that both governments have interests in the implementation of the legislations in various areas of the Spanish nation.
It is noted that the implementation of these legislations in this country is conducted by the executive arms of the governments.
This means that the administrators in the central government are in constant contact with their colleagues in the regional governments, establishing a meso intergovernmental relation (Agranoff 2007: 7). These are the executives in both governments who are tasked with the responsibility of implementing the legislations.
Since 1978, it has been recorded that the interaction of the two governments at this level is distinct from that of other devolved nations. For example, the interaction is different from that observed in countries with parliamentary system of governments such as India and Canada.
One feature that differentiates Spain from other nations is the fact that there is less contact between the political ministers and heads of governments (Agranoff 2007: 7).
One defining feature of the relationship between the central government and the regional authorities at this level is the Council of Autonomous Community Presidents (Murcia News 2011: 6). This conglomeration was formed to address the lack of contact between the government and the ministers. The council holds meetings with the prime minister twice a year.
The relationship of the central government and the regional government at this level also addresses issues to do with policy design. A case in point is the policies on urban planning and zoning.
It is noted that the central government broadly regulates these policies, while the finer details are left to the regional government. For example, it is the autonomous region that comes up with the urban development plans and permits within its jurisdiction.
Micro Intergovernmental Relations
As earlier indicated, this level of interaction is not always visible to the public, and this has been so since the establishment of the autonomous communities in 1978. It involves the negotiations for projects that take place between the two governments, and the enforcement of the standards of operation and handling of various contracts (Parrado 2010: 480).
However, it is also noted that the intergovernmental relations at this level are mainly between administrative structures within the regional governments than it is between the regional and central government.
For example, given the fact that some of the municipalities within the autonomous communities lack enough population to justify provision of services such as sewerage, they have to unite with other municipalities or district governments near them.
These interactions, however, have to be regulated by the autonomous regional government. The regional government on its part must make sure that the cooperation’s between the municipalities do not contravene the relationship between the central government and the regional government.
Decision Making in Spain: A Case Study of the Health Sector
Having discussed the interaction between the central and regional government since 1978, it is important now to look at how a typical decision in a sector in this country is arrived at.
This will enable one appreciate better the dynamic of the relationship between the two governments in the health sector, and in other sectors in extension. The diagram below looks at the decision making process in the health sector, depicting the relationship between the two governments in this process:
Diagram 1: Decision Making Process
Source: International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 2009
The diagram above depicts the decision making process in the health technology agency in Spain, an important organ in the country’s health sector. The process can be broken down into the following steps:
Steps 1a and 1b
This step involves the two governments (the central government and the regional government) making a request to the health technology agency to carry out an evaluation or assessment into a national or regional agency (International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research [ISPOR] 2009).
This is for example an evaluation into an institution that needs to adopt health technology. This step indicates the dynamic of relationship between the central and the regional governments.
Step 2
This step is collaboration between several agencies to come up with the needed health technology assessment information. This is the collaboration between the ISCIII and the regional organs in the health sector (ISPOR 2009).
Step 3
At this step, the health technology assessment report is ready, having been produced by the ISCIII. It is then handed over to the inter-territorial council (ISPOR 2009).
Step 4
Having received the report, the inter-territorial council acts on it at this step. It decides whether or not to include the technologies identified in the report in the national catalogue (ISPOR 2009).
Step 5
The decision that the inter-territorial council made at step four above is communicated to the central and regional governments.
At this stage, the two governments implement the decision that is communicated to them by the council (ISPOR 2009). It is at this step that the two governments come together again, further indicating their interaction in this country.
The Spanish Federal Polity: A Case Study in Europe
As earlier indicated, the federal polity in Spain is a unique one in Europe. For example, it has been largely stable for the past three decades since the introduction of the autonomous communities in 1978 (Parrado 2010: 471).
However, the system has been plagued by a lot of conflicts, or disagreement between the central government and the regional communities, than other similar systems, like for the one in Germany (Parrado 2010: 472).
As already stated in this paper, a lot of policies are agreed upon by the two governments. Parrado (2010: 480) and Argullol (2004: 220) put the number of these policies at almost half of those passed and implemented in this country.
It is this mutual sharing of policies between the two governments that is the source of conflicts between the two. This is given the fact that the central government gets the opportunity to encroach on the sovereignty of the regional administration as far as the shared policies are concerned (Braun 2003: 70).
Parrado (2010: 475) notes that more than 1300 cases of conflicts have been recorded since 1978. These are resolved by the Constitutional Tribunal that is in operation in the country.
This number is very high, compared to other countries such as Germany which have a fairly similar system of governance. For example, in Germany, there are only about two or four conflicts in an average year (Moreno 2000: 84).
Many of the conflicts (about two thirds) have been started by the regional governments, accusing the central government of encroachment (Parrado 475).
But this number have greatly reduced over the years for one major reason; the introduction of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, for example when the conflicts are settled outside the court system (Moreno 2002: 399 and Parrado 2010: 478).
This is another dynamic in the relationship between the two governments since the year 1978. For example, between 2004 and 2008, about 100 such disputes were resolved outside the tribunal system, displaying the significant role that is played by the extra-judiciary mechanisms (Parrado 2010: 475).
The interaction between the two governments has intensified over the years. This means that compared with the 1980s, immediately after the introduction of the autonomous regions, the contact between the two governments has increased in the 1990s and into the 21st century (Sanchez 2001: 17).
This can be attributed to new developments in the country, especially after joining the European Union in 1986. For example, from the year 2000, an average of 65 meetings between the two governments (for example in conferences), have been recorded each year (Parrado 2010: 476).
This is as compared to about 45 annual meetings in the 80s and 90s. The intensification of the contact has led to an increase in the number of multilateral and bilateral agreements that are made. Approximately 12100 such agreements have been made since early 1980s (Parrado 2010: 476).
In the early 1980s, an average of 250 such agreements were made annually, and this has rose to about 1400 annually from the year 2000 (Parrado 2010: 476).
Mechanisms of Intergovernmental Relations in Spain since 1978
This paper has already looked at the various levels that the two governments interact or relate in Spain. A case study of how decision making is carried out within the context of such a governmental relation was also provided.
It is important then to look at the mechanisms of this interaction at this juncture. The mechanisms will not look at the level that the governments relate; rather, it will concentrate on how the governments relate at these levels.
Sectoral Conferences
These are conferences that bring together officials from various sectors of the Spanish government. The participants in such conferences are drawn from both the central and regional governments. The conferences may assume the structure of multilateral meetings between the two governments.
The meetings focus on certain issues and policies touching on the relationship between the two governments. It involves a mutual exchange between the participants (Agranoff 2007: 11). It also involves problem solving; especially when the participants from the regional governments discuss the problems they are facing in certain areas.
Bilateral Cooperation Commissions
According to Agranoff (2007: 11), these are negotiation caucuses that focus on projects that are been implemented or planned by the governments. The caucuses bring together first and second level management employees from the two governments.
For example, if there is a plan to construct a university in Basque country, such a commission will bring together staff from the regional and central ministries of education among other stakeholders (Instituto Nacional de Estadistica 2007).
Joint Plans and Programs
These plans and programs are carried out between the two governments. This is especially so when the programs touch on sectors that are shared between the two governments. A case in point is when there are policies of European Union nature that need to be implemented.
Bilateral and Multilateral Collaboration Agreements
This kind of collaboration takes place when there are projects that cut across two or more regional governments. This is especially so if the program is initiated by the central government.
The central government needs to bring together the various governments that will be affected by the program. According to Agranoff (2007: 7), more than 5,000 such contracts have been signed since 1978.
Conclusion
This paper looked at the dynamics of the relationship between central and regional governments since the establishment of the autonomous communities in Spain in the year 1978. Several forces appear to affect the way the two governments have always interacted.
This is for example the constitutional and institutional frameworks that have been put in place ever since. The entry of the country into the European Union has also affected the way the two governments interact. This is just but some of the aspects of dynamic of the relationship between the two governments.
The relationship between the regional governments and the central governments in Spain is comparable to some extent with similar arrangements in Europe and in the western world. For example, it is noted that there are more conflicts between the two in Spain than in Germany.
There are also more vertical intergovernmental agreements that are recorded by the country’s senate, something comparable to other nations. However, it is also noted that some horizontal agreements, or those occurring between two or more regional governments, are not registered with senate.
There are various reasons for this, but one of the major ones may be the fact that the regional governments feel threatened by the kind of authority that the central government exerts on the regions, taking advantage of loopholes in the constitution to reduce the authority of the central government.
In conclusion, this paper noted that several changes have taken place as far as intergovernmental relations are concerned since 1978. For example, the number of conflicts has risen, most of the conflicts are resolved away from the constitutional tribunal and the number of agreements and meetings between the two governments on a yearly basis has risen.
References
Agranoff, R 2007. Spanish regions gain power. Forum of Federations, November 2007.
Argullol, E 2004 Federalismo y autonomı´a. Barcelona: Ariel.
Braun, D 2003. Fiscal policies in federal states. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Fossas, E., and Velasco, F 2005. Local government in Spain. In Steytler, N (ed) 2005, The place and role of local government in federal systems, Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, 2005.
Instituto Nacional de Estadistica 2007. The organisational structure of statistics in Spain. INE, August 1, 2007.
International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 2009. ISPOR global health care systems road map. ISPOR, November 2009.
Moreno, L 2002. Decentralisation in Spain. Regional Studies, 36(4); 399-404.
Moreno, L 2000. The federalisation of Spain. London: Frank Cass.
Murcia News 2011. Regions across Spain protest at Catalan debt financing. Murcia News, February 9, 2011.
Parrado, S 2010. The role of Spanish central government in a multi-level state. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 76(3); 469-488.
Redaccion 2008. Central, regional and local government administrations. Web. Available from: http://www.torrevieja.com/eng/living-in-spain/central-regional-local-government-administration-9494.html .
Sanchez, B A 2001. Policy making in central-autonomous-local government relations: The Consortium of Santiago de Compostela, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, April 2001.
Smith, A., and Heywood, P 2000. Regional government in France and Spain. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, August 2000.