Across countries, regional and local institutions vary widely in the degree to which they possess their own legal, political, administrative, and fiscal authority and autonomy. Within the multilevel governance literature, the concept of institutional depth is recognized as an element of self-rule, capturing the extent to which subnational governance institutions have authority and autonomy–and thus form an autonomous level of government in their own right–rather than simply acting as territorial extensions of the central state.
The four elements of institutional depth
A consistent measure of institutional depth would need to assess whether subnational institutions constitute an autonomous level of government by considering four essential elements: whether subnational institutions form a distinct legal and de facto institutional unit (with legal standing and decision-making authority); political depth, reflecting the presence and authority of its own (elected) political leadership; administrative depth, capturing its control over its organization, personnel, and implementation of public functions; and fiscal depth, reflecting meaningful control over its own budget, revenues, and expenditures.
In the simplest iteration of a consistent institutional depth indicator, each of these four elements could be scored one a scale from 0-3. Because meaningful subnational self-government requires empowerment across all four dimensions, an overall Institutional Depth Indicator score (based on the same scale) could then be determined by the lowest of the four component scores: after all, a subnational institution cannot be considered more deeply devolved than its weakest essential dimension.
Subnational institutional types
The resulting Institutional Depth Indicator (IDI) score would then reflects one of four subnational institutional types, aligned with LPSA’s Intergovernmental Profile (IGP) typology. The least empowered subnational institutional type comprises non-devolved or deconcentrated institutions that are essentially extensions of the central government, with little or no independent political, administrative, or fiscal authority (IDI=0). Next are hybrid institutions which combine elements of deconcentration and devolution: for instance, subnational institutions may their own have elected leadership or some decision-making authority, but remain substantially subject to higher-level (political, administrative or fiscal) direction, approval, or control (IDI=1). Up next, devolved institutions with limited authority and autonomy are real subnational governments–in the sense that they exercise meaningful legal, political, administrative, and fiscal authority and are able to make decisions without higher-level approval or veto–but their autonomy remains constrained because higher-level governments retain some discretionary powers to intervene in, override, or otherwise influence subnational decisions, rather than merely establishing and enforcing the general rules of the intergovernmental system. Finally, extensively devolved institutions enjoy a high degree of self-government, with substantial political, administrative, and fiscal autonomy and little or no discretionary interference by higher levels of government.
Institutional depth of local institutions around the world
Based on the Institutional Depth Indicator described above, based on a provisional global assessment, the role of local governance institutions varies enormously around the world.
Out of 175 countries provisionally analyzed, the public sector remains highly centralized in 24 countries which rely mainly on deconcentrated local administrations with no meaningful autonomy (Institutional Depth Indicator = 0), while another 52 countries give local governance institutions only limited autonomy and authority as hybrid local institutions (IDI=1). Elsewhere, subnational governments are considerably more important: 32 countries have moderately empowered regional or local governments (IDI=2), while 67 countries have strong devolved subnational institutions that have extensive authority and autonomy to respond to the needs and priorities of their communities (IDI=3). The global picture is therefore highly diverse—from countries where most public decisions remain concentrated at the center to those where governing is genuinely shared across multiple levels.
Elements of local institutional depth by country
Based on the elements of Institutional Depth described above, based on a provisional global assessment, the institutional nature of local governance institutions varies enormously in countries around the world.
Care should be taken in interpreting these results, as the global snapshot presented here depends not only on an assessment of the institutional depth of local governance institutions around the world, but also the determination which institution is the primary local institutional level.