Suchergebnisse

The forms of the state order depend on legal independence/dependence of the organizational parts that make up a state, and on the legal relationships established among them. These relationships are either centralized or decentralized. It is characteristic of the state that it has central authority extending over the entire national territory. The decisions made by this authority are obligatory and binding for all population. It is particularly characteristic of the state that through its branched organization, also non-centralized authorities are established. They extend over organizationally restricted area and their decisions are not obligatory and binding for all their residents, but only for the inhabitants of a narrower community. Of course, here is the issue of the content and scope of the non-centralized units, which is the research subject in this paper. Adapted from the source document.

The main aim of the article is to reveal problem of decentralization of autonomy for local authorities & territorial administration in Lithuania. The reform of administrative division & autonomy for local authorities of the country runs slowly & complicated. Though society, scientists, various branches of government has a lot of various propositions & discussions have been taking place for more than 15 years, the important decisions cannot be made because of the lack of political willpower. One could be under impression that the reform will never be completed. The main reasons of such a disturbances are related to the absence of authentic traditions of autonomy for local authorities as well as to constant changes of centralized models of territorial administration. The unfinished re-form not only disturbs even development of the country but also complicates development of autonomy for local authorities system, which is one of the most important institutions of modern democracy. This also disturbs formation of regional self-consciousness, identity at regional & local level. Finally, it complicates the development of modern civil society in Lithuania. The history of Lithuania shows that even during 20th century models of territorial administration of the country have been changed several times, though centralized government prevailed & autonomy for local authorities was very limited. This prevented formation of territorial autonomy for local authorities & community traditions, solidarity among population was decreasing while indifference to the social needs was increasing. The Soviet period demolished the first appearances of territorial (regional) identity. This consequently caused the lack of willpower to implement new reform of territorial administration. The same as during the years of independence before World War II there is still uncertainty whether centralized or vast autonomy for local authorities should be chosen as a priority. Lithuanian government has always paid the main attention to the reform of regional governing system but autonomy for local authorities is almost totally forgotten. The absence of local & regional autonomy for local authorities makes Lithuania a unique rather unitary state, with a transformed soviet administrative division. Because of these reasons the problem of reformation & decentralization of territorial administration of Lithuania remains topical. Adapted from the source document.

Rad koristi interdisciplinarni pristup u okviru kulturne politike, kako bi predstavio potrebe za decentralizacijom kulturnog sistema u Srbiji i istovremeno predložio model decentralizacije kulture koji može biti primenjen. Uvodni deo prvo predstavlja značaj decentralizacije u kulturi za Srbiju, ali istovremeno i naglašava prepreke koje su vezane za tranzicioni period u kome se zemlja nalazi. Takođe, u teoretizaciji same decentralizacije u kulturi, rad uvodi nove ključne aspekte – jednakost, ravnopravnost i pravednost, koji se predstavljaju kroz političko – ekonomske teorije poput liberalizma, socijalizma, anarhizma i feminizma, da bi se socijalna pravda uvela kao glavni princip. Iz toga proizilazi i glavna hipoteza - uz primenu principa pravednosti u modelu, može se ostvariti i princip jednakosti/ravnopravnosti u decentralizaciji kulturnog sistema Srbije. Metodološki postupak zasnovan je na interdisciplinarnim teorijsko-empirijskim istraživanjima koja obuhvataju kulturnu politiku, menadžment u kulturi, teoriju upravljanja, političke nauke, ekonomske nauke, pravne nauke i sociologiju. Cilj istraživanja je modelovanje novog kulturnog sistema decentralizacije u Srbiji, zasnovanog na principu pravednosti. Oslanjajući se na evropske primere decentralizacije kulture, kojima se teži kao pripadajućem prostoru države, rad predstavlja i istorijski pregled decentralizacije u širem smislu, političke i fiskalne, kao preduslova pune decentralizacije u kulturi. U opštem teoretisanju decentralizacije, istovremeno se i sama decentralizacija terminološki odvaja od pojmova poput dekocentracije, demetropolizacije, devolucije i delegacije, a predstavljaju se i suplementarni poput regionalizacije i supsidijarnosti, kao i međusobna uslovljenost navedenih oblika decentralizacije (političke, ekonomske i kulturne). Polazne definicije decentralizacije, trodelna definicija uslovljenosti decentralizacije u kulturi Nobuko Kavašime kao "fer distribucija resursa" i Meklijeva "decentralizacija odlučivanja", odnosno dva principa – top down demokratizacije kulture i bootom up kulturne demokratije, u radu se ne isključuju nego zajedno koriste u susretnom smislu. Rad analizira i teorije o decentralizaciji kulture (Malro i Mekli u Francuskoj, Kavašima u Engleskoj, kao i regionalne poput Dragojevića u Hrvatskoj), kao i teoretske pojmove koje smatra neophodnim za primenu decentralizacije u kulturi poput socijalne (shvatanje Džona Rolsa) i tranzicione pravde, društvene sektore sa posebnim naglaskom na civilni sektor u kulturi, populistički diskurs decentralizacije koji koristi politika, participaciju kao neophodan element decentralizacije kulture, commons i spillover efect. Analiza je obuhvatila i praktične, nekadašnje i sadašnje modele decentralizacije u kulturi u Evropi (sa posebnim naglaskom na Francusku i Englesku), nekadašnjoj Jugoslaviji (sa posebnim akcentom na samoupravni sistem), država u regionu (Hrvatska posebno) i samoj Srbiji (Nacrt strategije Komisije za decentralizaciju kulture), kako bi se predstavile strategije koje se mogu iskoristiti za predloženi model. Utvrđujući putem empirijskog istraživanja (stavovi kreatora kulture u unutrašnjosti Srbije), finansijske analize javnih izdvajanja za kulturu, strateških planova i medijske vidljivosti, visok stepen centralizma, rad predlaže i konkretne mere za ostvarivanje decentralizacije u kulturi. Poseban segment istraživanja je utvrdio i potencijalnu ulogu civilnog sektora u kulturi u decentralizaciji kulture, gde se merio njegov potencijal, održivost, povezivanje (poput Asocijacije nezavisne kulturne scene Srbije i njene uloge) i prevashodno primeri dobre prakse u svetu (omladinski centri Estonije) i kod nas nekada (Otvoreni klubovi Savezne republike Jugoslavije) i danas. Glavni rezultat ovog rada je predlog modela za implementaciju decentralizacije u kulturi Srbije, koji je adekvatan specifičnim uslovima sredine i realno primenljiv. Model je nazvan "susretno-pravednim" jer u sebi sadrži više pristupa koji nisu samostalni nego upravo povezani uslovljenim obligacijama odlučivanja koje dvosmerno dolaze vertikalno (nivoi vlasti) i horizontalno (korisnici i sektori) uz primenu načela pravednosti kao glavnog kriterijuma. Model je trostepeni (kulturna decentralizacija bez političke i fiskalne, kulturna i fiskalna decentralizacija i sva tri vida zajedno) sa trogodišnjim trajanjem svake faze. On predlaže mere i strategije poput regionalizacije (politička decentralizacija), "skandinavskog modela finansiranja" lokalnih samouprava (fiskalna decentralizacija) i kao najbitnije za kulturnu decentralizaciju: jačanje regionalnih i lokalnih resursa (razvoj kadrova i publike, departizaciju, deinstitucionalizaciju, izgradnju i revitalizaciju infrastrukture i obavezne lokalne i regionalne strategije kulture), "kapilarnu decentralizaciju" kulture putem jačanja uloge civilnog sektora, obavezni "lokalni spillover" za manifestacione kreativne industrije i primenu faktora socijalne pravde u finansiranju kulture, difuziji institucija i manifestacija od nacionalnog značaja i u nacionalnoj medijskoj promociji. Naučni doprinos rada je dalja teoretizacija pojma decentralizacije u kulturi sa stanovišta principa jednakosti, ravnopravnosti i pravde. U oblasti kulturne politike, vrednost dizajniranog modela je u tome što može imati i potencijalnu praktičnu primenu, kako od strane nacionalnih, tako i lokalnih subjekata u kulturi Srbije. ; The paper uses an interdisciplinary approach within cultural policy to present the needs for decentralization of the cultural system in Serbia and at the same time propose a model for decentralization of culture that can be applied. The introductory part first presents the importance of decentralization in culture for Serbia, but at the same time highlights the obstacles that are associated with the transition period in which the country is located. Also, in the theorizing of decentralization in culture, the paper introduces new key aspects - equality, equal and justice, which are presented through political - economic theories such as liberalism, socialism, anarchism and feminism, to introduce social justice as the main principle. This leads to the main hypothesis - with the application of the principle of equity in the model, the principle of equality in the decentralization of the cultural system of Serbia can be realized. The methodological procedure is based on interdisciplinary theoretical and empirical research covering cultural policy, cultural management, management theory, political science, economic sciences, legal sciences and sociology. The aim of the research is to model a new cultural system of decentralization in Serbia, based on the principle of equity. Drawing on European examples of decentralization of culture, which strives as belonging to the state space, the paper also presents a historical overview of decentralization in the broad sense, political and fiscal, as a precondition for full decentralization in culture. In the general theorizing of decentralization, decentralization itself is terminologically detached from concepts such as decocentiation, demetropolisation, devolution and delegation, and they are also complementary such as regionalization and subsidiarity, as well as the interdependence of these forms of decentralization (political, economic and cultural). The initial definitions of decentralization, the three-part definition of the conditionality of decentralization in the culture of Nobuko Kawashima as a "fair distribution of resources" and Moeckli's "decentralization of decision-making", that is, two principles - top down of culture democratization and bootom up of cultural democracy, are not mutually exclusive but used together. The paper analyzes the theories of decentralization of culture (Malro and Moeckli in France, Kawashima in England, as well as regional ones like Dragojevic in Croatia), as well as theoretical concepts that he considers necessary for the application of decentralization in culture such as social (John Rolls' understanding) and transitional justice, social sectors with particular emphasis on the civil sector in culture, a populist discourse of decentralization used by politics, participation as a necessary element of cultural decentralization, commons and spillover efect. The analysis also included practical, former and current models of decentralization in culture in Europe (with special emphasis on France and England), former Yugoslavia (with particular emphasis on the self-governing system), countries in the region (Croatia in particular) and Serbia itself (Draft Commission Strategy to decentralize culture), to outline strategies that can be used for the proposed model. By establishing through empirical research (views of cultural creators in the interior of Serbia), financial analysis of public appropriations for culture, strategic plans and media visibility, a high degree of centralism, the paper also proposes concrete measures for achieving decentralization in culture. A specific segment of the research identified the potential role of the civil sector in culture in decentralizing culture, measuring its potential, sustainability, networking (such as the Association of the Independent Cultural Scene of Serbia and its role) and, above all, examples of good practice in the world (Estonian youth centers) and in Balkan once (Open clubs of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) and today). The main result of this paper is the proposal of a model for the implementation of decentralization in the culture of Serbia, which is adequate to the specific environmental conditions and realistically applicable. The model has been called "counter-righteous" because it contains more approaches that are not standalone but just linked by conditioned decision-making obligations that come two-way vertically (levels of government) and horizontally (users and sectors), by applying the principle of fairness as the main criterion. The model is three-stage (cultural decentralization without political and fiscal, cultural and fiscal decentralization and all three aspects together) with a three-year duration of each phase. It proposes measures and strategies such as regionalization (political decentralization), the "scandinavian financing model" of local governments (fiscal decentralization) and as essential to cultural decentralization: strengthening regional and local resources (development of staff and audience, depoliticization, deinstitutionalization, construction and revitalization of infrastructure and mandatory local and regional cultural strategies), "capillary decentralization" of culture through strengthening the role of the civil sector, mandatory "local spillover" for creative industries and the application of social justice factors in the financing of culture, diffusion of institutions and events of national importance and in national media promotion. The scientific contribution of the paper is further theorization of the concept of decentralization in culture from the standpoint of the principles of equality and justice. In the field of cultural policy, the value of the designed model is that it can have potential practical application, both by national and local subjects in the culture of Serbia.

Rad koristi interdisciplinarni pristup u okviru kulturne politike, kako bi predstavio potrebe za decentralizacijom kulturnog sistema u Srbiji i istovremeno predložio model decentralizacije kulture koji može biti primenjen. Uvodni deo prvo predstavlja značaj decentralizacije u kulturi za Srbiju, ali istovremeno i naglašava prepreke koje su vezane za tranzicioni period u kome se zemlja nalazi. Takođe, u teoretizaciji same decentralizacije u kulturi, rad uvodi nove ključne aspekte – jednakost, ravnopravnost i pravednost, koji se predstavljaju kroz političko – ekonomske teorije poput liberalizma, socijalizma, anarhizma i feminizma, da bi se socijalna pravda uvela kao glavni princip. Iz toga proizilazi i glavna hipoteza - uz primenu principa pravednosti u modelu, može se ostvariti i princip jednakosti/ravnopravnosti u decentralizaciji kulturnog sistema Srbije. Metodološki postupak zasnovan je na interdisciplinarnim teorijsko-empirijskim istraživanjima koja obuhvataju kulturnu politiku, menadžment u kulturi, teoriju upravljanja, političke nauke, ekonomske nauke, pravne nauke i sociologiju. Cilj istraživanja je modelovanje novog kulturnog sistema decentralizacije u Srbiji, zasnovanog na principu pravednosti. Oslanjajući se na evropske primere decentralizacije kulture, kojima se teži kao pripadajućem prostoru države, rad predstavlja i istorijski pregled decentralizacije u širem smislu, političke i fiskalne, kao preduslova pune decentralizacije u kulturi. U opštem teoretisanju decentralizacije, istovremeno se i sama decentralizacija terminološki odvaja od pojmova poput dekocentracije, demetropolizacije, devolucije i delegacije, a predstavljaju se i suplementarni poput regionalizacije i supsidijarnosti, kao i međusobna uslovljenost navedenih oblika decentralizacije (političke, ekonomske i kulturne). Polazne definicije decentralizacije, trodelna definicija uslovljenosti decentralizacije u kulturi Nobuko Kavašime kao "fer distribucija resursa" i Meklijeva "decentralizacija odlučivanja", odnosno dva principa – top down demokratizacije kulture i bootom up kulturne demokratije, u radu se ne isključuju nego zajedno koriste u susretnom smislu. Rad analizira i teorije o decentralizaciji kulture (Malro i Mekli u Francuskoj, Kavašima u Engleskoj, kao i regionalne poput Dragojevića u Hrvatskoj), kao i teoretske pojmove koje smatra neophodnim za primenu decentralizacije u kulturi poput socijalne (shvatanje Džona Rolsa) i tranzicione pravde, društvene sektore sa posebnim naglaskom na civilni sektor u kulturi, populistički diskurs decentralizacije koji koristi politika, participaciju kao neophodan element decentralizacije kulture, commons i spillover efect. Analiza je obuhvatila i praktične, nekadašnje i sadašnje modele decentralizacije u kulturi u Evropi (sa posebnim naglaskom na Francusku i Englesku), nekadašnjoj Jugoslaviji (sa posebnim akcentom na samoupravni sistem), država u regionu (Hrvatska posebno) i samoj Srbiji (Nacrt strategije Komisije za decentralizaciju kulture), kako bi se predstavile strategije koje se mogu iskoristiti za predloženi model. Utvrđujući putem empirijskog istraživanja (stavovi kreatora kulture u unutrašnjosti Srbije), finansijske analize javnih izdvajanja za kulturu, strateških planova i medijske vidljivosti, visok stepen centralizma, rad predlaže i konkretne mere za ostvarivanje decentralizacije u kulturi. Poseban segment istraživanja je utvrdio i potencijalnu ulogu civilnog sektora u kulturi u decentralizaciji kulture, gde se merio njegov potencijal, održivost, povezivanje (poput Asocijacije nezavisne kulturne scene Srbije i njene uloge) i prevashodno primeri dobre prakse u svetu (omladinski centri Estonije) i kod nas nekada (Otvoreni klubovi Savezne republike Jugoslavije) i danas. Glavni rezultat ovog rada je predlog modela za implementaciju decentralizacije u kulturi Srbije, koji je adekvatan specifičnim uslovima sredine i realno primenljiv. Model je nazvan "susretno-pravednim" jer u sebi sadrži više pristupa koji nisu samostalni nego upravo povezani uslovljenim obligacijama odlučivanja koje dvosmerno dolaze vertikalno (nivoi vlasti) i horizontalno (korisnici i sektori) uz primenu načela pravednosti kao glavnog kriterijuma. Model je trostepeni (kulturna decentralizacija bez političke i fiskalne, kulturna i fiskalna decentralizacija i sva tri vida zajedno) sa trogodišnjim trajanjem svake faze. On predlaže mere i strategije poput regionalizacije (politička decentralizacija), "skandinavskog modela finansiranja" lokalnih samouprava (fiskalna decentralizacija) i kao najbitnije za kulturnu decentralizaciju: jačanje regionalnih i lokalnih resursa (razvoj kadrova i publike, departizaciju, deinstitucionalizaciju, izgradnju i revitalizaciju infrastrukture i obavezne lokalne i regionalne strategije kulture), "kapilarnu decentralizaciju" kulture putem jačanja uloge civilnog sektora, obavezni "lokalni spillover" za manifestacione kreativne industrije i primenu faktora socijalne pravde u finansiranju kulture, difuziji institucija i manifestacija od nacionalnog značaja i u nacionalnoj medijskoj promociji. Naučni doprinos rada je dalja teoretizacija pojma decentralizacije u kulturi sa stanovišta principa jednakosti, ravnopravnosti i pravde. U oblasti kulturne politike, vrednost dizajniranog modela je u tome što može imati i potencijalnu praktičnu primenu, kako od strane nacionalnih, tako i lokalnih subjekata u kulturi Srbije. ; The paper uses an interdisciplinary approach within cultural policy to present the needs for decentralization of the cultural system in Serbia and at the same time propose a model for decentralization of culture that can be applied. The introductory part first presents the importance of decentralization in culture for Serbia, but at the same time highlights the obstacles that are associated with the transition period in which the country is located. Also, in the theorizing of decentralization in culture, the paper introduces new key aspects - equality, equal and justice, which are presented through political - economic theories such as liberalism, socialism, anarchism and feminism, to introduce social justice as the main principle. This leads to the main hypothesis - with the application of the principle of equity in the model, the principle of equality in the decentralization of the cultural system of Serbia can be realized. The methodological procedure is based on interdisciplinary theoretical and empirical research covering cultural policy, cultural management, management theory, political science, economic sciences, legal sciences and sociology. The aim of the research is to model a new cultural system of decentralization in Serbia, based on the principle of equity. Drawing on European examples of decentralization of culture, which strives as belonging to the state space, the paper also presents a historical overview of decentralization in the broad sense, political and fiscal, as a precondition for full decentralization in culture. In the general theorizing of decentralization, decentralization itself is terminologically detached from concepts such as decocentiation, demetropolisation, devolution and delegation, and they are also complementary such as regionalization and subsidiarity, as well as the interdependence of these forms of decentralization (political, economic and cultural). The initial definitions of decentralization, the three-part definition of the conditionality of decentralization in the culture of Nobuko Kawashima as a "fair distribution of resources" and Moeckli's "decentralization of decision-making", that is, two principles - top down of culture democratization and bootom up of cultural democracy, are not mutually exclusive but used together. The paper analyzes the theories of decentralization of culture (Malro and Moeckli in France, Kawashima in England, as well as regional ones like Dragojevic in Croatia), as well as theoretical concepts that he considers necessary for the application of decentralization in culture such as social (John Rolls' understanding) and transitional justice, social sectors with particular emphasis on the civil sector in culture, a populist discourse of decentralization used by politics, participation as a necessary element of cultural decentralization, commons and spillover efect. The analysis also included practical, former and current models of decentralization in culture in Europe (with special emphasis on France and England), former Yugoslavia (with particular emphasis on the self-governing system), countries in the region (Croatia in particular) and Serbia itself (Draft Commission Strategy to decentralize culture), to outline strategies that can be used for the proposed model. By establishing through empirical research (views of cultural creators in the interior of Serbia), financial analysis of public appropriations for culture, strategic plans and media visibility, a high degree of centralism, the paper also proposes concrete measures for achieving decentralization in culture. A specific segment of the research identified the potential role of the civil sector in culture in decentralizing culture, measuring its potential, sustainability, networking (such as the Association of the Independent Cultural Scene of Serbia and its role) and, above all, examples of good practice in the world (Estonian youth centers) and in Balkan once (Open clubs of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) and today). The main result of this paper is the proposal of a model for the implementation of decentralization in the culture of Serbia, which is adequate to the specific environmental conditions and realistically applicable. The model has been called "counter-righteous" because it contains more approaches that are not standalone but just linked by conditioned decision-making obligations that come two-way vertically (levels of government) and horizontally (users and sectors), by applying the principle of fairness as the main criterion. The model is three-stage (cultural decentralization without political and fiscal, cultural and fiscal decentralization and all three aspects together) with a three-year duration of each phase. It proposes measures and strategies such as regionalization (political decentralization), the "scandinavian financing model" of local governments (fiscal decentralization) and as essential to cultural decentralization: strengthening regional and local resources (development of staff and audience, depoliticization, deinstitutionalization, construction and revitalization of infrastructure and mandatory local and regional cultural strategies), "capillary decentralization" of culture through strengthening the role of the civil sector, mandatory "local spillover" for creative industries and the application of social justice factors in the financing of culture, diffusion of institutions and events of national importance and in national media promotion. The scientific contribution of the paper is further theorization of the concept of decentralization in culture from the standpoint of the principles of equality and justice. In the field of cultural policy, the value of the designed model is that it can have potential practical application, both by national and local subjects in the culture of Serbia.

Kako su se organi unutarnjih poslova u Socijalističkoj Republici Hrvatskoj i u socijalističkoj Jugoslaviji razvijali, čime su se bavili, do kakvih je promjena došlo i zbog čega? Tijekom otprilike prva dva desetljeća socijalističke Jugoslavije pitanja koja su se odnosila na policiju i državnu sigurnost – ili službenim nazivom na organe unutarnjih poslova – bila su poput većine ostalih pitanja u zemlji vrlo centralizirana. Međutim, postoje indicije da 1966. možda nije bila toliko značajna prekretnica kako se popularno misli te da su neke važne promjene bile ubrzane, a ne pokrenute nakon smjenjivanja Aleksandra Rankovića. Ovaj članak prvenstveno se temelji na izvorima iz 13. maja, službenog časopisa Saveznog sekretarijata za unutrašnje poslove (SSUP). Pažljivo čitanje tog časopisa otkriva članke koji se bave pravnim, konceptualnim, tehničkim i praktičnim pitanjima policije. Časopis je stoga dobro mjesto za prikupljanje informacija radi boljeg razumijevanja organa unutarnjih poslova u Jugoslaviji. Ovaj članak razmatra i analizira početak decentralizacije organa unutarnjih poslova u Hrvatskoj, prije svega u području organa javne sigurnosti.

Pojam "centralizacije" počeo se koristiti u Francuskoj krajem 18. stoljeća kada je nakon revolucije stvorena nova struktura vlade. Pojam "decentralizacije" u upotrebu je ušao početkom 19. stoljeća. Ideje slobode i decentralizacije provodili su tijekom 19. i 20. stoljeća protudrţavni politički aktivisti koji su sebe nazivali "anarhistima", "libertarijancima", pa čak i decentralistima. Tocqueville, jedan od zagovornika decentralizacije je istaknuo da decentralizacija ima ne samo administrativnu vrijednost već i graĎansku dimenziju, jer povećava mogućnosti za graĎane da se zainteresiraju za javne poslove. I od akumulacije tih lokalnih, aktivnih, pronicljivih sloboda, raĎa se najučinkovitija protuteţa središnjoj vladi, čak i ako bi bila podrţavana od neosobne, kolektivne volje. Veliki broj zemalja u razvoju i tranzicijskih zemalja započeo je neki oblik programa decentralizacije. Taj je trend povezan sa sve većim zanimanjem za ulogu civilnog društva i privatnog sektora kao partnera vladama u traţenju novih načina pruţanja usluga. Decentralizacija upravljanja i jačanje kapaciteta lokalne uprave dijelom je i funkcija širih društvenih trendova, što uključuje, na primjer, općenito rastuće nepovjerenje u vladu, propast nekih od najcentraliziranijih reţima na svijetu (npr. Sovjetskog Saveza) i novonastale separatističke zahtjeve koji se rutinski pojavljuju u pojedinim dijelovima svijeta. Pokret prema lokalnoj odgovornosti i većoj kontroli nad nečijom sudbinom nije, meĎutim, rezultat samo negativnog stava prema središnjoj vladi. Umjesto toga, ovaj razvoj dogaĎaja uglavnom je potaknut snaţnom ţeljom za većim sudjelovanjem graĎana i organizacije privatnog sektora u funkciji upravljanja. ; The term "centralization" began to be used in France in the late 18th century when, after the revolution, a new government structure was created. The term "decentralization" came into use in the early 19th century. The ideas of freedom and decentralization were implemented during the 19th and 20th centuries by anti-state political activists ...

Pojam "centralizacije" počeo se koristiti u Francuskoj krajem 18. stoljeća kada je nakon revolucije stvorena nova struktura vlade. Pojam "decentralizacije" u upotrebu je ušao početkom 19. stoljeća. Ideje slobode i decentralizacije provodili su tijekom 19. i 20. stoljeća protudrţavni politički aktivisti koji su sebe nazivali "anarhistima", "libertarijancima", pa čak i decentralistima. Tocqueville, jedan od zagovornika decentralizacije je istaknuo da decentralizacija ima ne samo administrativnu vrijednost već i graĎansku dimenziju, jer povećava mogućnosti za graĎane da se zainteresiraju za javne poslove. I od akumulacije tih lokalnih, aktivnih, pronicljivih sloboda, raĎa se najučinkovitija protuteţa središnjoj vladi, čak i ako bi bila podrţavana od neosobne, kolektivne volje. Veliki broj zemalja u razvoju i tranzicijskih zemalja započeo je neki oblik programa decentralizacije. Taj je trend povezan sa sve većim zanimanjem za ulogu civilnog društva i privatnog sektora kao partnera vladama u traţenju novih načina pruţanja usluga. Decentralizacija upravljanja i jačanje kapaciteta lokalne uprave dijelom je i funkcija širih društvenih trendova, što uključuje, na primjer, općenito rastuće nepovjerenje u vladu, propast nekih od najcentraliziranijih reţima na svijetu (npr. Sovjetskog Saveza) i novonastale separatističke zahtjeve koji se rutinski pojavljuju u pojedinim dijelovima svijeta. Pokret prema lokalnoj odgovornosti i većoj kontroli nad nečijom sudbinom nije, meĎutim, rezultat samo negativnog stava prema središnjoj vladi. Umjesto toga, ovaj razvoj dogaĎaja uglavnom je potaknut snaţnom ţeljom za većim sudjelovanjem graĎana i organizacije privatnog sektora u funkciji upravljanja. ; The term "centralization" began to be used in France in the late 18th century when, after the revolution, a new government structure was created. The term "decentralization" came into use in the early 19th century. The ideas of freedom and decentralization were implemented during the 19th and 20th centuries by anti-state political activists who called themselves "anarchists," "libertarians," and even decentralizers. Tocqueville, one of the proponents of decentralization, pointed out that decentralization has not only an administrative value but also a civic dimension, as it increases opportunities for citizens to take interest in public affairs. And from the accumulation of these local, active, insightful freedoms, the most effective counterbalance to central government is born, even if it were supported by an impersonal, collective will. A large number of developing and transition countries have embarked on some form of decentralization program. This trend is linked to the growing interest in the role of civil society and the private sector as partners to governments in seeking new ways of providing services. Decentralization of governance and strengthening the capacity of local government is partly a function of broader social trends, which include, for example, growing distrust of government, the collapse of some of the world's most centralized regimes (eg the Soviet Union) and emerging separatist demands that routinely emerge in some parts of the world. The movement towards local responsibility and greater control over one's destiny is not, however, the result of only a negative attitude towards the central government. Instead, this development is largely driven by a strong desire for greater citizen participation and private sector organization in the governance function.