Developing a decentralisation index for the Committee of the Regions Division of Powers Portal.
Date: 2021-08-24
Institutions: Commission for Citizenship, Governance, Institutional and External Affairs
Subjects: EU Member State, EU candidate countries, Eastern Partnership, European Committee of the Regions, Internet site, Southern neighbourhood, decentralisation, division of powers, government policy, multi-level governance, principle of subsidiarity, region-EU relationship

Commission for
Citizenship, Governance,
 Institutional and External Aﬀairs

X
E
V

I
C

Developing
a Decentralisation Index
for the Committee of the Regions
 Division of Powers Portal

© European Union, 2021 
Partial reproduction is permitted, provided that the source is explicitly mentioned. 

More information on the European Union and the Committee of the Regions is available online at 
http://www.europa.eu and http://www.cor.europa.eu respectively. 

QG-05-21-226-EN-N; ISBN: 978-92-895-1104-9; doi: 10.2863/841455 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This report was written by Camille Borrett, Mariya Gancheva, Tugce Tugran and 
Tony Zamparutti (Milieu Consulting S.r.l.) 

It does not represent the official views of the  
European Committee of the Regions. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of contents 

1.  OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY AND OBJECTIVES ............................... 1 

2.  DECENTRALISATION: A BRIEF INTRODUCTION ........................... 3 

3.  METHODOLOGY AND STUDY STEPS .................................................. 9 

Overview of the study steps ....................................................................................... 9 
Quality control mechanisms .................................................................................... 18 
Outputs and deliverables .......................................................................................... 19 
4.  DISCUSSION ON THE FINDINGS AND INDICATORS ..................... 21 

Discussion on the current study ............................................................................... 21 
Findings: level of decentralisation in the EU based on the selected indicators ....... 39 
Suggestions for future updates and the DoP structure ............................................. 47 
5.  CONCLUDING REMARKS...................................................................... 55 

6.  LIST OF REFERENCES ........................................................................... 57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
List of tables, figures and boxes 

Table 1 Decentralisation indices identified during literature review and their basic features . 11 
Table 2 Final list of indicators developed for the study ........................................................... 13 
Table 3 Indicators and scoring used for political decentralisation ........................................... 25 
Table 4 Aspects of administrative decentralisation .................................................................. 29 
Table 5 Indicators and scoring used for administrative decentralisation ................................. 31 
Table 6 Fiscal decentralisation indicators in existing analyses and indices ............................. 35 
Table 7 Fiscal indicators: brief overview and the formulas ..................................................... 36 

Figure 1 Decentralisation and its main dimensions, according to the OECD ............................ 4 
Figure 2 Average of Regional Authority Index Score for 29 American, 11 Asian and 41 
European countries ..................................................................................................................... 5 
Figure 3 Overview of the steps followed in the study ................................................................ 9 
Figure 4 A Snapshot of the interactive dashboard ................................................................... 20 
Figure 5 Average score for local and regional decentralisation, based on 12 indicators ......... 39 
Figure 6 Average scores for political decentralisation, based on five indicators ..................... 40 
Figure 7 Average score for administrative decentralisation, based on four indicators ............ 41 
Figure 8 Average score for fiscal decentralisation, based on three indicators ......................... 42 
Figure 9 Fiscal decentralisation, 3 indicators based on the average of 2000-2020 data, in 
percentages ............................................................................................................................... 44 
Figure 10 Changes over time, 2000-2020, as percentage points .............................................. 45 

Box 1 Basic elements of the Charter .......................................................................................... 6 

 
 
 
 
 
  Overview of the study and objectives 

Milieu was tasked with developing a ‘Decentralisation Index’ for the Committee 
of the Regions (CoR).  

The Decentralisation Index is intended to become an integral part of the Division 
of  Powers  (DoP)  portal  developed  by  the  CoR.  The  DoP  provides  detailed 
information on the governance structures and competences of different levels of 
governments  across  the  Member  States,  candidate  and  potential  candidate 
countries  as  well  as  Eastern  Partnership  and  Southern  Neighbourhood  Area 
countries1.    It  also  includes  information  on  how  competences  across  different 
policy  fields  are  shared  among  governance  structures.  The  portal  provides 
qualitative information on horizontal aspects of governance such as subsidiarity 
and  relations  with  EU  institutions.  It  was  extended  and  updated  in  2016, 
integrating additional information such as fiscal decentralisation and then revised 
again in 2019 for the EU countries2. 

The DoP is also an ongoing work, and the CoR is seeking to further develop its 
accessibility and the value of the information available on the portal. Against this 
background,  this  study  has  the  following  objectives3,  which  are  closely 
interlinked: 

  to propose and test an approach for developing a decentralisation index for 
fiscal,  political  and 
three  dimensions  of  decentralisation 
administrative),  building  on  existing  data  (mainly  from  the  DoP)  and 
publicly available data from other sources; 

(i.e., 

  to provide a tentative structure for the graphic representation of the index 

per country and over time; 

  to explore ways to better structure and quantify the existing information in 

some of the sections of the DoP.  

The  following  sections  are  structured  as  follows:  section  2  presents  a  brief 
introduction  to  the  concept  of  decentralisation.  Section  3  provides  the  overall 
methodology and detailed study steps as well as quality control mechanisms and 
the list of deliverables. Section 4 presents the indicators included in this study in 
more  detail  and  the  rationale  behind  them.  It  also  presents  the  findings  and 
suggestions  for  the  future  updates  of  the  DoP,  specifically  regarding  data 

1 The portal also covers UK and Iceland.  
2 CoR, Division of Powers, Disclaimer, available at: 
https://portal.cor.europa.eu/divisionpowers/pages//default.aspx.  
3 As per the services requested and subsequent discussions between the contractor and CoR further defining the 
work. 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
collection to fully populate the indicators.   

2 

  Decentralisation: a brief introduction 

A complex concept, underlining a visible phenomenon 

Decentralisation  is  broadly  understood  as  a  process  whereby  political  and 
institutional actors at sub-national levels acquire varying degrees of autonomy vis 
a vis central state structures. As such, it implies a rearrangement of relationships 
terms  of  rights  and 
between 
responsibilities,  empowering  the  local  and  regional  actors.  For  instance,  the 
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) describes the decentralisation 
as:  

the  national  and  sub-national 

levels 

in 

‘the restructuring of authority so that there is a system of co-responsibility 
between institutions of governance at the central, regional and local levels 
according  to  the  principle  of  subsidiarity.  Based  on  such  principle, 
functions (or tasks) are transferred to the lowest institutional or social level 
that is capable (or potentially capable) of completing them.’4  

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) provides 
a similar definition while underlining the important element of elections as the 
basis of authority at sub-national level: 

‘measures that transfer a range of powers, responsibilities and resources 
from  central  government  to  subnational  governments,  defined  as  legal 
entities  elected  by  universal  suffrage  and  having  some  degree  of 
autonomy’5 

‘Devolution’, ‘delegation’ and ‘deconcentration’ are widely used terms in relation 
to  decentralisation,  sometimes  to  describe  the  levels  of  decentralisation. 
Deconcentration does not involve a transfer of power from the central to lower 
tiers  of  government  and  merely  refers  to  the  ‘branching  out’  of  the  central 
administration into regions or local levels with offices directly linked to itself. 
Hence it is considered the weakest form of decentralisation6 or is not considered 
as decentralisation at all7. Delegation refers to the transfer of some responsibility 
of  decision  making  and  administrative  capacity  to  semi-autonomous  entities 

4 UNDP, (2004), Decentralised Governance for Development:  A Combined Practice Note on Decentralisation, 
Local Governance and Urban/Rural Development. 
5 OECD, (2019), Making Decentralisation Work: A Handbook for Policy-Makers, OECD Multi-level Governance 
Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/g2g9faa7-en. 
6 Administrative Decentralization (worldbank.org).  
7 DRI-BP-87-English.pdf (democracy-reporting.org) 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
which are ultimately accountable to the central authority8. As a more extensive 
form of decentralisation, devolution happens when decision-making powers and 
administrative  capacity  to  implement  policies  are  largely  transferred  to  local 
governments, which are  also equipped to raise financial revenues to finance at 
least some of their functions9. It implies a more horizontal relationship between 
the central and lower tiers.  

Decentralisation  has  been  analysed  from  many  different  angles  with  different 
conceptualisations, but the typologies most frequently seen in the research for this 
project  focus  on  three  main  dimensions:  political,  administrative  and  fiscal 
decentralisation.  

The  figure  below,  adapted  from  the  OECD,  provides  an  overview  of  these 
different dimensions with associated criteria.  

Figure 1 Decentralisation and its main dimensions, according to the OECD10 

According to the OECD, state structures around the world, including Europe, have 
witnessed an on-going process of decentralisation starting from the second half of 
the 19th century. The pace and depth of this process varies across countries, and 
their  starting  points  varied  as  well.  The  trend  has  not  always  been  linear,  but 
overall, a general tendency towards more decentralised structures can be observed 
(see Figure 2)11.  

8 Administrative Decentralization (worldbank.org) 
9 Administrative Decentralization (worldbank.org) 
10 OECD, (2019), Making Decentralisation Work: A Handbook for Policy-Makers, 
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/g2g9faa7-en. 
11 OECD, (2019), Making Decentralisation Work: A Handbook for Policy-Makers.  

4 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 2 Average of Regional Authority Index Score for 29 American, 11 Asian and 41 
European countries12 

One  underlining  assumption  closely  linked  to  decentralisation  is  that  by  being 
closer  to  the  citizens  and  other  stakeholders,  the  design,  implementation  and 
monitoring of policies will be improved, leading to better results. This resonates, 
and goes hand in hand with the concept of governance which is defined by the 
United Nations (UN) as the following: 

‘Governance refers to the exercise of political and administrative authority 
at  all  levels  to  manage  a  country’s  affairs.  It  comprises  the  mechanisms, 
processes  and  institutions,  through  which  citizens  and  groups  articulate 
their interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate 
their differences.’13 

However, decentralisation takes different forms in different contexts, as there is 
not  one  single  approach  to  the  process.  It  is  inevitably  shaped  by  the  state 
structures,  political  culture  and  history  in  which  it  will  take  place.  Thus, 
decentralisation and the form it takes will vary across the countries. In addition, 
decentralisation  across  the  three  dimensions  discussed  above  will  not  happen 
symmetrically.  Interactions  between  these  different  dimensions  are  also 
important: for instance, fiscal decentralisation cannot be considered in isolation 
from political and administrative decentralisation.  

12 Source as cited in OECD Report: Schakel, A. et al. (2018[6]), Final Report on Updating the Regional Authority 
Index (RAI) for Forty-Five Countries (2010-2016). 
13 Committee of Experts on Public Administration, Definition of basic concepts and terminologies in governance 
and public administration (E/C.16/2006/4) (New York, 2006) 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
These  observations  underline  a  complex  phenomenon  for  which  politicians, 
bureaucrats, scholars and civil actors have not been  able to provide a common 
definition  or  understanding.  Decentralisation  is  a  multi-faceted  concept  which 
acquires  different  meanings  depending  on  the  context.  It  has  inter-related 
dimensions  which  are  not  understood  or  interpreted  in  the  same  way  across 
scholars,  disciplines  and  institutions.  This  complexity  makes  its  measurement 
challenging. Therefore, all attempts to measure decentralisation will have their 
limitations, as each starts from a subjective point of view relying on definitions, 
concepts  and  methods  determined  by  the  researchers,  and  these  starting  points 
will impact the results.   

The European Charter for Self-Government  

The European Charter of Self-government, concluded in 1985 by the Council of 
Europe, requires the signatory parties to uphold and guarantee basic principles 
regarding administrative, fiscal and political independence of local authorities14. 
The Charter states that local authorities are to be elected by universal suffrage. 
The Charter has been ratified by 47 countries, include all EU Member States. As 
such, it provides an important reference point for conceptualisation of different 
dimensions of decentralisation and was previously used by important studies in 
this area15.  

Box 1 Basic elements of the Charter 

The Charter incorporates three dimensions of decentralisation namely political, administrative and 
financial. In its core, it sets out the fundamental principle of subsidiarity and aims to give appropriate 
and  proportionate  competence  to  the  local  authorities  so  they  can  manage  their  affairs  with  a 
protected  legal  basis  and sufficient  resources  which  they oversee  independently  from  the  central 
government. The parties to the Charter commit themselves to be bound by at least 20 paragraphs of 
the first part of the Charter, 10 of which should be selected from the ‘hard core’ list, which is also 
designated  by  the  document.  Among  these  hard-core  elements  are:    a  legal  foundation  for  self-
government so that the principle is protected by law (including the constitution) and not subject to 
political  influences,  free  election  of  local  assemblies,  exclusivity  of  the  powers  given  to  the  local 
authorities and the protection of local boundaries.  

14  Council  of  Europe,  Details  of  Treaty  No.122:  European  Charter  of  Local  Self-Government,  available  at: 
https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-
/conventions/treaty/122#:~:text=The%20Charter%20commits%20the%20Parties,where%20practicable%2C%20
in%20the%20constitution.  
15 See for instance the Local Authonomy Index (LAI) which bases several of its indicators on different articles of 
the European Charter for Self-Government.  

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The EU context  

The  implications  of  decentralisation  are  especially  important  in  the  EU  as  a 
supranational entity with complex structures for policy making, implementation 
and monitoring which span all levels of government. Indeed, local and regional 
authorities  (LRAs)  are  playing  an  increasingly  important  role  across  all  policy 
fields and their actions can play a key role in supporting the long-term strategic 
objectives of the EU, such as the European Green Deal and climate neutrality. As 
an example, one study has estimated that around 60 % of all decisions taken at 
sub-national levels are driven by EU level legislation, and LRAs are responsible 
for  around  70  %  of  public  sector  investments  across  the  EU16.  Last  year’s 
developments in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic underline the key role 
and importance of sub-national authorities as they faced the imminent impacts of 
the  health  crisis  and  were  at  the  frontline  of  designing  and  implementing 
emergency  responses17.  In  the  aftermath  of  the  pandemic,  recovery  from  its 
economic impacts while boosting green transition, will necessitate a tremendous 
collective effort, making sub-national governments key to its success. While this 
study does not delve into the links between the pandemic and decentralisation, its 
outputs are intended to help track future developments in decentralisation.     

This  underlines  an  increasing  need  to  successfully  integrate  the  principle  of 
subsidiarity  with  the  progressive  and  strategic  leadership  role  that  the  EU 
institutions play. It is therefore critically important to understand to what extent 
structures  and  processes  of  decentralisation  support  sub-national  actors  in 
delivering what is expected from them. 

16 CEMR, (2016), Local and Regional Governments in Europe Structures and Competences. 
17 Committee of the Regions, (2020), EU Local and regional barometer: counting the cost of the COVID pandemic 
on EU regions, cities and villages.   

7 

 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
  Methodology and study steps 

 Overview of the study steps 

The study followed the following steps: first, a literature review was carried out 
to  identify  the  most  relevant  previous  studies  and  concepts  related  to 
decentralisation.  The  second  step  involved  two  parallel  processes:  a  close 
examination of the indices identified during the literature review and other data 
sources as well as the European Charter of Self-Government to identify aspects 
which might be used for the development of the indicators. As a parallel process, 
scanning of the information on the DoP in order to identify common themes and 
types of information that can be used to populate the indicators and to create new 
indicators which will help with better structuring of the qualitative information. 
In the third step, a final list of indicators has been developed either by using the 
existing indicators or slightly adapting them to the contents of the DoP. The fourth 
step consists of populating the indicators by using a structured Excel file. The fifth 
and final step is then to transfer the indicator to a visualisation platform so they 
can be compared across the countries using a map tool.  

The following section provides an overview of these steps and discusses the main 
challenges/observations for each of them. 

Figure 3 Overview of the steps followed in the study 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 Step 1: Literature review to identify relevant methods and 
indices 

The first activity was to carry out a brief literature review that had two, linked 
aims: first, to gain an understanding about the concepts, definitions and typologies 
of decentralisation;  and second, to  identify  relevant studies,  indices  (indicators 
they use) and relevant data sources. This mapping identified the most important 
and  relevant  sources  for  this  study,  in  particular  sources  that  had  already 
developed indices of decentralisation: these were then analysed in the next step.    

The European Charter for Local Self-Government was also included in the review 
as a possible reference point for concepts and indicators of decentralisation. The 
articles and paragraphs of the Charter were listed and matched to indicators from 
other studies that make explicit reference to its contents. Some of these elements 
were incorporated into the indicators.  

Step 2: Mapping the indices and scanning the DoP 

2.a: Compiling and analysing existing information and indicators  

In  this  step,  one  area  of  work  provided  a  list  of  possible  sources  of  data  and 
previous  studies  that  developed  decentralisation  indicators.  Among  those,  the 
most relevant ones were selected for a closer examination of their contents. All of 
the  sources  identified  either  present  decentralisation  indices  or  are  academic 
articles  that  contain  already  developed  indicators.  One  exception  is  the  OECD 
Handbook18,  which  contains  a  checklist  for  policy  makers  as  guidance  on 
decentralisation in its different dimensions: this was included because some of the 
elements  in  the  checklist  provide  an  important  element  for  reflection  on  the 
development of indicators based on the DoP.   

An Excel file was created to systematically analyse the contents of these short-
listed sources. This file includes 186 individual entries: they are mostly indicators 
included  in  the  indices  or  themes/concepts  mentioned  in  the  previous  studies 
(including  the  OECD  Handbook).  For  each  entry,  an  overview  of  the  relevant 
content  is  recorded:  themes,  the  corresponding  indicator,  the  scoring  method, 
whether the indicator roughly corresponds to political, administrative and fiscal 
dimension and the links to the source data.  

The study focused on adapting the most relevant and widely used indicators and 
using some of their elements to create a new set of indicators that could then be 
populated with data on the DoP.  

18 OECD, Making Decentralisation Work: A Handbook for Policy Makers. 

10 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  table  below  provides  an  overview  of  the  main  sources  consulted  and  the 
number of indicators scrutinised from each source.  

Table 1 Decentralisation indices identified during literature review and their basic 
features 

Name 

Local Autonomy 
Index (LAI) 
Regional Authority 
Index (RAI) 
AER Study  

Year 
Coverage 
1990-
2014 
1950-
2016 
2009 

Country 
Coverage 
39 

81 

29 

NA 

154 

Scoring system 

37  point-scale,  expert 
scoring 
27-point  scale,  expert 
scoring 
Percentages based on 23 
indicators,  based  on 
and 
expert 
survey  distributed 
to 
LRAs 
The study uses data from 
various datasets 

scoring 

Number  of 
included in the list 

indicators 

14 (of which 3 are 
composite) 
20 (2 of which are 
composite) 
The questionnaire 
includes more than 100 
questions – 67 of these 
were selected as 
relevant 
6 

Treismann, D, 
Defining and 
Measuring 
Decentralization 
(2002) 
Fernando Do Vale 
(2015) 

Ivanyna and Shah 
(2014) 
Martinez-Vazquez, 
J. & Timofeev, A. 
2010, 
Decentralization 
measures revisited 
OECD, Making 
Decentralisation 
Work: A Handbook 
for Policy Makers 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

182 

NA 

The study uses data from 
various  datasets  and 
qualitative information 
The study uses data from 
various datasets 
The study uses data from 
various datasets 

NA 

NA 

NA 

5 

5 

5 

60 (this publication 
includes guidelines 
focusing on different 
dimensions e.g. capacity 
building at sub-national 
level, coordination 
mechanisms). 60 of 
these were selected as 
relevant and included in 
the list 

11 

 
 
 
 
2.b: Working with the information on the Division of Powers portal 

As  a  parallel  and  iterative  process  to  the  analysis  of  the  previous  studies  and 
indices, the information on the DoP was scanned, as this provided the main source 
of data for the political and administrative indicators. The aim was to make use of 
this information by developing indicators that correspond to this content while 
remaining within the general framework of the previous studies and using similar 
themes and concepts.  

All  the  country  documents  from  27  Member  States  were  merged  into  a  single 
document  to  facilitate  the  analysis.  The  following  sections  were  used  in  the 
analysis:  main  introduction  section,  fiscal  powers,  systems  of  multilevel 
governance, subsidiarity and relations with the EU.  The sections on individual 
policy areas were also used but only for the administrative indicators. 

A  simplified  content  analysis  method  was  used:  the  research team  read  all the 
documents  several times  to familiarise  themselves  with the content.  They  then 
identified common themes and structures across the countries. This provided an 
overview of the type of information each section contains and whether they are 
consistent enough to populate an indicator. This process included a back and forth 
with the indicators identified from other studies in order to identify the best match 
between the indicators and the information available on the portal. For instance, 
whenever a theme became emergent from the text provided in the DoP, the team 
scanned the Excel list to see if there was, among these indicators, one or more that 
corresponded to the theme.   

Step 3: Final set of indicators  

The iterative process described above achieved two things: first, recurrent similar 
themes across the indices were identified. Second, the back and forth between the 
overview  of  the  studies  and  the  information  from  the  DoP  helped  finetune  the 
selection  as  it  identified  linkages  and  common  themes  between  the  two.  The 
iterative process resulted in a short list of indicators to be used in the index: these 
indicators were then slightly adapted to the contents of the DoP so that they could 
be at least partially populated with the available information.  

Furthermore, additional indicators (not reflected in existing studies) were created 
in order to better structure some of the information available on the DoP. During 
the  close  examination  of  the  contents  of  the  DoP,  it  became  clear  the 
‘Subsidiarity’  and  ‘Representation  at  EU  level’  sections  include  information 
which can be structured around specific themes although they are not the direct 
focus of existing studies and indices. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
In  addition,  a  selection of  overview  indicators  was developed  to provide  basic 
structural information on each Member State. These do not have bearing on the 
level of decentralisation but help the user to understand basic governance structure 
of each country and to contextualise the indicators.  

The table below provides an overview of the indicators. A more detailed version 
is provided as a separate document.  

Table 2 Final list of indicators developed for the study 

Dimension 
Overview-
general 
structure 

Political  

Indicator 

State structure 
Levels  of  governance  (excluding 
central government) 

Number of Local Units 

Average population size by LAU 

Existence of any major changes to 
state governance structures 
Legal  basis  for  principle  of  self-
government 
Representation  of  sub-national 
levels at national level 
Ability  to  influence  higher  level 
and 
governments’ 
policymaking  
Sub-national  levels  establish  and 
sustain  direct  relations  with  EU 
institutions 
Subsidiarity: To what extent is the 
regional  dimension 
local  and 
during 
into 
taken 
subsidiarity scrutiny? 

legislation 

account 

subnational 

Administrative  Administrative 
competences 
Administrative 
competences 
Share of subnational employment 
governmental 
of 
out 
employment  
Administrative  Supervision  from 
central level 

residual 

total 

Source 
Simply  to  indicate  whether  the  country  is 
federal  or  unitary.  Information  comes  from 
OECD sources, DoP and the CEMR Report. 
Background  information  on  the  MS  Source: 
Eurostat/DoP 
Background  information  on  the  MS  Source: 
Eurostat,  triangulated  with  DoP  and  CEMR 
Report 
Background  information  on  the  MS  Source: 
Eurostat 
DoP (For internal use - for future updates, this 
information  can  be  useful  as  a  starting  point 
for further research) 
Adapted  from  existing  indicators,  populated 
with information from the DoP 
Adapted  from  existing  indicators,  populated 
with information from the DoP 
Adapted  from  existing  indicators,  populated 
with information from the DoP 

Adapted  from  existing  indicators,  populated 
with information from the DoP 

Created based on available information on the 
DoP 

Created based on available information on the 
DoP 
Based  on  LAI  indicator,  ‘institutional  depth', 
populated with information from DoP 
Adapted  from  existing  indicators,  populated 
with information from the DoP 

Adapted  from  existing  indicators,  populated 
with information from the DoP 

13 

 
Dimension 
Fiscal 

Indicator 

Expenditure ratio (ER) 

Revenue ratio (RR) 

Revenue autonomy (RA) 

Source 
Martinez-Vazquez  &  Timofeev 
Source: Eurostat 
Definition  based  on  Martinez-Vazquez  & 
Tomofeev (2010), Source: Eurostat 
Definition  based  on  Martinez-Vazquez  & 
Timofeev (2010), Source: Eurostat 

(2010)19, 

Step 4: Compiling data in an Excel file and scoring 

Step  four  involved somewhat  different  approaches  for  each  dimension  and the 
general overview indicators.  

Developing each indicator 

For  the  indicators  on  the  general  structure,  the  data  was  downloaded  from 
Eurostat and triangulated with the information on the DoP. Any inconsistencies 
were flagged. 

For the political and administrative indicators, step four consisted of two sub-
steps. In the first sub-step, data was compiled from different sources (mainly the 
DoP but also, as described below, a European Commission study20 for one of the 
administrative  indicators)  in  an  Excel  file.  The  text  from  the  DoP  containing 
information  to  populate  each  indicator  was  identified  and  copied  to  the  Excel 
document, using a different sheet for each indicator.  

In  the  second  sub-step,  political  and  administrative  indicators  based  on 
qualitative  information  from  the  DoP  were  scored  using  criteria  adapted  from 
existing  indicators  or  developed  (where  otherwise  not  available)  based  on  the 
information available on the portal. This step was necessary to convert qualitative 
information into a score that is comparable across the Member States. Scoring 
scales  were  harmonised  across  the  indicators  to  facilitate  the  aggregation  of 
different indicators into one composite index at the later stage. Where relevant, 
aspects were scored for local and regional levels separately.  

19  Martinez-Vazquez,  J.  &  Timofeev,  A.,  (2010),  Decentralization  measures  revisited,  International  Studies 
Program, Working Paper 09-13 (updated), Andrew Young School of Policy Studies. 
20 European Commission, (2018), A comparative overview of public administration characteristics and 
performance in EU28, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/3e89d981-48fc-11e8-be1d-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en. 

14 

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
One of the administrative indicators, on the share of subnational employment, was 
obtained using data from a 2018 European Commission study21. It represents the 
percentage  of  subnational  employment  out  of  total  governmental  employment. 
These percentages had to be converted to scores to be compatible with the other 
indicators.  For  this,  the  simple  mathematical  quartile  method  was  used.  The 
quartile method measures the spread of the distribution of scores above and below 
the mean by dividing the scores into four groups. This method was chosen as it 
mathematically determines high/medium/low levels of subnational employment 
based on the comparison of scores across Member States. Once the quartile values 
were calculated, all percentages that were below the lower quartile (representing 
the lowest 25 % of scores) were given 0 points; the percentages falling between 
the lower quartile and the median were assigned 1 point; the percentages between 
the median and the upper quartile were given 2 points; and all percentages above 
the  upper  quartile  (representing  the  highest  25  %  of  values)  were  assigned  3 
points. It should be noted that this method means that scoring for each Member 
State could change in future updates if the average across Member States changes. 
The colour scales used in the map visual for this indicator would therefore also 
need to be adapted accordingly. 

For all other indicators under the political and administrative dimension, where 
the information from the DoP was not clear enough to assign a score, leaving the 
indicator blank was preferred. This is indicated by ‘unknown’ in the Excel sheet. 
Where  the  Member State does not have a  government at regional level,  or  the 
regional  level  is  mainly  an  administrative  entity  (this  is  the  case  for  Bulgaria, 
Cyprus,  Estonia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Latvia,  Malta  and  Slovenia)  the 
indicators for regional level are indicated with ‘n.a.’. For further details, please 
see section 4.1.2 below on each dimension.  

The study paid special attention to create a scoring framework which relies mainly 
on  factual  aspects  which could be  captured  with questions  to which one  could 
provide mutually exclusive answers (for instance, does the constitution provide 
details on how the competences are distributed or not?). However, it is not always 
possible to identify the answer with certainty from the information available on 
the portal. For instance, the text does not always provide the same level of detail 
or specificity regarding the same aspect across Member States. Sometimes vague 
or subjective terms are used. In a fictitious example, the text might contain the 
following  statement  without  providing  more  detail  ‘the  local  government  has 
considerable power on the matters that fall under its area of competence.’ The 
term ‘considerable’ is a not defined term (in this fictitious example) and thus does 
not provide adequate level of information for scoring the competence level.  In 

21 European Commission, (2018), A comparative overview of public administration characteristics and 
performance in EU28, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/3e89d981-48fc-11e8-be1d-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en.  

15 

 
 
                                                 
the  future,  the  level  of  subjectivity  can  be  further  reduced  by  providing  better 
structured  information  for  the  future  updates  of  the  portal.  More  detailed 
suggestions are provided in section 4.3.  

For both dimensions, qualitative data refers to structures within the Member State 
which  tend  to  be  fairly  stable  over  time.  Analysis  of  the  previous  indices  also 
shows  that  even  though  some  of  them  have  a  temporal  dimension,  in  the  vast 
majority of the cases, the values for the indicators remain the same over time. The 
information currently available on the DoP does not provide any insight into the 
changes  over  time22.  Consequently,  the  data  gathered  for  the  political  and 
administrative  indicators  and  the  visualisation  tool  do  not  provide  a  temporal 
dimension.  

For fiscal indicators, there were two sub-steps. First, the data was downloaded 
from the Eurostat database, organised and prepared for calculations that followed 
the  formula  identified  in  the  literature  review.  This  provided  the  results  as 
percentages. The indicators were calculated as an aggregate of local and regional 
levels where the latter distinction is available (four Member States only – Austria, 
Belgium, Germany, Spain). The indicators for other countries only refer to the 
local  level  as  this  is  the  only  sub-national  level  for  which  statistical  data  is 
reported. All the detailed datasets and calculations are provided with the Excel 
file. For the second step, the percentages had to be converted into scores using 
the same scale as the other indicators, in order to create  an aggregate score for 
each Member State. For each Member State the average indicators over the 2000-
2020  period  were  taken  and  given  a  score  based  on  the  percentiles  of  the 
distribution  of  the  indicator  value  across  the  countries23  (the  same  method 
described  above).  This  resulted  in  the  grouping  of  Member  States  in  four 
categories  –  from  those  in  the  bottom  25th  percentile  to  those  in  the  top  25th 
percentile. For further details, please see the section 4.1.2 below.  

Creating an aggregate score for each country 

The last sub-step involves creating a composite index by aggregating the scores 
from all the indicators for regional and local level. For this, a simple methodology 
is followed by assigning an equal weight to all indicators. First an average score 
of  each  indicator  in  the  political,  administrative  and  fiscal  dimensions  is 

22  One  exception  is  the  text  in  the  general  section  which  provides  details  regarding  any  changes  to  the 
legislation/constitution. This was used to create one of the general overview indicators. It simply indicates whether 
there  was a  major change  since 2010 to the  governance structures in the MS. It aims to provide a ‘flag’  for a 
possible impact on the decentralisation level of the country so that it is taken into consideration by the researchers 
working on the future updates of the portal.   
23 Following the ‘Categorical scales’ approach for  normalisation suggested by the JRC:  10 step guide, Step 5: 
Normalisation.   

16 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
calculated.  Second,  the  average  of  the  three  scores is  calculated,  providing the 
overall  score.  As  the  fiscal  data  from  Eurostat  does  not  differentiate  between 
different tiers of government for most Member States, the same scores were used 
for both levels24. 

When calculating averages, both ‘unknown’ and ‘n.a.’ were excluded from  the 
scores  to  avoid  artificially  lowering  the  scores  for  the  Member  State. 
Consequently, the overall score for regional decentralisation for these Member 
States  is  not  available,  and  these  Member  States  are  also  excluded  from  the 
ranking based on regional scores.  

Step 5: Data visualisation 

The  final  step  was  to  visualise  the  data  contained  in  the  Excel  document  in  a 
communicable  and  user-friendly  way.  The  aim  is  to  provide  the  CoR  with  an 
example of how the data can be visualised dynamically and allow for comparisons 
between countries.  

The visualisation was developed as an interactive dashboard using the R statistical 
programming language, specifically R’s Shiny Apps package. A tab was created 
for each decentralisation dimension (fiscal, political, administrative) along with 
an overview page  which provides information on the general structure of each 
Member State and a composite score for each dimension. For the overall, political 
and administrative page, sub-tabs were created for local and regional levels. For 
the fiscal scores, the ratios cover both the local and regional levels.  

The  administrative  and  political  indicators  were  scored  from  0  to  3  and  were 
visualised  on  maps  using  a  0.5  interval  colour  scale.  The  fiscal  indicators 
represent percentages and were visualised on maps using a colour scale showing 
the  quartile  intervals  (i.e.,  showing  four  gradations  (scores  below  Q1;  scores 
between Q1-Q2; scores between Q2-Q3; and scores above Q3). 

The  composite  decentralisation  score  presents  the  ‘overall  decentralisation’, 
calculated as the average of the overall scores for each dimension. Similarly, the 
overall scores for each dimension are also presented, calculated as the average of 
the scores for each indicator.  

Please see the output sections for a snapshot of the interactive dashboard.  

24 An alternative method could be used in the future, by adding the scores from each indicator. However, for this 
method  the  information  should  be  complete,  with  no  ‘unknowns’  in  the  dataset.  This  is  to  avoid  artificially 
lowering the scores of the MS for which the information is not available. This study could not employ this method 
due to several gaps in the currently available information, but could be used in the future when more complete 
data is available. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 Quality control mechanisms 

Transparency 

While  studies  and  policy  papers  on  decentralisation  provide  broadly  similar 
elements, the approaches to measuring it vary somewhat. In this situation (and 
also as a general principle), it is important for any study to provide transparent 
information  about  the  methodology  used  and  the  steps  taken  during  the  study 
which led to the conclusions. One of the most common approaches used by the 
scholars is to publish the entire dataset(s) underlining the study to enable other 
researchers  or  interested  parties  to  replicate  the  results.  This  includes  the  data 
sources, coding instructions (a code book) and the actual data as well as any other 
step taken to process the data.  A similar method was followed for this study to 
ensure  transparency.  Please  see  section  3.3  for  the  background  files  and  data 
provided along with this report.  

Data quality and error checks 

To  ensure  the  reliability  and  validity  of  the  indicators,  the  study  took  several 
precautions, as described below:  

  Using clear coding instructions for the qualitative indicators to minimise the 

subjective element. 

  For  the  scoring  of  the  qualitative  data,  researchers  checked  each  other’s 
work and the scores, flagged inconsistencies (where they would provide a 
score  other  than  the  one  given  by  the  other  researcher).  These 
inconsistencies were  discussed among the researchers. The final decision 
remained with the researcher who populated and scored the indicator in the 
first  place  as  the  person  most  familiar  with  the  text.    As  a  result  of  this 
procedure, a limited number of the scores were changed.    

  A  consistency  and  error  check  was  applied  for  the  formulas  used  in  the 

development of the fiscal indicators.  

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Outputs and deliverables 

Apart from this report, the deliverables will be the following: 

  Data in Excel format and explanatory notes: this file includes the indicators 
created and populated for this study along with relevant information (source 
of  information,  scoring  methodology  and  other  notes  on  each  of  the 
indicators). This file provides the main scores that, in their version, can be 
uploaded to the DoP website. The file also includes in different tabs, detailed 
scoring  which  includes  the  text  from  the  DoP  used  for  scoring,  for 
transparency purposes. 

  A separate excel file with the fiscal indicators only, with raw data for each 

country (time series between 2000-2020) and calculations. 

  The prototype of the interactive dashboard which would be developed at the 

Division of Powers portal:  
https://portal.cor.europa.eu/divisionpowers/Pages/default.aspx   

The figure below is a snapshot of the interactive dashboard where one can select 
different dimensions of decentralisation and see indicators under each dimension 
(using the dropdown menu in the sidebar).

19 

 
 
Figure 4 A Snapshot of the interactive dashboard 

20 

 
  Discussion on the findings and indicators 

 Discussion on the current study 

General observations 

The review of the existing indicators and previous studies led to the following 
observations: 

The most important and perhaps not surprising outcome of the literature review is 
that the concepts and measurements of decentralisation vary. These differences 
are  important  since  the  conclusion  of  different  studies  (for  instance  how 
decentralised  a  country  is)  can  reflect  which  aspects  of  decentralisation  is 
considered more or less important by the researchers, and what aspects they chose 
that take into account in their measurements. Consequently, the literature review 
has shown that there is not a single, best approach. As described in section 3, we 
have taken an approach that draws on the key existing studies and reports and uses 
information available on the DoP (or that can be provided in its future updates).   

Another important observation, related to the first one is that, with the exception 
of the fiscal dimension, the indicators which aim at measuring decentralisation 
rely on researchers and experts gathering qualitative information and then scoring 
it. More and more studies provide transparent information regarding how their 
scoring is made: this approach is followed here, and scoring methods are provided 
in the following section.  

The  differences  between  the  Member  States  when  it  comes  to  definition  of 
government levels should be taken into account when creating the indicators. This 
is particularly important where countries with more than one level of sub-national 
government  level  are  being  compared  against  different  criteria  for  the  index. 
Furthermore, what constitutes a local or regional tier is not always comparable 
across  the  countries  with  different  institutional  structures.  We  have  used  the 
information in the DoP and made a simple differentiation, as described in the next 
section.  

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Overview of indicators 

This section provides an overview of the indicators included in the index under 
three main categories, namely political, administrative and fiscal decentralisation. 
The overview indicators (e.g. on state structure, number of tiers, number of local 
area units) are not discussed in this section since they are merely descriptive and 
are not intended to be part of the decentralisation index.   

For each dimension, a brief overview of the concept is provided along with the 
main attributes and common themes identified through literature review and the 
analysis of existing indices. This is followed by a description of the approach used 
to develop the selected indicators (scoring in the case of qualitative and scoring 
and calculations in the case of quantitative indicators) and a brief discussion on 
the possible improvements in the future.  

By definition, decentralisation indices focus on the processes and institutions at 
different  government  levels.  This  implies  that  every  time  an  aspect  of  the 
decentralisation is scrutinised, it should be made clear which government level 
the  assessment  is  focusing  on.  This  creates  a  challenge  for  comparison  since 
government  levels  and  how  they  are  defined  vary  across  the  Member  States. 
Furthermore, the simple categories of ‘regional’ and ‘local’ government are not 
clear for Member States where there are two or more sub-national government 
levels.  

The  indicators  developed  for  this  study  use  two-level  scoring  whenever  it  is 
relevant. The lowest level refers to the municipalities, a relatively easy concept to 
compare across the Member States. The regional level might combine two or more 
levels of government if the same procedures apply to different levels. For other 
cases, these are flagged and included in the metadata file for each indicator.  

22 

 
 
 
 
 
Indicators on political decentralisation 

In the broadest sense, political decentralisation refers to the ability of the sub-
national governments to set their own political agenda, make policy decisions 
and enforce them, especially in the policy fields which have direct implications 
for the local population. It has inherent links to the subsidiarity principle and 
the democratic elections of the local policy makers. According to the OECD, 
the  political  decentralisation  is  about  the  ‘institutional  and  political  aspects  of 
decentralisation’  and  is  considered  as  an  important  element  for  ensuring 
democratic  checks  and  balances  vis-à-vis  the  central  governments.  Its  main 
local/regional  authorities,  decision-making  and 
aspects 
enforcement  powers,  citizen  participation  as  well 
transparency  and 
accountability25.  

involve  ‘elected 

Previous studies and indices refer to different aspects of political decentralisation. 
Some  employ  a  more  restricted  scope  focusing  mainly  on  the  democratically 
elected local authorities which perform legislative and  executive functions and 
free  and  open  local  elections26.  Others  take  a  more  legalistic  approach,  as 
suggested by Ladner and Keuffer27, and refer to the legal foundations of the power 
distribution between the different government levels and protection of the  local 
units from the encroachment of the central government. Other elements are taken 
into consideration by different studies, enlarging the scope to the representation 
of  the  sub-national  governments  at  national  level  decision  making28  and  the 
activity of civil society at local level29.  

As such, political decentralisation has strong links to the fundamental principles 
of the European Charter of Local-Self Government30, especially: 

  Article 2 on the legal/constitutional foundations of the local government, 
  Article  3,  para.  2  on  the  free  and  democratic  elections  of  the  local 

representatives based on universal suffrage,  

  Article  4  on  the  legal  prescription  of  the  rights  and  duties  of  the  local 
governments vis-à-vis the central government and their participation to the 
decision-making process at national level, 

25 OECD, (2019), Making Decentralisation Work: A Handbook for Policy-Makers, OECD Multi-level Governance 
Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/g2g9faa7-en. 
26 Ivanyna, Maksym; Shah, Anwar, (2014): How close is your government to its people? Worldwide indicators on 
localization and decentralization, Economics: The Open- 
Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal, ISSN 1864-6042, Kiel Institute for the World Economy 
(IfW), Kiel, Vol. 8, Iss. 2014-3, pp. 1-61. 
27 Ladner, A., & Keuffer, N. (2017). Creating a comparative index of local autonomy. 
28 AER, (2009), From Subsidiarity to Success: The Impact of Decentralisation on Economic Growth. 
29 OECD, (2019), Making Decentralisation Work: A Handbook for Policy-Makers, OECD Multi-level Governance 
Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/g2g9faa7-en. 
30 Council of Europe, European Charter of Local Self-Government, ETS No.122.  

23 

 
 
 
                                                 
  Article 5 on the protection of local boundaries, 
  Article 11 on the legal protection of the local governments and their right 

to recourse to judicial means against the violation of their rights. 

Scoring of the political indicators 

Based on the main themes and aspects identified in the previous studies and the 
European Charter of Local Self-Government, as well as the themes emerging from 
the DoP, five indicators were developed. All of the indicators have a qualitative 
aspect  and  were  populated  using  the  information  from  the  DoP,  mainly  the 
introduction  sections  where  basic  information  is  provided  on  different 
government levels and their legal foundations, systems of multi-level governance, 
relations at the EU level and the subsidiarity sections.  

As briefly mentioned in the methodology section, a scoring method was used to 
convert the qualitative information into a comparable score – using an approach 
adapted from the other studies. The table provides the rationale behind the scoring 
for each indicator.

24 

 
 
 
Table 3 Indicators and scoring used for political decentralisation 

Indicator 
IND_ 1 Legal basis for 
principle of self-
government 

IND_2 Representation of 
sub-national levels at 
national level 

Understanding 
Legal prescription of the local autonomy is an 
important element which functions as a safeguard 
against ‘the centralising tendencies of the central 
government’31.  It has a direct link to the European 
Charter of Self Government (article 2- Article 2 – 
Constitutional and legal foundation for local self-
government) and is also mentioned as a factor in the 
OECD’s Guidelines on Decentralisation (2019). It is 
therefore expected that a constitutional recognition 
provides a stronger protection and clearly assigned 
roles and responsibilities increase the level of political 
decentralisation. This applies to all sub-national levels 
without distinction, therefore only scored once.  
Representation of sub-national tiers at national level is 
an 
important  aspect  of  political  power  and  the 
relationships between the different tiers. The rationale 
behind  the  scoring  is  that  a  more  formal  and  direct 
representation  of  the  sub-national  levels  ensure  that 
their  needs  and  perspectives  are  better  taken  into 
account when designing, implementing and monitoring 
policies. The score goes lower as the level of formality 
decreases. The indicator is scored twice, once for local 
and once for regional level. For most of the cases, the 
information  on  the  DoP  differentiates  between  the 
tiers but when it is not clear, this is flagged.  

Scoring 
Scoring  scale  used  is  0-3.  The  scoring  makes  a  distinction  between 
different  approaches  where  the  principle  of  local  autonomy  is 
prescribed  by  the  constitution  or  not,  whether  it  specifies  the 
competences or only recognises the principle without further detail.  
3  points  are  attributed  when  there  is  a  detailed  constitutional 
prescription,  meaning  that  the  constitution  goes  beyond  simply 
recognising 
the  principle  of  self-government  and  sets  out 
competences, scope or other relevant aspects more clearly. 
2 points are attributed when the constitution recognises the principle 
but does not provide details on how to apply 
1  point  is  attributed  when  the  principle  of  local  autonomy  is  not 
enshrined in the constitution established by law/statues 
0 points are attributed if none of the above applies. 
Scoring scale is 0-3.  
3  points  are  attributed  if  the  sub-national  levels  are  represented  at 
national parliament or one of the chambers. This is mainly the case for 
the federal states. 
2 points are attributed if the interests and position of the sub-national 
levels  are  formally  represented  by  an  organisation  which  has  full 
coverage of all of the entities and is recognised by the law  
1  point  is  attributed  when  one  or  more  organisation  represents  the 
position  and  the  interest  of  the  sub-national  entities  but  this  is  not 
formally recognised or the organisation does not have full coverage of 
all the entities  
0 points are attributed when none of the above applies.  

31 Bullmer E., (2017), International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA)- Constitution Building Primer 13. 

25 

                                                 
Indicator 
IND_3 Ability to influence 
higher level governments’ 
legislation and 
policymaking  

IND_4 Sub-national levels 
establish and sustain 
direct relations with EU 
institutions 

Understanding 
This indicator is directly linked to European Charter of 
Self Government (Art. 4 para 6), and it has used 
several indices under different names/variations 
which include elements regarding the consultation of 
regional/local government in national legislation and 
the scope of influence that sub-national actors have 
on the legislative process at national level.  A higher 
score is attributed when there are systems in place 
which ensure that sub-national governments are 
always consulted about the draft legislation before the 
drafts are finalised and given an opportunity to voice 
any feedback/concerns. A lower score is attributed 
when the consultation becomes ad-hoc or 
unsystematic. This is scored twice, once for local and 
once for regional level. For most of the cases, the 
information on the DoP differentiates between the 
tiers but when it is not clear, this is flagged. 
This indicator is mentioned only by one other study32, 
and can be interpreted as the ability of the sub-national 
levels  to  participate  in  the  discussions  and  policy 
making at EU level through formal/informal means. The 
scoring considers that the more presence an entity has 
in  Brussels  through  formal/informal  ways,  the  more 
they  will  participate  in  the  exchanges  between  the 
institutions  and  be  able  to 
influence  the  policy 
processes.  
This is scored twice, once for local and once for regional 
level. For most of the cases, the information on the DoP 
differentiates between the tiers but when it is not clear, 
this is flagged. 

Scoring 
Scoring scale is 0-3. 
1 point was attributed for each of the following criteria:  
(a) a mechanism/formal system for transferring info to LRAs to trigger 
the process, beyond publication on the website 
(b) some form of consultation even if not prescribed by the law  
(c) additional point if the influence is direct (seats in the parliament or 
legal obligation).  

Scoring scale is 0-3.  
1 point for each of the following criteria:  
(a) Membership to CoR  
(b) Permanent presentation through an office in Brussels (at least for 
some of local governments) 
(c) Representation through & participation in associations of 
regional/local authorities 

32 AER study has one question in the questionnaire targeting the regional/local authorities, asking them whether they have an office in Brussels.  

26 

                                                 
Indicator 
IND_5 Subsidiarity: To 
what extent the local and 
regional dimension is 
taken into account during 
subsidiarity scrutiny? 

Understanding 
The EU’s Early Warning System gives the ability to the 
national governments of the Member States to check 
whether  EU  draft 
legislation  conforms  with  the 
subsidiarity  principle33.  It  is  important  to  take  into 
account the perspectives of the LRAs in this process and 
some  MS  established  procedures  for  this.  The  DoP 
includes 
information  which  can  be 
standardised  in  the  future  versions  using  this  newly 
created indicator. As in the other indicators, a formal 
well-defined procedure is scored higher. This is scored 
twice,  once  for  local  and  once  for  regional  level.  For 
most  of  the  cases,  the  information  on  the  DoP 
differentiates between the tiers but when it is not clear, 
this is flagged. 

important 

Scoring 
Scoring scale is 0-3. 
3 points are attributed  when  the subsidiarity scrutiny is well-defined 
and local/regional level is consulted systematically (this includes EWS 
and other well-defined procedures) 
2 points are attributed  when  the subsidiarity scrutiny is well-defined 
(EWS)  at  national  level  but  regional/local  parliaments  are  consulted 
only informally/unsystematically 
1 point is attributed when there is an established system for EWS but 
local  and  regional  levels  are  not  consulted  or  consulted  in  a  limited 
extent 
0 is attributed when none of the above applies 

33 Committee of the Regions, Early Warning System, available at: https://portal.cor.europa.eu/subsidiarity/regpex/Pages/Early-Warning-
System.aspx#:~:text=The%20EWS%20is%20a%20procedure,the%20draft%20on%20this%20ground.&text=%22Orange%20card%22%3A%20applying%20only,under%20t
he%20ordinary%20legislative%20procedure.  

27 

                                                 
Possible areas for future work  

Indicators  on  political  decentralisation  cover  many  aspects  of  institutional  and 
legal structures within the Member State. However, as in the other dimensions, it 
is not possible to talk about a consensus among studies and reports as to what 
really constitutes political decentralisation. This challenge might never be totally 
overcome, but future studies could provide an opportunity to build on existing 
indicators and incorporate increasingly important elements such as direct citizen 
participation  and  fundamental  aspects  of  democracy  such  as  accountability  to 
provide a more holistic view of political decentralisation. This would help going 
beyond  legal  and  institutional  approaches  and  accommodate  the  complex 
interdependencies between the democratic processes at the EU, national and sub-
national level.  

For the current study and the future updates of the DoP, the main challenge is the 
inconsistency of the information available in the DoP to populate the indicators. 
For the scoring used for some of the indicators, the unclarity of the information 
was a limitation. For instance, in some cases, the information suggests there is a 
procedure  in  place  for  consulting  the  sub-national  government  during  the 
legislative process, but it is not made clear whether this is defined by law. Such 
details  are  necessary  to  populate  the  indicators  in  a  robust  manner,  especially 
when scales from 0 – 3 are used where one point can make a big difference. The 
lack  of  clarity  is  amplified  when the  country  in  question is  a federal or  quasi-
federal  state  or  has  complicated  structures.  The  future  updates  of  the  platform 
should  take  into  account  these  additional  complexities  and  provide  clear 
instructions to the national experts. More detailed recommendations by indicator 
are provided in section 4.3. 

28 

 
 
 
 
Indicators on administrative decentralisation 

According  to  the  OECD  (2019),  administrative  decentralisation  “involves  a 
reorganisation and clear assignment of tasks and functions between territorial 
levels  in  order  to  improve  the  effectiveness,  efficiency  and  transparency  of 
national  territorial  administration.  It  generally  relates  to  the  transfer  of 
planning,  financing  and management  decisions  on  some  public  functions  to 
lower 
to  administrative 
decentralisation as the level of autonomy subnational entities possess relative to 
central control35, notably by assessing the level of human resources allocated to 
the subnational levels along with the supervision exercised by the central level36.  

levels  of  government.34”  Other  studies  refer 

Existing analyses and indices define indicators for administrative decentralisation 
around three key aspects: 

Table 4 Aspects of administrative decentralisation  

Aspect 
(1)  The  range  of  tasks  and  functions  delegated  to  the 
subnational levels, including whether subnational levels are 
given  residual competences (i.e., the possibility to take on 
new competences not assigned to other levels.) 
(2) The resources allocated to the subnational levels in order 
to  enable  them  to  properly  and  autonomously  carry  out 
their tasks and functions. This can notably be assessed based 
on the share of employment at subnational level.  
(3) The autonomy of subnational levels in carrying out their 
tasks 
level  of 
supervision/control exercised by the central level.  

functions, 

looking 

and 

the 

at 

Example of sources 
Local Autonomy Index (2016)   
Regional Authority Index (2015)  
AER Decentralisation Index (2009) 

OECD (2019)  
Fernando Do Vale (2015) 
M. Ivanyna & A. Shah (2014) 
Daniel Treisman (2002)  
Local Autonomy Index (2016)  
A. Schneider (2003) 

All of these aspects echo several key principles of self-governance defined in the 
European Charter of Local Self-Government37, for example:  

  Article 3 on the concept of local self-governance sets out that subnational 
authorities  should  have  the  right  to  “regulate  and  manage  a  substantial 
share of public affairs under their own responsibility”. 

  Article 6 sets out that “appropriate administrative structures and resources 

for the tasks of local authorities” should be provided. 

34 OECD, (2019), Making Decentralisation Work: A Handbook for Policy-Makers, OECD Multi-level Governance 
Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/g2g9faa7-en. 
35 Schneider A., (2003), Decentralization: Conceptualization and Measurement,  
International Development 38(3):32-56, DOI:10.1007/BF02686198. 
36 Do Vale, H., (2015), Comparing and Measuring Subnational Autonomy across Three Continents, Lex Localis – 
Journal of Local Self-Government, 13(3), pp.737-760. 
Ivanyna,  M.  and  Shah,  A.,  (2014),  How  Close  Is  Your  Government  to  Its  People?  Worldwide  Indicators  on 
Localization and Decentralization,  Economics E-Journal 8(2014-3), DOI:10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2014-3 
37 Council of Europe, European Charter of Local Self-Government, ETS No.122.  

Studies in Comparative 

29 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
  Article  8  on  the  administrative  supervision  of  local  authorities'  activities 
sets out that supervision should be kept to a strict minimum and “aim only 
at ensuring compliance with the law and with constitutional principles”. 

With the exception of indicators linked to the share of subnational employment, 
which are based on quantitative data, administrative decentralisation can only be 
assessed qualitatively by reviewing the constitution, statues and relevant laws of 
each country. The majority of the existing studies make use of expert scoring to 
assess each of the aspects described above.  

Scoring of the administrative indicators 

Building on the existing analyses and indices, four indicators were developed for 
assessing administrative decentralisation in this study. With the exception of the 
indicator on the share of subnational employment, all indicators were populated 
based  on  the  information  contained  on  the  DoP  portal  –  specifically  the 
introduction page and policy field pages for each Member State.  

The table below provides the details on the understanding and scoring used for 
each indicator. 

30 

 
 
 
 
Table 5 Indicators and scoring used for administrative decentralisation 

Indicator 
Subnational 
competences 
Number and type of 
responsibilities 
delegated to 
subnational levels 

Understanding 
It can be expected that as 
decentralisation increases, so do the 
responsibilities of subnational 
authorities38. This indicator therefore 
looks at the range and type of tasks 
and functions delegated to the 
subnational levels, with particular 
focus on the delivery of essential 
services (e.g., health and education) 
and the discretion given to the 
subnational levels in designing and 
implementing such services.  

Scoring 
A scoring scale of 0 to 3 was used, assessing each policy field separately for each level of 
government (local/regional):  
3 points were attributed when the local/regional level can design and implement many 
measures in the policy field assessed, with no or very limited intervention from the higher 
level(s).  

2 points were attributed when the local/regional level can implement and sometimes 
design measures in the policy field, within the limits of the overall policy set by the higher 
level(s) in the respective field.  

1 point was attributed when the local/regional level mainly executes policies designed by 
the higher level(s) in the policy field and/or does not have core competences that are 
delegated to the respective level in the majority of other Member States.  

0 points were attributed when no local/regional competences were identified in the 
policy field.  
The scores for each policy field were added together and then divided by 17 (the number 
of policy fields) in order to obtain an overall score on a 0-3 scale.  
All policy fields covered in the DoP portal were assessed: transport; employment; social; 
education; vocational training; youth & sports; culture; public health; trans-European 
networks; spatial planning; environment; energy; agriculture; fisheries; immigration & 
asylum; tourism; civil protection.  

The scoring is based on the text of the respective policy field pages for each Member 
State on the DoP portal.  

38 Do Vale, H., (2015), Comparing and Measuring Subnational Autonomy across Three Continents, Lex Localis – Journal of Local Self-Government, 13(3), pp.737-760. 

31 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Indicator 
Residual competences 
Extent to which 
subnational levels can 
take on new 
competences  

Share of subnational 
employment out of 
total governmental 
employment 

key 

indicator 

Understanding 
Another 
of 
decentralisation is the discretion given 
to subnational authorities in choosing 
the  tasks  and  policy  fields  in  which 
they take action. According to Article 4 
of the European Charter of Local Self-
Government, local authorities should, 
within  the  limits  of  the  law,  have  full 
discretion  to  exercise  their  initiative 
with regard to any matter which is not 
excluded  from  their  competence  nor 
assigned to any other authority39. This 
indicator  therefore assesses the level 
of  discretion  given  to  subnational 
authorities in choosing their tasks.  
The  distribution  of  manpower  across 
public  administration  can  be  used  to 
measure the degree of administrative 
subnational 
of 
autonomy 
governments as:  
(1)  The  creation  of  technocrats  on 
levels  of  government 
intermediate 
can  lead  to  an  increased  leverage  of 
subnational political elites.  
(2) High proportions of employment in 
is 
the  subnational  administrations 
of 
indicative 

level 

the 

of 

Scoring 
A scoring scale from 0 to 3 was used, assessing local and regional levels separately:  
3 points were attributed when the local/regional level is free to take on any new tasks 
(residual competencies) not assigned to other levels of government. 

2 points were attributed when the local/regional level is explicitly autonomous and can 
choose from a wide scope of predefined tasks. 

1  point  was  attributed  when  the  local/regional  level  can  choose  from  a  very  narrow, 
predefined scope of tasks. 

0 points were attributed when the local/regional level can only perform mandated tasks.  

The scoring is based on the text of the introduction page for each Member State on the 
DoP portal. 

This data is not available on the DoP portal. Data from a 2018 European Commission 
study was used41.  
The scoring was devised based on the first (Q1), second (Q2) and third (Q3) quartiles of 
the range of data for each level (i.e., regional and local).  
3 points were attributed when the share of local government employment was above 53 
% and above 42 % for regional government employment (i.e., above Q3).  

2 points were attributed when the share of local government employment was between 
24-53 % and between 19-42 % for regional government employment (i.e., between Q2 
and Q3). 

1 point was attributed when the share of local government employment was between 
14-24 % and between 2-19 % for regional government employment (i.e., between Q1 and 

39 Council of Europe, European Charter of Local Self-Government, ETS No.122., Article 4.  
41  European  Commission,  (2018),  A  comparative  overview  of  public  administration  characteristics  and  performance  in  EU28,  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/3e89d981-48fc-11e8-be1d-01aa75ed71a1/language-en.  

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Indicator 

Supervision from 
central level 
The extent to which 
subnational levels are 
supervised/constrained 
by the central level 

Understanding 
the 
responsibilities  allocated 
subnational 
levels,  given  that  the 
demand  for  services  require  more 
human resources40. 

to 

This  indicator  aims  to  provide  an 
insight  into  the  level  of  autonomy  of 
the  subnational  levels.  It  is  closely 
related  to  Article  8  of  the  European 
Charter  of  Local  Self-Government, 
which  sets  out  that  supervision  of 
subnational  activities  should  be  kept 
to a minimum and only with the aim of 
ensuring compliance with the law and 
with constitutional principles42.  

Scoring 
Q2). 

0 points were attributed when the share of local government employment was below 14 
% and above 2 % for regional government employment (i.e., below Q1).  

A scoring from 0 to 3 was used, assessing local and regional levels separately:  
3 points were attributed  when  the central level does  not supervise the activities of the 
local/regional  level.  All  disputes  between  different  levels  of  government  are  settled  in 
courts.   

2  points  were  attributed  when  the  central  level  supervises  the  activities  of  the 
local/regional  level  only  with  the  aim  of  ensuring  compliance  with  the  law  and  with 
constitutional principles. 

1 point was attributed when the central level exercises more extensive supervision of the 
activities of the local/regional level – e.g., state delegates are present at subnational level 
for  supervisory  purposes,  or  the  central  government  is  given  powers  to  intervene  in 
subnational affairs.  

0  points  were  attributed  when  the  central  level  exercises  quasi-total  supervision  of  the 
local/regional level, reviewing the legality and merits of actions.  

The scoring is based on the text of the introduction page for each Member State on the 
DoP portal. 

40 Do Vale, H., (2015), Comparing and Measuring Subnational Autonomy across Three Continents, Lex Localis – Journal of Local Self-Government, 13(3), pp.737-760. 
42 Council of Europe, European Charter of Local Self-Government, ETS No.122., Article 8. 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Possible areas for future work  

The lack of standardised information on the DoP for all qualitative indicators is a 
key  limitation.  Specifically  concerning  administrative  decentralisation,  the 
portal’s pages and thus the indicators rely on a review of various legal documents 
in each Member State, each of which may provide more or less detail; certain laws 
may even leave scope for interpretation by design. This is particularly true for the 
competence-related  indicator  where  the  differences  in  language  and  details 
provided  from  one  Member  State  to  another  make  it  difficult  to  determine  the 
relative scope and discretion given to subnational authorities for performing their 
tasks.  

As for the political indicators, a key recommendation for future updates of the 
DoP portal would be to provide the national experts tasked with reviewing the 
situation in each Member State with specific and clear criteria which they should 
try to identify in the national constitutions, statues and laws. For the indicator on 
competences  assigned  to  subnational  level,  experts  could  be  asked  to  identify 
specific  sub-competences  with  each  policy  field.  For  example,  in  the  field  of 
social  care,  the  responsibility  for  the  following  services  could  be  assessed: 
retirement homes, kindergartens, and services for disabled persons. This would 
ensure consistency in the information provided for each Member State. 

Furthermore, information regarding the supervision of subnational authorities by 
the central level is not indicated on the DoP portal for several Member States (AT, 
EE, LT, LV, MT, PT and SE). For future updates, it would be useful to ensure 
this information is provided. Similarly, the future DoP portal could include data 
on the share of subnational employment along with information on the ability of 
subnational governments to hire and fire their own civil servants. More detailed 
recommendations by indicator are provided in section 4.3. 

Indicators on fiscal decentralisation 

As  set  out  in  the  key  principles  of  self-governance  defined  in  the  European 
Charter of Local Self-Government (Article 9)43, subnational authorities should be 
able  to  manage  their  own  resources  needed  for  implementation  of  their  tasks. 
Therefore, assessing the degree of fiscal decentralisation relies on analysing the 
delegation of taxing and spending responsibilities to the subnational governments, 
both from a quantitative point of view (e.g. the share of revenues or expenditures) 
and a qualitative point of view (e.g. the independence of deciding on spending 
priorities).  

43 Council of Europe, European Charter of Local Self-Government, ETS No.122.  

34 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Existing analyses and indices define indicators for fiscal decentralisation around 
several aspects: 

Table 6 Fiscal decentralisation indicators in existing analyses and indices 

Sources 
Do Vale (2015)44 

Ivanyna & Shah (2012)45 
Martinez-Vazquez & Timofeev 
(2010)46 
Do Vale (2015) 

Martinez-Vazquez & Timofeev 
(2010) 
RAI47 
LAI48 

AER49 

Ivanyna & Shah (2012) 

Martinez-Vazquez & Timofeev 
(2010) 
RAI 

Aspect 
The importance of subnational 
spending for the general 
government expenditures 

Example of indicators 
Subnational expenditure as 
percentage of total 
expenditures 
Expenditure autonomy 
Expenditure ratio 

The importance of subnational 
revenue for general 
government revenues 

Subnational revenues as 
percentage of total revenues 
Revenue ratio 

Fiscal autonomy 
Fiscal autonomy, 
Financial self-reliance 
Financial flows between 
jurisdiction 
Vertical fiscal gap, 
Taxation autonomy 
Revenue autonomy; 
Fiscal imbalance 
Fiscal control 

The ability of subnational 
governments to raise their own 
financial resources (e.g. 
through taxes, fees) or 
alternatively their dependence 
on grants/ transfers from the 
central government in the 
subnational revenues 

The independence of 
subnational governments in 
deciding how to spend their 
financial resources or 
alternatively the conditionality 
associated with grants/ 
transfers from the central 
government 
The ability of subnational 
governments to borrow 
financial resources 

Financial transfer system 
Financial flows: % of earmarked 
financial flows 
Unconditional transfers 

LAI 
AER 

Ivanyna & Shah (2012) 

Borrowing autonomy, 
Borrowing control 
Borrowing autonomy 
Fiscal autonomy 

RAI 

LAI 
AER 

Borrowing freedom 

Ivanyna & Shah (2012) 

44 Do Vale, H., (2015), Comparing and Measuring Subnational Autonomy across Three Continents, Lex Localis – 
Journal of Local Self-Government, 13(3), pp.737-760. 
45  Ivanyna,  M.  &  Shah,  A.,  (2012),  How  Close  Is  Your  Government  to  Its  People?  Worldwide  Indicators  on 
Localization and Decentralization, World Bank, Policy Research  Working  Paper 6138. 
46  Martinez-Vazquez,  J.  &  Timofeev,  A.,  (2010),  Decentralization  measures  revisited,  International  Studies 
Program, Working Paper 09-13 (updated), Andrew Young School of Policy Studies. 
47  Schakel,  A.  H.  et  al.,  (2018),  Final  Report  on  Updating  the  Regional  Authority  Index  (RAI)  for  Forty-five 
Countries (2010-2016), Report for the European Commission. 
48 Ladner A., Keuffer N. & Baldersheim, H. (2015), Self-rule Index for Local Authorities (Release 1.0), Report 
for the European Commission. 
49  Assembly  of  European  Regions,  (2009),  From  Subsidiarity  to  Success:  The  Impact  of  Decentralisation  on 
Economic Growth, Part 1: Creating a Decentralisation Index, A study commissioned by the Assembly of European 
Regions (AER). 

35 

 
 
                                                 
Some of these aspects can be captured quantitatively based on statistical data (see 
below for details) and provide a fairly good indication about the degree of fiscal 
decentralisation.  Nevertheless,  issues  such  as  the  degree  of  independence  of 
subnational governments in deciding how to spend their revenues or in borrowing 
financial  resources  would  require  more  detailed  information.  Quantitative 
estimates  in  these  cases  can  provide  little  information  about  the  degree  of 
decentralisation because the amount of expenditure on a certain policy area may 
not be related to whether subnational governments can independently decide key 
spending  decisions  on  certain  policy  issues,  or  rather  must  rely  on  central 
governments for approval and direction. 

Calculation of the fiscal indicators 

The ratios developed by Martinez-Vazquez & Timofeev (2010) can be used to 
provide quantitative estimates about some aspects of fiscal decentralisation as 
follows: 

Table 7 Fiscal indicators: brief overview and the formulas 

Ratio 
Expenditure ratio (ER) 

Revenue ratio (RR) 

Revenue autonomy (RA) 

Formula 
ER=TLR/TR 

RR=LOR/TR 

RA=LOR/TLR 

Description 
Assuming that revenue equals expenditure (i.e. 
excluding borrowing for simplicity), this would be the 
share of spending taking place at the subnational level 
(using all resources available, except borrowing) 
relative to total expenditure of the general 
government (using all resources available). A higher 
ratio would indicate a higher degree of 
decentralisation 
The share of the local own revenues (e.g. from taxes 
and fees) compared to the total government revenues. 
A higher share or 'importance' of the locally raised 
revenues would indicate a higher degree of 
decentralisation 
The share of the local own revenues (e.g. from taxes 
and fees) compared to all local revenues, including 
grants/transfers from the central government. Higher 
reliance on locally raised revenue would indicate a 
higher degree of decentralisation. The opposite would 
be the share of the grants/transfers in the total 
subnational revenues sometimes referred to as ‘fiscal 
imbalance’ 

Where: TR = Total Revenue of the general government; TLR = Total Local Revenue (covers all tiers of subnational 
government); G  =  Grants  (i.e.  transfers  from  the  central  government  to  all  tiers  of  subnational  government); 
LOR=TLR-G or Local Own Revenue (excludes grants and covers other sources of revenue for the subnational 
government). 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
These ratios can be calculated using Eurostat data from its ‘European System of 
Accounts’  and  particularly  its  ‘Government  revenue,  expenditure  and  main 
aggregates’50.  An  alternative  source  can  be  the  International  Monetary  Fund’s 
(IMF) ‘Government Finance Statistics’51. For the analysis in this study Eurostat 
was  selected  as  a  source  for the  statistical  data52.  It  provides data  for  different 
levels of government, including ‘general government’ (understood as all tiers), 
‘state government’ (understood as the regional level in the four federated Member 
States  i.e.  Austria,  Belgium,  Germany  and  Spain)  and  ‘local  government’ 
(understood as the local level, in most cases municipal level). For each level of 
government,  data  is  available  on  the  total  revenue  as  well  as  components  of 
transfers that can be understood as ‘grants’ based on the Eurostat manual53. Using 
the data for total revenues and grants, the amount of ‘own’ revenues for the tiers 
of subnational governments is derived and fed into the estimation of the ratios. 
Each ratio is calculated as a percentage and per year for the period 2000-2020, 
which the Eurostat dataset covers. In order to be able to compare all indicators of 
decentralisation, the fiscal indicators were converted to one average ratio for the 
entire period  of  time  (the  ratios  are  relatively  stable over  time  for  all  Member 
State) and to scores of 0-3 as explained in section 3.1.4. This is necessary in order 
to  provide  a  simple  aggregated  score  for  the  overall  decentralisation.  Detailed 
notes on how Eurostat data is used to calculate the fiscal indicators and the final 
scoring is provided in the accompanying deliverable (Excel file).  

Possible areas for future work  

The three ratios proposed by  Martinez-Vazquez & Timofeev (2010) or similar 
estimations (such as those provided by the OECD54), and used in this project, can 
offer a good initial indication of the degree of decentralisation. Nevertheless, they 
rely exclusively on quantitative data. Such quantitative estimates should ideally 
be  complemented  with  qualitative  information  about  the  independence  of 
subnational  authorities  in  taking  decisions  on  fiscal  matters.  Particularly 
important is understanding to what extent decisions about how transfers from the 
central government come with conditions on how they should be spent, and also 
if locally raised revenues (e.g. from taxes and fees) must be spent for centrally 
determined actions.  

50 Eurostat Goverment Revenue, expenditure and main aggregates available at: 
https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=gov_10a_main&lang=en  
51  IMF,  Government  Finance  Statistics,  available  at:  https://data.imf.org/?sk=a0867067-d23c-4ebc-ad23-
d3b015045405  
52 Data available on Eurostat and IMF appear to be based in the same national accounts although they provide 
different levels of detail. Nevertheless, for countries not included in the Eurostat datasets, IMF data can be used 
for future updates.  
53 Eurostat, (2013), European System of Accounts, ESA 2010, pp.424-431. 
54  OECD/UCLG,  (2019),  2019  Report  of  the  World  Observatory  on  Subnational  Government  Finance  and 
Investment – Key Findings. 

37 

 
 
 
                                                 
The information currently available on the DoP portal is not sufficient to capture 
the independence of the subnational level on fiscal matters. This could be an area 
for future information gathering for the portal. Once such information is available, 
another fiscal indicator can be developed to complement the three derived from 
statistical  data.  More  detailed  recommendations  by  indicator  are  provided  in 
section 4.3. 

38 

 
 
 Findings: level of decentralisation in the EU based 
on the selected indicators 

Figure 5 below shows the average score of all the indicators selected for the index. 
The overall level of decentralisation at regional and local level varies considerably 
in the Member States (please note that for this and other figures in this section, 
the scores for regional decentralisation appear blank for the Member States that 
do not have a regional tier) The Member States with the highest scores on both 
levels  (i.e.  higher  levels  of  decentralisation)  are  the  same  with  only  some 
exceptions,  including  Sweden  and  Denmark  with  higher  scores  on  local 
decentralisation and Austria and Italy which score lower at local level. The overall 
average for 27 Member States is similar for both levels (1.84 for regional and 1.69 
for  local).  Germany  has  the  highest  score  on  both  levels.  Ireland,  Malta  and 
Cyprus have the lowest overall scores.  

Figure 5 Average score for local and regional decentralisation, based on 12 indicators   

AT
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DE
DK
EE
EL
ES
FI
FR
HR
HU
IE
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK

2,17

2,55

2,89

1,90

2,08

2,72

2,23

1,08

1,74

1,82

1,31

0,99

2,21

1,56

1,86
1,81

1,98

1,02

1,02

1

3

2

1,50

1,44

1,08

2,15

1,92

2,49

2,38

2,20

2,30

1,64

1,26

1,74

1,57

1,36

1,70

1,50

1,24

2,46

1,78

1,94

1,63

1,40

2,36

1,82

0,80

0,81

1,19

1

0

Local

Regional

2

3

Source: Division of Powers, result of scores applied by the research team based on the text available. The MS with 
only one sub-national government tier are not scored for regional decentralisation.  

39 

 
  
 
The graph below shows the overall  political decentralisation  scores based on 
five  indicators  at  regional  and  local  levels.  The  EU  average  for  both  levels  is 
similar,  2.04  and  1.91  respectively.  Almost  all  Member  States  score  higher  at 
regional level, with the exceptions of Hungary, Slovakia, Greece and Romania. 
More political decentralisation at regional level vis-à-vis the central government 
is  expected  in  federal  and  quasi  federal  states  which  score  higher  (Austria, 
Belgium, Germany, Spain, Italy). At regional level, Finland (2.3), the Netherlands 
(2.6) and France (2.0) also score higher than most Member States. Ireland (1.3) 
and Romania and Slovakia (1.25 for both) score lower than other Member States.  
The scores for local level are markedly higher for Germany, Latvia (2.5 for both) 
and the Netherlands (2.4). Ireland (1.2) and Croatia (1.5) score lower than other 
Member States on their scores for political decentralisation at local level.  

Figure 6 Average scores for political decentralisation, based on five indicators 

AT
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DE
DK
EE
EL
ES
FI
FR
HR
HU
IE
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK

2,80

2,40

2,80

2,00

2,00

1,60

2,60

2,25

2,00

1,80

1,50

1,33

2,40

2,60

2,00

2,40

1,80

3

2

1,25

1,25

1

2,00

2,20

2,00

1,80
1,80

2,50

2,00

2,20

1,80
1,75
1,75

1,20

1,60

1,50

1,60

1,60

2,20
2,20

2,50

2,40

1,75

1,80

2,00
2,00

1,80

2,00

1,60

0

1

2

3

Local

Regional

Source: Division of Powers, result of scores applied by the research team based on the text available. The MS with 
only one sub-national government tier are not scored for regional decentralisation. 

40 

 
 
 
 
the  average  scores  for  regional  and 

local  administrative 
In  the  EU 
decentralisation are very similar, 1.75 and 1.68, respectively. Denmark (2.49), 
Estonia (2.39), Poland (2.35) and Sweden (2.27) have higher scores than other 
Member States for the local level. Ireland (0.55), Malta (0.69) and Cyprus (0.78) 
score lower. For the regional level, Belgium has the highest score (2.91) followed 
by Spain and Germany (2.88 for both). The Netherlands (1.07), Ireland (0.96) and 
Sweden (1.13) score lower on regional administrative decentralisation.  

Figure 7 Average score for administrative decentralisation, based on four indicators   

AT

BE

BG

CY

CZ

DE

DK

EE

EL

ES

FI

FR

HR

HU

IE

IT

LT

LU

LV

MT

NL

PL

PT

RO

SE

SI

SK

2,37

2,91

2,88

2,88

1,37

1,57

1,29

1,43

1,21

1,65

1,43

2,56

0,96

0,55

0,69

1,91

1,69

1,47

1,07

1,13

1,49

1,18

0,78

1,90

1,66

1,62

1,98

2,49

2,39

1,65

1,61

2,19

2,15

1,22

1,47

1,23

1,11

1,98

2,21

1,94

2,35

1,57

1,87

1,80

1,64

2,27

3

2

1

0

1

2

3

Local

Regional

Source: Division of Powers, result of scores applied by the research team based on the text available. The MS with 
only one sub-national government tier are not scored for regional decentralisation. 

41 

 
 
 
 
When it comes to fiscal centralisation, the existing quantitative data and trends 
over time provide additional information, complementing the picture. The graph 
below shows the overall fiscal decentralisation for each Member State, based on 
the  average  of  three  indicators  over  a  period  of  20  years  (2000-2020)  and  the 
scoring method described in section  3.1.4. Only one set of scores is presented, 
without  the  distinction  between  the  regional  and  local  tiers.  As  explained  in 
section 3.1.4, 23 Member States have data on local governments and only four 
Member States (Austria, Belgium, Germany and Spain) have data on local and 
regional tiers. For these Member States, the scores were obtained by aggregating 
the data on local and regional tiers. Overall, Germany, Finland and Sweden have 
the highest scores, followed by Spain, Latvia and Denmark. The Member States 
with the lowest average scores are Malta, Estonia, Greece, Lithuania, Romania 
and Slovakia.  

Figure 8 Average score for fiscal decentralisation, based on three indicators 

3,50

3,00

2,50

2,00

1,50

1,00

0,50

0,00

3,0

3,0

2,7

2,7

2,7

3,0

2,3

2,3

1,3

0,7 0,7

0,3 0,3

2,0 2,0

1,7

1,0

0,7

1,7

1,3

1,7

1,0

1,0

0,3

0,0

0,3

0,3

AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK

Source: Eurostat, own calculations.  

Average score

When it comes to actual percentages over the same time period, major differences 
exist  across  the  Member  States  for  the  three  indicators  (see  graph  on  the  next 
page): 

  For the share of sub-national spending compared to the central government 
(expenditure ratio), scores vary between 62 % in Denmark to under 2% in 
Malta with an EU average of 28 %. 

  The  share  of  ‘own’  sub-national  revenues  within  the  total  government 
revenues (revenue ratio) varies from 34 % in Germany to 0.1 % in Malta, 
with an EU average revenue ratio of 13 %. 

  The  share  of  ’own’  revenues  within  the  sub-national  budget  (revenue 
autonomy) also varies a lot, from 74 % in Germany to 6 % in Malta, with 
an EU average of 43 %.  

42 

 
 
 
 
For  Sweden,  Germany  and  Finland,  all  three  indicators show  a  high  degree  of 
decentralisation  compared  to  other  Member  States.  Lower  levels  of  fiscal 
decentralisation  are  observed  in  Malta,  Cyprus,  Greece,  Estonia,  Lithuania, 
Slovakia, Romania for all three indicators.  

43 

Figure 9 Fiscal decentralisation, 3 indicators based on the average of 2000-2020 data, in percentages  

80%

70%

60%

50%

46%

40%

74%

62%

71%

64%

57%

54%

53%

46%

45%

46%

47%

42%

45%

40%

35%

30%

27%

27%

34%

29%

28%

20%

20%

19%

17%

10%

10%

0%

5%

5%

2%

38%

31%

27%

28%

36%

32%

26%

25%

24%

14%

8%

4%

2%

21%

23%

19%

14% 13%

14%

9%

6%

65%

52%

29%

19%

71%

60%

55%

46%

43%

34%

32%

30%

33%

32%

25%

19%

20%

17%

11%

5%

5%

14%

15%

10%

9%

12%

11%

6%

3%

6%

2%

0%

AT

BE

BG

CY

CZ

DE

DK

EE

EL

ES

FI

FR

HR

HU

IE

IT

LT

LU

LV MT

NL

PL

PT

RO

SE

SI

SK

Expenditure Ratio

Revenue Ratio

Revenue Autonomy

Source: Eurostat, own calculations.  

44 

 
It  is  also  interesting  to  see  how  the  Member  States  perform  across  the  three 
indicators selected for the study. Sweden, Germany and Finland have relatively 
high  scores  across  all  three  indicators  implying  a  higher  degree  of  fiscal 
decentralisation.  On  the  other  hand,  Denmark,  Spain  and  Belgium  have  high 
expenditure ratios and revenue ratios but do not figure among the top tier when it 
comes  to  revenue  autonomy.  This  may  indicate  that  while  the  shares  of  local 
spending and revenues are high a substantial part of these resources are not raised 
locally but are transfers from the central government. On the other hand, there are 
also Member States who have higher revenue autonomy compared to others but 
score lower on the other two ratios such as Czechia, France, Latvia and Portugal. 
This might indicate that while a significant share of revenues is raised at the sub-
national level independently of grants, the importance of this share in the overall 
government revenues and spending is lower. 

For  most  of  the  Member  States,  the  change  since  2000  is  small.  For  Austria, 
Estonia, Czechia, Croatia, Lithuania and Latvia, it is below 5 percentage points 
(pp)  for  all  three  indicators.  Some  countries  have  seen  changes  of  larger 
magnitude:  these  are  presented  in  the  graph  below.  Spain,  Romania,  Belgium, 
Sweden, Finland and Slovakia increased their expenditure ratio, whereas Hungary 
and Ireland saw a decrease.  

Figure 10 Changes over time, 2000-2020, as percentage points 

BE

BG

DK

EL

ES

FI

HU

IE

LU

RO

SK

20%

10%

0%

-10%

-20%

-30%

-40%

-50%

20%

10%

0%

-10%

-20%

-30%

-40%

-50%

Expenditure Ratio

Revenue Ratio

Revenue Autonomy

Source: Eurostat, own calculations – only countries where the change was bigger than 5 pp are shown in the graph. 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
The revenue ratio is more stable across Member States compared to the other two 
indicators, with the largest increases for Belgium (10 pp increase) and Spain (8 
pp increase) and the largest decreases for Hungary (- 6 pp) and Bulgaria (-5 pp). 
Changes  to  the  revenue  autonomy  are  greater,  with  Ireland  (15  pp  increase), 
Belgium  and  Greece  (11  pp  increase  for  both),  Slovakia  (42  pp  decrease), 
Bulgaria (30 pp decrease) and Romania (20 pp decrease) standing out. Overall, 
only Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Cyprus and Hungary have seen a decrease 
across all three indicators. At the other end of the spectrum, percentages for all 
three indicators have increased in Belgium, France, Slovenia, Portugal and Spain.  

46 

 
 
 Suggestions  for  future  updates  and  the  DoP 
structure  

As mentioned in the introduction, the DoP is an ongoing project which will be 
further  developed  in successive  steps.  The  development  of  the indicators  is  an 
important opportunity to identify ways in which the information on the DoP can 
be improved. This section focuses on the recommendations for future updates of 
the portal with a more detailed focus on each indicator.  

Indicators on political decentralisation 

Ind_1: Legal basis for the principle of self-government 
The current information on the portal does not always specify what a country’s 
constitution  says  about  local  and  regional  competences;  moreover,  the 
information available is not presented in a harmonised way across the countries. 
For instance, information on several Member States includes a statement such as: 
‘the constitution lists the competences’ but not for others. It is not clear whether 
this  is  because  the  constitution  does  not  specify  the  competences  or  simply 
because the researchers / national experts do not mention this specifically.  

The future updates should ask straightforward questions to establish this in a clear 
manner and apply this to all countries. For instance:  

  Does  the  constitution  recognise  the  principle  of  local  and  regional  self-

government?  

  Does the constitution list the competences assigned to sub-national levels?  
  If the constitution does not mention anything in this regard, are there any 

laws in place to establish the principle of self-government?  

The questions should be answered, to the extent possible, with Yes/No answers, 
with further information requested (e.g., for the list of competences).   

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ind_2:  Representation of sub-national levels at national level 
The information on the portal does not always specify whether the representation 
of the sub-national authorities vis-à-vis the central government has a formal or 
informal aspect. This is an important point for scoring. Therefore, data collection 
on  this  aspect  can  be  standardised  by  asking  the  researchers  /  national  experts 
questions such as: 

  Are  the  sub-national  levels  directly  represented  in  a  parliament  or  other 

chamber? 

  If not, are they represented by a formally assigned organisation which has 

full coverage of all members? 

  If not, does this representation have an informal nature?  

The questions should be answered, to the extent possible, with Yes/No answers, 
which can then be supplemented by additional information. 

to 

influence  higher 

Ind_3:  Ability 
policymaking 
This  is  also  a  relatively  straightforward  indicator,  and  the  information  can  be 
collected  on  a  standardised  basis.  The  researchers  /  national  experts  should  be 
asked straightforward questions such as: 

level  governments’ 

legislation  and 

  Does  the  central  government  have  the  formal  obligation  to  consult  sub-
national levels for all legislation relevant  for them? (That is, laws of the 
country demand it). How is this done? 

  If it is not prescribed by law, does the central level consult the sub-national 
levels in a systematic manner? How? (e.g, does the consultation happen in 
a consistent or inconsistent way)  

Some combinations of the procedures can be observed. For instance, in a country 
the consultation might be on paper mandatory but poorly applied in practice. Or 
despite  the  fact  that  there  is  no  formal  obligation,  consultations  might  be 
happening systematically. These differences should be taken into account when 
designing questions.  Apart from the descriptive probes, the questions should be 
answered, to the extent possible, with Yes/No answers.  

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ind_4:  Sub-national  levels  establish  and  sustain  direct  relations  with  EU 
institutions 

The  scoring  system  for  this  indicator  is  relatively  straightforward.  The 
information is already available on the portal, the future updates can make sure it 
is updated in a standardised manner. The following questions can be used: 

  Does the sub-national tier have a representation office in Brussels? (This 
can be as an organisation which represents them collectively or in their own 
right)  

  Yes/No (if the country has more than one sub-national tier, please specify 

for each tier) 

  Do  the  sub-national  governments  participate  in  European  organisations, 

networks (e.g. CEMR)?  

  Yes/No (if the country has more than one sub-national tier, please specify 

for each tier) 

This indicator is relevant for the EU Member States only. In future updates, if the 
portal and the scores also include non-Member States, the overall score from all 
indicators should be calculated without taking this indicator into account for non-
Member States.  

Ind_5: Subsidiarity: To what extent is the local and regional dimension taken into 
account during subsidiarity scrutiny? 
This indicator is relevant for the EU Member States only. In the future updates, 
the  overall  score  from  all  indicators  should  be  calculated  without  taking  this 
indicator into account for non-Member States.  

This indicator is about whether the EWS (Early Warning System) concerning the 
EU  legislation  is  extended  to  the  sub-national  governments  where  relevant. 
Therefore, the information can be collected using a set of standardised questions 
across Member States. The questions should capture all the relevant points: 

  Is  there  a  well-defined  subsidiarity  scrutiny  procedure  in  place  for  EU 

legislation (whether it is called EWS or not)?  

  If so, are sub-national levels consulted in a systematic way?  

The questions should be answered, to the extent possible, with Yes/No answers, 
which can be then supplemented with explanations. 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Indicators on administrative decentralisation 

Ind_6: Administrative subnational competences 
In  the  current  version  of  the  portal,  the  sectoral  pages  used  as  the  source  of 
information for this indicator did not always contain the same level of information 
and in some cases fields were left blank. This lack of standardised information 
and differences in language and detail mean that it is not always clear whether 
subnational authorities have limited or no competences in the specific sector or 
whether the sector was not covered by the researcher.  

The future updates should include clear and consistent information on each of the 
policy areas/sectors featured in the DoP. This information can be collected using 
a set of questions and clear criteria for each policy field in templates provided to 
national researchers. The policy fields and answer categories must be the same 
for all countries to achieve consistency. Under each policy area, there is a number 
of  different  sub-areas.  For  instance,  for  education,  information  includes 
competences on many different aspects across the countries from management of 
nurseries to policies regarding what food is offered in the canteens. In the current 
version of the portal, different sub-areas are often considered from one Member 
State to another, which results in difficulties for the reader to draw conclusions 
and make comparisons. These sub-fields must be standardised using a longlist or 
certain priority sub-areas such as the management of primary schools could be 
established.  Other  areas  can  be  added  as  ‘other’.  The  questions  should  be 
answered, to the extent possible, with Yes/No answers.  

In addition, different government levels should be clearly distinguished and how 
they share competences in each policy field must be mentioned.  

For example, in the case of education the following questions could be asked:  

  Are local/regional authorities responsible for primary education?  

Yes/No 
If yes: 

  What type of responsibility do local/regional authorities have for primary 

education?  

  Full competences/shared competences/only implementation of central level 

policies 

  Do the responsibilities include the maintenance of school buildings?  

Yes/No 

  Do the responsibilities include teachers’ employment and payment?  

Yes/No  

  Can local/regional authorities take decisions concerning the curriculum?  

Yes/No 

50 

 
 
 
 
Ind_7: Administrative residual competences  
This indicator can be populated with clearer data if questions are formulated to 
collect the information in a standardised manner. The questions can be designed 
to explore the scope of the competences based on the scoring method: 

  Can  the  local/regional  government  take  on  any  new  tasks  which  are  not 

specifically assigned to other government levels?   
Yes/No  

  If not, is there a defined list of tasks/areas which are explicitly assigned to 
the local/regional governments? Are they autonomous in these tasks/areas? 
Yes/No  

The questions should be answered, to the extent possible, with Yes/No answers, 
which can be then supplemented with explanations. 

Ind_8: Share of subnational employment out of total governmental employment  
This information is currently not included on the DoP but was obtained for this 
study from a report published by the European Commission55. However, the share 
of subnational employment along with information on the ability of subnational 
governments to hire and fire their own civil servants is included in several key 
existing analyses and indices on decentralisation. It would therefore be beneficial 
to  include  questions  on  these  aspects  in  the  template  provided  to  national 
researchers in future updates. 

Ind_9: Administrative Supervision from central level 
Information  regarding  the  supervision  of  subnational  authorities  by  the  central 
level is not indicated on the DoP portal for several Member States, and it would 
be beneficial to ensure that questions on this aspect are included in the template 
provided to national researchers in future updates. These questions could be:  

  To what extent does the central level supervise the actions of the subnational 

levels?  

  Are  disputes  settled  in  court  or  can  the  central  level  overturn  certain 

decisions taken by the subnational levels?  

  Are national delegates present in the regional/local level for supervisory 

purposes?  

55 European Commission (2018) A comparative overview of public administration characteristics and performance 
in 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/3e89d981-48fc-11e8-be1d-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en. 

EU28, 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Indicators on fiscal decentralisation 

The information used to populate the indicators is publicly available and updated 
every  year  by  Eurostat.  Future  studies  can  follow  the  same  method  to  easily 
update the indicators. The section below focuses on the information available on 
the current version of the DoP on fiscal powers.    

Suggestions on restructuring the information available on the DoP 
Information pertinent for fiscal decentralisation is currently available under the 
page  ‘Fiscal  powers’  on  the  DoP  portal.  It  contains  a  mix  of  quantitative  and 
qualitative information, but it is not made very clear which information can be an 
indicator of fiscal decentralisation. In the future, it may be useful to feature the 
quantitative  indicators  of  fiscal  decentralisation  and  the  visual  tool  more 
prominently.  

In  addition,  these  indicators  are  currently  covered  under  different  sections 
(‘qualifying  fiscal  decentralisation’  and  the  first  part  of  ‘level  of  fiscal 
decentralisation’), while the methodology is provided on a completely separate 
page. Therefore, it is not easy to understand what each chart represents and how 
it should be interpreted. Integrating a short explanation for each indicator (i.e. how 
it is defined and estimated and how it can be understood) in the main page might 
be easier and more user-friendly than re-directing users to a separate methodology 
page. This can be a complementary feature at the end of the page, where more 
details about the methodology are provided through a link to another page. 

Further, the country pages feature charts and text about ‘tax autonomy’ but the 
methodology  information  does  not  clearly  indicate  the  source  of  the  data,  nor 
explain its meaning. In the future, the methodology could be presented together 
with an explanation of what the indicator shows. 

Information about expenditures by policy area could be linked to the competences 
of subnational governments in these policy areas, when the latter topic is further 
developed. At the moment it is not easy to put the expenditure information into 
context and understand if high or low spending in a policy area is linked to the 
level  of  decentralised  competence.  In  interpreting  this  fiscal  data,  it  will  be 
valuable  to  understand  whether  subnational  governments  receive  conditional 
grants/transfers from central governments for expenditures in certain policy areas. 

Suggestions on qualitative indicators on fiscal decentralisation:  
In  the  future,  fiscal  decentralisation  could  be  further  detailed  via  qualitative 
indicators, for example on the conditionality of grants/transfers from the central 
government. The DoP pages on ‘fiscal equalisation mechanisms’ provide some 
information, but the details currently vary a lot by country. It may be useful to 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
refine  the  information  through  further  data  collection  using  uniform  questions. 
These questions could be:  

  Do subnational governments have full discretion to decide how to spend the 

grants/transfers from the central government? 

  Do grants/transfers from the central government come with conditions and 
instructions how they should be spent by the subnational governments? 
  Does the central government exercise control over how grants/transfers to 
subnational governments are spent or in which policy areas they are spent? 

The questions should be answered, to the extent possible, with Yes/No answers 
followed by other additional information. 

Similarly, a qualitative indicator could be developed to capture the capacity of 
subnational governments to borrow independently. Information from the section 
‘fiscal  rules  and  borrowing  capacity’  can  be  a  basis,  if  it  is  more  uniform  and 
complete across countries. The following questions could be used in information 
gathering:  

  Can  subnational  governments  borrow  independently  of  the  central 

government? 

  Do subnational governments need the approval of the central government 

for a decision to borrow? 

  Are there limits or conditions on their borrowing capacity imposed by the 

central government? 

The questions should be answered, to the extent possible, with Yes/No answers, 
followed by other additional information. 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Concluding remarks 

This  study  aimed  at  creating  a  decentralisation  index  which  can  be  largely 
populated with the information already available in the DoP portal. It is designed 
as  a  tool  to  provide  a  perspective  through  which  different  dimensions  of 
decentralisation (political, administrative and fiscal) can be observed within the 
countries. Drawing on the literature and previous indices, a set of 12 indicators 
was created. While four of the indicators are based on sources published by the 
Eurostat  and  the  European  Commission,  the  remaining  eight  are  populated  by 
using a scoring methodology applied to the text available on the DoP. The results 
were then aggregated to provide overall scores for decentralisation and scores for 
each dimension (political, administrative, fiscal). This process was carried out to 
cover separately local and regional decentralisation in the countries where there 
is  more  than  one  government  tier.  The  scores  for  regional  and  local 
decentralisation  are  presented  separately  in  the  form  of  a  visualisation  map, 
created specifically for this study.  

The DoP is being improved constantly with subsequent updates, and so will the 
decentralisation  index.  The  study  provides  a  starting  point  and  includes 
suggestions for a more standardised data collection for the future updates of the 
portal in order to fully populate the index. 

55 

 
 
 
 
  List of references 

Reports& journal articles 

Abdelhak F., et al., (2012), Measuring Decentralization and the Local Public 
Sector: A Survey of Current Methodologies 

Assembly  of  European  Regions,  (2009),  From  Subsidiarity  to  Success:  The 
Impact  of  Decentralisation  on  Economic  Growth,  Part  1:  Creating  a 
Decentralisation Index. 

Bullmer  E.,  (2017),  International  Institute  for  Democracy  and  Electoral 
Assistance (IDEA)- Constitution Building Primer 13. 

Committee  of  Experts  on  Public  Administration,  (2006),  Definition  of  basic 
in  governance  and  public  administration 
concepts  and 
(E/C.16/2006/4). 

terminologies 

CEMR,  (2016),  Local  and  Regional  Governments  in  Europe  Structures  and 
Competences. 

European Committee of the Regions, (2020), EU Local and regional barometer: 
counting the cost of COVID pandemic on EU regions, cities and villages.    

Freille,  S.,  Haque,  M.,  Kneller  R.,  (2008),  Federalism,  decentralisation  and 
corruption.  

The  European  Commission,  (2018),  A  comparative  overview  of  public 
administration characteristics and performance in EU28.  

Do Vale, H., (2015), Comparing and  Measuring Subnational Autonomy across 
Three  Continents,  Lex  Localis  –  Journal  of  Local  Self-Government,  13(3), 
pp.737-760. 

Jean-Baptiste Paul Harguindéguy, Alistair Cole & Romain Pasquier, (2019), The 
variety of decentralization indexes: A review of the literature, Regional & 
Federal Studies. 

Ivanyna, Maksym; Shah, Anwar, (2014), How close is your government to 
localization  and  decentralization, 
its  people?  Worldwide 
Economics: The Open- Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal, ISSN 1864-6042, 
Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW), Kiel, Vol. 8, Iss. 2014-3, pp. 1-61. 

indicators  on 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ladner,  A.,  &  Keuffer,  N.,  (2017),  Creating  a  comparative  index  of  local 
autonomy. 

Ladner  A.,  Keuffer  N.  &  Baldersheim,  H.,  (2015),  Self-rule  Index  for  Local 
Authorities (Release 1.0), Report for the European Commission. 

Martinez-Vazquez,  J.  &  Timofeev,  A.,  (2010),  Decentralization  measures 
revisited,  International  Studies  Program,  Working  Paper  09-13  (updated), 
Andrew Young School of Policy Studies. 

Marks G., et al., (2014), Measuring Regional Authority 

OECD, (2019): 2019 Report World Observatory on Subnational Government 
Finance and Investment 

OECD, (2019), Making Decentralisation Work: A Handbook for Policy-Makers, 
OECD  Multi-level  Governance  Studies,  OECD  Publishing,  Paris, 
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/g2g9faa7-en. 

OECD/UCLG,  (2019),  2019  Report  of  the  World  Observatory  on  Subnational 
Government Finance and Investment – Key Findings. 

Schakel, A. et al., (2018), Final Report on Updating the Regional Authority Index 
(RAI) for Forty-Five Countries (2010-2016). 

Schneider,  A.,  (2003),  Decentralization:  Conceptualization  and  Measurement, 
Studies 
38(3):32-56, 
in 
DOI:10.1007/BF02686198 

International  Development 

Comparative 

Torrisi G. et al., (2011), Defining and measuring decentralisation: a critical 
review 

Treisman, D., (2002), Defining and Measuring Decentralization: A Global 
Perspective. 

Trinn, C., Shulte, F., (2020), Untangling Territorial Self-Governance: New 
Typology and Data, Regional & Federal Studies on July 23, 2020. 

UNDP,  (1999),  Decentralization:  A  Sampling  of  Definitions  (Working  paper 
prepared in connection with the Joint UNDP-Government of Germany evaluation 
of the UNDP role in decentralization and local governance) 

UNDP, (No date): A User’s Guide to Measuring Local Governance 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNDP,  (2004),  Decentralised  Governance  for  Development:  A  Combined 
Practice  Note  on  Decentralisation,  Local  Governance  and  Urban/Rural 
Development 

Websites & databases and other 

Committee  of  the  Regions,  Early  Warning  System,  available  at:  CoR  -  Early 
Warning System (europa.eu)  

Eurostat, 2013, European System of Accounts, ESA 2010, pp.424-431. 

Eurostat,  Government  Finance  Statistics,  Database  -  Government  finance 
statistics and EDP statistics - Eurostat (europa.eu)  

IMF Government Finance Statistics available at: Government Finance Statistics - 
At a Glance - IMF Data 

Index of  Decentralisation:  Study  links  economic  performance  to  Europe’s  first 
Decentralisation Index | Assembly of European Regions (aer.eu) 

JRC: 10 step guide, Step 5: Normalisation 

Local Autonomy Index (LAI) – Datasets and methodology: Self-rule Index for 
Local  Authorities  (Release  1.0)  -  Regional  Policy  -  European  Commission 
(europa.eu) 

OECD, Fiscal federalism network - OECD 

Regional Authority Index (RAI), Datasets and methodology: Regional Authority 
Index (arjanschakel.nl) 
Worldbank, Decentralization (worldbank.org) 

Laws&Regulations 

Council of Europe, European Charter of Local Self-Government, ETS No.122.  

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EN

ISBN 978-92-895-1104-9
doi:10.2863/841455

QG-05-21-226-EN-N

Created in 1994 following the signing of the Maastricht Treaty, 
the European Committee of  the Regions is the EU's assembly of 350 regional and
 local representatives from all 28 Member States, representing over 507 million Europeans.

Rue Belliard/Belliardstraat 101   |   1040 Bruxelles/Brussel   |   BELGIQUE/BELGIË   |   Tel. +32 22822211
www.cor.europa.eu   |         @EU_CoR   |         /european.committee.of.the.regions
     /european-committee-of-the-regions