Deconcentration versus Decentralisation of Administration in France: A Centre-Periphery Dilemma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The debate in France concerning decentralisation--the transfer of power and authority to elected bodies in the provinces--and deconcentration--the displacement towards the provinces of administrative units and central powers--goes back over close to two centuries. For the last forty years, the Paris region has been the object of restrictive control measures over the location of activities at the same time as the central administration has tried to use the administrative apparatus to demonstrate by example how decision centres can be displaced towards the provinces. The public sector jobs that have been displaced to the provinces have sometimes presented some real challenges for the municipalities concerned, partly because of their direct demographic impacts but also because of their economic spin-off effects. It has also been the case that these representatives of the central state have developed locally a veritable autonomy in terms of decisions that has been recognised for its effectiveness. Patterns of change in Europe on this question show a tremendous variety of approaches and their harmonisation has now become a major challenge. Les debats en France concernant la decentralisation--le transfert des pouvoirs et de l'autorite a des corps elus en Province--ou concernant la deconcentration--le deplacement en Province d'entites administratives et d'autorites centrales--datent de pres de 2 siecles. La region de Paris a fait l'objet depuis quarante annees d'un controle restrictif des implantations d'activites dans le meme temps ou l'administration centrale tentait d'utiliser l'appareil administratif pour montrer l'exemple du deplacement des centres de decision vers la Province. Ces emplois publics deplaces en Province sont devenus quelquefois des enjeux pour les municipalites a la fois pour leurs impacts demographiques directs mais encore pour leurs effets d'entrainement economiques. Il arrive aussi que ces representants de l'administration centrale developpent localement une veritable autonomie de decision correlative d'une efficacite reconnue. Les evolutions europeennes sur cette question montre une grande variete d'approches et leur harmonisation est maintenant un enjeu central. Administrative and Government Reform in France Government Reform in France Government reform in France has often been regarded as being undertaken as a reaction to a deeply rooted bureaucratic system which appears to be ever more dysfunctional. Reform is also considered as an ongoing process of revising and re-organising this bureaucratic system in order to make it more flexible and efficient. The French government is currently in a period of ambivalence: on the one hand, the concept of centralised state power is still strong, while on the other hand, there has been a substantial effort, dating from the 1980s, to decentralise and redistribute authority, giving rise to a significant change in the perception and exercise of power. However, these reforms have not really provided for a transfer of power to new local entities, nor have they defined the conditions for the definitive transfer of precise responsibilities. Administrative reform is part of this continuing effort to adapt the ways and means of administrative intervention to various changes occurring on the economic, social and political scene. The question that remains is whether this reform only affects the internal operation of public services and their interactions with citizens, or whether it indeed represents a much deeper change by modifying the very model of French administrative authority as it (re-)defines the relationship between society and the national government. The Changes in Administrative Organisation and Procedures The changes in administrative organisation and procedures have been designed to meet social expectations with regards to efficiency, proximity and the so-called transparency of operations. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".