This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: anizational and administrative
innovation to accelerate and
make effective structural fund
Carrying out of measures aiming
at the implementation of sector
reforms B.1.1 Delegation of managerial responsibilities to officials (legislative decree n. 29/93)
B.1.2 Set up and implementation of an internal control management unit
B.1.3 Implementation of one back-stop shop
B.1.4 Implementation of employment services
B.1.4. Set up of regional and central administration evaluation units
B.1.5 Development of the information society in the P.A. B.1.6 Preparation and approval of territorial and landscape programming documents
B.1.7 Concession or management by a private-public operator of integrated water services
B.1.8 Choice of management mode and its implementation for urban solid waste within optimal
B.1.9 Set up and operational performance of regional environmental agencies B.2 INTEGRATION
For regional administrations
Implementation of territorial
integrated projects B.2.1 Incidence of commitments of integrated territorial projects on the total amount of resources
budgeted for integrated territorial projects in the operational programme For central administrations
Degree of integration of national
operational programmes with
regional planning B.2.2 Share of commitments of the investments programmed within a programme framework
agreement (Accordo di programma quadro) or any other negotiated agreement between central
and regional administrations over total commitments B.3 CONCENTRATION Concentration of financial
resources 264 B.3.1 Concentration of financial resources within a limited amount of measures Commission on Fiscal Imbalance DECENTRALIZATION IN SOME NON-FEDERAL COUNTRIES:
THE CASE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
By David Heald 1. INTRODUCTION The United Kingdom differs from many of the countries discussed at this symposium because it is a unitary state
characterized by Executive-dominated Parliamentary government and a highly centralized system of public finances.
Nevertheless, it is embarking on a process of asymmetric internal devolution at exactly the same time as European
Union (EU) developments are raising far-reaching questions about future economic, monetary and fiscal arrangements.
1 Inevitably, this paper cannot be fully comprehensive in its coverage. However, it seeks to explain and analyze
contemporary UK developments. The paper is structured in the following way. After this brief Introduction, Section II sets
the context. Section III describes the devolved funding system in 2001. Section IV considers real and imagined
problems. It sets out possible developments, paying particular attention to current policy debates about the present
funding system and about fiscal autonomy (regarding which there was much coverage in Scotland during the 2001 UK
General Election). Section V discusses similarities and differences between the United Kingdom and Canada, with
regard to territorial public finance. Section VI provides brief conclusions.
The focus of this paper is upon the fisc...
View Full Document