FRAMEWORKS, EMPHASES AND PROSPECTS OF CURRENT DECENTRALIZATION IN CROATIA

Kao okviri aktualne decentralizacije u Hrvatskoj naznačuju se opće karakteristike upravnih reformi u tranzicijskim zemljama, kontinentalnim zemljama Zapadne Europe i u anglosaksonskim zemljama. U Hrvatskoj je u razdoblju 1992- -2001. iskušan sustav “lokalne samouprave i uprave”, u kojem su lokalne jedinice bile shvaćane uglavnom kao produžena ruka središnje vlasti i uprave. To je dovelo do niza štetnih učinaka. Promjenama Ustava iz 2000. te novim zakonom iz 2001. započelo je oblikovanje sustava "lokalne i područne (regionalne) samouprave”. Nova je pravna regulacija proširila autonomiju lokalne samouprave i stvorila povoljne temelje procesa decentralizacije. Međutim, početkom 2002, politička podrška decentralizaciji slabi, Nema vizije institucionalnog ustrojstva države u dugoročnoj perspektivi, pa zbog toga ni kvalitetne strategije razvoja javne uprave. Nema promišljene politike i razrađenog plana decentralizacije. Neizvjesnost upogledu upravljanja decentralizacijom može usporiti i dovesti u pitanje čitav proces, kao i njegove učinke.The frameworks of current decentralization in Croatia are designated by general characteristics of administrative reforms in countries in transition, in Continental countries of West Europe and in Anglo-Saxon countries. While in the Anglo-Saxon world the emphasis is on economic values, countries in transition considerably rely upon decentralization reforms. West European Continental countries mainly combine the elements of managerial approach and strengthening of local self-government. Four concepts of the role of local units are described, the concept of administrative decentralization, the concept of political decentralization, the concept of subsidiarity and the Marxist concept. By their presentation and analysis, the signifîcance of local self-government as democratic value and civilizational achievement in a large part of Contemporary European countries is emphasized and the analysis of conceptual foundations of different concrete local systems is made possible. During the period from 1992 to 2001, the system of "local self-government and administration” was tested in Croatia. Although it tried to combine the elements of administrative decentralization with the elements of political decentralization, local units were mainly considered as an extension of central government and administration. This led to a number of different damaging effects. The Amendments to the Constitution of 2000 and the new Act of 2001 initiated the formation of a new system, the system of "local and regional self-government”. In May 2001, local elections were held, and since July decentralization of powers, activities and financial resources and means from the central to the regional and local levels, as well as rationalization of the state administration at the levels below central, have begun. The new legal regulation has created more favourable foundations for the process of decentralization. The self-governing scope of local (municipalities and towns) and regional (counties) units has been widened, with the possibility to be further extended by themselves, depending on their own needs, circumstances and possibilites. The county has become an exclusively regional self-governing unit. The county governor is not any longer a representative of the state power in the system of local self-government, but only a locally-elected local official. Efforts are made to strengthen the role of self-government below the municipal level. Rationalization and professionalization in local representative, executive and administrative bodies are promoted. Possibilites of co-operation of local units are expanded and emphasized. Local units which differ in size, economic strength and capacity are regulated differently. And so on. However, it seems that since the beginning of 2002, the political support to decentralization has weakened. There are no significant efforts for its continuation, no vision of the institutional organization of the state in a long-term perspective, and therefore, in terms of quality, no acceptable strategy of the development of public administration. There is no deliberate policy, nor an elaborated plan of decentralization. It is neither clear who would be responsible for managing decentralization, nor what variants of technological solutions with respect to the management of this process are possible and/or chosen. Such uncertainty may slow down the process of decentralization and resuit again in a number of long-term negative effects