With centralisation only Madrid gets infrastructure, and funding for services in peripheral areas is insufficient.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

One shoe does not fit all: Different solutions for different countries?

The north of Netherlands suffers from the centralization, equal to the Madrid example: the Randstad has been favoured by The Hague for decades (centuries?), while the north, south and east of the Netherlands remained relatively stunted (and pristine and friendly and green). Part of the south has developed (read: industrialised) on its own accord, where the presence of Philips was a crucial benevolent factor. I do wonder how things would've looked like in the north with decentralization - better or worse?

It's more complicated than that. "Educational buildings" for example: when all educational buildings (above primary-school level) were centrally financed, collèges (junior high schools) and lycées in this far-flung rural part of France received little or no support. The local lycée had floorboards you could see through to the class beneath, a collège I remember had blackboards so pitted and worn it was extremely hard to read from them. When buildings and equipment devolved (lycées to the region, collèges to the département), these problems were quickly settled. The lycée I mention was renovated and an extension added; the collège was replaced by new buildings.

As for rail transport, there's a similar problem. If the state company SNCF doesn't want to run a line, they don't invest, and drag their feet on quality, service, etc. When the region gets in there, service improves. The Bombardier regional trains we have commented on here are financed by the regions, because central authority will not spend the money. Similarly, the Midi-Pyrénées region has announced it will move up to first place in financing the Bordeaux-Narbonne TGV line, because central power will endlessly put this off and the result will be we will have no more train links at all with Paris. It's easy to obtain this kind of result by letting service get worse on a line till users choose other means of transport and finally the numbers get low enough to justify axing trains, closing stations, and on in a vicious circle.

Though your point about richer and poorer local authorities is correct, centralised power doesn't guarantee equality of treatment. It may even produce a less egalitarian result than devolution.

I sent the last paragraph of that to newseditors@wsj.com

Spain's devolution is bottom up

Sir/Madam,

In the August 2, 2007 story "Is Spain Too Localized?" Jonathan House claims "The country's 1978 constitution recognized 17 autonomous communities and launched a process to gradually devolve decision-making authority to them." This is wrong in several maybe subtle but important respects.

[...] In particular, they are more numerous.

So, while the process was designed from the top-down, the Autonomous Communities formed from the bottom-up. Also, the process of devolution came before the Autonomous Communities, and not the other way around.

Sincerely,

Name.Surname
eurotrib.com

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

I think that's too complex, likely the WSJ just was casting around for some convenient Euro-bashing and a Aznar-think-tank generated press-release landed on their desk so they transcribed it onto the front page...

that [some, unnamed] Spanish business leaders

To be fair, the article does name them (see elsewhere on the thread).

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

Well, before going into details of the economics, it says

In recent years, Spain's devolution process has drawn attention. The Socialist-led government has encouraged regions to draft new charters granting them greater autonomy and sought to negootiate a settlement with pro-independence Basque terroris group ETA, prompting the bitter opposition of Spain's center-right Popular Party

First of all, the legislative initiative for reforming the Autonomy Statutes is with the Regional Parliaments, which submit the proposal to the National Parliament for debate, amendment and approval. Second of all, what does ETA have to do with decentralisation? This is the PP's "Zapatero is breaking up Spain" spin. And lastly, The PSOE is "socialist" while the PP is "centre-right" instead of the more desciptive "social-liberal" and "extreme centralist nationalist francoist rabid right-wing".

They then claim that Spain's own internal market isat risk from differing regulation by the 17 Autonomous Communities

"The proliferation of regional legislation means that, in some cases, companies have to abide by 17 different regulatory frameworks in their domestic market...posing obstacles and higher costs for private enterprise" said Gerardo Diaz Ferran, head of Spain's employer's association, ... CEOE.

In particular, they complain that each Autonomous Community gets to set the 8 Sundays a year that stores can open.

We cannot coordinate marketing campaigns or logistics on a national scale, which translates into higher costs" Anged managing director Javier Millan Astray said.

Holy crap! The only other Millan Astray I know is

José Millán-Astray y Terreros (July 5, 1879 - January 1, 1954) was the founder and first commander of the Spanish Foreign Legion, and a major early figure of Francisco Franco's Regime in Spain.

And a major leader of the 1936 coup.

"Anged" is "a Spanish association of 16 large retailers including El Corte Inglés ..., Carrefour ... and Ikea ..."

There is more.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?