​The Return of the Provinces

Provinces, understood as administrative bodies, have been abolished. But not actually. In reality, they survive, even if weakened, almost 10 years after the Delrio reform that introduced metropolitan cities for larger municipalities. Silvia Rota, director of the Executive Master in Management of Public Administration at SDA Bocconi School of Management, talks about this reform and the bipartisan proposals to reconstitute the provinces.

The provinces were the great sacrifice on the altar of a reform, implemented in 2014 by the government of Matteo Renzi and known by the name of the then Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Graziano Delrio, which, however, according to many, has not achieved the objectives it aspired to.
At that time, the narrative promoting the reform was that public spending should be rationalized and the costs of politics reduced to make public administration more efficient. The Delrio reform on local authorities, on paper, however, set a broader objective by recalling the principles of subsidiarity, differentiation and adequacy of the structures and functions of local authorities. Almost 10 years later, it cannot be said that it has achieved the desired goals.

In that reform, the provinces were identified as the weak link on which to intervene. Specifically, what has been done?
First, by creating the metropolitan cities (10 provided for by law plus 4 established by the regions with special statute) in the largest territories, which have in fact replaced the old provinces, and redefining the system of the remaining provinces. In this context, institutional tasks have been redefined, attributing more functions to metropolitan cities (such as the strategic development of the territory) and pre-empting a transfer of non-fundamental functions from the provinces to other bodies such as municipalities and regions, and the mechanisms for electing the representative bodies of these bodies have become indirect. For example, the metropolitan mayor is by right the mayor of the capital municipality and the president of the province is elected by the mayors and councilors of the related municipalities. Similarly, the steering and control body (metropolitan/provincial council) is composed of the metropolitan mayor/president of the province and a variable number of councillors according to the resident population.

Efforts have also been made to regulate mergers of municipalities and associated management of municipal services and functions.
The fact is that in the following years we witnessed a progressive reduction in the human and financial resources available to these bodies, dramatically reducing their ability to invest in new projects and services for the territories of reference, with very rare exceptions guided more by goodwill than by a system of rules or incentives (not only financial). Moreover, we have not seen the hoped-for surge in mergers between small municipalities, let alone the increase in associated management. Rather, we have observed a maintenance of the status quo prior to the reform: the merger between municipalities has never taken off and the associated management was revealed in all its political and managerial complexity, to the point that in some contexts the number of associated services has been reduced or the municipalities have even reversed their merger.

Now politicians on both sides want to get involved again, starting from the direct election of the president and councilors, plus new functions to be rethought and brought back to the body weakened by the Delrio reform. Is it a step backwards or a necessary act of repentance?
All in all, I think it is a good thing that legislators have become aware of the ineffectiveness of the reform. A reform that supported many objectives (rationalize spending or change the relationship between voters and elected representatives in intermediate bodies? Or both?). It was based on the hypothesis that all the provinces were able to rethink their institutional mandate by activating forms of collaboration with the other bodies of the territory, and not taking into account the social, economic, geographical differences of the different contexts. As we know, the reform was followed by a reduction in financial resources allocated to the territories and an impoverishment of skills. As for the proposals presented, without going into the details of each, the big question is: in which direction do we want to go? Rethinking the institutional structures of local authorities in an increasingly federalist way? Restore direct election? Promote the spending capacity of these entities in a historical moment in which we have more resources available for local investments? Equip institutions with the skills and professionalism of which they have been deprived in previous years? And with what financial resources?

Another theme already mentioned, not only symbolic but also of substance, is that the Delrio reform has deprived citizens of the possibility of electing the heads of provincial bodies. What consequences did this have?
Being able to directly elect one's representatives, even more so in the institutions of the territory, nourishes the sense of identity and belonging to the institutions and decreases the gap between administrators and citizens administered. But we must take into account two fundamental aspects, which are interrelated: the first is that voters need to see and touch concrete results and the value generated by the local authority for the community. The second is linked to the need to read lucidly the recent election results, abstentionism, disaffection with the institutions ... On the first point I think that the provinces, the metropolitan cities and more generally the public administrations can still do much and better. The second the challenge is difficult but, again, we can work on it and an important piece of responsibility is precisely in the hands of the institutions themselves.

A few words on the role of Europe, given that the PNNR will also make an important monetary contribution available to local authorities. Can it have any effect?
Europe at this stage is grappling with some interconnected challenges that have an impact on a global scale such as the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and sustainable post-covid economic recovery. It is therefore necessary to ensure PNRR implementation and, at the same time, not to lose sight of the impacts that these challenges also generate on a local scale, such as soaring energy costs and, more generally, the resumption of inflation to which we were no longer accustomed. In addition, the provinces are key actors both because they are recipients of greater financial resources, and because of their nature as an intermediate body directly responsible for some fundamental and central functions in the PNRR (such as planning, protection and enhancement of the environment, public transport, school buildings). They are also potential partners or substitutes of the municipalities in the management of some essential technical-administrative services. Europe does not impose a model to follow, so we must find the way ourselves to improve the ability of intermediate bodies such as the provinces to be the base of a territorial network capable of supporting investments and services.