Kunnan raja

Abstract

Yhteiskunnan muuttumisen seurauksena hallinnolliset, kuten kuntien rajat, ovat menettäneet merkitystään. Kuntien yhteistyö on lisääntynyt vapaaehtoispohjalta, mutta myös monet tehtävät edellyttävät kunnilta yhteistyötä. Kunta- ja palvelurakenneuudistuksen (Paras -hanke) johdosta kuntien tehtäviä on siirtymässä niiden muodostamille yhteistyöalueille. Toisaalta kotikunnan merkitys on vähentynyt muutenkin. Ihmisten asuminen, työ ja vapaa-aika pirstoutuu usein yhä useamman kunnan alueelle.

Kunnan rajat muodostavat maan hallinnollisen perusjaotuksen. Vaikka toiminnallisesti kuntien rajat ovat helposti ylitettävissä ja niiden vaikutus on hämärtynyt, kunnan rajat eivät ole menettäneet oikeudellista merkitystään kunnan keskeisimmissä tehtävissä. Ne osoittavat kunnan tehtävää koskevan vastuun laajuuden ja kansalaisen oikeudet palvelujen käyttäjänä ja niihin vaikuttajana. Kunnan poliittisen tehtävän kannalta kunnat muodostavat omavastuisia yhteisöjä, jonka toimintaa tulisi johtaa sen jäsenten valitsema valtuusto. Tämä kunnallisen itsehallinnon perusta on heikentynyt vallan siirtyessä yli kuntarajojen kuntien yhteistyöelimille. Kuntien tulisi toimia paikallisesti, ne ovat silti tulleet yhä riippuvaisemmiksi muista kunnista ja toimijoista. Yhteistyön lisääntymisestä huolimatta, kunnan toimintaan, itseään ja elinympäristöään koskevaan päätöksentekoon sekä toimintaan pääsevät vaikuttamaan vain kunnan jäsenet. Demokraattiset vaikutuskeinot ovat mahdollisia vain kotikunnassa, vaikka kansalaisen toisiallinen elinpiiri olisi kunnan rajoja laajempi.

Myös keskeisimmät hyvintivointipalvelut määräytyvät kunnan rajojen mukaan. Kunta on velvollinen järjestämään julkisia palveluja vain asukkailleen ja alueensa tarpeen mukaisesti. Kansalaisille toisen kunnan palvelut eivät lähtökohtaisesti ole mahdollisia, vaikka ne olisivat esimerkiksi paremmin saatavilla tai laadukkaampia. Kansalaisten perusoikeudet ja kunnan rajat ovat siten toisinaan ristiriidassa keskenään. Nyt palveluja koskevien hallinnollisten uudistusten, kuten Paras -hanke ja palvelusetelijärjestelmä, myötä palvelut tulevat olemaan vähemmän sidoksissa kuntien rajoihin. Samalla kuitenkin palveluja koskeva päätöksenteko myös etääntyy kauemmaksi kuntalaisista ja heidän suorista vaikutusmahdollisuuksista. Lainsäädännössä kunnan alueen muodostumista koskevat kriteerit ovat olleet niukkoja ja ne ovat keskittyneet vain kuntajaon muuttamisen edellytyksiin. Kunnan keskeisimpiä elementtejä ovat rajoilla määrätty alue ja siellä oleva väestö. Kunnan on tarkoitettu toimivan omavastuisena yhteisönä ensisijaisesti asukkaidensa ja alueensa hyvinvoinnin edistämiseksi Kunnan nykyisten tehtävien näkökulmasta kuntien rajojen tulisi sopeutua tapahtuneseen kehitykseen ja muodostaa todellisia asukkaittensa yhteisöjä. Tällöin kansalaisten vaikutusmahdollisuudet toteutuisivat paremmin, voitaisiin luopua päällekkäisistä hallintojärjestelyistä ja kunnan vastuu olisi selkeästi määriteltävissä. Toisena vaihtoehtona olisi luoda seutu- tai maakuntapohjainen ylempi itsehallintojärjestelmä ja kehittää kansalaisten palveluja ja elinympäristöä koskevia vaikutusmahdollisuuksia.

Finnish local government has always been based on municipalities which have authority, territory, residents and functions of their own. However, new duties, a weak economical situation and changes in the functional environment are changing the situation and setting new demands for local government. Municipal and regional co-operation has become more common and spread to almost all fields of service. In order to fulfil their tasks municipalities have become very dependent on co-operation. This has meant diminishing the role of the single municipality as a local actor and a blurring of municipal boundaries.

Moreover lifestyles are changing too. Citizens might well live in one municipality and study or work in another; they are no longer so attached to just one municipality. And yet, all basic welfare services are available only in the home municipality, not to mention political participation and other means of direct democracy. This is also the case when people live on the outskirts of the municipality and it would easier for them to use the services of a neighbouring municipality. Nevertheless the individual?s fundamental rights emphasize their equal juridical position and access to public services for all citizens irrespective of which part of the country or municipality they live.

According to the Finnish Local Government Act, the main aim of municipalities is to promote the welfare of their residents as well as sustainable development in their areas. This means that the municipality is primarily responsible for its own residents and territory. Each municipality has the same duties and responsibilities regardless of the municipality´s size or economical situation for instance. The municipality also forms a part of general public administration working within the state´s system of regional administration. Therefore the actions of municipalities have far-reaching consequences. For this reason the municipality has to follow constitutional and sectoral legislation, promote the fundamental rights of citizens and principles of good administration. In this way the performance of municipalities has a very significant effect on the whole of Finnish society. Is there a real conflict between the traditional role of the municipality and increased municipal co-operation? In other words, do municipal boundaries any longer have real significance? It is generally accepted that in today?s global world all kinds of social, economic and administrative borders are losing their importance. All this is very challenging, not only for nation states, but also for local governments aiming to meet the new needs of people and companies. In a global world co-operation is inevitable and at a municipal level co-operation is essential for carrying out the full range of tasks. Some claim that there is no need for municipal mergers due to increased co-operation, while others believe that co-operation is preventing the occurence of real change in the municipal structure.

Anyway, the state has taken a more active role and started a restructuring project. The aim of this project is to secure welfare state services in the future too. The main reform is that health care and associated social services have to be provided by a local authority or partnership area with a population base of at least 20 000. Regarding with vocational basic education the population base is 50 000. The goal is to promote municipalities to merge voluntarily or to establish a partnership area. In the future the Government could force municipalities in a difficult situation to merge. Clearly, there are many problems concerning municipal co-operation. One key problem is the lack of direct democracy. Municipal co-operation is just that - co-operation between municipalities themselves. Residents do not play an active role and they cannot elect, for example, representatives to joint boards or committees. Municipalities can have different kinds of co-operational arrangements with one or more municipalities at the same time, so co-operation might appear very complex and bureaucratic to the residents. Local government should always be public and transparent which municipal co-operation often is not. Which authority is really responsible for a task or actual service might also remain unclear. While it is clear that the municipality?s functional environment has changed, its juridical position in Finnish society has not. All major laws concerning the tasks of municipailities remain the same, meaning that the municipality is a basic unit of self-government and a provider of welfare services. Nowadays it seems that some of the municipality?s authority has been transferred across municipal boundaries to districts and regions. The aim of this study is to investigate what kinds of significance municipal boundaries still have.

This study systematizes and evaluates legal regulations governing the tasks of municipalities and municipal boundaries. Municipal divisions form the basis of general administrative divisions and therefore they should contribute not only towards effective self-government but also towards the objectives of the state. The aforementioned regulations should therefore aim to support the municipality?s dual role. In addition, this study aims to evaluate the effects of social changes on municipal boundaries and tasks in the future. There are two hypotheses in this study. Despite the changes in the municipality´s functional environment, municipal boundaries and division still have some relevance and, in the area of citizens? rights, municipal tasks and division do not fully serve the purposes of the constitution and government acts. This study categorizes the more detailed tasks of the municipality as follows: political, service, authority and development tasks. The significance of the municipal boundaries was examined within each task boundary focusing especially on the municipality´s role as an actor, the location of the service (the municipality´s area or the resident´s), the means of organizing the task and how residents can take part and have an effect on the services and government.

From the point of view political tasks, municipal boundaries are essential because local self-government is organized by municipalities. Municipal boundaries form a political community where residents have political power. The municipality?s authority itself is no longer absolute as a result of co-operation with other municipalities. First and foremost, a municipality?s functions should benefit its residents. On the other hand, residents? political and other democratic means of influence can only be used within the home municipality?s boundaries. But as far as equal justice for citizens is concerned, municipal boundaries cannot be an obstacle to fair treatment.

The significance of municipal boundaries varies in the area of service tasks. Both social and basic health care services can be arranged in many ways, but the boundaries of municipalities always indicate which municipality is actually responsible for each service. While planning and carrying out these services, municipalities should primarily consider the needs of their own residents. In the area of education the significance of the municipal boundaries is different. Municipalities provide education just like any other service, but municipal boundaries are no obstacle to residents who wish to use the educational services of other municipalities. On the other hand, because of regionalization, the significance of municipal boundaries has almost totally disappeared with regard to fire and rescue services. Due to restructuring project municipal boundaries lose more of their significance, when health services will be available regardless of municipal boundaries.

Municipalities can arrange the tasks of a local authority tasks by themselves or co-operatively. The arrangement depends on how a municipality organizes the service itself. The tasks of a local authority are not one entirety, but most of the service tasks include elements of local authority tasks. From the point of view of citizens the municipality´s local authority tasks should guarantee that tasks are lawfully and efficiently undertaken. Putting this into practice in a uniform way might prove difficult across the whole country. Even though development tasks mainly concern regions and the state together, a single municipality is still responsible for the development of its area. Municipalities, regions and the state are considered here as partners. This is a new kind of thinking that might prove useful in examing the relationship between the state and the municipalities. Because of compulsory municipal co-operation, the municipality´s authority stretches over municipal boundaries. Therefore the boundaries of districts and regions are far more significant than municipal boundaries. The development task does not have any direct effects on residents, but its successful realization will improve general living conditions in the municipalities. The main conclusion of this study is that municipal boundaries still have real significance. It seems that some of the municipality´s essential elements such as community and accountability have lost some of their significance. Furthermore, municipal boundaries indicate the authority of the municipalities, the area over which residents can exercise their democratic rights and the municipality´s responsibility to offer basic welfare services to the citizens. However, it is obvious that due to municipal co-operation and social changes, municipal boundaries have lost their relevance in a functional sense. At the same time it is clear that municipal boundaries are not entirely appropriate when carrying out tasks by the state. In some cases municipal boundaries are actually an obstacle to better or more appropriate services. This can be problematic from the point of view of citizens´ fundamental rights and in terms of realizing the constitution. In order to enchance democratic factors, municipal boundaries should be constructed so that they form real communities of citizens in which people are directly able to influence the government and their living environment. Municipal boundaries have not, in some areas, adjusted to social changes and yet, means of influence are limited to the home municipality. This is especially a fault in areas where are many small municipalities and therefore a municipal merger would be in the interests of the residents.

On the other hand, one option would be to change the juridical role of the municipality and stress the role of the district or region as a local actor and provider of welfare services. This would presuppose establishing a second tier of self-government with a directly elected council and its own authority. This would diminish both the functional and the juridical significance of the municipal boundaries.