During and after World War II, vast territories came under military government. During the war, Germany administered occupied countries through a hierarchy of Kommandaturen [military government headquarters], but this normal army administration was often duplicated by civilian economic agencies and Gestapo personnel. In France, Norway, Greece, and Serbia, local puppet governments were authorized to operate under German control; Belgium and NE France were under purely military government; in Eastern Europe, authority was concentrated in 1941 in the ministry for eastern occupied territories. German military government often violated the rules laid down by the Hague Conventions.
Allied Military Government (AMG) began to function in Sicily and in Italy in 1943; it sought to utilize local civilian authorities to the widest possible extent. When operating in Allied territory, such as France, AMG became Civil Affairs and was limited to combat areas. After the termination of military operations, Germany and Austria were divided (1945) into four occupation zones and military government was reorganized. At first it was subject in general policy to the authority of the U.S.-Soviet-British-French Allied Control Councils in Berlin and Vienna. In time, the growing dissension between the Western powers and the USSR led to the breakdown of the quadripartite system in Germany and in Berlin. The British, French, and American zones were soon amalgamated for most purposes and ultimately became the state of West Germany; in opposition to them stood the Soviet zone, which later became the East German state.
In Austria and Vienna disharmony was less evident, and military control ended in 1955 with the signing of a peace treaty between Austria and the four Allied occupying powers. In Japan, military government became a solely American responsibility, though subject to suggestions of an 11-power Allied council. It was ended by the signing of the peace treaty with Japan (1951).
In response to the experiences of World War II, a new convention covering military occupation was signed in Geneva in 1949. In recent years, the most prominent military occupation of a region has been that by Israeli forces of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
See E. Fraenkel, Military Occupation and the Rule of Law (1944); C. J. Friedrich, ed., American Experiences in Military Government in World War II (1948); D. A. Graber, Development of the Law of Military Occupation, 1863-1914 (1948, repr. 1969); C. Clapman et al., ed., The Political Dilemmas of Military Regimes (1985).
Although there are special-purpose local government bodies (e.g., school boards in the United States), more important are those that carry out a broad range of public activities within a defined area and population. Almost all such local government bodies share certain characteristics: a continuing organization; the authority to undertake public activities; the ability to enter into contracts; the right to sue and be sued; and the ability to collect taxes and determine a budget. Areas of local government authority usually include public schools, local highways, municipal services, and some aspects of social welfare and public order. An important distinction among types of local government is that between representative bodies, which are elected locally and have decision-making authority, and nonrepresentative bodies, which are either appointed from above or, if elected locally, have no independent governing authority. While most countries have complex systems of local government, those of France and Great Britain have served as models for much of the rest of the world.
The French SystemThe French system is among the most nonrepresentative. Its basic structure, codified by Napoleon I, developed out of the need of revolutionary France to curtail the power of local notables, while hastening government reform. It stresses clear lines of authority, reaching from the central government's ministry of the interior through the centrally appointed prefect of the department to the municipality, which has a locally elected mayor and municipal council. The prefect, being both the chief executive of the department and the representative of the central bureaucracy, provides the channel of centralization, with wide authority to overrule local councils and supervise local expenditures. Variants of this system are found throughout Europe and in former French colonies.
The British SystemThe British system of local government, which has been the model for most of that country's former colonies, including the United States, is the most representative of the major types. Largely reformed in the 19th cent. and extensively restructured in the 1970s, the system stresses local government autonomy through elected councils on the county and subcounty levels. This system was marked by less central government interference and greater local budgetary authority than in other systems. However, in 1986, six major county governments were abolished by Parliament, while the powers of others were restricted. A special feature of the British system is its use of an extensive committee system, instead of a strong executive, for supervising the administration of public services.
Despite differences among states, local governments of the United States follow the general principles of the British system, except that a strong executive is common. The county remains the usual political subdivision, although it has retained more authority in rural than in urban areas, where incorporated municipalities (see city government) have most of the local power. In both rural and urban areas the local government's relationship to the state is a complex one of shared authority and carefully defined areas of legal competence. Local governments are pulled two ways, increasingly reliant on state and federal funding to carry out their expected duties, while fearful of losing their traditional degree of local control.
See J. J. Clarke, A History of Local Government of the United Kingdom (1955); D. Lockard, The Politics of State and Local Government (2d ed. 1969); S. Humes and E. Martin, The Structure of Local Government (1969); R. D. Bingham, State and Local Government in an Urban Society (1986); N. Henry, Governing the Grassroots (3d ed. 1987); R. H. Leach and T. G. O'Rourke, State and Local Government (1988).
See R. M. MacIver, The Web of Government (rev. ed. 1965); S. H. Beer, Patterns of Government (3d ed. 1973); G. A. Almond and G. B. Powell, Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach (1966); S. E. Finer, Comparative Government (1970).
See J. Bryce, The American Commonwealth (rev. ed. 1959); K. Wheare, Federal Government (4th ed. 1964); D. J. Elazar, American Federalism (2d ed. 1972); W. H. Stewart, Concepts of Federalism (1984); H. Bakvis and W. M. Chandler, ed., Federalism and the Role of the State (1987); K. L. Hall, Federalism (1987).
The English tradition of incorporating urban units (cities, boroughs, villages, towns) and allowing them freedom in most local matters is general in the United States (see city; local government). The traditional U.S. city government had a mayor and council, whose members (aldermen) represented districts (wards). As the complexity of urban life increased in the 19th cent., the old system became less efficient: problems included overlapping of old offices with new, poor methods of accounting and taxation, and much blatant graft.
From these abuses arose movements for municipal reform, which have become a recurrent feature of American political life. They have familiarized Americans with a gallery of such political figures as William M. Tweed of New York City, Frank Hague of Jersey City, and William Hale Thompson of Chicago (see bossism). Although the urban political machine has, in most cities, lost its former power, the traditional type of city government, also known as the independent executive type, remains the most common urban governmental form. It is often subdivided into the strong mayor type (e.g., New York City) and the weak mayor-strong council type (e.g., Los Angeles).
Reform efforts have resulted in the development of two fairly widespread alternative governmental types. The commission form has a board, both legislative and administrative, usually elected nonpartisan and at large. First adopted by Galveston, Tex. (1901), this system achieved great popularity in the early 1900s, but many cities (e.g., Buffalo and New Orleans) later abandoned it. The city manager plan gives the administration to one professional nonpolitical director. The system has gained in popularity; notable examples are in Staunton, Va., the first (1908) to adopt it, and Cincinnati, Ohio.
A perennial problem of U.S. urban government is the division of urban areas among several independent city governments, survivals of old separate communities. The Eastern metropolises all provide examples, aggravated in some (e.g., New York City and Philadelphia), where state lines run through the heart of the metropolitan area. Attempts at efficiency have produced such organizations as the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, a corporation set up by joint action of New York state and New Jersey, and assigned specific powers formerly held by local governments. Another problem besetting city government is the migration of middle-class families to the suburban areas, thus shrinking the tax base and financial resources of the cities.
In the rest of the English-speaking world and wherever else there is much local self-government, American forms and problems are paralleled. Elsewhere, as typically in France, the local officers, albeit elected mayor and councillors, are largely figureheads, serving mainly to carry out the regulations of the central bureaucracy.
See C. R. Adrian, Governing Urban America (4th ed. 1972). W. A. Robson and D. E. Regan, ed., Great Cities of the World (2 vol., 1972); M. David, Running City Hall (1982); C. R. Adrian, A History of American City Government: The Emergence of the Metropolis, 1920-1945 (1988); R. Suarez, The Old Neighborhood (1999).
Administration of territory by an occupying power. The definition does not cover military forces stationed in neutral or friendly territory that share administrative responsibilities with local civil authorities. Military government must also be distinguished from military law and martial law. Its control lasts until it either gives up power voluntarily or is overthrown. The term is popularly used for rule of a country by its own military, whether it comes to power through a coup d'état or is the legitimate governing body.
Learn more about military government with a free trial on Britannica.com.
Total indebtedness of a government, especially as evidenced by securities issued to investors. The national debt grows whenever the government operates a budget deficit—that is, when government spending exceeds government revenues in a year. To finance its debt, the government can issue securities such as bonds or treasury bills. The level of national debt varies from country to country, from less than 10percnt of the gross domestic product (GDP) to more than double it. Public borrowing is thought to have an inflationary effect on the economy and thus is often used during recessions to stimulate consumption, investment, and employment. Seealso deficit financing; John Maynard Keynes.
Learn more about national debt with a free trial on Britannica.com.
Forecast of governmental expenditures and revenues for the ensuing fiscal year. In modern industrial economies, the budget is the key instrument for the execution of government economic policies. Because government budgets may promote or retard economic growth in certain areas of the economy and because views about priorities in government spending differ widely, government budgets are the focus of competing political interests. In the U.S. the federal budget is prepared by the president's Office of Management and Budget. The U.S. Congress has considerable input, influencing the budget's preparation through negotiations with the president and considering it in detail on its official submission to Congress.
Learn more about government budget with a free trial on Britannica.com.
In government, the practice of spending more money than is received as revenue, the difference being made up by borrowing or minting new funds. The term usually refers to a conscious attempt to stimulate the economy by lowering tax rates or increasing government expenditures. Critics of deficit financing regularly denounce it as an example of shortsighted government policy. Advocates argue that it can be used successfully in response to a recession or depression, proposing that the ideal of an annually balanced budget should give way to that of a budget balanced over the span of a business cycle. Seealso John Maynard Keynes; national debt.
Learn more about deficit financing with a free trial on Britannica.com.
Political system by which a body of people is administered and regulated. Different levels of government typically have different responsibilities. The level closest to those governed is local government. Regional governments comprise a grouping of individual communities. National governments nominally control all the territory within internationally recognized borders and have responsibilities not shared by their subnational counterparts. Most governments exercise executive, legislative (see legislature), and judicial (see judiciary) powers and split or combine them in various ways. Some also control the religious affairs of their people; others avoid any involvement with religion. Political forms at the national level determine the powers exercised at the subnational levels; these have included autocracy, democracy, fascism, monarchy, oligarchy, plutocracy (government by the wealthy), theocracy, and totalitarianism.
Learn more about government with a free trial on Britannica.com.