Source: French to English Tester Published on: 2026-05-11
Source: The Conversation – in French– By Tommaso Germain, Political Science Researcher, Sciences Po
The new major act of decentralization promised by Sébastien Lecornu will not take place. On the contrary, a “recentralization” towards the prefects is on the agenda. Why is decentralization, so often announced, constantly postponed?
Last October, Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu expressed a clear ambition:set up a “major act of decentralization”supposed to address the problems related to the territorial organization of the Republic. After a few months of reflection, consultation, and once the municipal elections had passed, the government significantly downscaled this ambition. What are the reasons for this strategic setback?
From initial promises to a technical reform
The announcements of September and October 2025 outlined a bold course: to review all responsibilities between the State and the various local authorities. The idea, declared the Prime Minister, wasto have “a single person responsible for each public policy”, whether it is a minister, a prefect, or a local elected official, in order to get out of the current confusion where several actors share responsibilities.
The issue of decentralization was at the heart of the Prime Minister’s general policy speech, a symbolic and solemn act. The financial stakes were also central. The reportsWoerth on decentralization (2024)andRavignon on the cost of the territorial millefeuille (2025)had highlighted the high cost of this intertwining of skills and local elected officials requesting a major clarification and securing on the subject of“puzzle” of financial autonomy.
However, among the different scenarios analyzed by the government, one option — less ambitious than a genuine decentralization (involving a transfer of power to territorial collectivities and their elected officials) — consisted of focusing on a “deconcentration,” designating a reorganization of the State’s action in the territories, under the authority of the prefect.
This scenario quickly came to fruition, as evidenced by thetext sent in early April to the Council of State. Thus, the term “decentralization” no longer appears in the text put on the agenda. The only element of decentralization, very targeted and proposed a few weeks ago separately, concerns the metropolis of Greater Paris,which is the subject of a specific text. Mired for years, the MGP is expected to evolveeither towards a more integrated metropolis, or conversely towards a weakening aimed at strengthening the territorial public establishments that compose it, which amounts to fragmenting the Metropolis. It should be noted that in the meantime,The National Assembly supported Alsace’s desire to leave the Grand Est region to reform an autonomous region– a form of backward step compared to the last reform creating thelarge regionsin 2016.
From ambitious initial promises, it seems that the government is limiting itself to an essentially technical reform. The text indeed focuses on consolidating the power of prefects. Through the strengthening of the prefect’s substitution power (if deficiencies are “duly observed,” the prefect can temporarily substitute for any local authority), the reactivity of public action seems to be the preferred focus. This is part of anticipating potential crises where a rapid decision is necessary (agricultural sector, water, energy, or security).
Under the guise of decentralization, the executive is therefore carrying out a discreet recentralization, transforming local authorities into execution relays. Thus, the State will be able to select and accelerate projects deemed “useful” — notably industrial projects — through stronger influence over public service operators and notably over mayors. The right of prefects to derogate from standards, implemented a few years ago, would be strengthened by the promulgation of this text. Some researchers moreover consider that this right of derogation is constitutive of aneoliberal legality where the hierarchy of norms is called into question. Indeed, the prefectural law allows certain standards, notably environmental ones, not to be applied. Introducing an “à la carte” system, by the implementation of these mechanisms, would allow“to neutralize the legislative will under the guise of managerial discourse of simplification”.
Political time, budget crisis, and the French art of governing
Why did the great decentralization project announced in October result in this outcome?
The primary reason for the government’s reversal lies in the political timing. The reform was originally supposed to take place before the municipal and metropolitan elections of March 2026, which proved to be unrealistic. However, now the political, parliamentary, and media agenda is structured around the presidential election. In this constrained framework, with a technical government dedicated to stabilizing public life, a major reform on decentralization is virtually impossible.
Beyond this political and institutional factor, the current reversal can be explained by a territorial and structural situation that is impossible to deeply transform within such a constrained budgetary framework. Indeed, national public finances justify numerous budget cuts, politically perilous, and do not allow opening the financial floodgates to enable genuine decentralization.
According to the Minister of Territorial Planning and Decentralization,Françoise Gatel, the local elected officials “do not want decentralization, they want above all simplification.” For the government, the local elected officials are mainly expecting the easing of regulations and the simplification of different administrative procedures.
This request for simplification is undoubtedly genuine and seems widely shared among public and private actors. However, local elected officials continue, for the most part, to demand more decentralization and financial autonomy: simplification is not everything; it is local autonomy that is the crux of the matter.In fine, the government therefore seems to want to maketo place responsibility for the setback on the reform onto the elected officials by implicitly accusing them of “distrust”.
Looking back, this reform fits into a trend that has been underway for many years: successive governments promote “acts” of decentralization, deliver ambitious announcements where the local elected official and local authorities would be placed at the center of the decision-making system and where the complex and costly territorial layers would finally be rationalized. However, through the mechanism of negotiation with elected local officials’ associations, which reveals a heterogeneous demand for decentralization and requires a strong budgetary commitment, these announcements often result in a renunciation. This was the case after the yellow vests with thereform of the territorial organization of the State. This was the case in 2022 with the3DS lawwhich was also a technical and simplification text, with a very incidental decentralization.
Ultimately, and while waiting for a hypothetical additional text, the French paradox keeps repeating itself: the proclaimed “decentralization” eloquently announced results in a strategic “recentralization.”
Tommaso Germain does not work for, advise, own shares in, or receive funds from any organization that could benefit from this article, and has declared no affiliation other than his research institution.
–ref. Why the government is giving up on decentralizing –https://theconversation.com/why-the-government-is-abandoning-decentralization-281723