Portugal, Regionalisation and Decentralisation: Rethinking Territorial Governance

Portugal remains one of Europe’s most centralised countries. Even after major economic, social and institutional change over recent decades, the State’s territorial set-up has largely stayed the same. The discussion around regionalisation is often framed as political or identity-based; in practice, it is primarily about institutional design. The issue is not simply how the map is drawn, but how power is shared, how decisions are made, and how public policy reaches citizens.

A basic principle of good governance is that decisions should be taken as close to citizens as possible, provided there is the capability to implement them effectively. When most meaningful decisions are concentrated in a single political centre, the likelihood increases that one-size-fits-all solutions will be applied to places with very different needs.

Centralisation and the absence of an intermediate level of government

For decades, districts performed intermediate coordination functions. Those roles have gradually faded away, without a genuine replacement emerging. Inter-municipal communities have strengthened cooperation between councils, but they do not amount to an administrative region. Cooperation is not the same as governing. Coordination is not the same as deciding.

Without an intermediate tier of government that has democratic legitimacy, planning capacity and political accountability, major strategic choices continue to depend largely on central government. Many of today’s challenges-from mobility and spatial planning to natural resource management and attracting investment-plainly operate beyond the municipal scale.

Why municipal boundaries are not enough: a north-eastern example

Portugal’s north-eastern interior provides a clear illustration. Despite strong potential in energy generation, agriculture, tourism and cultural heritage, many decisions that directly shape the territory are still made far from local realities. The well-known case of dams shows how the economic value created does not always translate fully into development opportunities for the communities where those resources are used.

Decentralisation so far, and what regionalisation is meant to address

The decentralisation carried out in recent decades has been an important step forward, but it remains unfinished. In many instances, administrative responsibilities were transferred without equivalent strategic capacity or financial autonomy. Decentralising is not merely about allocating tasks; it is about enabling different levels of government to set priorities, manage resources and be answerable for the outcomes of their decisions.

The Constitution provides for the creation of administrative regions precisely to fill the gap between central government and municipalities. Establishing them does not have to mean adding another bureaucratic layer, because it can be built on the reorganisation and democratisation of existing structures-such as the CCDR-by giving them democratic legitimacy and real decision-making authority.

Meanwhile, the country has changed. Demographic pressures have intensified, planning has become more complex, and territorial inequalities persist. Economic activity naturally concentrates where people, investment and knowledge are already present. Territorial cohesion therefore does not happen automatically: it requires institutions that can tailor public policies to each region’s characteristics and make better use of local resources.

It is also important to note that regionalisation is often linked to higher public spending. However, the debate should not focus solely on costs, but also on potential benefits. Stronger territorial coordination, more efficient planning of public investment and greater use of regional resources can produce meaningful economic gains and allow State resources to be used more effectively.

In this setting, regionalisation should be understood not as an end in itself, but as a tool to improve governance and align the State’s organisation with the country’s needs.

Ultimately, it means accepting a straightforward reality: a diverse country needs institutions capable of understanding and valuing that diversity. The real question is not whether regionalisation can be done, but whether Portugal can keep addressing the challenges of the 21st century with a territorial model designed for a reality that no longer exists.