Abstract
As shown in the typology suggested in previous chapter, networks between local government and societal actors can be characterized using three dimensions: their autonomy, group coherence and relevance. In this chapter, an operationalization is developed in order to provide the basis for the analysis of particular local state-society relationships to be found in individual European countries—presented in the following chapters of this book. Each of these dimensions was subdivided into a number of attributes, transformed into questions that are easy to answer with regard to the networks to be characterized.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
As already emphasized in the introductory chapter (see endnote 3), these characteristics are generalizations referring to a country as a whole. This means that there can be local differences—probably particularly regarding the coherence and the relevance of networks. These differences (and their extent) can only be determined by the planned survey.
- 2.
Scharpf (1997; see also Flam 1990) made a distinction between collective and corporate actors on the one hand and individual actors on the other. Collective and corporate actors are ‘complex’ or ‘composite actors’ when compared with individual actors (Scharpf 1997: 54). Corporate actors are characterized by ‘a high degree of autonomy’ in the definition and pursuit of their objectives in relation to their members or ‘the ultimate beneficiaries of their activities’. By way of contrast, collective actors are composite actors ‘that are dependent on and guided by the preferences of their members’ (Scharpf 1997: 54). In the operationalization of ‘group representatives’, this distinction between collective and corporate actors was not used because it was not possible for the authors of all country chapters to make this clear distinction. Nevertheless, authors of some country chapters could distinguish between collective and corporate actors in the sense outlined and used the category ‘group representatives’.
- 3.
- 4.
For Arnstein, a third relevant form of participation is ‘citizen control’. However, she emphasized at the outset that ‘no one in the nation has absolute control’ (Arnstein 1969: 223)—‘including the President of the United States’ (Arnstein 1969: 216). By ‘citizen control’, she refers to forms of participation involving self-administration or self-government at least in respect to single policies or programmes. In contrast to forms of ‘delegation’ (previously mentioned), in the case of ‘citizen control’, the rules are to be designed in such a way that available (granted) financial resources (which can eventually imply costs for uninvolved ‘third parties’) can be used according to autonomous decisions and that the intended effects are also defined autonomously. We did not consider ‘citizen control’ because we could hardly find a case where this form of participation can be found at the local level, that is, a case where not only the ‘local state’ but also upper levels of government grant citizens or societal actors this degree of self-government.
Furthermore, we did not consider what Arnstein called ‘therapy’ and ‘manipulation’. We agree with her that these are forms of ‘non-participation’.
References
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224.
Douglas, M. (1978). Cultural Bias. London: Royal Anthropological Institute.
Douglas, M. (2007). A History of Grid and Group Cultural Theory. Toronto: University of Toronto. Retrieved from http://projects.chass.utoronto.ca/semiotics/cyber/douglas1.pdf.
Heinelt, H. (2010). Governing Modern Societies. Towards Participatory Governance. London and New York: Routledge.
Heinelt, H. (2019). Challenges to Political Decision-Making. Dealing with Information Overload, Ignorance and Contested Knowledge. London and New York: Routledge.
Mazziotta, M., & Pareto, A. (2013). Methods for Constructing Composite Indices: One for All or All for one? Rivista Italiana di Economia Demografia e Statistica, 67(2), 67–80.
Saisana, M., Tarantola, S., & Saltelli, A. (2005). Uncertainty and Sensitivity Techniques as Tools for the Analysis and Validation of Composite Indicators. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 168(2), 307–323.
Scharpf, F. W. (1997). Games Real Actors Play. Actor-centered Institutionalism in Policy Research. Westview: Boulder.
Vansnick, J. C. (1990). Measurement Theory and Decision Aid. In C. A. Bana e Costa (Ed.), Readings in Multiple Criteria Decision Aid (pp. 81–100). Berlin: Springer.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Egner, B., Heinelt, H., Sack, D. (2021). How to Measure the Autonomy, Coherence and Relevance of Local State-Society Relations. In: Teles, F., Gendźwiłł, A., Stănuș, C., Heinelt, H. (eds) Close Ties in European Local Governance. Palgrave Studies in Sub-National Governance. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44794-6_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44794-6_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-44793-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-44794-6
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)