Introduction: Decentralization Beyond the Municipal Tier

  • Nikos Hlepas
  • Norbert Kersting
  • Sabine Kuhlmann
  • Pawel Swianiewicz
  • Filipe Teles
Part of the Governance and Public Management book series (GPM)


In Europe, different countries developed a rich variety of sub-municipal institutions. Out of the plethora of intra- and sub-municipal decentralization forms (reaching from local outposts of city administration to “quasi-federal” structures), this book focuses on territorial sub-municipal units (SMUs) which combine multipurpose territorial responsibility with democratic legitimacy and can be seen as institutions promoting the articulation and realization of collective choices at a sub-municipal level.

Country chapters follow a common pattern that is facilitating systematic comparisons, while at the same time leaving enough space for national peculiarities and priorities chosen and highlighted by the authors, who also take advantage of the eventually existing empirical surveys and case studies.


  1. Bäck, H., Gjelstrup, G., Helgessen, M., Johansson, F., & Klausen, J. E. (2005). Urban Political Decentralization: Six Scandinavian Cities. Wiesbaden: Verlag fur sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berger, P. L., & Neuhaus, R. J. (1977). To Empower People: The Role of Mediating Structures in Public Policy. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.Google Scholar
  3. Berry, J., Portney, K., & Thomson, K. (1993). The Rebirth of Urban Democracy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  4. Bouckaert, G., & Kuhlmann, S. (2016). Introduction: Comparing Local Public Sector Reforms: Institutional Policies in Context. In S. Kuhlmann & G. Bouckaert (Eds.), Local Public Sector Reforms in Times of Crisis. National Trajectories and International Comparisons (pp. 1–20). London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  5. Carr, J. B., & Tavares, A. (2014). City Size and Political Participation in Local Government: Reassessing the Contingent Effects of Residential Location Decisions Within Urban Regions. Urban Affairs Review, 50(2), 269–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Daemen, H., & Shaap, L. (2012). Puzzles of Local democracy. In L. Schaap & H. Daemen (Eds.), Renewal in European Local Democracies. Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Dahl, R., & Tufte, E. (1973). Size and Democracy. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dear, M. (1992). Understanding and Overcoming the NIMBY Syndrome. Journal of the American Planning Association, 58(3), 288–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deleon, R., & Naff, K. (2016). Identity Politics and Local Political Culture Some Comparative Results from the Social Capital Benchmark Survey. Urban Affairs Review, 39(6), 689–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dryzek, J. (2002). Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Griggs, S., & Roberts, M. (2012). From Neighbourhood Governance to Neighbourhood Management: A Roll-Out Neo-Liberal Design for Devolved Governance in the United Kingdom? Local Government Studies, 38(2), 183–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hlepas, N. (1990). Unterschiedliche rechtliche Behandlung von Grossgemeinden und Kleingemeinden. Frankfurt a.M.: P.Lang.Google Scholar
  13. Jun, K.-N., & Musso, J. (2013). Participatory Governance and the Spatial Representation of Neighborhood Issues. Urban Affairs Review, 49(1), 71–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kearns, A. (1995). Active Citizenship and Local Governance: Political and Geographical Dimensions. Political Geography, 14(2), 155–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kersting, N. (2007). Assessing Participatory Democracy. Trends and Criteria for an Evaluation. In H. Reynart et al. (Eds.), Towards DIY-Politics? Participatory and Direct Democracy at the Local Level in Europe (pp. 31–50). Brugge: Van den Broele.Google Scholar
  16. Kersting, N. (Ed.). (2008). Politische Beteiligung. Einführung in dialogorientierte Instrumente politischer und gesellschaftlicher Partizipation. Wiesbaden: VS -Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Kersting, N. (2013). Online Participation: From ‘Invited’ to ‘Invented’ Spaces. International Journal of Electronic Governance, 4, 270–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kersting, N. (2016). Participatory Turn? Comparing Citizens and Politicians Perspective Online and Off-Line Local Political Participation. Lex localis, 14(2), 225–249.Google Scholar
  19. Kersting, N., & Vetter, A. (2003). Reforming Local Government in Europe. Wiesbaden: VS- Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kersting, N., et al. (2009). Local Governance Reform in Global Perspective. Urban and regional research international. Wiesbaden: VS -Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kersting, N., et al. (2016). Participatory Budgeting in Comparative Study. In S. Kuhlmann & G. Bouckaert (Eds.), Local Public Sector Reforms (pp. 317–331). London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kjær, U. (2012). Local Politics: Incubator or Respirator for Political Parties? In J. Blom-Hansen et al. (Eds.), Democracy, Elections, and Political Parties. Essays in Honour of Jorgen Elklit (pp. 201–209). Aarhus: Politica.Google Scholar
  23. Levy, F., Meltsner, A., & Wildavsky, A. (1974). Urban Outcomes: Schools, Streets and libraries. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.Google Scholar
  24. Lowndess, V., & Sullivan, H. (2008). How Low Can You Go? Rationales and Challenges for Neighbourhood Governance. Public Administration, 86(1), 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Peteri, G. (2008). Mind Your Own Business: Community Governance in Rural Municipalities. Budapest: LGI/Open Society Institute.Google Scholar
  26. Purcell, M. (2006). Urban Democracy and the Local Trap. Urban Studies, 43(11), 1921–1941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ringeling, A., Daemen, H., & Schaap, L. (2012). The Dynamics of Democratic Learning. In L. Schaap & H. Daemen (Eds.), Renewal in European Local Democracies (pp. 191–204). Wiesbaden: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovation. Cambridge: CUT.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Swianiewicz, P. (2015). Intra-Municipal Units in Urban Political Systems in Poland: Vicious Roundabout of Marginalization or Dead-End Street? Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 7(2), 173–198.Google Scholar
  30. Swianiewicz, P., Krukowska, J., Lackowska, M., & Kurniewicz, A. (2013). Błędne rondo marginalizacji? Jednostki pomocznicze w zarządzaniu wielkimi miastami w Polsce. Warszawa: Elipsa.Google Scholar
  31. Tavares, A.F. (2016). Size, Density and Small Scale Elections: A Multi-Level Analysis of Voter Turnout in Sub-Municipal Units in Portugal. Portuguese Political Science Association Conference, Lisbon, March 10–12.Google Scholar
  32. Tavares, A. F., & Carr, J. (2013). So Close, Yet So Far Away? The Effects of City Size, Density and Growth on Local Civic Participation. Journal of Urban Affairs, 35(3), 283–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tavares, A. F., & Rodrigues, M. (2015). The Economic and Political Impacts of Top-Down Territorial Reforms: The Case of Sub-City Governments. Local Government Studies, 41(6), 956–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Van Assche, D., & Dierickx, G. (2007). The Decentralization of City Governments and the Restoration of Political Trust. Local Government Studies, 33(1), 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Van Ostaaijen, J., et al. (2012). The Added Value of Intra-Municipal Decentralization: Comparing Bologna, Rotterdam and Birmingham. In L. Schaap & H. Daemen (Eds.), Renewal in European Local Democracies (pp. 145–164). Wiesbaden: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nikos Hlepas
    • 1
  • Norbert Kersting
    • 2
  • Sabine Kuhlmann
    • 3
  • Pawel Swianiewicz
    • 4
  • Filipe Teles
    • 5
  1. 1.Faculty of Political Science and Public AdministrationNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of MuensterMuensterGermany
  3. 3.Lehrstuhl für Politikwissenschaft, Verwaltung und Organisation, UniversitätPotsdamGermany
  4. 4.Faculty of Geography and Regional Studies, Department of Local Development and PolicyUniveristy of WarsawWarszawaPoland
  5. 5.Department of Social, Political and Territorial SciencesUniversity of AveiroAveiroPortugal

Personalised recommendations