Advertisement

The Local Autonomy Index (LAI)

  • Andreas Ladner
  • Nicolas Keuffer
  • Harald Baldersheim
  • Nikos Hlepas
  • Pawel Swianiewicz
  • Kristof Steyvers
  • Carmen Navarro
Chapter
Part of the Governance and Public Management book series (GPM)

Abstract

In this chapter we attempt to create an index of local autonomy. Ideally, such an index includes all the different aspects of local autonomy discussed in the literature and combines them according to their importance. The chapter emphasises the choices made while constructing the index and suggests different ways to test the results. Given the multidimensionality of local autonomy, we argue that the local autonomy index (LAI) has a formative character. We first combine the original standardised 11 variables to 7 theoretically and empirically meaningful dimensions of local autonomy: that is, legal autonomy, political discretion, policy scope, financial autonomy, organisational autonomy, access and non-interference. Favouring a functional and economic approach, we argue that particular weight should be given to political discretion and financial autonomy. Together with legal autonomy, we claim that these three dimensions form the cornerstones of local autonomy. The overall index simply aggregates the seven weighted dimensions. The results are presented as mean values for the five five-year periods between 1990 and 2014 as well as country rankings and country-specific patterns of local autonomy.

Keywords

Local autonomy index (LAI) Construction of an indicator Dimensionality Content validity Convergent validity Cornerstones of local autonomy 

References

  1. Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional Wisdom on Measurement: A Structural Equation Perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110(2), 305–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brancati, D. (2006). Decentralization: Fueling the Fire or Dampening the Flames of Ethnic Conflict and Secessionism? International Organization, 60(3), 651–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gurr, T. R., & King, D. S. (1987). The State and the City. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ivanyna, M., & Shah, A. (2014). How Close Is Your Government to Its People? Worldwide Indicators on Localization and Decentralization. Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal, 8(2014–3), 1–62.Google Scholar
  5. Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A Critical Review of Construct Indicators and Measurement Model Misspecification in Marketing and Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ladner, A., Keuffer, N., & Baldersheim, H. (2015). Local Autonomy Index for European Countries (1990–2014). Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  7. Ladner, A., Keuffer, N., & Baldersheim, H. (2016). Measuring Local Autonomy in 39 Countries (1990–2014). Regional & Federal Studies, 26(3), 321–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Construct Measurement and Validation Procedures in MIS and Behavioral Research: Integrating New and Existing Techniques. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 293–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Olson, M. (1969). The Principle of Fiscal Equivalence: The Division of Responsibilities Among Different Levels of Government. The American Economic Review, 59(2), 479–487.Google Scholar
  10. Prud’homme, R. (1994). On the Dangers of Decentralization. Policy Research Working Paper, 1252. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  11. Ray, L. (2007). Validity of Measured Party Positions on European Integration: Assumptions, Approaches, and a Comparison of Alternative Measures. Electoral Studies, 26(1), 11–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sellers, J. M., & Lidström, A. (2007). Decentralization, Local Government, and the Welfare State. Governance, 20(4), 609–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Treisman, D. (2002). Defining and Measuring Decentralization: A Global Perspective (Unpublished Manuscript). http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/treisman/Papers/defin.pdf

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Ladner
    • 1
  • Nicolas Keuffer
    • 1
  • Harald Baldersheim
    • 2
  • Nikos Hlepas
    • 3
  • Pawel Swianiewicz
    • 4
  • Kristof Steyvers
    • 5
  • Carmen Navarro
    • 6
  1. 1.IDHEAPUniversity of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  3. 3.National and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece
  4. 4.Department of Local Development and Policy, Faculty of Geography and Regional StudiesUniversity of WarsawWarszawaPoland
  5. 5.Department of Political ScienceGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  6. 6.Department of Political ScienceUniversidad Autónoma de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations