Abstract
The institutionalization of a local network formalizes the adhesion of the institution to a different concept of democracy and public action, but also engages in a change of scale, updating the socio-spatial relations framework. Particularly significant are the innovations in the geographic scale, which overcome the traditional jurisdictional boundaries. Frequently these innovations are linked to other changes, as in the delimitation of the policy field of reference or in the temporal prospects of the public action. Regions and cities, of every dimension and status, claim an active role in the economic growth policies and approaches to shift from sectoral to territorial strategic viewpoints. The phenomenon implies not only the coordination among numerous actors but the institutionalization of participatory approaches, driven to include different stakeholders. Scales and scaling must hence be observed through three fundamental lenses: temporal, jurisdictional and functional.
In this contribution the authors discuss how the institutionalization of networks contributes to the continuous redesign of territories and to changes in the functional and temporal policy scales, tracing new patterns of sense around the place and networked place-making from the local to the global sphere.
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
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
The term “collaborative governance” is used in the following even if we are aware that not all the networks studied conform fully to its narrowest definitions (some of them range quite low in the scale of participation and offer mere consultation), but all of them contribute to the same “development of governing styles in which boundaries between and within public and private actors have become blurred” (Stoker, 1998: 17).
- 2.
We would like to thank Benedetta Bartoli, Virginia Bianchi and Riccardo Failli for their invaluable support during the data collection in Italy.
- 3.
For the data analysis the original five-point scale used in the questionnaire was recomputed into three values: low (first 2 values of the scale); medium; and high (the values above the central one).
- 4.
The following consideration of the scalar configuration of local governance starts from the information reported in the book edited by Teles et al. (2021a), although not all the countries and networks considered there were surveyed in the second stage of the research project. For more detailed information see Table 10.1.
- 5.
Here the term “wide area” is used as conceptualized in the Italian spatial planning literature, to designate supra-municipal areas which may or may not be institutionalized in national or regional legislation. A “wide area” exceeds the first level of local government and corresponds to a sphere of common practices and projecting in term of economic and environmental interests but also of people’s mobility. Such a wide area is not always formalized, but is identified on the basis of territorial analysis. It differs from the concept of “region” that refers to a broader area.
- 6.
For Local Action Groups see Lysek et al. (2022) in this volume.
- 7.
The policy scope of the different networks is characterized in Heinelt et al. (2021: 414–417), Table 26.10.
- 8.
The perceived influence of the network is evaluated through answers to the question: “How do you perceive the influence of the following actors, when political decisions are made in your local society?”, that proposed a list of actors in the local society—including the network the respondents belong to—asking the respondents to place their answer on a five points scale from “no influence at all” to “very strong influence.”
- 9.
The countries surveyed are distributed in the following classes of inhabitants per municipality: under 5000: Iceland, Austria, Switzerland, Czech Republic; from 5000 to 19,000: Belgium, Finland, Latvia, Poland, Norway, Croatia, Italy, Germany, Spain; from 20,000 to 49,000: Lithuania, Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, Greece; more than 50,000: UK, Ireland.
References
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571.
Ansell, C., & Torfing, J. (2015). How does collaborative governance scale? Policy and Politics., 43(3), 315–329.
Ansell, C., & Torfing, J. (Eds.). (2018). How does collaborative governance scale? Policy Press.
Brenner, N. (2004). New state spaces: Urban governance and the rescaling of statehood. Oxford University Press.
Bulkeley, H. (2005). Reconfiguring environmental governance: Towards a politics of scales and networks. Political Geography, 24, 875–902.
Cash, D. W., Adger, W. N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., Pritchard, L., & Young, O. (2006). Scale and cross scale dynamics: Governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and Society, 11(2), 8.
Fossheim, K. (2021). Local state-society relations. In I. F. Norway, A. G. Teles, C. Stănus, & H. Heinelt (Eds.), Close ties in European local governance. Linking local state and society (pp. 275–288). Palgrave Macmillan.
Heinelt, H., Teles, F., Gendźwiłł, A., Stănuş, C. (2021). Local State-Society Relations in European Countries: Main Findings. In F. Teles, A. Gendźwiłł, C. Stănus, H. Heinelt (Eds.), Close ties in European local governance. Linking local state and society (pp. 379–422). Palgrave Macmillan.
Heinelt, H., Hlepas, N., Kuhlmann, S., & Swianiewicz, P. (2018). Local government systems: Grasping the institutional environment of mayors. In H. Heinelt, A. Magnier, M. Cabria, & H. Reynaert (Eds.), Political leaders and changing local democracy (pp. 19–78). Palgrave Macmillan.
Jessop, B. (2007). State power: A strategic-relational approach. Polity Press.
Jessop, B., Brenner, N., & Jones, M. (2008). Theorizing sociospatial relations. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 26(3), 389–401.
Ladner, A., Keuffer, N., Bastianen, A. (2021). Local Autonomy Index in the EU, Council of Europe and OECD countries (1990–2020). Release 2.0. European Commission, Brussels.
Lysek, J., Krukowska, J., Navarro, C., Jones, A., & Copus, C. (2022). Alike in diversity? Local action groups in nine European countries. In B. Egner, H. Heinelt, J. Lysek, P. Silva, & F. Teles (Eds.), Perspectives on local governance across Europe: Insights on local state-society relations. Palgrave Macmillan.
Massey, D. (1994). Space, place and gender. Polity Press.
OECD (2018), Key data on Local and Regional Governments in the European Union. OECD, Paris.
Paasi, A. (2004). Place and region, looking through the prism of scale. Progress in Human Geography, 28, 536–546.
Pierce, J., Martin, D. G., & Murphy, J. T. (2011). Relational place-making: The networked politics of place. Transactions, 36(1), 54–70.
Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2008). The rise of the “City-region” concept and its development policy implications. European Planning Studies, 16(8), 1025–1046.
Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Ketterer, T. (2020). Institutional change and the development of lagging regions in Europe. Regional Studies, 54(7), 974–986.
Scott, A. J. (2001). Global city-regions. Oxford University Press.
Sellers, J. M., & Kwak, S.-Y. (2011). State and society in local governance. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 35(3), 620–643.
Sørensen, E., Hendriks, C. M., Hertting, N., & Edelenbos, J. (2020). Political boundary spanning: Politicians at the interface between collaborative governance and representative democracy. Policy and Society, 39(4), 530–569.
Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as theory: Five propositions. International Social Science Journal, 50, 17–28.
Storper, M. (2018). Separate worlds? Explaining the current wave of regional economic polarization. Journal of Economic Geography, 18(2), 247–270.
Swyngedouw, E. (2004). Globalisation or ‘glocalisation’? Networks, territories and rescaling. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 17(1), 25–48.
Tarrow, S. (2005). The new transnational activism. Cambridge University Press.
Teles, F., Gendźwiłł, A., Stănuş, C., & Heinelt, H. (Eds.). (2021a). Close ties in European local governance. Linking local state and society. Palgrave Macmillan.
Teles, F., Gendźwiłł, A., Stănuş, C., & Heinelt, H. (2021b). Interactions of societal actors and local government in institutionalized governance arrangements. The books’s scope and content. In F. Teles, A. Gendźwiłł, C. Stănus, & H. Heinelt (Eds.), Close ties in European local governance. Linking local state and society (pp. 1–12). Palgrave Macmillan.
Vázquez-Barquero, A. (2002). Endogenous development: Networking, innovation, institutions, and cities. Routledge.
Vollaard, H. (2021). Local state-society relations in the Netherlands. In F. Teles, A. Gendźwiłł, C. Stănuş, & H. Heinelt (Eds.), Close ties in European local governance. Linking local state and society (pp. 259–274). Palgrave Macmillan.
West, D. (2013). Social movements in global politics. Polity.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cabria, M., Magnier, A. (2022). Collaborative Governance and the Rescaling of Local-State Society Networks. In: Egner, B., Heinelt, H., Lysek, J., Silva, P., Teles, F. (eds) Perspectives on Local Governance Across Europe. Palgrave Studies in Sub-National Governance. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15000-5_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15000-5_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-14999-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-15000-5
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)