Striving for Local Governance Capacity in Portugal and Spain

  • Patrícia Silva
  • Esther Pano Puey
Chapter
Part of the Governance and Public Management book series (GPM)

Abstract

Despite the well-known differences regarding the level of devolution in Portugal and Spain, inter-municipal associations (IMAs) emerged as a relevant piece of the institutional systems. The strategies to foster these bodies, however, have been different. While Portugal opted to promote them very clearly, on the verge of employing a top-down logic, Spanish authorities are trying to control IMAs and even reduce their number. Despite the different scenarios, both countries are striving to ensure the governance capacity of inter-municipal collaborative endeavours, struggling for the emergency of a new political actor able to function effectively. This chapter seeks to present an index of governance capacity and measure the performance of both countries across the different dimensions of the index.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Esther Pano Puey would like to acknowledge the support of the programme CSO2013-48641-C2-1-R (Ministry of Economy) Project—Local Government Reform, efficiency, rescaling and democracy (LoGoRef) and also the programme from the Catalan Government 2014 SGR 838. Patrícia Silva would like to acknowledge the support of the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, and the European Social Fund through the Operational Programme Human Capital (HCOP), under grant SFRH/BPD/93149/2013.

References

  1. Airaksinen, J., & Haveri, A. (2003). Networks and hierarchies in inter-municipal co-operation: Are networks really light and flexible and hierarchies sticky and rigid? Paper presented at the Conference of European Group of Public Administration, Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
  2. Bel, G., & Costas, A. (2006). Do Public sector reforms get rusty? Local privatization in Spain. The Journal of Policy Reform, 9(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bel, G., Fageda, X., & Mur, M. (2013). Why do municipalities cooperate to provide local public services? An empirical analysis. Local Government Studies, 39(3), 435–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bel, G., & Warner, M. (2015). Inter-municipal cooperation and costs: Expectations and evidence. Public Administration, 93(1), 52–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borrás, S., & Radaelli, C. M. (2011). The politics of governance architectures: Creation, change and effects of the EU Lisbon Strategy. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(4), 463–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christopherson, S. (2010). Afterword: Contextualized comparison in local and regional economic development: Are United States perspectives and approaches distinctive? Regional Studies, 44(2), 229–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Currall, S. C., & Inkpen, A. C. (2002). A multilevel approach to trust in joint ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3), 479–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dąbrowski, M. (2013). Europeanizing sub-national governance: Partnership in the implementation of European Union structural funds in Poland. Regional Studies, 47(8), 1363–1374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Peuter, B., & Wayenberg, E. (2007). Belgium: Flemish inter-municipal cooperation under reform. In R. Hulst & A. van Montfort (Eds.), Inter-municipal co-operation in Europe (pp. 23–38). Dordrecht: Kluwer International Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Ceuninck, K., Reynaert, H., Steyvers, K., & Valcke, T. (2010). Municipal amalgamations in the low countries: Same problems, different solutions. Local Government Studies, 36(6), 803–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dubreuil, G. H., & Baudé, S. (2008). Innovative approaches to stakeholder involvement in risk governance. Lessons from TRUSTNET IN ACTION European research project. In E. Vos (Ed.), European risk governance its science, its inclusiveness and its effectiveness (pp. 123–152). Mannheim: Mannheim Centre for European Social Research.Google Scholar
  12. Feiock, R. (2007). Rational choice and regional governance. Journal of Urban Affairs, 29(1), 47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feiock, R. C., Steinacker, A., & Park, H. J. (2009). Institutional collective action and economic development joint ventures. Public Administration Review, 69(2), 256–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frischtak, L. L. (1994). Governance capacity and economic reform in developing countries. World Bank Technical Papers, The World Bank.Google Scholar
  15. Fukuda-Parr, S., Lopes, C., & Malik, K. (2002). Overview: Institutional innovations for capacity development. In S. Fukuda-Parr, C. Lopes, & K. Malik (Eds.), Capacity for development: New solutions to old problems (pp. 1–21). London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  16. Haveri, A., & Airaksinen, J. (2007). Inter-municipal cooperation in Finland: Old traditions and new promises. In R. Hulst & A. Van Montfort (Eds.), Inter-municipal cooperation in Europe (pp. 39–66). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hawkins, C. (2010). Competition and cooperation: Local government joint ventures for economic development. Journal of Urban Affairs, 32(2), 253–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hulst, R., & van Montfort, A. (2007). Inter-municipal cooperation: A widespread phenomenon. In R. Hulst & A. van Montfort (Eds.), Inter-municipal cooperation in Europe (pp. 1–27). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hulst, R., van Montfort, A., Haveri, A., Airaksinen, J., & Kelly, J. (2009). Institutional shifts in inter-municipal service delivery. Public Organization Review, 9(3), 263–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Klijn, E.-H., & Koppenjan, J. (2000). Public management and policy networks. Public Management Review, 2(2), 135–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kuhlmann, S., & Wollmann, H. (2014). Introduction to comparative public administration: Administrative systems and reforms in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  22. Lidstrom, A. (2013). Citizens in the city-regions: Political orientations across municipal borders. Urban Affairs Review, 49(2), 282–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lopes, L. (2009). O Regime das Comunidades Intermunicipais: mais um caso exemplar de degradaçao da autonomia municipal. Revista de Direito Público E Regulaçao, 2, 9–18.Google Scholar
  24. Mäeltsemees, S., Lõhmus, M., & Ratas, J. (2013). Inter-municipal cooperation: Possibility for advancing local democracy and subsidiarity in Estonia. Halduskultuur—Administrative Culture, 14(1), 73–97.Google Scholar
  25. Magre, J., & Pano, E. (2016). Delivery of municipal services in Spain: An uncertain picture. In H. Wollmann, I. Kopric, & G. Marcou (Eds.), Public and social services in Europe. From public and municipal to private sector provision (pp. 119–134). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  26. Martínez-Alonso Camps, J. L. (2013). Les personificacions instrumentals locals: estat de la qüestió. Revista catalana de dret públic, núm., 47, 61–86. doi: 10.2436/20.8030.01.12.Google Scholar
  27. Nelles, J. (2013). Cooperation and capacity? Exploring the sources and limits of city-region governance partnerships. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(4), 1349–1367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nico, R. (2013). O papel das Comunidades Intermunicipais na descentralização administrativa – O caso da Comunidade Intermunicipal do Médio Tejo. Lisbon: Instituto Superior de Ciências Sociais e Políticas – Universidade Técnica de Lisboa.Google Scholar
  29. OECD. (2008). OECD territorial reviews OECD territorial reviews: Portugal 2008. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  30. OECD. (2010). OECD reviews of regional innovation OECD reviews of regional innovation: Catalonia, Spain 2010. Paris: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Oliveira, F. P. (2009). The evolution and regulation of the metropolitan areas in Portugal. Paper presented at city futures, June 4–6, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid.Google Scholar
  32. Perkmann, M. (2003). Cross-border regions in Europe: Significance and drivers of regional cross-border co-operation. European Urban and Regional Studies, 10(2), 153–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Perkmann, M. (2007a). Policy entrepreneurship and multilevel governance: A comparative study of European cross-border regions. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 25(6), 861–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Perkmann, M. (2007b). The construction of new scales: A framework and case study of the EUREGIO cross-border region. Regional Studies, 41(2), 253–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Radaelli, C. M. (2008). Europeanization, policy learning, and new modes of governance. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 10(3), 239–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rakar, I., Tičar, B., & Klun, M. (2015). Inter-municipal cooperation: Challenges in Europe and in Slovenia. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 45, 185–200.Google Scholar
  37. Rhodes, M. (2015). Southern welfare in social science: A “southern European model”? In M. Baumeister & R. Sala (Eds.), Southern Europe?: Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Greece from the 1950s until the present day (pp. 51–76). Chicago: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
  38. Rhodes, R. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Philadelphia: Open University Press, Ed.Google Scholar
  39. Scott, A. J., Agnew, J., Soja, E. W., & Storper, M. (2001). Global city regions. In A. J. Scott (Ed.), Global city regions: Trends, theory and policy (pp. 11–32). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Silva, P., Ferreira, J., & Teles, F. (forthcoming). Intermunicipal cooperation: The quest for governance capacity? International Review of Administrative Sciences.Google Scholar
  41. Silva, P., Teles, F., & Pires, A. R. (2016). Paving the (hard) way for regional partnerships: Evidences from Portugal. Regional & Federal Studies, 1–26.Google Scholar
  42. Sotiropoulos, D. A. (2004). Southern European public bureaucracies in comparative perspective. West European Politics, 27(3), 405–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sorrentino, M., & Simonetta, M. (2013). Incentivising inter-municipal collaboration: The Lombard experience. Journal of Management & Governance, 17(4), 887–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Swianiewicz, P. (2010). If territorial fragmentation is a problem, is amalgamation a solution? An East European Perspective. Local Government Studies, 36(2), 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Teles, F. (2012). Beyond paternalism towards social capital: Local governance reform in Portugal. International Journal of Public Administration, 35(13), 864–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Teles, F. (2014). Local government and the bailout: Reform singularities in Portugal. European Urban and Regional Studies, 1–13.Google Scholar
  47. Teles, F. (2016). Local governance and inter-municipal cooperation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. van den Berg, L., & Braun, E. (1999). Urban competitiveness, marketing and the need for organising capacity. Urban Studies, 36(5), 987–999. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098993312.
  49. Warner, M. E. (2006). Inter-municipal cooperation in the U.S: A regional governance solution? Urban Public Economics Review/Revista de Economia Pública Urbana, 7, 132–151.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrícia Silva
    • 1
  • Esther Pano Puey
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Research Unit on Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policies, Department of Social, Political and Territorial SciencesUniversity of AveiroAveiroPortugal
  2. 2.Constitutional Law & Political Science DepartmentUniversity of BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Coordinator of the Local Government Observatory, Fundació Carles Pi i SunyerBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations