Advertisement

Trust in an Integrated Territorial Investment

  • Agnieszka Chrisidu-Budnik
Chapter

Abstract

A European Union regulation established the multiannual framework for the years 2014 and 2020, introducing three mechanisms that promote collaboration and partnership: integrated territorial investment, community-led local development, and hybrid public-private partnerships. The traditional hierarchical structure developed in the industrial age is difficult to adapt to the contemporary requirements of cooperation. Therefore, the development of a heterarchical structure can be observed in the context of modern public administration functioning. This chapter argues that trust is an important element of building an integrated territorial investment in a heterarchical structure. Trust is an essential component that facilitates fluent interactions, the flow of information, and other conditions necessary to set up and develop an integrated territorial investment.

Keywords

Territorial investment Public administration Integrated territorial investment Trustworthiness Local authority 

References

  1. Bachmann, R., & Inkpen, A. (2011). Understanding institutional – Based trust bilding process in interorganizational relationships. Organization Studies, 32(2), 281–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chiles, T. H., & McMackin, J. F. (1996). Integrating variable risk preferences, trust, and transaction cost economics. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 73–99.Google Scholar
  3. Coffé, B., & Geys, B. (2005). Performance and social capital: An application to the local government level. Journal of Urban Affairs, 27(5), 485–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Currall, S. C., & Judge, T. A. (1995). Measuring trust between organizational boundary role persons. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64(2), 151–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2(2), 129–152.Google Scholar
  7. Di Maggio, E. (2001). Conclusion: The futures of business organization and Paradoxes of change. In E. Di Maggio (Ed.), The twenty-first-century firm: Changing economic organization in international perspective (pp. 210–244). Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Gulati, R. (1995). Social structure and alliance formation patterns: A longitudinal analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(4), 619–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hardin, R. (2002). Trust and trustworthiness. New York: Russell Sage Foundations.Google Scholar
  10. Hoffmann-Riem, W. (1999). Strukturen des Europäischen Verwaltungsrechts – Perspektiven der Systembildung [Structures of european administrative law – Perspectives of systemic formation]. In E. Schmidt-Assmann & W. Hoffmann-Riem (Eds.), Strukturen des Europàischen Verwaltungsrechts. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  11. Hosmer, L. T. (1995). Thrust: The connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 379–403.Google Scholar
  12. Jessop, B. (2002). The future of the capitalist state. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  13. Kickert, W. J., Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (1999). Managing complex networks. Strategies for the public sector. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Klijn, E. H., Edelenbos, J., & Steijn, B. (2010). Trust in governance networks: Its impacts on outcomes. Administration and Society, 42(2), 193–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Macauly, S. (1985). An empirical view of contract. Wisconsin Law Review, 465, 465–482.Google Scholar
  17. MacCrimmon, K. R., & Wehrung, D. A. (1986). Taking risks: The management of uncertainty. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  18. Macneil, I. R. (1978). Contracts: Adjustment of long-term economic relations under classical, neoclassical, and relational contract law. Northwestern University Law Review, 72(6), 854–905.Google Scholar
  19. Marinetto, M. (2003). Governing beyond the centre: A critique of the anglo-governance school. Political Studies, 51(3), 592–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McCulloch, W. S. (1945). A heterarchy of values determined by the typology of nervous nets. The Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, 7(2), 89–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Morphet, J. (2008). Modern local government. London: Sage Publication.Google Scholar
  22. Nummela, N. (2003). Looking through a prism-multiple perspectives to commitment to international R&D collaboration. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14(1), 137–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ogilvy, J. (1977). Many dimensional man: Decentralizing self, society, and the sacred. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Ogilvy, J. (2002). Creating better futures: Scenario planning as a tool for a better tomorrow. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1995). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wallis, J., & Dollery, B. (2002). Social capital and local government capacity. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 61(3), 76–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Warner, M. (2001). Building social capital: The role of government. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 30, 187–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Williamson, O. E. (1991). Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2), 269–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Williamson, O. E. (1996). The mechanism of governance. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Peronne, V. (1998). Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science, 9(2), 141–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Agnieszka Chrisidu-Budnik
    • 1
  1. 1.University of WroclawWroclawPoland

Personalised recommendations