Notion of Democracy of Councillors in the Changing Context of Local Democracy

Transcription

1 Hubert Heinelt: Notion of Democracy of Councillors in the Changing Context of Local Democracy Paper prepared for the Workshop 6 on The Developing Role of the Councillors in a Comparative European Context at the ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops, 22 nd 27 th of March 2010 Work in progress! Do not quote! Abstract The paper analyses if different concepts (or common perceptions) of democracy can be detected among councillors which can be related to a common distinction in the scholarly debate, namely the one between the models of liberal or representative and of deliberative democracy. The analysis shows that councillors have different understands of what democracy means and that this differences can be related to the models of deliberative and representative democracy. Furthermore, it becomes clear that especially a deliberative notion of democracy is consistent with statements of councillors emphasising a direct and broad participatory involvement of citizens. Finally, it is demonstrated that these general pattern appear with slight variation in all countries covered by the survey on councillors in municipal assemblies. 1

2 1. Introduction Municipal councils are mainly seen as representative bodies, i.e. a core institution of a particular understanding of democracy namely representative or liberal democracy. The paper will analyse whether or not councillors (as the members of this institution) have an understanding of democracy according to this model or one which goes beyond this model by considering interrelations between broader forms of participation (beyond participating in elections) and democracy. More precisely, the paper will analyse if different concepts (or common perceptions) of democracy can be detected among councillors which can be related to a common distinction in the scholarly debate, namely the one between the models of liberal or representative and of deliberative democracy, 1 whereas liberal democracy stresses (i) the individual s right to participate in general elections and by this, the aggregation of individual preferences to form guidelines for those in representative bodies or in government and (ii) the option to make the latter accountable to the individual citizen, and deliberative democracy gives emphasis to free, open and public reasoning by which problems as well as the way are determined these problems should be solved in a way perceived as appropriate. 2 This paper is based on results of a survey on municipal councillors carried out in fifteen European countries and Israel. 3 A sub-group of participants of the international team which carried out this survey will publish results of the survey focussing on the role and task percep- 1 See Habermas 1992: ; Habermas 1996, Pierre and Peters 2000: , or Cohen 2007 and for early debates Pateman However, democratic political systems can be conceived of not just as one regime, but as a composite of partial regimes because it consists of a complex web of various forms of participation. This also means that in a democratic political system citizenship, its most distinctive property, is not confined to voting periodically in elections (Schmitter 1993: 4). Therefore, the two mentions models of democracy should not be seen as alternatives but as possible complementary elements. 3 The following countries (and partners) have been included in the survey: Austria (Werner Pleschberger), Belgium (Kristof Steyvers and Tom Verhelst), Croatia (Dubravka Jurlina- Alibegovic), Czech Republic (Dan Rysavý and Pavel Saradin), England (David Sweeting and Colin Copus), France (Eric Kerrouche), Germany (Hubert Heinelt, Björn Egner and Max-Christopher Krapp), Greece (Panos Getimis, Nikos Hlepas and Alexia Timotheou), Israel (Eran Razin), Italy (Annick Magnier), Netherlands (Pieter-Jan Klok and Bas Denter), Norway (Jacob Aars, Audun Offerdal and Signy Irene Vabo), Poland (Pawel Swianiewicz), Spain (Carlos Alba and Carmen Navarro), Sweden (Vicki Johansson and David Karlsson) and Switzerland (Daniel Kübler and Larissa Plüss). 2

3 tion as well as the behaviour of councillors in the changing context of local democracy. This paper is a draft chapter of the planned publication (a special issue of an international journal). Other chapters of this publication will address the following topics: The institutionalisation of the role of Councillors (Bas Denters and Pieter-Jan Klok), The Hidden Constitutions: How informal institutions affect notions of democracy among councillors (David Karlsson) New Public Management and Democracy: An analysis of attitudes and behaviour (Signy Irene Vabo and Jacob Aars) Urban Network Governance and the Role Perceptions of Councillors (Larissa Plüss and Daniel Kübler) Councillors within the Three Worlds of Democratic Action (Hubert Heinelt.). 4 We start from the observation that political leadership at the local level has attracted growing attention in recent years in parallel with reforms of local government and of the municipal administration as well as the debate on a shift from government to governance (see e.g. Le Galés 2000; John 2001; Kersting and Vetter 2003; Haus et al. 2005; Reynaert et al. 2005; Denters and Rose 2005, Haus and Sweeting 2006). But this debate is mainly focused on single leaders, i.e. mayors or executive officers. Considering the power triangle of (i) the mayor, (ii) the municipal administration (executive officers) and (iii) the council it is surprising that councillors have gained little interest so far. The aim of the planned publication is to reflect on the role and task perception as well as the behaviour of councillors in the changing context of local democracy. The articles collected so far for the publication start from a common conceptual framework sketch out graphically below: We start from the hypothesis that the role and task perception as well as the behaviour of councillors can not be conceived of being determined directly by (i) both formals and informal institutional structures as well as by (ii) personal characteristics. Instead, we argue that the perceptions and behaviour of councillors are depending on their notion of democracy. However, the understanding of democracy can be affected by institu- 4 The concept of the three worlds of democratic action (see Heinelt 2007 and 2010) refers to Kooiman s (2000, 2002 and 2003) distinction between different governing orders namely meta governing (i.e. the worlds of democratic action by which subsequent political choices are framed through reasoning about what constitutes a problem and how to solve it appropriately), second order governing (i.e. the worlds of democratic action where societally binding decisions are taken) and first order governing (i.e. the worlds of 3

4 tional structure but not solely by such organisational arrangements but depending on personal characteristics of the councillors. 5 institutional structures formal informal personal characteristics Notion of democracy role/task perception behaviour This paper starts (in Section 2) with an analysis of responses of councillors which can clearly be related to either a representative or a deliberative understanding of democracy. Or in other words: It will be tested whether or not an understanding of democracy can be detected among councillors which is in line with the models of representative or deliberative democracy. In a next step (in Section 3) the findings on a representative or a deliberative understanding of democracy will be related to statements of the councillors to different forms or options of citizen participation and to their assessment of the effectiveness of various instruments to inform local politicians about public opinion. This is done to test whether or not a particular understanding of democracy is related to a specific assessment of the importance of different forms or options of participation and ways to let local politicians what people think. 2. Representative versus deliberative democracy What is the notion of democracy of councillors? Do councillors put emphasis on representative democracy or on deliberative democracy? To answer these questions, councillors were asked to respond to the following statements: 6 democratic action where societally binding decisions are implemented). 5 Nevertheless, the null hypothesis will be tested empirically whether or not the role and task perception as well as the behaviour of councillors is depending directly on institutional structures as well as on personal characteristics. 4

5 Apart from voting, citizens should not be given the opportunity to influence local government policies. Political representatives should make what they think are the right decisions, independent of the current views of local people. The results of local elections should be the most important factor in determining municipal policies In cases where councillors highlight these ideas about how local democracy should function it can be argued that they are oriented to the model of representative democracy. In contrast, a notion of democracy in line with the model of deliberative democracy can first of all (in a first step) be linked to the agreement of councillors with statements which do not emphasise representative democracy name that: Residents should participate actively and directly in making important local decisions. Furthermore, emphasis given to the following statements can indicate a deliberative notion of democracy: Residents should have the opportunity to make their views known before important local decisions are made by elected representatives. Council decisions should reflect a majority opinion among the residents. To test for joint dimensions behind the groups of statements mentioned before a factor analysis was conducted for the whole data set (that means, for all countries). As shown in Table 1, a clear pattern between the variables connected with either a representative or a deliberative understanding of democracy can be detected for the whole date set. 7 This means that we can detect a group of councillors who clearly give emphasis to representative democracy, whereas another group is more in favour of deliberative democracy. Furthermore, a factor analysis of these variables was conducted country-by-country to look for countries without these or different background dimensions which may reflect countryspecific differences. 8 6 The question was: People have different ideas about how local democracy should function. Please indicate how important for local democracy you feel the following requirements are? 7 Factor loads lower than 0.5 are displayed here as well as in general in the following. 8 It has to be noted that the national data sets have not been weighted, and because the national data sets differ by sizes, a country-by-country factor analysis seem also to be appropriate. 5

6 Table 1: Notions of democracy among councillors Apart from voting, citizens should not be given the opportunity Political representatives should make what they think are the right decisions, independent of the current views of local people The results of local elections should be the most important factor Residents should participate actively and directly in making important local decisions Residents should have the opportunity to make their views known before important local decisions are made by elected representatives Council decisions should reflect a majority opinion among the residents. 1 st component: deliberative democracy,798,795,593 2 nd component: representative democracy,774 Rotationsmethode: Varimax mit Kaiser-Normalisierung. Die Rotation ist in 3 Iterationen konvergiert. KMO: 0,591.,729,584 Comment [hh1]: Has to be translated into English. A first group of countries, consisting of Austria, Belgium, Croatia, the Czech Republic, England, Greece, Italy, Poland and Spain, clearly meets the pattern by which the two sets of variables are relatable to either a representative or a deliberative notion of democracy. A second group of countries, consisting of Germany and Sweden, is slightly different. However, in these cases a background dimension can be detected by which positive values for the items Residents should participate actively and directly in making important local decisions and Residents should have the opportunity to make their views known before important local decisions are made by elected representatives are combined with negative values for the items Apart from voting, citizens should not be given the opportunity and Political representatives should make what they think are the right decisions, independent of the current views of local people. Together, this results point to strong emphasis given to an understanding of democracy in line with the deliberative model. Furthermore, in this group of countries a second background dimension combines positive values for the items The results of local elections should be the most important factor and Council decisions should reflect a majority opinion among the residents. This can be interpreted as an understanding of democracy 6

7 which is in accordance with the representative model but emphasises, that decisions of the council as a representative body should take the opinion of the majority of local citizens into account. Table 2: Notions of democracy among councillors by countries Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, England, Greece, Italy, Poland, Spain Germany, Sweden France, Norway, Switzerland Background dimensions Apart from voting, citizens should not be given the opportunity Political representatives should make what they think are the right decisions, independent of the current views of local people The results of local elections should be the most important factor Residents should participate actively and directly in making important local decisions Residents should have the opportunity to make their views known before important local decisions are made by elected representatives Council decisions should reflect a majority opinion among the residents = positive values, = negative values. A third group of countries build by France, Norway 9 and Switzerland deviates only partly from the second group. Here only negative values for the item Political representatives 9 Norway is slightly deviating from the pattern of this group because the item Council decisions should reflect a majority opinion among the residents does not load positively on the 7

8 should make what they think are the right decisions, independent of the current views of local people are combined with positive ones for the items Residents should participate actively and directly in making important local decisions and Residents should have the opportunity to make their views known before important local decisions are made by elected representatives. By positive values for the item Apart from voting, citizens should not be given the opportunity and also positive ones for the items The results of local elections should be the most important factor and Council decisions should reflect a majority opinion among the residents an understanding of democracy in accordance with the representative model is shown which also emphasises, that decisions of the council should take the opinion of the majority of local citizens into account.. The Netherlands and Israel are deviating cases. For the Netherlands the item results of local elections should be the most important factor has a factor load under the threshold (of 0.5). This is combined on the one hand with a background dimension formed by negative values for the item Apart from voting, citizens should not be given the opportunity and positive values for the items Residents should participate actively and directly in making important local decisions and Residents should have the opportunity to make their views known before important local decisions are made by elected representatives which points to an understand of democracy in line with the deliberative model. On the other hand there is a background dimensions formed by negative values for the item Political representatives should make what they think are the right decisions, independent of the current views of local people and positive values the item Council decisions should reflect a majority opinion among the residents. This indicates also an understanding of democracy according to the deliberative model. Therefore, one can conclude that among Dutch councillors a deliberative notion of democracy is prevailing with slightly differing ways of thinking: One more referring to active residents and the other more focussing on achieving council decisions that are just reflecting a majority opinion among the residents. The deviating case of Israel (or Israeli councillors) is unique because the item Apart from voting, citizens should not be given the opportunity shows no factor load above the threshold (of 0.5) and the items Political representatives should make what they think are the right decisions, independent of the current views of local people one (of 0.505) just over this threshold. This means, that the core items indicating an understanding of democracy in line second component but on the first dimension (but just with a value of (i.e. slightly 8

9 with the representative model do not play a role. However, beside these features the Israeli case is similar to the third group of countries (build by France, Norway and Switzerland) because on the one hand there is a group of councillors who emphasises that Residents should participate actively and directly in making important local decisions and Residents should have the opportunity to make their views known before important local decisions are made by elected representatives, and on the other hand there are councillors who agree that the results of local elections should be the most important factor but that these decisions should reflect a majority opinion among the residents. 3. Assessment of opportunities of citizen participation and of ways to inform local politicians about public opinion by councillors 3.1 Citizen participation oriented at parties or at a broader participatory involvement Beside the aforementioned results of the analysis, the agreement and disagreement of councillors with the statements presented in the following table were considered because they indicate whether or not councillors highlight the importance of different forms and opportunities of citizen participation or democratic actions. The analysis leads to the identification of two components by which an agreement and disagreement with these statements can be distinguished. One component focuses on the statement Political parties are the most suitable arena for citizen participation. This fits to emphasis given to representative democracy and representative bodies (the councils) on which party-related interest-intermediation is concentrated. The other component concentrates on the statements Local referenda lead to high quality of public debate, Political decisions should not only be taken by representative bodies but be negotiated together with the concerned local actors and Decentralisation of local government is necessary to involve citizens in public affairs highlights the quality of public reasoning resulting out of local referenda as direct democratic (i.e. non-representative) forms of political actions, political decision based on communicative interactions with concerned local actors and decentralisation as a means for a stronger participation of citizens. By this, emphasis is given to democratic actions beyond representative democracy. 9 above the threshold of 0.5).

10 Table 3: Assessment of different forms and opportunities of citizen participation Decentralisation of local government is necessary to involve citizens in public affairs Political decisions should not only be taken by representative bodies but be negotiated together with the concerned local actors Local referenda lead to high quality of public debate Political parties are the most suitable arena for citizen participation 1 st component: broader participatory involvement,711,736,709 2 nd component: party-oriented participation Rotationsmethode: Varimax mit Kaiser-Normalisierung. Die Rotation ist in 3 Iterationen konvergiert. KMO: 0,590.,958 Looking at correlations between statements of councillors which indicate their notion of democracy and their assessment of different forms and opportunities of citizen participation the following turns out. Table 4: Correlations between notions of democracy and the assessment of different forms and opportunities of citizen participation broader participatory involvement party-oriented participation deliberative democracy,419**,043** representative democracy,108**,181** ** Korrelation nach Pearson. Die Korrelation ist auf dem Niveau von 0,01 (2-seitig) signifikant. There is a high correlation between an understanding of democracy in line with the deliberative model and statements of councillors pointing to the importance of a broad participatory involvement of citizen participation (r=0.419) and non between such an understanding of democracy and emphasis given to party-oriented participation. This means, that there is a clear relationship between this specific understand of democracy and importance given to an approach of citizen participation which is broader and more active than participating in the arena of party politics. 10

11 In respect to the representative notion of democracy the situation is not that clear. In the cases of councillors whose statements indicated such an understanding of democracy there are low but still significant correlations to statements emphasising either party-oriented participation or a broader participatory involvement. However, the correlation is to some extent higher (as expected) in respect to party-oriented participation (r=0.181) than to the forms and opportunities of a broader involvement of citizen (r=0.108). The pattern along the distinction between these two components found in the whole data set can be identified among councillors of most countries included in the survey namely among the Belgium, Croatian, Czech, Dutch, French, German, Israel, Spanish and Swiss councillors. This means, that there are two groups of councillors in these countries: one is emphasising the importance of political parties are the most suitable arena for citizen participation and thereby a form of interest-intermediation that fits to the model of representative democracy, the other one is highlighting forms and opportunities of political actions that are more in line with the model of representative democracy. At first glance, a distinction between the before mentioned components can not be detect among the Austrian, Italian, Norwegian and Swedish councillors because the responses of councillors in these countries converged to just one component. But the pattern behind this component is different: Norway 10 and Sweden not the two different groups of councillors can be detected which have been found in the majority of countries. Instead, in the two Scandinavian countries the responses of councillor converge to one consistent dimension by which positive responses to the statements Local referenda lead to high quality of public debate, Political decisions should not only be taken by representative bodies but be negotiated together with the concerned local actors and Decentralisation of local government is necessary to involve citizens in public affairs are combined with a negative response to the statements Political parties are the most suitable arena for citizen participation. Only in Austria and Italy the answers of councillors converged clearly to just one component. Table 5: Assessment of different forms and opportunities of democratic actions by countries 10 For Norway the item Political parties are the most suitable arena for citizen participation shows a value of -0,219 (i.e. one clearly below the threshold of 0,5). 11

12 Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Greece, England, France, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland Norway, Sweden Austria, Italy Background dimensions Decentralisation of local government is necessary to involve citizens in public affairs Political decisions should not only be taken by representative bodies but be negotiated together with the concerned local actors Local referenda lead to high quality of public debate Political parties are the most suitable arena for citizen participation = positive values, = negative values. 3.2 Which instruments are perceived by councillors to inform local politicians about public opinion? Similarly, it was tested if responses of councillors to the question How effective are the following instruments in letting local politicians know public opinion (irrespective of whether such reforms have been introduced in your own country or municipality)? can be related to a particular understanding of democracy (either representative or deliberative. Once more, clear pattern can be identified along two components. One component is characterised by emphasis given to voting and party meetings as effective instruments to inform local politicians about public opinion. This again points to representative democracy and parties as relevant inter-mediators. The other components covers different other instruments for informing local politicians about public opinion. Among these instruments public meetings and consultation with community groups can be related in general to communication-based interactions beyond those addressed by representative democracy, whereas citizens juries are more specific but also based on reasoning and attempts to convince others by arguing. Also satisfaction surveys and complain 12

13 schemes are more specific. They can be seen as instruments to inform local politicians about how operational actions in the world of implementation are perceived. Councillors emphasising these particular set of instruments as crucial to inform local politicians about public opinion mention also petitions (although this instrument has a relative low factor load ). Because petitions are send to representative body (the council) to complain about something and ask for a particular decision they can be seen as a mean of a group of actors who has agreed on definite demands outside representative bodies but claim and try to argue for a political action to be taken by these bodies. Table 6: Assessment of the effectiveness of instruments to inform local politicians about public opinion 1 st component: 2 nd component: orientation on direct orientation on involvement voting and parties Voting,792 Party meetings,726 Public meetings,709 Citizens juries,704 Satisfaction surveys,651 Consultation with community groups,649 Complaints schemes,633 Petitions,527 Referenda Rotationsmethode: Varimax mit Kaiser-Normalisierung. Die Rotation ist in 3 Iterationen konvergiert. KMO: 0,784. Finally, it is remarkable that referenda are not loading (within the whole data set) on one of these components which can be interpreted in the way that this instrument is indifferent insofar as it can be seen as an additional instrument by councillors who emphasis voting and party meetings as important to inform local politicians about public opinion as well as by those councillors who highlight instead the relevance of public meetings, citizens juries etc. Also in respect to the results of the factor analysis on the assessment of the effectiveness of the different instruments to inform local politicians about public opinion possible correlations with statements of councillors are checked which indicate their notion of democracy (see Ta- 13

14 ble 7). 11 And indeed, there are similar relations like in the case of the statements of councillors pointing either to the importance of a broad participatory involvement of citizens or of party-oriented participation. However, the correlations are somewhat different. There is a correlation between deliberative democracy and an orientation on direct involvement of citizen (r=0.295), but it is lower than in the case of the relation between this model of democracy and importance given to a broad participatory involvement of citizens (r=0,419). Furthermore, there is no correlation between deliberative democracy and an orientation on voting and parties (r=0.085). This again highlights, that there is a connection between this specific understand of democracy and a particular approach of citizen participation which goes beyond the engagement in elections and in political parties. Table 7: Correlations between notions of democracy and the assessment of the effectiveness of instruments to inform local politicians about public opinion orientation on direct involvement orientation on voting and parties deliberative democracy 0,295 ** 0,085 ** representative democracy -0,106 ** 0,155 ** ** Korrelation nach Pearson. Die Korrelation ist auf dem Niveau von 0,01 (2-seitig) signifikant. Regarding representative democracy the situation is again not that clear. There are also low but still significant correlations with emphasis given either to the engagement in elections and in political parties or an orientation on direct involvement. However, the correlation is (as expected) positive in respect to the orientation on voting and political parties (r=0. 155) and negative for the other instruments to inform local politicians about public opinion (r=-0.106). When looking for pattern regarding the assessment of the effectiveness of mentioned instruments country-by country, the results are slightly different. 11 It has to be mentioned that some countries could not be considered in the next steps of the analysis because not all variables contained in the factor analysis on the assessment of the effectiveness of the mentioned instruments were included in the national data set (i.e. included in the national questionnaire. This applies for Belgium, Croatia, the Czech Repub- 14

15 Table 8: Assessment of the effectiveness of instruments to inform local politicians about public opinion by countries Norway, England Austria, Germany, Greece, Israel, Spain, Sweden France Switzerland Background dimensions Voting Party meetings Public meetings Citizens juries Satisfaction surveys Consultation with community groups Complaints schemes Petitions Referenda = positive values, = negative values. Pattern like in the whole data set can only be detected for England and Norway. However, most of the other countries namely Austria, Germany, Greece, Israel, Spain 12 and Sweden are similar with one exemption: In these countries referenda are included in a component in which all the other instruments beside voting and party meetings are subsumed. This can be interpreted as an indication that referenda are explicitly perceived by councillors in these countries as an instrument of direct democracy and in this respect in contrast to representative lic, Italy and Poland (where citizens juries were not included) as well as the Netherlands (where petitions, citizens juries and referenda are missing). 12 Israel and Spain show slightly different factors loads for petitions. In both countries petitions load on the second dimension, i.e. the one with voting and party meetings, but just with a relatively lower factor loads of and respectively. The same applies for complaints schemes in the case of Spain with a factor load of

16 democracy with the participation on citizens in periodical elections and parties as organisations intermediating between citizens and representative bodies. Beside these two main groups, there are two deviating cases namely France and Switzerland (or French and Swiss councillors). In the case of the French councillors, voting shows no relevant factor load. Beside this interesting feature party meeting form together with the instruments of citizen juries, petitions and referenda one dimension, and public meetings, satisfaction surveys, the consultation with community groups and complaints schemes are seen by a second group of French councillors as effective instruments to inform local politicians about public opinion. In the case of the Swiss councillors party meetings show (together with complaints schemes) no relevant factor load. However, voting and referenda form one component in contrast to the other instruments. This indicates that Swiss councillors do not perceive (unlike councillors in most of the other countries; see above) referenda as an instrument of direct democracy in opposite to voting for representative bodies. 4. Conclusion The analysis has shown that councillors have different understands of what democracy means and that this differences can be related to the models of deliberative and representative democracy (developed in the scholarly debate). Furthermore, it became clear that especially a deliberative notion of democracy is consistent with statements of councillors emphasising a direct and broad participatory involvement of citizens. Finally, it could be demonstrated that these general pattern appear with slight variation in all countries covered by the survey on councillors in municipal assemblies. 16

17 References Cohen, Joshua 2007: Deliberative democracy, in: Rosenberg, Shawn R. (ed.): Deliberation, Participation and Democracy. Can the people govern? Houndsmill/New York: Palgrave Macmillan: Denters, Bas/Rose, Lawrence E. (eds.) 2005: Comparing Local Governance. Trends and Developments, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Habermas, Jürgen Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp. Habermas, Jürgen Die Einbeziehung des Anderen: Studien zur politischen Theorie, Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp. Haus, Michael/Heinelt, Hubert/Stewart, Murray (eds.): Urban Governance and Democracy: Leadership and Community Involvement, London: Routledge. Heinelt, Hubert 2007: Participatory Governance and European Democracy. Bringing Empirical Evidence to a Theoretical Debate, in: Kohler-Koch, Beate/Rittberger, Berthold (eds.): Debating the Democratic Legitimacy of the European Union, Lanham/Boulder/New York/Plymouth, S Heinelt, Hubert 2010: Governing Modern Societies. Towards participatory governance, London and New York: Routledge. Heinelt, Hubert/Malek, Tanja/Smith, Randall/Töller, Annette (eds.) 2001: European Union Environment Policy and New Forms of Governance. Aldershot/Burlington/ Singapore/Sydney: Ashgate. Kersting, Norbert/Vetter, Angelika (eds.) 2003: Reforming Local Government in Europe, Opladen: Leske & Budrich. Kooiman, Jan 2000: Societal Governance, in: Pierre, Jon (ed.): Debating Governance. Authority, Steering, and Democracy. Oxford, S Kooiman, Jan 2002: Governance. A Social-Political Perspective, in: Grote, Jürgen R./Gbikpi, Bernard (eds.) 2002: Participatory Governance. Political and Societal Implications, Opladen: Leske & Budrich: Kooiman, Jan 2003: Governing as Governance, London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi. Pateman, Carole 1970: Participation and Democratic Theory, Cambridge. Pierre, Jon/Peters, B. Guy Governance, Politics and the State, London: Macmillan. 17

18 Reynaert, Herwig/Steyvers, Kristof/Delwit, Pascal/Pilet, Jean-Benoit 2005: Revolution or Renovation? Reforming Local Politics in Europe, Brügge. Schmitter, Philippe C. 1993: Some Propositions about Civil Society and the Consolidation of Democracy (Institut für Höhere Studien. Reihe Politikwissenschaft. Forschungsberichte No. 10), Wien. 18