A Tale of Two Regionalisms: Improving the Measurement of Regionalism in Australia and Beyond

Brown, Alexander Jonathan; Deem, Jacob

doi:10.1080/00343404.2014.980800

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is mostly done by comparing local identification with the identification with other spatial levels (Kato 2011;Casey 2010;Jones and Desforges 2003;Antonsich 2007Antonsich , 2010aAntonsich , 2010bSoguel & Siberstein 2015;Brown and Deem 2014;Moreno 2007). Through this focus on individual identity, they neglect studying the characteristics of local identities and their importance for local communities.…”

Section: Local Identitymentioning

confidence: 98%

Territorial changes and changing identities: how spatial identities are used in the up-scaling of local government in the Netherlands

Terlouw

2016

Local Government Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyses the use of local identities by local communities in two Dutch municipalities. This research was commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of the Interior to better understand the role of local identities in municipal amalgamations. This article develops a conceptual framework based on the distinction between a primary identity based on the widely recognised dominant characteristics of the local community, and a secondary identity based on how communities within a municipality have learned over time to deal with these different primary local identities. During an amalgamation, this secondary identity disappears with the old municipality.

show abstract

Section: Local Identitymentioning

confidence: 98%

Territorial changes and changing identities: how spatial identities are used in the up-scaling of local government in the Netherlands

Terlouw

2016

Local Government Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Drawing on work by Duchacek (1987) and Elazar (1987), Cole, Kincaid and Rodriguez (2004, see also Cole and Kincaid 2006, Kincaid and Cole 2005 evaluate preferences (a) for federalism as a form of government, (b) for the heterogeneity or diversity of cultures and (c) for decentralized decision-making. For Brown, the search for a federal political culture includes the vertical distribution of resources through fiscal federalism as well as the extent to which individuals identify with the state and/or the constituent unit of the nation (Brown 2013;Brown and Deem 2016). This work includes attitudes to institutions (their ideal arrangements, evaluations of their performance) as well as attitudes to society (their ideal construction and attachment to nested groups within the state).…”

Section: Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Unions of the mind: the UK as a subjective state

Henderson

Jones²

2021

Comp Eur Polit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That is, public opinion regarding binding collective decisions and actions taken by political actors operating within the system of government (Norris 1999). Examples of such questions gauge which levels of government provide most value for money, the perceived effectiveness of government levels, the popularity of the taxes raised by different tiers of government, the desirability of intergovernmental fiscal transfers and perceived federal government interference with regional decision making (Brown & Deem 2016; Cole & Kincaid 2006; Cole et al. 2002; Jedwab 2018; Kincaid & Cole 2011, 2016).…”

Section: Previous Research On Public Attitudes Towards Regional Gover...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Unravelling the ‘devolution paradox’: Citizen preferences for self‐rule and for shared rule

Schakel

Smith

2021

European J Political Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent survey research has revealed a 'devolution paradox': some citizens who favour stronger regional governments inconsistently desire policy uniformity across regions and state-wide intervention in policy provision. It is argued and empirically shown that preferences for regional authority can be broken down into preferences for self-rule -that is, for autonomy for the region -and for shared rule -that is, for collaboration between regional and national governments. Drawing upon the International Constitutional Values Survey, which includes 4,930 respondents from 142 regions in eight countries, it is also shown that preferences for self-rule and shared rule have different impacts. Preferences for self-rule translate into a preference for regional reform that strengthens regional autonomy, whereas preferences for shared rule drive preferences for fiscal transfers from richer to poorer regions. These results are important because they can explain why citizens who are in favour of more regional authority may support an apparently 'paradoxical' set of policy outcomes.

show abstract

A Tale of Two Regionalisms: Improving the Measurement of Regionalism in Australia and Beyond

Cited by 8 publications

References 20 publications

Territorial changes and changing identities: how spatial identities are used in the up-scaling of local government in the Netherlands

Territorial changes and changing identities: how spatial identities are used in the up-scaling of local government in the Netherlands

Unions of the mind: the UK as a subjective state

Unravelling the ‘devolution paradox’: Citizen preferences for self‐rule and for shared rule

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About