Introduction

Heinelt, Hubert; Magnier, Annick; Cabria, Marcello; Reynaert, Herwig

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-67410-0_1

Cited by 8 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, as we investigated one country only, we could not assess the impact of varying political-administrative systems, such as varying horizontal power relations between the council, the mayor and the leading bureaucrats (Mouritzen and Svara, 2002). Heinelt et al (2018) found no support for the assumption that the important role played by councillors in systems with strong collegiate bodies is associated with a preference for representative democracy over participatory democracy. Hence, the Heinelt et al study suggests that findings from Norway are valid across institutional settings regarding horizontal power relations, although our analysis is somewhat different.…”

Section: Concluding Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Competing perspectives on participatory arrangements: Explaining the attitudes of elected representatives

Klausen

Vabo

Winsvold

2022

International Political Science Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we investigate elected representatives’ attitudes to citizen participation and the design of participatory arrangements. We distinguish between citizenship-oriented and governance-oriented attitudes. Whereas citizenship-oriented attitudes imply designing participatory arrangements to safeguard the democratic values of equality, transparency and inclusion, governance-oriented attitudes imply designing participatory arrangements to support elected representatives in their roles. Based on unique data from a web-based survey sent to all local councillors in Norway, we found that although Norwegian local councillors tend towards citizenship-oriented rather than governance-oriented attitudes to citizen participation, there is great variation between councillors in this respect. Analysing strategic and ideological explanations, we found that right-wing politicians tend to hold more governance-oriented attitudes than left-wing politicians do. Strategic considerations seem to have no effect on councillors in power in this regard.

show abstract

Section: Concluding Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Competing perspectives on participatory arrangements: Explaining the attitudes of elected representatives

Klausen

Vabo

Winsvold

2022

International Political Science Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Local political leadership is a field of study which investigates the behaviors, roles, and contexts (institutional, organizational, and social) in which local politicians exercise their leadership role (e.g., Lowndes and Leach, 2004; Stoker, 2003; Torfing et al , 2019). This field of study can be considered as relatively new and emerging, given the recent trends of reforms which assigned a more relevant role to local governments in and across regions, nations, and countries (e.g., Beer et al , 2019; Budd and Sancino, 2016; Hambleton, 2014; Heinelt et al , 2018; Sancino and Hudson, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Local political leadership: from managerial performances to leaders-hip hop on social media?

Sancino

2021

IJPL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe paper discusses the evolution of leadership practices performed by local political leaders in the last decade (2009–2019, a period which we might call post-global financial crisis and pre-COVID-19). It offers some new theoretical concepts to make sense of emerging contemporary public leadership practices, namely: leaders-hip hop; charismatic followership; and digital fabrication of charisma (digital charisma).Design/methodology/approachThe paper is based on a single case study, and it relies on qualitative data coming from multiple sources and collected at different points of time, specifically interviews, participant and non-participant observations from an ethnography conducted in 2009; interviews conducted between 2019 and 2020, and an analysis of the posts made within one Facebook group between February and May 2016.FindingsThe paper focuses on three stories of local political leadership at three different points in time which describe three leadership practices: political managerialism; charismatic followership; and hands-on relational leadership. It highlights the importance of hands-on relational leadership through popular acts of leadership which are performed face to face and/or on social media and the shift in the dominant technologies of local political leadership from the logic of managerialism toward the logic of social media.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper is focused on a limited temporal (2009–2019) and sociocultural context (North Italy). Findings are presented as three stories, although other ways of showing qualitative data could have been used.Practical implicationsPractical implications deal with the attempt to enable a reflexive view of local governance and public leadership attentive to soft and sociocultural variables. It is important to consider these implications for the purposes of training and learning.Originality/valueThe paper introduces new concepts to understand contemporary public leadership practices; it combines insights from a decentered theory of governance and collective theories of leadership; and it makes use of storytelling as a method for analyzing and reporting the findings.

show abstract

“…Rather, our intention is to enrich the discussion using four real-world examples of co-creation, which will be used to exemplify the possible potentials and pitfalls we discuss in the next section. The four cases are taken from Denmark and Norway, two countries traditionally understood as “most similar systems.” Both countries belong to a common governance tradition whereby the municipalities are the core welfare providers under a universal and national welfare state regime (Heinelt et al, 2018; Knutsen, 2017). Local government functions are very similar, but with a few differences which however do not influences on the analysis below (Lo & Røiseland, 2021).…”

Section: Four Examples Of Output- and Input-based Co-creationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-creating Democratic Legitimacy: Potentials and Pitfalls

Roiseland

2021

Administration & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the article is to discuss how and to what extent co-creation has the capacity to strengthen democratic legitimacy. By distinguishing between output-based and input-based co-creation, and by discussing types of legitimacy in relation to deliberative, participatory, and representative conceptions of democracy, the article points to potentials and pitfalls inherent in the idea of co-creation. Four examples from Denmark and Norway are used to illustrate the argument. In conclusion, the article points to main challenges associated with co-creation which deserves more research—particularly inequality of individual resources and the clash with the party-political system.

show abstract

Introduction

Cited by 8 publications

References 12 publications

Competing perspectives on participatory arrangements: Explaining the attitudes of elected representatives

Competing perspectives on participatory arrangements: Explaining the attitudes of elected representatives

Local political leadership: from managerial performances to leaders-hip hop on social media?

Co-creating Democratic Legitimacy: Potentials and Pitfalls

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About