Municipalities as Governance Network Actors in Rural Communities

Abstract

The concept of rural network governance can include different practices, and it is important to gain insight into governance role formation processes. The ability of rural municipalities to effectively perform their role as governance network actors is significantly influenced by municipal organization and norms. Small differences can have big consequences and lead municipalities into different types of governance network roles. This is important to consider in situations where rural communities are facing imbalances and the municipalities increasingly are expected to engage in new roles and take more responsibility for local development. Effective strategies for using local network structures can help rural communities achieve sustainable development. We develop four different governance network models and discuss how the municipal authorities and citizen groups in two rural communities in Setesdal, Norway, perceive the current governance role of the municipality as well as their views on how this role ideally should be performed. We conclude that explanations for the different strategies relate mainly to norms and processes that are endogenous to the communities, which may indicate that rural municipalities have a great deal of autonomy in deciding how to use local network resources.

Opening the black box of participatory planning: a study of how planners handle citizens’ input

“…In addition, several interviewees used phrases such as 'We usually do it like this' when explaining their sorting practices, which suggests that organizational routines and culture also affect the sorting process (cf. Normann and Vasström 2012). Thus, another vital topic for further research concerns how differences in the sorting process depend on contextfor instance, the size and structure of the municipal administration, political majority, geography, demography etcetera.…”

Assessment of the Financial Autonomy of Rural Municipalities

“…The analysis of scientific and regulatory sources suggested clear absence of a definition of "rural municipalities". Scientists and researchers (Kriaučiūnas 2018;Horlings and Marsden 2014;Normann and Vasström 2012;Žukovskis et al 2013;Ward and Brown 2009;Atkočiūnienė 2008;Vidickienė and Melnikienė 2008) mostly analyse the definitions of "rural areas", "rural regions", "countryside", and "rural communities". Lithuania does not have any officially recognized classification of regions into rural and urban.…”

Is culture-led redevelopment relevant for rural planners? The risk of adopting urban theories in rural settings

“…This is not only because 'in Norway, local government is highly autonomous' (Hanssen and Falleth 2014, p. 404), but also because rural areas are normally associated with 'organizational thinness' (Jakobsen and Lorentzen 2015): the lack of institutions conducting research and providing education, few specialized suppliers of commercial services, and undeveloped financial infrastructures. The dominant role that the municipality plays in the overall development of rural areas (Normann and Vasström 2012) presents a challenge when putting theory into practice: it is not only challenging to transform general theories into local contexts, but the consequences may even be dire.…”