En
Register Log in
  1. Main
  2. Monograph
  3. Vectors of socio-economic development in Russia. M...
  4. Local leadership and local self-government in the...

Local leadership and local self-government in the context of austerity: the European experience

Book Chapter
DOI: 10.31483/r-115888
Open Access
Monograph «Vectors of socio-economic development in Russia. Modern challenges and opportunities»
Creative commons logo
Published in:
Monograph «Vectors of socio-economic development in Russia. Modern challenges and opportunities»
Author:
Aleksandr I. Kugai 1
Work direction:
Глава 4
Pages:
58-67
Received: 10 January 2025

Rating:
Article accesses:
259
Published in:
РИНЦ
1 Severo-Zapadnyi institut upravleniia FGBOU VO "Rossiiskaia akademiia narodnogo khoziaistva i gosudarstvennoi sluzhby pri Prezidente RF"
For citation:
Danilchenko S. L., Shemet V. S., Minakov A. V., Ivanova L. N., Kugai A. I., Malashenko I. V., Kruglov V. N., Alekseeva N. A., Abasheva O. I., Konina E. A., Abasheva O. V., Doronina S. A., Kostenko E. G., Sal'nikova N. A., Kurdiumov A. V., & Shaibakova L. F. (2025). Vectors of socio-economic development in Russia. Modern challenges and opportunities, 172. Чебоксары: PH "Sreda". https://doi.org/10.31483/a-10685

Abstract

The chapter examines the problems that are solved by local authorities and local political leaders in the European context. Three specific approaches have been identified that can be used by central and regional authorities in relation to local self-government, as well as by political leaders in managing their territories: corporate (joint), coercive and conceptual. Cooperative in nature and based on the pooling of local and national resources and political potential, both by local leaders and through interaction between levels of government. The coercive approach is based either on direct political control – through the power of the central government (and local leaders), or on the use of pressure, political persuasion or incentives, where direct political control is exercised. The conceptual model recognizes the need to address the gap between what is politically feasible – what local government and local leaders can do and achieve – and reality. Understanding this conceptual gap is essential given the pace of change in local government and the varying capabilities of local leaders to respond to emerging challenges such as austerity.

References

  1. 1. Кугай А.И. Глава муниципальной администрации: векторы лидерского влияния / А.И. Кугай // Управленческое консультирование. – 2024. – №1. – С. 10–22. – DOI 10.22394/1726-1139-2024-1-10-22. – EDN WGFGVE
  2. 2. Кугай А.И. Последствия глобализации и новые механизмы государственного управления / А.И. Кугай // Стратегии устойчивого развития: социальные, экономические и юридические аспекты: материалы Всероссийской научно-практической конференции / Чувашский государственный университет им. И.Н. Ульянова; Российское общество «Знание». – Чебоксары: Среда, 2023. – С. 61–63. EDN VRLAKE
  3. 3. Back H. (2005). The Institutional Setting of Local Political Leadership and Community Involvement. In: Haus, M., Heinelt, H., Stewart, M (eds) Urban Governance and Democracy: Leadership and Community Involvement. Oxford: Routledge, pp.65–99.
  4. 4. Bouckaert G., Kuhlmann S. (2016). Tensions, Challenges and Future «Flags’ of Local Public Sector Reforms in Comparative Research. In: Kuhlmann, S. & Bouckaert, G. (eds) (2016) in Local Public Sector Reforms in Times of Crisis: National Trajectories and International Comparisons. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 347–353.
  5. 5. Benson D., Jordan A. (2011). What have we learned from policy transfer research? Political Studies Review, 9(3), pp. 366–378.
  6. 6. De Ceuninck K., Reynaert H. (2016). Central-Local Relations in Flanders: Structural Reforms, Scale and Decentralisation. Croatian and Comparative Public Administration, 16(1), pp. 5–29.
  7. 7. Evans M. (2009). Policy transfer in critical perspective. Policy Studies, 30(3), pp. 243–268.
  8. 8. Guerin E., Kerrouche E. (2008). From Amateurs to Professionals: The changing face of Local elected representatives. Local Government Studies, 34(2), pp. 179–201.
  9. 9. Goldsmith M., Page E. (eds.) (2010). Changing Government Relations in Europe: from Localism to Intergovernmentalism. London: Routledge / ECPR.
  10. 10. Hoffman I., Rozsnyai K. (2015). The Supervision of Self-Government Bodies Regulations in Hungry. Lex Localis – Journal of Local Self-Government, 13(3), pp. 485–502.
  11. 11. Hlynsdottir E. (2016). Leading the Locality: Icelandic Local Government Leadership Dilemma. Lex Localis – Journal of Local Self-Government, 14(4), pp. 807–826.
  12. 12. Iglesias A., Barbeito R. (2016). Does e-participation Influence and Improve Political Decision Making Processes? Evidence From a Local Government. Lex Localis – Journal of Local Self-Government, 14(4), pp. 873–891.
  13. 13. Kitson M., Martin R., Tyler P. (2011). The Geographies of Austerity, Cambridge Journal of Regions. Economy and Society, 4(3), pp. 289–302.
  14. 14. Kuhlmann S., Bouckaert G. (eds.) (2016). Local Public Sector Reforms in Times of Crisis: National Trajectories and International Comparisons. London: Macmillan.
  15. 15. Kjear U. (2014). Local Political Leadership: The Art of Circulating Political Capital. Local Government Studies, 39(2), pp. 253–272.
  16. 16. Lysek J. (2016). Tackling Bureaucracy Growth in Time of Crisis: The Case of Czech Statutory Cities. Lex Localis – Journal of Local Self-Government. 14(4), pp. 783–806.
  17. 17. Mouritzen P., Svara J. (2002). Leadership at the Apex: Politicians and Administrators in Western Local Governments. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
  18. 18. Ravazzi S. (2016). Philanthropic Foundations and Local Policy Making in the Austerity Era: Does Urban Governance Matter? Lex Localis – Journal of Local Self-Government, 14(4), pp. 917–935.
  19. 19. Sorensen E., Torfing J. (eds.) (2007). Theories of Democratic Network Governance. London: Palgrave.
  20. 20. Stoker G. Transforming Local Governance: From Thatcherism to New Labour. London: Palgrave. 2004.
  21. 21. Stone C. (1995). Political Leadership in Urban Politics. In: Judge D., Stoker G. & Wolman H. (eds) Theories of Urban Politics. London: Sage, pp. 96–116.
  22. 22. Swianiewicz P. (2014). An Empirical Typology of Local Government Systems in Eastern Europe. Local Government Studies, 40(2), pp. 292–311.
  23. 23. Stolzenberg P., Getimis P. (2016). Fiscal Consolidation in German and Greek Municipalities: The Interplay of Leadership and Legitimacy. Lex Localis – Journal of Local Self-Government, 14(4), pp. 893–916.
  24. 24. Torfing J., Peters B.G., Pierre J., Sorensen E. Interactive Governance: Advancing the Paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2013.

Comments(0)

When adding a comment stipulate:
  • the relevance of the published material;
  • general estimation (originality and relevance of the topic, completeness, depth, comprehensiveness of topic disclosure, consistency, coherence, evidence, structural ordering, nature and the accuracy of the examples, illustrative material, the credibility of the conclusions;
  • disadvantages, shortcomings;
  • questions and wishes to author.