Abstract
A European Union regulation established the multiannual framework for the years 2014 and 2020, introducing three mechanisms that promote collaboration and partnership: integrated territorial investment, community-led local development, and hybrid public-private partnerships. The traditional hierarchical structure developed in the industrial age is difficult to adapt to the contemporary requirements of cooperation. Therefore, the development of a heterarchical structure can be observed in the context of modern public administration functioning. This chapter argues that trust is an important element of building an integrated territorial investment in a heterarchical structure. Trust is an essential component that facilitates fluent interactions, the flow of information, and other conditions necessary to set up and develop an integrated territorial investment.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Attention should be drawn to two complementary lines of research that shaped the modern paradigm of trust in the phase of the industrial revolution. The first became pronounced in the area of economic sciences, which Olivier Williamson called transaction cost theory (Williamson 1991). The second line, which arose in the area of legal science, is S. Macaulay’s and I. Macneil’s relational contract theory (Macaulay 1985; Macneil 1978).
- 2.
The term “heterarchy” was introduced into science in the mid-1940s by the American cyberneticist and neuropsychologist, W. S. McCulloch (McCulloch 1945). The exemplification of a heterarchy—elements of an equivalent position in and, similarly, the potential of the impact that can constitute a component part of a hierarchical system or form a separate structure—in the 1950s became an array structure, which broke away from the Fayol principles of unity of management and unity of giving orders. However, by the 1980s, this term had been forgotten and rediscovered by management science and political science. J. Ogilvy referred to heterarchies as noncentralized and distributed centers of authority (Ogilvy 1977; Ogilvy 2002).
- 3.
I am deliberately not discussing the imperfections of a heterarchy here. However, it should be noted that “network structures are—in fact—flexible, but may be too comprehensive to respond quickly to new challenges. Furthermore, responsibility is inevitably “diluted” in such structures. New bodies of authority can also develop in them with insufficient legitimacy” (W. Hoffmann-Riem 1999: 379).
- 4.
The Act on rules the principles of implementing programmes regarding the financial cohesion policy in the 2014–2020 financial perspective (Journal of Laws of 2014, item 1146).
- 5.
Resolution No. 239 of the Council of Ministers of 13 December 2011 on the adoption of the National Spatial Management Concept 2013 (M.P. 2012 item 252).
- 6.
Article 47, para. 3 of the Act on spatial planning and development of 27 March 2003 (Journal of Laws of 2003, item 778).
- 7.
Therefore, cooperation of territorial self-government bodies is a sine qua non condition for gaining access to hybrid financing, both from the European Regional Development Fund and European Social Fund. In Poland, the integrated territorial investments instrument is necessarily implemented in voivodship cities and areas that are functionally related to them (it may optionally be implemented in other towns and cities and areas functionally related to them). Funds for integrated territorial investments are available under the regional operational programs and the so-called program reserve and can, for example, be used to develop sustainable transport connecting the city with its functional area, promote energy efficiency, revitalize functional areas of cities, strengthen innovation and technological development, and/or improve nature and/or the environment of the functional area.
References
Bachmann, R., & Inkpen, A. (2011). Understanding institutional – Based trust bilding process in interorganizational relationships. Organization Studies, 32(2), 281–301.
Chiles, T. H., & McMackin, J. F. (1996). Integrating variable risk preferences, trust, and transaction cost economics. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 73–99.
Coffé, B., & Geys, B. (2005). Performance and social capital: An application to the local government level. Journal of Urban Affairs, 27(5), 485–501.
Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Currall, S. C., & Judge, T. A. (1995). Measuring trust between organizational boundary role persons. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64(2), 151–170.
Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2(2), 129–152.
Di Maggio, E. (2001). Conclusion: The futures of business organization and Paradoxes of change. In E. Di Maggio (Ed.), The twenty-first-century firm: Changing economic organization in international perspective (pp. 210–244). Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Gulati, R. (1995). Social structure and alliance formation patterns: A longitudinal analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(4), 619–652.
Hardin, R. (2002). Trust and trustworthiness. New York: Russell Sage Foundations.
Hoffmann-Riem, W. (1999). Strukturen des Europäischen Verwaltungsrechts – Perspektiven der Systembildung [Structures of european administrative law – Perspectives of systemic formation]. In E. Schmidt-Assmann & W. Hoffmann-Riem (Eds.), Strukturen des Europàischen Verwaltungsrechts. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Hosmer, L. T. (1995). Thrust: The connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 379–403.
Jessop, B. (2002). The future of the capitalist state. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Kickert, W. J., Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (1999). Managing complex networks. Strategies for the public sector. London: Sage Publications.
Klijn, E. H., Edelenbos, J., & Steijn, B. (2010). Trust in governance networks: Its impacts on outcomes. Administration and Society, 42(2), 193–221.
Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power. Chichester: Wiley.
Macauly, S. (1985). An empirical view of contract. Wisconsin Law Review, 465, 465–482.
MacCrimmon, K. R., & Wehrung, D. A. (1986). Taking risks: The management of uncertainty. New York: Free Press.
Macneil, I. R. (1978). Contracts: Adjustment of long-term economic relations under classical, neoclassical, and relational contract law. Northwestern University Law Review, 72(6), 854–905.
Marinetto, M. (2003). Governing beyond the centre: A critique of the anglo-governance school. Political Studies, 51(3), 592–608.
McCulloch, W. S. (1945). A heterarchy of values determined by the typology of nervous nets. The Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, 7(2), 89–93.
Morphet, J. (2008). Modern local government. London: Sage Publication.
Nummela, N. (2003). Looking through a prism-multiple perspectives to commitment to international R&D collaboration. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14(1), 137–138.
Ogilvy, J. (1977). Many dimensional man: Decentralizing self, society, and the sacred. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ogilvy, J. (2002). Creating better futures: Scenario planning as a tool for a better tomorrow. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1995). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404.
Wallis, J., & Dollery, B. (2002). Social capital and local government capacity. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 61(3), 76–85.
Warner, M. (2001). Building social capital: The role of government. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 30, 187–192.
Williamson, O. E. (1991). Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2), 269–296.
Williamson, O. E. (1996). The mechanism of governance. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Peronne, V. (1998). Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science, 9(2), 141–159.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chrisidu-Budnik, A. (2018). Trust in an Integrated Territorial Investment. In: Kożuch, B., Magala, S., Paliszkiewicz, J. (eds) Managing Public Trust. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70485-2_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70485-2_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-70484-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-70485-2
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)