Local councillors and administrative reforms

Part of the Urban and Regional Research International book series (URI, volume 14)


Local government reform is a continuing process both in Europe and beyond. Not only are European countries experiencing an ongoing political and academic debate about the most suitable approach to local government reform; in many countries such reforms have been implemented some time ago. As Wright (1997: 8) pointed out fifteen years ago, ‘public sector reform is in fashion and no self-respecting government can afford to ignore it’. This was not only true for the 1990s, but is still true today. The NPM (New Public Management) paradigm has taken the role of the leading concept for administrative modernisation in numerous European countries and has triggered many real reform initiatives (Pollitt and Bouckaert 2004). It is beyond dispute that local government is targeted by its ‘parent systems’ in higher levels of government with NPM inspired reforms.


Public Management Public Private Partnership Local Councillor Participatory Democracy Administrative Reform 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andrews, M. and Moynihan, D. (2002) ‘Why Reforms do not always have to work to succeed: A tale of two managed competition initiatives’, Public Performance & Management Review 25 (3), 282-297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brecht, A. (1932): Internationaler Vergleich der öffentlichen Ausgaben. Teubner: Leipzig, Berlin.Google Scholar
  3. Castles, F. G. and Mair, P. (1984) ‘Left-Right Political Scales: Some ‘Expert’ Judgements’, European Journal of Political Research 12 (1), 73-88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Converse, P. E. (1964) ‘The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics’ in Apter, D. E (ed.) Ideology and Discontent. The Free Press of Glencoe: New York, 206-261.Google Scholar
  5. Egner, B., Krapp, M.-C. and Heinelt, H. (2012) Das deutsche Gemeinderatsmitglied. Problemsichten – Einstellungen – Rollenverständnis. Springer VS: Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  6. Green-Pedersen, C. 2002 ‘New Public Management Reforms of the Danish and Swedish Welfare States: The Role of Different Social Democratic Responses’, Governance 15 (2), 271-294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hammerschmid, G. and Meyer, R. E. (2005) ‘New Public Management in Austria: Local Variation on a Global Theme’, Public Administration 83 (3), 709-733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hansen, K. (2001) ‘Local Councillors: between Local ‘Government’ and Local ‘Governance’, Public Administration 79 (1), 105-123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hansen, K. (2005) ‘Representative Government and Network Governance – In Need of ‘Co-Governance’: Lessons from Local Decision Making on Public Schools in Denmark’, Scandinavian Political Studies 28 (3), 219-237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Haus, M. and Sweeting, D. (2006) ‘Mayors, Citizens and Local Democracy’, in: Bäck, H., Heinelt, H. and Magnier, A. (eds.) The European Mayors. Political Leaders in the Changing Context of Local Democracy. Verlag für ozialwissenschaften: Wiesbaden, 151-175.Google Scholar
  11. Heinelt, H. (2012) ‘Councillors’ Notions of Democracy, and their Role Perception and Behaviour in the Changing Context of Local Democracy’, Local Government Studies, DOI:10.1080/03003930.2012.670746.Google Scholar
  12. Hibbs, D. A. (1977) ‘Political Parties and Macroeconomic Policy’, American Political Science Review 23 (4), 1467-1488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Homburg, V., Pollitt, C. and van Thiel, S. (2007) ‘Introduction’, in Pollitt, C., van Thiel, S. and Homburg, V. (eds.) New Public Management in Europe. Adaptation and Alternatives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1-9.Google Scholar
  14. Krapp, M.-C. (2012) ‘Wettbewerb, Privatisierung und Public Private Partnerships als Auswege aus der Krise? Formen kommunaler Aufgabenerfüllung aus der Sicht deutscher Ratsmitglieder’, in Haus, M. and Kuhlmann, S. (eds.) Lokale Politik(- forschung) zwischen Krise und Erneuerung. Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften: Wiesbaden (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  15. Kuhlmann, S. (2009) Politik- und Verwaltungsreform in Kontinentaleuropa. Subnationaler Institutionenwandel im deutsch-französischen Vergleich. Nomos: Baden-Baden.Google Scholar
  16. Moynihan, D. P. (2006) ‘Managing for Results in State Government: Evaluating a Decade of Reform’, Public Administration Review 66 (1), 77-89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Orr, K. and Vince, R. (2009) ‘Traditions of local government’, Public Administration 87 (3), 655–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Osborne, S. P. (2006) ‘The New Public Governance’, Public Management Review 8 (3), 377-387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pandey, S. K. and Moynihan, D. P. (2006) Bureaucratic Red Tape and Organizational Performance: Testing the Moderating Role of Culture and Political Support, Working Paper Series La Follette School Working Paper No. 2005-026.Google Scholar
  20. Peters, B. G. (1997) ‘With a little help from our friends: Public-Private-Partnerships as Institutions and Instruments’, in: Pierre, J. (ed.) Partnerships in Urban Governance. European and American Experience. MacMillanPress: Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, 11-33Google Scholar
  21. Pleschberger, W. (2003) ‘Cities and Municipalities in the Austrian Political System since the 1990s. New developments between ‘efficiency’ and ‘democracy’, in Kersting, N. and Vetter, A. (eds.) Reforming Local Government in Europe. Closing the Gap between Democracy and Efficiency. Leske + Budrich: Opladen, 113-135.Google Scholar
  22. Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. (2004) Public Management Reform – A comparative Analysis. Oxford University Press: New York.Google Scholar
  23. Reichard, C. (2002) ‘Marketization of Public Services in Germany’, International Public Management Review 3 (2), 63-79.Google Scholar
  24. Sabatier, P. A. (1988) ‘An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-Oriented Learning therin’, Policy Sciences 21 (2-3), 129-168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schmidt, M. G. (1996) ‘When Parties Matter. A Review of the Possibilities and Limits of Partisan Influence on Public Policy’, European Journal of Political Research 30 (2), 155-183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Skelcher, C. (2005) ‘Public-Private Partnerships and Hybridity’, in Ferlie, E., Lynn, L. E. and Pollitt, C. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Public Management. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 347-370.Google Scholar
  27. Stephenson, M. O. (1991) ‘Whither the Public-Private Partnership. A Critical Overview’, Urban Affairs Review 27 (1), 109-127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wollmann, H. (2008) ‘Reformen in Kommunalpolitik und -verwaltung. England, Schweden, Frankreich und Deutschland im Vergleich’ in Heinelt, H. and Vetter, A. (eds.) Lokale Politikforschung heute. Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften: Wiesbaden, 197-226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wright, V. (1997) ‘The paradox of administrative reform’, in Kickert, W. J (ed.) Public Management and Administrative Reform in Western Europe. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, 7-13.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Political ScienceTechnische Universität DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany
  2. 2.Department of Economics and Social SciencesUniversity of Natural Resources and Applied Life SciencesViennaAustria
  3. 3.Institut für PolitikwissenschaftTechnische Universität DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations