Close Ties in European Local

Governance: Linking Local State and

Society 1st ed. Edition Filipe Teles
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/close-ties-in-european-local-governance-linking-local-
state-and-society-1st-ed-edition-filipe-teles/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

State and Local Government 11th Edition Ann O'M Bowman

https://ebookmass.com/product/state-and-local-government-11th-
edition-ann-om-bowman/

Local Integration of Migrants Policy : European

Experiences and Challenges 1st ed. Edition Jochen
Franzke

https://ebookmass.com/product/local-integration-of-migrants-
policy-european-experiences-and-challenges-1st-ed-edition-jochen-
franzke/

In a Bad State: Responding to State and Local Budget

Crises David Schleicher

https://ebookmass.com/product/in-a-bad-state-responding-to-state-
and-local-budget-crises-david-schleicher/

Local Integration of Migrants Policy: European

Experiences and Challenges Jochen Franzke

https://ebookmass.com/product/local-integration-of-migrants-
policy-european-experiences-and-challenges-jochen-franzke/
The Local and the Digital in Environmental
Communication 1st ed. Edition Joana Díaz-Pont

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-local-and-the-digital-in-
environmental-communication-1st-ed-edition-joana-diaz-pont/

Innovative Infrastructure Finance: A Guide for State

and Local Governments Can Chen

https://ebookmass.com/product/innovative-infrastructure-finance-
a-guide-for-state-and-local-governments-can-chen/

Tensions in World Literature: Between the Local and the

Universal 1st ed. Edition Weigui Fang

https://ebookmass.com/product/tensions-in-world-literature-
between-the-local-and-the-universal-1st-ed-edition-weigui-fang/

Postcolonial Literatures in the Local Literary

Marketplace: Located Reading 1st ed. Edition Jenni
Ramone

https://ebookmass.com/product/postcolonial-literatures-in-the-
local-literary-marketplace-located-reading-1st-ed-edition-jenni-
ramone/

Researching Newsreels: Local, National and

Transnational Case Studies 1st ed. Edition Ciara
Chambers

https://ebookmass.com/product/researching-newsreels-local-
national-and-transnational-case-studies-1st-ed-edition-ciara-
chambers/
PALGRAVE STUDIES IN
SUB-NATIONAL GOVERNANCE

Close Ties in European

Local Governance
Linking Local State and Society
Edited by
Filipe Teles
Adam Gendźwiłł
Cristina Stănuș
Hubert Heinelt
Palgrave Studies in Sub-National Governance

Series Editors
Linze Schaap
Tilburg University
Tilburg, The Netherlands

Jochen Franzke
University of Potsdam
Potsdam, Germany

Hanna Vakkala
University of Lapland
Rovaniemi, Finland

Filipe Teles
University of Aveiro
Aveiro, Portugal
This series explores the formal organisation of sub-national government
and democracy on the one hand, and the necessities and practices of
regions and cities on the other hand. In monographs, edited volumes and
Palgrave Pivots, the series will consider the future of territorial governance
and of territory-based democracy; the impact of hybrid forms of territorial
government and functional governance on the traditional institutions of
government and representative democracy and on public values; what
improvements are possible and effective in local and regional democracy;
and, what framework conditions can be developed to encourage minority
groups to participate in urban decision-making. Books in the series will
also examine ways of governance, from ‘network governance’ to ‘triple
helix governance’, from ‘quadruple’ governance to the potential of ‘mul-
tiple helix’ governance. The series will also focus on societal issues, for
instance global warming and sustainability, energy transition, economic
growth, labour market, urban and regional development, immigration
and integration, and transport, as well as on adaptation and learning in
sub-national government. The series favours comparative studies, and
especially volumes that compare international trends, themes, and devel-
opments, preferably with an interdisciplinary angle. Country-by-country
comparisons may also be included in this series, provided that they contain
solid comparative analyses.

More information about this series at

http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/15960
 Filipe Teles • Adam Gendźwiłł
Cristina Stănuș • Hubert Heinelt
Editors

Close Ties in
European Local
Governance
Linking Local State and Society
Editors
Filipe Teles Adam Gendźwiłł
Research Unit on Governance Department of Local Development
Competitiveness and Public Policies and Policy
Department of Social, Political and Faculty of Geography and
Territorial Sciences Regional Studies
University of Aveiro University of Warsaw
Aveiro, Portugal Warsaw, Poland

Cristina Stănuș Hubert Heinelt

Faculty of Social Sciences and Institute of Political Science
Humanities Technische Universität Darmstadt
Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu Darmstadt, Germany
Sibiu, Romania

ISSN 2523-8248     ISSN 2523-8256 (electronic)

Palgrave Studies in Sub-National Governance
ISBN 978-3-030-44793-9    ISBN 978-3-030-44794-6 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44794-6

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2021
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the
publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to
the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The
publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

Cover illustration: Dmitry Merkushin / Alamy Stock Vector

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Preface

Why Did We Publish This Book?

We intend to deliver a readable and informative book, particularly useful
for those interested in local governance and in the role of institutionalized
networks between societal actors and local government. This book’s origi-
nalities lie in the comparability it allows and in the comprehensive infor-
mation it provides about these networks, which—despite their
relevance—have been less discussed.
It should be made clear, just at the beginning of this book, that it pres-
ents just results of a first step of a broader research project1 and that these
results will form the basis for a much more ambitious undertaking—
namely a survey of actors involved in networks representing local state-­
society relations in the countries from which project partners are involved.
As not all kinds of local state-society relations in these countries can be
covered by the planned survey, criteria for selecting some for each country
(between three and five per country) have to be defined. In the planned
survey the respondents will be recruited only from the networks described
in the country chapters of this book. The first criterion for the selection of
networks was (as already mentioned) that they are institutionalized. The
institutionalization can be done either by law (of upper levels of govern-
ment) or by contract of the involved partners.2 Furthermore, the focus
should be put on the networks which are of representative types: either
characterizing local state-society relations in a country by a particular form
or representing features which also other (similar) networks have.

v
vi PREFACE

Finally, networks of local state-society relations have to be character-

ized. This is not only crucial for this book to reflect on the patterns to be
found among the networks along or across countries and policy domains.
More importantly, characteristics of the networks have to be made clear
from which participants will be included in the survey. Such characteristics
are set out by a typology presented in Chap. 2 and are operationalized in
Chap. 3.3
The identification of different types of networks in the countries
included in the study will allow a robust comparison and analysis. Such
comparative reflections of the findings presented in the country chapters
will be offered in the concluding chapter. The comparative reflections deal
with a number of questions. Obvious questions are (a) whether or not
patterns of the identified types of networks can be detected, (b) whether
or not these patterns are country-specific or policy-specific, and if country-
specific patterns can be detached and (c) explained by the typology of
“national infrastructures” for local governance arrangements developed
by Sellers et al. (2020; see also Sellers and Kwak 2011 and Sellers and
Lidström 2014). Furthermore, there is the question why there are differ-
ences among countries also in networks which are substantially structured
by EU legislation—like the Local Action Groups (LAGs)4 of the LEADER5
funding scheme.

The Origin of the Book

This book originates from the work of a group of scholars organized into
the standing groups on Local Government and Politics (LOGOPOL) of
the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) or the European
Urban Research Association (EURA).
This group has carried out surveys since more than 20 years on actors
performing different roles within local government.6 The main aim of
these surveys has been to shed light on issues that cannot be specified
either by comparative analysis of the institutional set-up of local govern-
ment or by comparative case studies on individual cities in different coun-
tries—that is, issues like problem perceptions or attitudes toward the
administrative reforms of mayors, councilors, or high-ranking appointed
employees as well as their values, policy priorities, behavior, role defini-
tion, perception of self-influence, and role behavior, including leadership
style. Furthermore, little comparative information was available at the
 PREFACE vii

time on the social profile of these actors. The same applies to their notion
of democracy and whether and how it differs among countries, how dif-
ferences in their notions of democracy can be explained, and whether dif-
ferent notions of democracy matter for instance with respect to role
definition and role behavior or attitudes toward administrative reforms.
Moreover, no information was available to determine whether problem
perceptions and notions of democracy (a) differ among mayors, council-
ors, or high-ranking appointed employees as well as (b) among councilors
from different levels of local government (i.e. municipalities and the so-­
called second tier of local government, like counties, provinces, and
départements), and (c) whether they have changed over time. The interest
in these topics has been naturally extended to cover the non-state actors
involved in institutionalized networks of local state—society relations,
which are the subject of this project.
The composition of the academic network and the themes that it
addresses correspond to the current mixed configuration of “urban politi-
cal science,” namely the convergence among different approaches in polit-
ical science and sociology, as more or less explicitly illustrated in many of
the international assessments of the state of the art (e.g. Mossberger et al.
2012; Loughlin et al. 2010).
Several workshops were organized for the current study on local state-­
society relations. The first one took place in Bensheim (Germany) from
24th to 26 November 2017 to reflect conceptually on the interaction
between municipalities and societal actors and to consider if and how a
survey related to the actors involved in these interactions could be carried
out. A second workshop took place on the Greek island of Hydra between
10 and 13 May 2018. This workshop was focused on the planning of the
theoretical chapters as well as country chapters of this book. Furthermore,
the participants initiated the development of a questionnaire which will be
sent to actors involved in selected local state-society network. Both drafts
of book chapters and a draft of the questionnaire were discussed at a third
workshop, which took place in Aveiro (Portugal) on 6 and 7 March 2019.
A fourth workshop took place in Kaunas (Lithuania), on 14 and 15
November 2019, where the questionnaire for the survey was agreed
among the involved partners. The organization of these workshops and,
consequently, the development of this book were partially supported by a
small grant of the European Urban Research Association.
viii PREFACE

This volume is clearly a collective effort of a longstanding group of

scholars whose most recent contribution to this field of knowledge is
reflected in the following pages. The editors would also like to
acknowledge the significant number of other academics who volun-
tarily agreed to follow this endeavor, namely through their helpful and
valuable comments, suggestions, and blind review of every chapter of
this book.

Aveiro, Portugal Filipe Teles

Warsaw, Poland  Adam Gendźwiłł
Sibiu, Romania  Cristina Stănuş
Darmstadt, Germany  Hubert Heinelt

Notes
1. This research project receives no direct funding. Instead, the involved part-
ners mobilize and bring in own resources for the studies presented in this
book and for the planned survey. In those cases where there is/was indi-
vidual/national funding for developing research, it is acknowledged in the
respective chapter.
2. Without going further, we like to emphasize that we proceed from new-­
institutionalist approaches that are not just looking at “organisation fields”
(created by law or contracts) but also at “meaning systems” and the comple-
mentarities between the two (see Scott 1994: 57 ff. and 70–71). It is left to
the project partners to follow one of the different new-institutionalisms (see
Hall and Taylor 1996 as well as Schmidt 2010).
3. It must be emphasized that these characteristics are generalizations referring
to the country as a whole. This means that there can be local differences.
These differences (and their extent) can only be determined by the
planned survey.
4. More details about LAGs will be presented in various country chapters of
this book (see particularly the chapter on Spain).
5. The acronym corresponds to Liaisons Entre Activités de Developpement de
l’Economie Rural, that is, linking activities of rural economy development.
6. An overview about these surveys, their core questions and main findings, as
well as the publications which resulted out of them is given in Heinelt and
Magnier 2018 and Heinelt et al. 2018: 2–4.
 Preface  ix

References
Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). Political Science and the Three New
Institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(5), 936–957.
Heinelt, H., & Magnier, A. (2018). Analysing Governance Through Local
Leaders’ Perceptions: Comparative Surveys, Academic Networks, and Main
Results. Revista Española de Ciencia Política, 46(1), 157–172.
Heinelt, H., Magnier, A, Cabria, M, & Reynaert, H. (2018). Introduction. In
H. Heinelt, A. Magnier, M. Cabria, & H. Reynaert (Eds.), Political Leaders
and Changing Local Democracy: The European Mayor (pp. 1–17). Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Loughlin, J., Hendriks, F., & Lidström, A (Eds.). (2012). The Oxford Handbook
of Local and Regional Democracy in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mossberger, K., Clarke, S. E., & John, P. (2012). Studying Politics in an Urban
World: Research Traditions and New Directions. In K. Mossberger, S. E. Clarke,
& P. John (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Urban Politics (pp. 2–8). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Schmidt, V.A. (2010). Taking Ideas and Discourse Seriously: Explaining Change
through Discursive Institutionalism as the Fourth ‘New Institutionalism’.
European Political Science Review, 2(1), 1–25.
Scott, R. W. (1994). Institutions and Organizations: Towards a Theoretical
Synthesis. In R. W. Scott & J. W. Meyer (Eds.), Institutional Environment and
Organizations. Structural Complexity and Individualism (pp. 55–80).
Thousand Oaks, London, and New Delhi: Sage.
Sellers, J. M., & Kwak, S.-Y. (2011). State and Society in Local Governance:
Lessons from a Multilevel Comparison. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research, 35(3), 620–643.
Sellers, J. M., & Lidström, A. (2014). Multilevel Democracy, Societal Organization
and the Development of the Modern State. Paper Prepared for Presentation at the
23 Nordic Local Government Conference, Odense 27–29 November 2014.
Sellers, J., Lidström, A., & Bae, Y. (2020). Multilevel Democracy: How Local
Institutions and Civil Society Shape the Modern State. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
 Praise for Close Ties in European Local Governance

“This edited volume on local state-society relations is the result of an ambitious

comparative research project. In focus for the book are intermediate structures
between local authorities and actors and stakeholders in the local community in
European countries. The country chapters are structured according to a theoreti-
cal framework developed by the authors that leads to a typology for describing the
structures sampled for each country according to the autonomy, cohesion and
effectiveness of the networks and institutions. This book is recommended for stu-
dents and scholars in governance and local government studies.”
—Henry Bäck, Emeritus Professor of Public Administration, Gothenburg
University, Sweden

“A book on local state-society relations fills a most important gap in the literature
on, and understanding of local politics and policy-making. The systematic and
comparative approach, and the scope of the book (22 European countries) means
that theory-building in the field may proceed on much firmer ground than before
since previous contributions have often been case studies or single-country studies.
The typology of municipal-­society relations that guide the country studies included
in this book will remain a benchmark in the field in the years to come.”
—Harald Baldersheim, Professor Emeritus in Political Science,
University of Oslo, Norway

“This book is about analyzing, measuring, explaining local state-society networks

in more than 20 European countries from Austria to Britain, Greece or Poland.
This books goes convincingly beyond national typologies to emphasise the role of
agency and innovation in particular policy sectors. A major contribution to grasp
the local governance of Europe.”
—Patrick Le Galès, CNRS Research Professor of Sociology and Politics,
Science Po, Paris, France
 Contents

1 Interactions of Societal Actors and Local Government

in Institutionalized Governance Arrangements:
The Book’s Scope and Content  1
Filipe Teles, Adam Gendźwiłł, Cristina Stănuş,
and Hubert Heinelt

2 Diversity in Local State-Society Relations: A Typology to

Grasp Differences in Institutional Networks 13
Filipe Teles

3 How to Measure the Autonomy, Coherence and Relevance

of Local State-Society Relations 31
Björn Egner, Hubert Heinelt, and Detlef Sack

4 Local State-Society Relations in Austria 39

Werner Pleschberger

5 Local State–Society Relations in Flanders (Belgium) 55

Koenraad De Ceuninck and Tom Verhelst

6 Local State–Society Relations in Croatia 73

Ivan Koprić, Dubravka Jurlina Alibegović,
Romea Manojlović Toman, Dario Čepo,
and Sunčana Slijepčević

xiii
xiv Contents

7 Local State-Society Relations in the Czech Republic 91

Jakub Lysek and Dan Ryšavý

8 Local State-Society Relations in England105

Alistair Jones and Colin Copus

9 Local State-Society Relations in Finland117

Linnéa Henriksson

10 Local State-Society Relations in France133

Deborah Galimberti

11 Local State-Society Relations in Germany149

Björn Egner, Hubert Heinelt, and Detlef Sack

12 Local State-Society Relations in Greece165

Panagiotis Getimis

13 Local State–Society Relations in Iceland181

Grétar Þór Eyþórsson and Eva Marín Hlynsdóttir

14 Local State-Society Relations in Ireland195

Paula Russell

15 Local State-Society Relations in Italy215

Annick Magnier and Marcello Cabria

16 Local State-Society Relations in Latvia231

Iveta Reinholde, Inese Ā boliņa, and Malvine Stučka

17 Local State-Society Relations in Lithuania243

Jurga Bučaitė-Vilkė and Aistė Lazauskienė

18 Local State-Society Relations in the Netherlands259

Hans Vollaard
 Contents  xv

19 Local State-Society Relations in Norway275

Karin Fossheim

20 Local State–Society Relations in Poland289

Adam Gendźwiłł, Joanna Krukowska, and Paweł Swianiewicz

21 Local State-Society Relations in Portugal303

Luís Mota, Patrícia Silva, and Filipe Teles

22 Local State-Society Relations in Romania319

Cristina Stănuș and Daniel Pop

23 Local State-Society Relations in Spain337

Carmen Navarro and Lluis Medir

24 Local State-Society Relations in Sweden353

Anders Lidström and David Feltenius

25 Local State-Society Relations in Switzerland367

Oliver Dlabac

26 Local State-Society Relations in European Countries:

Main Findings379
Hubert Heinelt, Filipe Teles, Adam Gendźwiłł,
and Cristina Stănuş

Index423
 Notes on Contributors

Inese Ā boliņ a is Deputy Executive Director and a lecturer of the Faculty

of Social Sciences at the University of Latvia, Latvia. She received her
Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Latvia. Her Ph.D. thesis
focused on public administration aspect of presidential vetoes and
leadership in decision-making within the political governance in Latvia.
Her research interests include political leadership, decision-­making, gov-
ernance, network governance, and the formation of democracy.
Dubravka Jurlina Alibegović is a senior research fellow and the Head of
the Department for Regional Economics at the Institute of Economics,
Zagreb, Croatia. Her main research topics are local public finance, fiscal
decentralization, intergovernmental fiscal relations, and local development.
Jurga Bučaitė-Vilkė is an associate professor in the Department of
Sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Vytautas Magnus University,
Lithuania. Her research focuses on participatory democracy, local gover-
nance, and local social welfare policies. She has been involved in several
research projects on local governance, community participation, and ter-
ritorial welfare policies. She also works as an external expert for the
Research Council of Lithuania.
Marcello Cabria is a Ph.D. candidate in a joint program between the
University of Florence, Department of Social and Political Sciences, and
the University of Turin, Department of Cultures, Politics and Society,
Italy. His research interests are currently focused on local development.

xvii
xviii NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Dario Č epo is an assistant professor at the Chair of Sociology, Faculty

of Law, University of Zagreb, Croatia. His main research interests are
legislative institutions, the European Union, and conservative social
movements.
Koenraad De Ceuninck is Assistant Professor of Local Politics at the
Centre for Local Politics, Ghent University, Belgium. His main research
areas are scale and local government, reforms of local government, munic-
ipal amalgamations, and inter-municipal cooperation.
Colin Copus is Emeritus Professor of Local Politics at De Montfort
University, UK, and a visiting professor at Ghent University, Belgium. His
main research interests are local party politics, the constitutional status of
local government, and the developing role of the councilor. He has
extensive experience as an academic advisor to government and policy
bodies: Communities and local Government Committee of the House
of Commons on the role of the councilor, All Party Parliamentary
Group for District Councils, All Party Parliamentary Group on Local
Democracy, Chair of the Local Government Association, National
Association of Local Councils, Committee on Standards in Public
Life Inquiry into Standards in Local Government, Council of Europe,
Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, Localis (not-for-profit,
neo-localist think-tank), Association of Democratic Service Officers,
and Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the House of
Commons.
Oliver Dlabac is a senior researcher at the Centre for Democracy Studies
Aarau, University of Zurich, Switzerland. He leads the research group on
local democracy and teaches on decentralization. He is interested
in local and regional democracy in Switzerland and in comparative
perspective, including issues of laymen organization, administrative
reforms, urban planning, housing policy, school governance, metro-
politan governance, and state rescaling.
Björn Egner is an adjunct professor at the Institute of Political Science,
Technische Universität Darmstadt, Germany. He chairs the research group
“Methodology and Philosophy of Science” at the institute. His
research interests include local politics, quantitative methodology,
and policy analysis, especially housing policy and fiscal policy.
 NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS xix

Grétar Þór Eyþórsson is Professor of Government and Methodology at

the University of Akureyri, Iceland (2008). He was Director of the
University of Akureyri Research Institute and the Icelandic Institute for
Regional Policy Research (2001–2005), Director of Bifröst University
Research Centre (2005–2008), and a professor at Bifröst University
(2005–2008). His research has, for long, been local government and
politics—especially territorial reforms. Further, he has done research
related to regional and rural development and politics. He was a
board member of Nordregio (Nordic and European research center for
regional development and planning) in 2002–2007 and is since 2009 the
contact point (ECP) for Iceland in ESPON (European Territorial
Observatory Network).
David Feltenius is an associate professor in the Department of Political
Science, Umeå University, Sweden. In addition to studies of civil society,
his research focuses on marketization and the welfare state, central-local
government relations, and territorial politics. Recent publications include
an article on civil society and marketization in the Journal of Civil
Society (with Jessika Wide, Vol. 15, 2019, No. 3), as well as a chapter
on subnational government in a multilevel perspective in the Oxford
Handbook of Swedish Politics (ed. Jon Pierre). He is working on a
research project focusing on public providers of elderly care in a mar-
ketized welfare state, financed by the Swedish Research Council for
Health, Working Life and Welfare (FORTE).
Karin Fossheim is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Political
Science, University of Oslo, Norway. She is also a research political scien-
tist at the Norwegian Institute of Transport Economics (TØI). Her
research includes local government, governance networks, urban develop-
ment, democratic governance, and political representation.
Deborah Galimberti holds a Ph.D. in Political Science and in European
Urban and Local Studies. She has been teaching and researching in France
for ten years before joining the Department of Political and Social Science
at the University of Florence, Italy, as Marie Skłodowska-Curie Research
Fellow in 2018. Her research interests include comparative territorial poli-
tics and policies in Europe, local development and governance, as
well as more broadly political economy and sociology.
xx NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Adam Gendźwiłł is Assistant Professor of Political Sociology in the

Department of Local Development and Policy at the University of Warsaw,
Poland. His research interests comprise local politics, electoral studies, and
party politics. He is also interested in research design and methodology of
social research.
Panagiotis Getimis was Professor of Urban and Regional Policies in the
Department of Economics and Regional Development at the Panteion
University of Political and Social Sciences, Greece. His research focuses on
local government studies, local and regional development, metropolitan
governance, and spatial planning.
Hubert Heinelt is Professor of Public Administration, Public Policy, and
Urban Research at the Institute of Political Science, Technische Universität
Darmstadt, Germany. Between 2010 and 2013 he was the president of the
European Urban Research Association (EURA). His research covers vari-
ous policies (particularly labor market, environment, climate policy) in
multilevel systems. Furthermore, he is interested in how the shift from
government to governance can be turned into a participatory form meet-
ing standards of democratic self-determination.
Linnéa Henriksson is a university teacher in the Department of Public
Administration at Åbo Akademi University, Finland. She is interested in local
politics and local politicians, roles and representation, municipal service pro-
duction and privatization thereof, and implementing bilingual administration.
She is the chair of NORKOM (Nordiska Kommunforskningsföreningen, the
Nordic Municipal Research Association).
Eva Marín Hlynsdóttir is Associate Professor of Public Policy and
Governance at the University of Iceland, Iceland. In her research she has
focused on local government and public administration from a broad per-
spective including issues such as local leadership and horizontal power
relations at the local level as well as central-local relations.
Alistair Jones is Associate Professor of Politics and a university teacher
fellow at De Montfort University, UK. His main research interests are on
parish councils in England, and on Britain’s relationship with the EU. Jones
has written several textbooks, including Britain and the European Union
(2007) and Contemporary British Politics and Government (2002). He is
frequently in the local, national, and international media commenting on
a range of issues in relation to British politics.
 NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS xxi

Ivan Koprić is Professor of Administrative Science and Local Governance

at the Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb; president of the Institute of
Public Administration in Zagreb, Croatia; and the editor-in-chief of
Croatian and Comparative Public Administration. His current work is
focused on administrative reforms at the central and local levels and
their evaluation, European Administrative Space in multilevel con-
text, and improving local democracy.
Joanna Krukowska is an assistant professor in the Department of Local
Development and Policy, Faculty of Geography and Regional Studies,
University of Warsaw, Poland. Her research interests are in local and
regional policies. She particularly focuses on development policies, urban
management, and political leadership.
Aistė Lazauskienė is an associate professor in the Department of Public
Administration, Faculty of Political Science and Diplomacy, Vytautas
Magnus University, Lithuania. She is an ordinary member of the Group of
Independent Experts at the Congress of Local and Regional
Authorities at the Council of Europe. Her focus in research is cur-
rently on local politics and Lithuanian local government reforms.
Anders Lidström is Professor of Political Science in the Department of
Political Science at Umeå University, Sweden. He specializes in local,
regional, and urban democracy and governance, and he was the convener
of the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) standing
group on local government and politics 2010–2016. Recent publications
include Multilevel Democracy: How Local Institutions and Civil Society
Shape the Modern State (with Jefferey Sellers and Yooil Bae), 2020, and a
special issue of the Journal of Urban Affairs on ‘The Citizens in City-­
Regions’ (No 1, 2018, edited with Linze Schaap).
Jakub Lysek is an assistant professor in the Department of Political
Science at the Palacký University Olomouc, Czech Republic. His research
focuses on voting behavior, elections, local governance, and quantitative
methods in social sciences. His work has been published in journals
such as Electoral Studies, Government and Opposition, and Lex localis—
Journal of Local Self-Government.
Annick Magnier holds the Jean Monnet Chair “The City in European
Integration” in the Department of Political and Social Science, University
of Florence, Italy. As an urban sociologist, her research activity has been
xxii NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

mainly dedicated to comparative analyses of local leadership and their

recruitment and values. Her focus in research is currently on local spatial
policies and planning systems.
Lluis Medir is an associate professor in the Department of Political
Science at the University of Barcelona, Spain. He belongs to the research
group on local government at the same university (www.ub.edu/grel),
and his research interests include local government, intergovernmental
relations, and public policies at the local level.
Luís Mota is invited assistant professor at the University of Aveiro,
Portugal, and a researcher at its Research Unit on Governance,
Competitiveness and Public Policies (GOVCOPP-UA). He holds a
Ph.D. in Public Administration and his research interests are public gover-
nance reforms, network governance, policy process, and local governance.
He is developing a post-doctoral project on Local Governance
Modernization, financed by the Foundation for Science and
Technology (SFRH/BPD/115117/2016).
Carmen Navarro is an associate professor in the Department of Political
Science and International Relations, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid,
Spain, where she teaches public policy and local government undergradu-
ate and graduate courses. Her research interests are local democracy, local
public policies, local government institutions, and local political leadership.
Werner Pleschberger has been an associate professor at BOKU University
of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, from 1999 to 2015. His
main research interests concern local politics, and he has been a three-­
times titleholder of a European module grant funded from the Jean
Monnet Action of EU. He is working as an independent consultant (non-­
research work) for companies and political organizations.
Daniel Pop is based at the Ethnocultural Diversity Resource Center in
Cluj, from where he leads the Education Support Programmes of the Open
Society Foundations. There, he leads policy research initiatives and efforts to
build networks of commitment and strengthen new forms of civic activism.
Iveta Reinholde is an associate professor in the Department of Political
Science at the University of Latvia, Latvia. Her main interests are admin-
istrative reform at local and national levels. Her focus in research is cur-
rently on urban governance and multilevel governance. She is a member
of the Group of Independent Experts at the Congress of Local and
Regional Authorities at the Council of Europe.
 NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS xxiii

Paula Russell is an assistant professor and Director of Graduate Studies

in the School of Architecture, Planning and Environmental Policy,
University College Dublin, Ireland. Her main area of research relates
to the role of civil society in the planning process, looking at issues of
engagement and influence. She is a member of the governing board
of the European Urban Research Association (EURA) and is an asso-
ciate editor of the journal Urban Research and Practice.
Dan Ryšavý is an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology,
Andragogy and Cultural Anthropology, Faculty of Arts, Palacký University
Olomouc, the Czech Republic. As a sociologist, his main research
interests concern to local and subnational governments, their politi-
cal representatives and currently to local government responses to
urban housing affordability crisis.
Detlef Sack is Professor of Comparative Politics at the Faculty of
Sociology, University of Bielefeld, Germany. He is interested in public
policy and governance. His research covers various policies (particularly
economic, regional, transport, energy policy as well as home and jus-
tice affairs) and interest associations (in particular Chambers of
Commerce, Organized Business). He is interested in institutional
change and comparative policy analysis.
Patrícia Silva holds a Ph.D. in Political Sciences. She is a researcher at
the Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policies Research Centre,
the University of Aveiro, Portugal, and was granted a Scientific
Employment Stimulus Contract by the Foundation for Science and
Technology (grant number CEECIND/04550/2017). Her main
research interests are political parties, the politicization of the recruitment
of appointed elites, territorial governance, and local public-­sector reform.
Her research has been published in international journals—with the most
recent articles published in Public Administration and the International
Review of Administrative Sciences—and chapters of books by national and
international publishers.
Sunčana Slijepčević is a senior research associate in the Department for
Regional Economics at the Institute of Economics, Zagreb, Croatia. Her
main research topics are economics of public sector and local ­development,
with specific focus on financial issues, efficiency, productivity, and
competition.
xxiv NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Cristina Stănuș is Associate Professor of Political Science at the Lucian

Blaga University of Sibiu, Romania, where she teaches courses on gover-
nance, policy analysis, and research methodology. Her research interests
focus on the study of Romanian local government and politics in a com-
parative context and the governance of public service delivery. She is a
member of the Governing Board of the European Urban Research
Association.
Malvine Stučka is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Political Sciences
at the University of Latvia, Latvia. Her research is centered on political
leadership in local governments. She has received both Bachelor’s and
Master’s degree in Political Science with a public administration focus. In
addition, she has experience in analyzing policies introduced in local
governments.
Paweł Swianiewicz is Professor of Economics at University of Warsaw,
Poland, and leads the Department of Local Development and Policy at the
Faculty of Geography and Regional Studies. Between 2005 and 2010 he
was the president of the European Urban Research Association (EURA).
His teaching and research focus on local politics, local government
finance, and territorial organization. Most of his empirical research
focuses on Poland, but also on comparative studies of decentraliza-
tion in Central and Eastern Europe.
Filipe Teles holds a Ph.D. in Political Sciences and teaches courses in the
field of comparative local governance. He is acting as Pro-rector for
Regional Development and Urban Policies at the University of Aveiro,
Portugal. He is a member of the Research Unit on Governance,
Competitiveness and Public Policy (GOVCOPP), where he has devel-
oped research work on governance and local administration, territo-
rial reforms, and political leadership. He is a member of the Governing
Board of the European Urban Research Association (EURA) and of
the Steering Committee of the standing group on Local Government and
Politics of the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR).
Romea Manojlović Toman is an assistant professor at the Chair of
Administrative Science, Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb, Croatia.
Her research interests are public management, human resources manage-
ment, and citizens’ participation.
 NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS xxv

Tom Verhelst is Assistant Professor of Local Politics at the Centre for

Local Politics, Ghent University, Belgium, and a postdoctoral research fel-
low at the Department of Political Science, Maastricht University, the
Netherlands. His research focuses on the Europeanization of local
government (with a particular interest for the regulatory mobiliza-
tion of local government in EU decision-making processes) and on
the role and position of the local council in Belgium and the
Netherlands (with a particular interest for council scrutiny).
Hans Vollaard is Lecturer in Dutch and European Politics at the Utrecht
University, School of Governance, the Netherlands. In the area of
European politics, he has written on European disintegration,
Euroscepticism in the Netherlands, and the implementation of EU health-
care law. His work on Dutch politics concentrates on local councils, pro-
vincial councils, and non-elected representatives.
 List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 Grid-group cultural types 22

Fig. 2.2 Typology of local state-society networks 27
Fig. 3.1 Measurements of the three dimensions and their relation
to the types of networks distinguished by Teles 36

xxvii
 List of Tables

Table 26.1 Means for autonomy, coherence and relevance by network

type distinguished by Teles 382
Table 26.2 Means for autonomy, coherence and relevance by network
and country 383
Table 26.3 Types of network by country 385
Table 26.4 Means for autonomy, coherence and relevance by type of
national infrastructure of local state-society relations 387
Table 26.5 Means for autonomy, coherence and relevance by network
and policy field 390
Table 26.6 Type of network by policy field 392
Table 26.7 Type of network characterizing Local Action Groups by
country393
Table 26.8 Functions and power of network by policy field 398
Table 26.9 Networks of local state-society relations by country and the
dimensions of the typology and indicators for
characterizing the networks 411
Table 26.10 Networks of local state-society relations by country and
(selected) policy field 414

xxix
 CHAPTER 1

Interactions of Societal Actors and Local

Government in Institutionalized Governance
Arrangements: The Book’s Scope
and Content

Filipe Teles, Adam Gendźwiłł, Cristina Stănuş,

and Hubert Heinelt

Interactions of societal actors in institutionalized governance networks

with local government are one of the most common features of contempo-
rary local governance. The multiple and diverse forms it can take provide
relevant clues concerning different roles of local government in Europe,

F. Teles (*)
Research Unit on Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policies,
Department of Social, Political and Territorial Sciences, University of Aveiro,
Aveiro, Portugal
e-mail: filipe.teles@ua.pt
A. Gendźwiłł
Department of Local Development and Policy, Faculty of Geography and
Regional Studies, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
e-mail: a.gendzwill@uw.edu.pl

© The Author(s) 2021 1

F. Teles et al. (eds.), Close Ties in European Local Governance,
Palgrave Studies in Sub-National Governance,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44794-6_1
2 F. TELES ET AL.

administrative, civic and political cultures, governance arrangements,

decentralization processes, state–society relations, local practices in interest
intermediation and political action. Comparative studies on this topic pro-
viding an in-depth analysis of institutionalized governance networks
are needed.
The book will provide an understanding of the types of networks in a
large number of European countries, their formal differences and partly
also the motives for their creation. Given the comprehensiveness of sub-
jects, dimensions, historical and political events to cover, this book will
proceed by selecting the most relevant topics to address and identifying
reasonable arguments in order to classify these differences between
European countries but also policy domains. The comparative lessons and
implications are particularly interesting not only for the scholarly debate
but also for political practice. These are useful for those pursuing this
debate and implementing similar agendas: local government associations,
local authorities and professionals.
This book is focused on relations between (a) individual and collective
or corporate societal actors and (b) municipalities, that is, the first tier of
local government with a directly elected representative body as the crucial
organ for taking binding decisions. This clarification might be necessary
for readers who—due to particular circumstances in their countries—
would probably look at this phenomenon from a legal perspective and
regard local government not as a level of statehood but as means of self-­
administration and, in this sense, as part of the executive branch of a state.
In this book, organized interests—ranging from chambers of com-
merce and industry and so on to differently organized associations with
various kinds of membership (from enterprises to elderly people)—as well
as individuals engaged in the policy process are regarded as societal actors.

C. Stănuş
Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities,
Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Sibiu, Romania
e-mail: cristina.stanus@ulbsibiu.ro
H. Heinelt
Institute of Political Science, Technische Universität Darmstadt,
Darmstadt, Germany
e-mail: hubert.heinelt@tu-darmstadt.de
 1 INTERACTIONS OF SOCIETAL ACTORS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT… 3

The focus on the municipal level of local government means that we

will consider local representatives of state (national or sub-national)
authorities or agencies only in cases where they are interacting with soci-
etal actors when representatives of municipalities are also involved. The
focus on the local level also means that there are numerous cases of net-
works of each type and that the networks’ institutional design is adapted
locally.
The book concentrates on institutionalized interactions between repre-
sentatives of municipalities (mayors, councilors and members of the
municipal administration) and societal actors. Consequently, those munic-
ipal committees which consist only of councilors who occasionally ask
societal actors and experts for their opinion will not be considered.
Some local state-society relations have developed in the field of inter-­
municipal cooperation or reach beyond the border of just one municipal-
ity. These forms of organized interest intermediation at the inter-municipal
level will be considered as well. However, as will be shown by the country
chapters, most of the forms of local state-society relations considered here
are located within the boundaries of one municipality.
The question of the size of the municipalities under study is defined
precisely: Municipalities of all sizes should be included—providing institu-
tionalized interactions between representatives of municipalities and soci-
etal actors exist. However, actually the number of smaller municipalities
considered has been limited because, particularly in countries with two
tiers of local government (municipalities on the one hand and counties,
provinces, etc. on the other), some forms of local state-society relations
are located at the second tier of local government. In these countries, only
‘cities with county status’, ‘kreisfreie Städte’, ‘unitary local authorities’
and so on which combine the competencies of both tiers of local govern-
ment have been considered. These are usually urban centers and munici-
palities with a larger number of inhabitants.

Organized Interests and Their Interaction

with Local Government—And the Question of How
Democracy Is Understood
Although individual actors will also be considered as part of institutional-
ized interactions between representatives of municipalities and societal
actors, empirically the latter are usually collective and corporate actors (in
4 F. TELES ET AL.

the sense outlined in Sect. “Measuring the Coherence of Societal Actors”

of Chap. 3 in this book). This implies that we are ultimately dealing with
organized interests and how they interact with local government in inter-
est intermediation, decision making and partly also the implementation of
decisions. Interest intermediation within interest organization and
between them and government has been a ‘traditional’ topic of debates in
political science for decades (for an overview, see Schneider and Grote
2006 or the contributions in Petracca 1992). The topic has been exam-
ined by proponents of pluralism, neo-corporatism and the policy-network
approach. However, these debates have been focused mainly on societal
processes at large and the national level of political systems. As will be
discussed in greater detail in the next section of this chapter, these debates
have dealt only marginally with policy making at the local level (as already
argued by Cawson 1985). Nevertheless, some ideas developed in these
debates were considered as starting points for the work carried out so far
by the authors of the contributions to this book—as will be outlined in the
following section.
However, one issue in the debates among proponents of pluralism,
neo-corporatism and the policy-network approach, as well as those of gov-
ernance, has served as a starting point for the common work presented in
the book—namely the relationship between organized interest and
democracy or, more precisely, the understanding of democracy.
Particularly proponents of neo-corporatism, but also those interested in
policy-networks and governance arrangements as empirical phenomena,
are in danger of not being critical enough to recognize the ‘democratic
deficits’ and limitations of citizen participation as a core element of democ-
racy in their objects of investigation (for this criticism see, for instance,
Dahl 1994; Bekkers et al. 2007). This danger has been emphasized in
scholarly as well as political debates against the background that nowadays
political systems in the ‘Western World’ have been characterized as a ‘post-­
democracy’ resulting from the complexity of modern society (Zolo 1992)
and are sometimes considered as a ‘crisis of egalitarian politics and the
trivialization of democracy’ (Crouch 2004: 6).
Nevertheless, the authors of the contributions to this book agree that a
democratic political system has to ensure ‘a degree of participation so
great and so fairly spread about that no one feels neglected and everyone
feels, with justice, that his viewpoint has been pretty fairly attended to’
(Dahl 1971: 112). However, they also agree with the dictum of Schmitter
(1993: 4) that a democratic political system is not to be conceived of as
one ‘regime’ ‘but as a composite of “partial regimes”’ because it consists
 1 INTERACTIONS OF SOCIETAL ACTORS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT… 5

of a complex web of various forms of participation. This also means that in

a democratic political system ‘citizenship, its most distinctive property, is
not confined to voting periodically in elections. It can also be exercised by
[—] joining associations or movements, petitioning authorities, engaging
in “unconventional” protest, and so forth’ (Schmitter 1993: 4). To put it
precisely, in this book we are not focused on the use of ‘citizenship […]
confined to voting periodically in elections’ but on its exercise ‘by […]
joining associations or movements’ and engaging in what is called ‘func-
tional interest representation’.1 In this sense, we are looking beyond a
‘thin’ liberal (or representative) democracy (as Barber 1984 called it) to a
(broader) participatory democracy.2

Studies on the Relations Between Local Government

and Societal Actors: What Has Been Achieved? What
Is Missing? What Could Be Helpful for Closing
the Research Gap?

Much has been written about local governance in the sense of governing
a city beyond city hall (or: Who [really] governs the city?). However, most
of it has been focused on single case studies or, at best, comparative case
studies. The focus on case studies can be explained because it is taken for
granted that ‘city matters’ (see Boddy and Parkinson 2004). This assump-
tion is based on the fact that the relevance of space and ‘locality’ has been
emphasized at least since the 1980s (see Gregory and Urry 1985; Savage
et al. 1987). In this scholarly debate, place-specific and sometimes histori-
cally rooted circumstances are often invoked to explain local differences in
the relations between city hall and societal actors (see, for instance,
Goodwin and Duncan 1986).
Nevertheless, these differences between cities or the distinctiveness of a
single city have been explained in line with more general approaches and
research interests. This particular attention to the local context should be
taken into account and considered as a useful building block for further
research—particularly with regard to the planned survey and the studies
which will be based on it.
This applies, for instance, to different versions of interest theory (i.e.
either from neo-Marxist positions or by referring to rational-choice mod-
els). They played and still play a role in the debate about ‘urban regimes’
(see Elkin 1987; Stone 1989, 2004a, 2004b and with a critical perspective
Davies 2002, 2003, 2004; Imbroscio 2003, 2004; Pierre 2005).
Furthermore, ideas have also gained attention in the context of case
6 F. TELES ET AL.

studies as hegemonic frames for forming and stabilizing coalitions and

guiding ‘city choices’. One such choice is, for instance, the one to turn the
city, in a collaboration between local government and societal actors
(mainly from the business sector), into a ‘growth machine’ (Molotch
1976; Logan and Molotch 1987). In a similar way, ideas about different
paths (and how they are guided) taken by cities in the post-Fordist era
(Halford et al. 1993; Jessop 1997) have received attention in the debate
(inspired by the French regulation school of thought and neo-Gramscian
approaches). Finally, it must be remembered that the ‘community power’
debate was based on case studies which started with the seminal studies of
Floyd Hunter (1953) on Atlanta and of Robert Dahl (1961) on New
Haven. However, although the ‘community power’ debate was based on
case studies of individual cities, its focus was more general—namely on the
question of power in society. This becomes clear in the results of this
debate, in which power has been understood not just as the ability of
actors to dominate decisions (Dahl 1957), but as the structuring logic of
communication that enables certain issues to attract public attention while
others are kept off the agenda (Bachrach and Baratz 1962, 1963) or even
kept from being perceived as a problem at all (Lukes 2005 [1974]).
Furthermore, urban research from a political science perspective has
not only been limited to local case studies. It has also been limited by
focusing on local government in general—and not on local governance or
relations between societal actors and local government. This even applies
to international comparative studies on national differences among local
government systems (for an overview, see Heinelt et al. 2018). Although
there are several typologies of local government systems (see ibid.), com-
parative studies on national patterns of local governance or relations
between societal actors and local government are missing until now.3 A
broadening of this focus usually takes place only when certain local poli-
cies are considered—for instance local labor market or housing policy (see,
e.g., Heinelt 1992; Egner and Grabietz 2018 )—because in these policies
it is obvious that they depend not only on decisions taken in city hall but—
in one way or the other—on societal actors.
Looking for approaches on state–society relations in general in political
science, of course, the debates about pluralism and neo-corporatism and
the controversies among their proponents could be considered. However,
it was already emphasized in the debate in the early 1990s on policy net-
works that the ‘traditional’ dichotomy between pluralism and neo-­
corporatism is too general for capturing state–society relations that are
 1 INTERACTIONS OF SOCIETAL ACTORS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT… 7

specific to a country or a particular policy field (see, for this debate, Jordan
and Schubert 1992).
Although the policy-networks approach has been often used in the
empirical analysis of specific state–society relations,4 the resulting classifi-
cation of detected patterns of institutionalized relations between govern-
ment and societal actors has not proved helpful. It led to a multitude of
‘dimensions and types of policy networks’ (van Waarden 1992) and
attempts to distinguish them by creating a long (if not endless) list of
policy-network labels. However, all efforts at ‘ordering of policy network
labelling’ (Jordan and Schubert 1992) have turned out to be fruitless—at
least according to the assessment of the partners involved in the project.
Nevertheless, the partners involved in the project started their conceptual
reflections on relations between local government and societal actors at
the municipal level with a debate about the policy-networks approach.
Furthermore, the partners involved in the research from which this
book resulted made use of the typology of ‘national infrastructures for
local governance’ developed by Sellers et al. (2020; see also Sellers and
Kwak 2011 and Sellers and Lidström 2014), which aims at establishing a
theoretical link between the institutions of local government and the orga-
nization of civil society. The authors present three alternative configura-
tions which characterize infrastructures of multilevel local governance in
contemporary democracies: nationalized, civic localist and local elitist.
Their distinction is based on differences along two general dimensions:
vertical inter-governmental relationships (among the local state and higher
levels of government) and incorporation of various actors representing
different spheres of society. In the local elitist infrastructure, a restricted
set of elites dominates local governance and assures the integration of local
governance with the policies of national government. In the civic localist
infrastructure, incorporation of societal actors is wide, but the integration
of local and national policies is limited. Local government relies more on
the resources of local society than on support from higher-level authori-
ties. In the nationalized infrastructure, local governments carry out poli-
cies formulated at the national level, and a high level of policy integration
and wide incorporation of nation-wide organized societal actors are pos-
sible through strong multilevel party organizations. As Sellers et al. (2020)
argue, each infrastructure developed following its own long-term trajec-
tory and displays distinctive patterns of tensions and conflicts, but also
institutional complementarities. Finally, the partners decided not to use
this typology because it became obvious that in a country, policy-­specific,
local state-society relations can exist which can show different network
8 F. TELES ET AL.

characteristics from those attributed to the ‘national infrastructures’ for

local governance distinguished by Sellers et al. This is also admitted by
Sellers and Kwak (2011) by referring to ‘sectoral influences’ or influences
from policy domains: ‘Although sectors are part of the infrastructure for
local governance, influences from them reflect infrastructural effects dis-
tinct from those of national types’ (Sellers and Kwak 2011: 627).
Against this background, the partners involved in the project decided
to use the typology of different networks of local state-society relations
presented in Chap. 2. This approach makes it possible to capture within-­
country variation in institutional arrangements which establish and regu-
late local state-society networks.

Limitations of the Approach Applied in the Book

This book presents a systematization of knowledge resulting from the
analysis of local state-society relations in 22 European countries and iden-
tifies and classifies patterns in these institutionalized governance networks.
However, as in any attempt to capture empirical observations by a typol-
ogy and ‘measure’ empirical observations, a number of ‘critical’ issues
arise and have to be clarified.
This applies first of all to the selection of networks presented in the
country chapters of this book. It had to be done by the authors (as experts
on local state-society relations in their respective countries) based on the
agreement of all partners involved in the project to consider networks
which are either typical for local state-society relations in the country or
resample main feature also shown by other networks in a country.
Nevertheless, a high degree of discretion remained for the authors in
selecting such networks. However, the double-blind peer-review proce-
dure applied for the country chapters of this book contributed to the
avoidance of implausible or even arbitrary decisions by the authors,
because in a number of cases reviewers asked authors to rethink their selec-
tion of local state-society networks.

Notes
1. For functional interest representation (and its differences from territorial
interest representation through political parties and directly elected repre-
sentative bodies), (see for example, Heinelt 2010: 52–53 and Knodt
et al. 2011).
 1 INTERACTIONS OF SOCIETAL ACTORS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT… 9

2. Concerning the different understandings of democracy among mayors and

councilors detected empirically in the studies mentioned in the section on
‘The origin of the book’ of the preface of this book, (see Vetter et al. 2018).
These different notions of democracy clearly follow the distinction between
liberal (or representative) democracy and participatory democracy.
3. Finally, although the eastern and some southern parts of the European con-
tinent have experienced democratic transitions over the last three decades,
accompanied by reforms of local government as well as of local governance,
little has been written on the functioning of institutionalized networks
among societal actors and local government in these parts of Europe (e.g.
Furmankiewicz et al. 2010; Petrova 2011; Dąbrowski 2014).
4. Beside these empirical network studies, policy networks have been studied
to understand general (governance) modes for coordinating societal interac-
tions. For the differences between these two policy-network approaches,
(see Börzel 1998, Marsh 1998).

References
Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1962). Two Faces of Power. The American Political
Science Review, 56(4), 947–952.
Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1963). Decisions and Non-decisions: An Analytical
Framework. The American Political Science Review, 57(3), 632–642.
Barber, B. (1984). Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bekkers, V., Dijkstra, G., & Fenger, M. (2007). Governance and the Democratic
Deficit. Assessing the Democratic Legitimacy of Governance Practices. London:
Routledge.
Boddy, M., & Parkinson, M. (Eds.). (2004). City Matters. Competitiveness,
Cohesion and Urban Governance. Bristol: Policy Press.
Börzel, T. (1998). Organising Babylon – on the Different Conceptions of Policy
Networks.Public Administration, 76, 253–273.
Cawson, A. (1985). Corporatism and Local Politics. In Grant W. (Eds.), The
Political Economy of Corporatism. Sociology, Politics and Cities. London: Palgrave.
Crouch, C. (2004). Post-Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Dahl, R. A. (1961). Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City.
New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Dahl, R. A. (1957). The Concept of Power. Behavioral Science, 2(3), 201–215.
Dahl, R. A. (1971). The City in the Future of Democracy. In M. Cook (Ed.),
Participatory Democracy (pp. 85–114). San Francisco: Canfield Press (first
published in 1967 in American Political Science Review, 61(4), 953–969).
Dahl, R. A. (1994). A Democratic Dilemma. System Effectiveness Versus Citizen
Participation. Political Science Quarterly, 10(1), 23–34.
10 F. TELES ET AL.

Davies, J. S. (2002). Urban Regime Theory: A Normative-Empirical Critique.

Journal of Urban Affairs, 24(1), 1–17.
Davies, J. S. (2003). Partnerships Versus Regimes. Why Regime Theory Cannot
Explain Urban Coalitions in the UK. Journal of Urban Affairs, 25(3), 253–269.
Davies, J. S. (2004). Can’t Hedgehogs Be Foxes Too? Reply to Clarence N. Stone.
Journal of Urban Affairs, 26(1), 27–33.
Da ̨browski, M. (2014). EU Cohesion Policy, Horizontal Partnership and the
Patterns of Sub-National Governance: Insights from Central and Eastern
Europe. European Urban and Regional Studies, 21(4), 364–383.
Egner, B., & Grabietz, K. J. (2018). In Search of Determinants for Quoted
Housing Rents: Empirical Evidence from Major German Cities. Urban Research
& Practice, 11(4), 460–477.
Elkin, S. L. (1987). City and Regime in the American Republic. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Furmankiewicz, M., Thompson, N., & Zielińska, M. (2010). Area-based
Partnerships in Rural Poland: The Post-accession Experience. Journal of Rural
Studies, 26(1), 52–62.
Goodwin, M., & Duncan, S. (1986). The Local State and Local Policy: Political
Mobilisation or Economic Regeneration. Capital and Class, 27, 14–36.
Gregory, D., & Urry, J. (Eds.). (1985). Social Relations and Spatial Structures.
Houndsmills, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Halford, S., Goodwin, M., & Duncan, S. (1993). Regulation Theory, the Local
State and Transition of Urban Politics. Environment and Planning D: Society
and Space, 11(1), 67–88.
Heinelt, H. (1992). Local Labour Market Policy – Limits and Potentials.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 16(4), 522–528.
Heinelt, H. (2010). Governing Modern Societies. Towards Participatory Governance.
London and New York: Routledge.
Heinelt, H., Hlepas, N., Kuhlmann, S., & Swianiewicz, P. (2018). Local
Government Systems: Grasping the Institutional Environment of Mayors. In
H. Heinelt, A. Magnier, M. Cabria, & H. Reynaert (Eds.), Political Leaders
and Changing Local Democracy: The European Mayor (pp. 19–78). Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Hunter, F. (1953). Community Power Structure: A Study of Decision Makers.
Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
Imbroscio, D. L. (2003). Overcoming the Neglect of Economics in Urban Regime
Theory. Journal of Urban Affairs, 25(3), 271–284.
Imbroscio, D. L. (2004). The Imperative of Economics in Urban Political Analysis:
A Reply to Clarence N. Stone. Journal of Urban Affairs, 26(1), 21–26.
Jessop, B. (1997). A Neo-Gramscian Approach to the Regulation of Urban
Regimes: Accumulation Strategies, Hegemonic Projects, and Governance. In
 1 INTERACTIONS OF SOCIETAL ACTORS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT… 11

M. Lauria (Ed.), Reconstructing Urban Regime Theory: Regulating Urban

Politics in a Global Economy (pp. 51–73). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Jordan, G., & Schubert, K. (1992). A Preliminary Ordering of Policy Network
Labelling. European Journal of Political Research, 21, 7–28.
Knodt, M., Greenwood, J., & Quittkat, C. (2011). Territorial and Functional
Interest Representation in EU Governance. Journal of European Integration,
33(4), 349–367.
Logan, J. R., & Molotch, H. L. (1987). Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of
Place. Berkley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press.
Lukes, S. (2005 [1974]). Power: A Radical View. Houndmills, Basingstoke,
Hampshire, London: Macmillan Education Ltd.
Marsh, D. (1998). The Development of the Policy Network Approach. In D. Marsh
(Ed.): Comparing Policy Networks (pp. 3–17). Buckingham and Philadelphia:
Open University Press.
Molotch, H. L. (1976). The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political
Economy of Place. The American Journal of Sociology, 82(2), 309–332.
Petracca, M. P. (Ed.). (1992). The Politics of Interests: Interest Groups Transformed.
Boulder: Westview Press.
Petrova, T. (2011). Citizen Participation in Local Governance in Eastern Europe:
Rediscovering a Strength of Civil Society in the Post-Socialist World? Europe-­
Asia Studies, 63(5), 757–787.
Pierre, J. (2005). Comparative Urban Governance. Uncovering Complex
Causalities. Urban Affairs Review, 40(4), 446–462.
Savage, M., Barlow, J., Duncan, S., & Saunders, P. (1987). Locality Research: The
Sussex Programme of Economic Restructuring, Social Change and the Locality.
The Quarterly Journal of Social Affairs, 3(1), 27–51.
Schmitter, P. C. (1993). Some Propositions About Civil Society and the Consolidation
of Democracy. Wien: Institut für Höhere Studien. Reihe Politikwissenschaft.
Schneider, V., & Grote, J. R. (2006). Introduction: Business Associations,
Associative Order and Internationalization. In W. Streeck, J. R. Grote,
V. Schneider, & J. Visser (Eds.), Governing Interests: Business Associations
Facing Internationalization (pp. 1–18). Abington and New York: Routledge.
Sellers, J. M., & Kwak, S.-Y. (2011). State and Society in Local Governance:
Lessons from a Multilevel Comparison. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research, 35(3), 620–643.
Sellers, J. M., & Lidström, A. (2014). Multilevel Democracy, Societal Organization
and the Development of the Modern State. Paper prepared for Presentation at the
23 Nordic Local Government Conference, Odense 27.–29. November 2014.
Sellers, J., Lidström, A., & Bae, Y. (2020). Multilevel Democracy: How Local
Institutions and Civil Society Shape the Modern State. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
12 F. TELES ET AL.

Stone, C. N. (1989). Regime Politics: Governing Atlanta: 1946–1988. Lawrence:

University Press of Kansas.
Stone, C. N. (2004a). It’s More Than the Economy After All. Continuing the
Debate About Urban Regimes. Journal of Urban Affairs, 26(1), 1–19.
Stone, C. N. (2004b). Rejoinder: Multiple Imperatives, or Some Thoughts About
Governance in a Loosely Coupled but Stratified Society. Journal of Urban
Affairs, 26(1), 35–42.
Vetter, A., Heinelt, H., & Rose, L. E. (2018). Mayors’ Notions of Local
Democracy. In H. Heinelt, A. Magnier, M. Cabria, & H. Reynaert (Eds.),
Political Leaders and Changing Local Democracy: The European Mayor
(pp. 173–208). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
van Waarden, F. (1992). Dimensions and Types of Policy Networks. European
Journal of Political Research, 21, 29–52.
Zolo, D. (1992). Democracy and Complexity. A Realistic Approach. University
Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
 CHAPTER 2

Diversity in Local State-Society Relations:

A Typology to Grasp Differences
in Institutional Networks

Filipe Teles

Introduction
Interactions of societal actors in institutionalized governance networks
with local authorities are one of the most common features of contempo-
rary local governance. The multiple and diverse forms it can take provide
relevant clues regarding different roles of local government in Europe and
its administrative, civic and political cultures. It adds also to the knowl-
edge on different governance arrangements, decentralization processes,
state-society relations, and citizens’ engagement practices. Comparative
studies on this topic with in-depth analysis of formally and informally as
well as compulsorily and voluntarily institutionalized governance networks
are needed but require a conceptual framework that allows for a clearer

F. Teles (*)
Research Unit on Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policies,
Department of Social, Political and Territorial Sciences, University of Aveiro,
Aveiro, Portugal
e-mail: filipe.teles@ua.pt

© The Author(s) 2021 13

F. Teles et al. (eds.), Close Ties in European Local Governance,
Palgrave Studies in Sub-National Governance,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44794-6_2
14 F. TELES

identification of such arrangements and provides the tools for an analytical

instrument for comparison.
This chapter aims at developing a typology that allows researchers to
systematize evidence and knowledge resulting from the analysis of these
networks. The identification of different types of local state-society
arrangements will allow a more robust comparison and analysis.
The involvement of societal actors within the public governance of dif-
ferent policy domains is increasingly seen as the ‘big idea’ to cope with a
series of social, economic, and political dilemmas (Rathgeb Smith and
Grønbjerg 2006; Pestoff and Brandsen 2010), particularly under the
recent economic crisis and the subsequent welfare sustainability problems
(Ervasti et al. 2012; Silva and Teles 2018). Although the involvement of
societal actors in local governance has clear benefits, it also results in a
series of challenges of coordination and management. This applies particu-
larly for the integration of different network arrangements, given their
interaction and the wickedness of the problems they are targeted to solve
(Andrews and Entwistle 2010).
In parallel, the interaction between non-state organizations and local
governments needs to be reassessed. Societal actors are often perceived as
a source of social innovations, fostering novel forms of organization and
interactions that address societal needs that have hitherto been unmet in
several policy areas, among others. Extant research, however, is scant in
assessing the consequences for both societal actors and public policies of
the network relationships that have to be redefined to encompass these
new processes. This is all the more pressing in contexts with poor tradi-
tions of co-governance.
Indeed, these emerging collaborative mechanisms may entail major
risks, both for local governments and societal actors, dealing with a pleth-
ora of (public and) private bodies—that are not directly subject to demo-
cratic controls. The emergent complexity of policy networks may erode
the position of local governments and ultimately generate problems of
democratic legitimacy or accountability (Rhodes 1997). The possible
drawback is local government’s attempt to curtail third sector organiza-
tions’ autonomy, that is, organizations acting neither along the logic of
the market nor the hierarchy of statehood and the solidarity of private
households. In such scenario, these actors may be confined, with limited
opportunities to influence substantive policy direction or content, thus
restraining the benefits attributed to them, namely their autonomy: not
being just another arm of government (Verschuere and De Corte 2012).
 2 DIVERSITY IN LOCAL STATE-SOCIETY RELATIONS: A TYPOLOGY TO GRASP… 15

This argument may also be extended to public policies: limited autonomy

may restrain the potential—and expected counter-cyclical—role of societal
actors in local policies. These are relevant questions for academics and
practitioners and particularly for policy makers.

Local Networks: State-Society Relations

The dividing line between state and civil society has never been sharp.
Over recent years, policy makers across Europe have increasingly turned to
organizations between the market and the state in seeking to identify,
manage, or solve a range of economic, social, and political problems. At
the same time, the number of relevant research on partnerships and co-­
governance at the local level has grown significantly, reflecting a common
understanding that at this level of government we can analyse the implica-
tions of newly emerging forms of policy making and delivery (Mouritzen
2013; Lowndes and McCaughie 2013; Teles 2016).
One of the most recurrent dictums about these state-society networked
mechanisms is that they enhance the efficiency of public service access and
delivery, nurture social solidarities for public good, and strengthen the
legitimacy of political authorities (Kendall 2009; Brandsen and Pestoff
2006). This narrative, however, warrants further inspection.
The term governance implies that the interest of the analysis goes
beyond the functioning and the strategies of formal public institutions and
elected authorities. It stands on a wider notion of politics, including the
provision of public services at the civil society’s level. In order to identify
new ways of ‘achieving collective action in the realm of public affairs, in
conditions where it is not possible to rest on recourse to the authority of
the state’ (Stoker 2000), local governments are increasingly seen as facili-
tators of these processes, enabling collaborative local networks. New agen-
das on urban politics and local administration reforms have implied an
important expansion of the notion of policy delivery through the inclusion
of non-state actors (Schwab et al. 2017).
However, the necessarily synergistic relationship between local govern-
ment and civil society in facilitating governance mechanisms requires fur-
ther elaboration. Individuals and institutions engage in collective action
using several strategies and using assorted means and capacities. The issue
of who initiates these new governance arrangements and how autono-
mous it really is from political power and public institutions is seminal to
the definition of governance itself. Most of the known local governance
16 F. TELES

models derive from a normative approach and seek better policy formula-
tion and policy delivery arrangements—in general seen as incapable of
accomplishing all local government’s tasks, insufficient to answer all
demands or relying on optimist assessments of grassroots autonomous and
spontaneous organization.
In this chapter, both terms (governance arrangements and local state-­
society networks) are used as a way to capture the wide range of mecha-
nisms through which consultation, coordination, power over policy
making and delivery at the local level are exercised. The multi-agent con-
text of local governance, with its complex diversity of networks, has pro-
duced a rich literature and has shaped significant research on the plural
mechanisms of delivery of public services and collaborative arrangements.
The aim is allegedly to improve public policy decision and delivery pro-
cesses in a ‘joined up’ way, together with the local community. Local pub-
lic services’ restructuring, modernization agendas, New Public
Management-type reforms, and, more recently, the consequences of eco-
nomic downturns have attracted attention from research, signalling an
arrangement where public and non-public agencies are involved in the
formulation of policy and delivery of services (Brandsen and Pestoff 2006:
497; Schwab et al. 2017).
State-society partnerships and co-governance are often used to describe
the context within which public services are delivered at the local level.
Co-governance refers to the mutual formation of collective bodies around
governmental roles and addresses the capacity for government and com-
munities to work together (Sommerville and Haines 2008). This concep-
tual approach has accompanied a volume of literature on how localities are
currently governed, on the influence of informal networks (Rhodes 1997),
and on the analysis of the proliferation of non-state actors, their resource
exchanges, and interdependency (Stoker 2006). Likewise, research on
interactions between various network actors (e.g. Rhodes 1996) and on
the new steering and monitoring roles expected from governments (Stoker
2000; John 2001) has suggested the decline of state power (Jessop 2003)
or of the existence of new complex power configurations through which
state actors steer networks (see Lukes 2004).
The delivery of public services and policy networking has resulted in
unresolved problems related to the differentiation and integration of non-­
state actors. The generic terms of collaborative governance, actually just
an add-on to the concept of governance, or of co-governance, depict, in
essence, very complex systems: it is much more than shared rules of
 2 DIVERSITY IN LOCAL STATE-SOCIETY RELATIONS: A TYPOLOGY TO GRASP… 17

commitment between actors; it is not only the consequence of individual

interests based on expected future profits; and it does not result just from
the voluntary urge to engage in public policy decisions and delivery.
Collaboration between state and non-state actors is also a consequence of
intentional strategies to involve the latter in governance arrangements.
These institutional mechanisms coming from beyond the borders of pub-
lic authorities result in an assemblage of processes to ensure coordination,
power, resources, and information. Such system needs not be a replica of
the way local governments work, and, in fact, is most of the times an all
new way of connecting the public and the private/voluntary spheres.
Governance arrangements, even in the cases where local authorities can
claim to be their main initiators, present new challenges that confront the
extant scholarship with profound changes in the actors involved in the
network.
Kooiman (2005) distinguished three ways of governance: the hierarchi-
cal one, where top-down directives from public authorities shape public
policy; the self-governance mode, a collective based approach to bottom-
­up policy building; and, co-governance, in which societal actors and pub-
lic authorities cooperate in a mutual shaping process of partnerships. This
simple taxonomy presents an interesting potential to explain how state and
non-state actors participate in policy building and service delivering. It
tends to produce diverse arenas for engagement, since it includes both the
hierarchical modes of governance (which tend to be dominated by state
actors) and the more self-governed arrangement (usually seen as non-state
actors’ homeland). However, it is still far from grasping all the different
types of networks, since the kind of relations and interdependencies that
are developed between these actors is much more diverse.
Over the last decades, the diverse approaches (both conceptual and
methodological) to policy network and governance have provided a more
or less fair map of these local governance arrangements, but typically fail
to fully develop the practical implications for the understanding of the
diversity of networks in place. It has also failed to provide sufficient guid-
ance about how to create the adequate conditions for collaborative prac-
tices. Consequently, scant attention has been paid to developing the
necessary tools to assess the real extent of network diversity of these local
governance systems.
Despite the growing attention local governance has received, there is
little systematic attempt to analyse the practical implications of these
emerging solutions. Indeed, despite the efforts to conceptualize and
18 F. TELES

operationalize measures of autonomy, institutionalization, and policy dis-

cretion (see, inter alia, Verhoest et al. 2004; Verschuere and De Corte
2012), the discussion remains far from being settled. More importantly,
existing efforts fail to provide an integrated approach to the analysis of the
kind of interdependencies that are developed between local governments
and societal actors and how the resulting type of institutional network
affects the process of taking collectively binding decision and policy
delivery.
Inconclusive results are partly a consequence of the lack of an inte-
grated approach that allows understanding the diversity of governance
networks at the local level, using a common framework. The suggested
typology in this chapter aims at allowing in-depth analysis of each kind of
local state-society network, and potentially provides a framework for large-­
scale comparative research.

Cultural Theory: A Grid-Group Typology

The ‘grid-group method’ developed by the anthropologist Mary Douglas
(1978), which has subsequently become known as Cultural Theory, offers
an opportunity to identify four logical strategies that derive from expecta-
tions about the possibility and ability to manage situations. These strategies,
initially seen as a consequence of alternative cultural biases, can be used as
instruments to understand possible approaches deriving from plural ratio-
nalities. Actually, these two main standpoints were particularly vivid in the
debate that confronted agent-centred perspectives (e.g. Wildavsky 1987)
with institutional approaches (e.g. Perri 6 2003); concurrently, the analy-
sis based on the ‘grid group method’ evolved from individual solidarities
and agent’s rationalities to social systems and institutional arrangements.
The main argument for the use of grid-group theory is that it allows
understanding institutional networks as neither isolated from, nor wholly
determined by, social environment, and as being stemmed from a belief
system inherently tied to expectations and experiences. Despite the
expected complexity of a framework of state-society networks, its success
will be due in large part to its capacity to allow understanding on how
these different networks perform.
This use of the grid-group theory as a typology of social settings is not
novel and has been thoroughly adapted and applied, becoming a subject
of its own. The basic premise of grid-group approach is that competing
worldviews and systems of beliefs can be understood as a result of only two
 2 DIVERSITY IN LOCAL STATE-SOCIETY RELATIONS: A TYPOLOGY TO GRASP… 19

dimensions. It argues that it is possible to systematize group or organiza-

tional cultures as an answer to two basic social dimensions: its degrees of
hierarchization and of social cohesion. First developed in social anthropol-
ogy—despite the fact that this system is essentially deductive—the grid-group
theory has since been applied throughout the social sciences. Mary Douglas
states that the intention was to produce ‘a crude typology […] to account for
the distribution of values within a population’ (Douglas 2007: 2), in order
to ‘show the connection between different kinds of social organization
and the values that uphold them’ (ibidem). Wildavsky (1994) argued that
it helps explaining how people derive their answers to basic questions like:
how does my context work? How do I hold people accountable to me?
Answers to these questions produce basic orientations towards the two
dimensions: external control and rules (grid) and the strength of prescrip-
tions and affiliation with others (group). It explains how societal arrange-
ments’ preferences are formed as consequence of different grid and group
positions.
Aaron Wildavsky was responsible for major contributions to the history
and development of grid-group theory—thereafter, and mainly due to this
author’s work, often called ‘Cultural Theory’. From an apparently intui-
tive theory by Mary Douglas, it evolved to a better integrated idea of
organizational cultural bias. Together with Michael Thompson and
Richard Ellis (1990), Wildavsky rendered a theory that comprised impor-
tant features about the exercise of power and its applicability to the realm
of politics, assuming that the four types of cultural bias are normally pres-
ent in any group. Rather than a static and deterministic framework, grid-­
group or cultural theory provided important explanatory value for the
generation of different ‘worldviews’, conflict, leadership, institutional
arrangements, and societal roles. It has, since, morphed into a dynamic
theoretical system and analytical tool.
Grid-group theory has been presented as useful to better understand
institutions (Wildavsky 1987), new institutionalism (Grendstad and Selle
1995), citizenship (Denters and Geurtz 1999), political ideology
(Coughlin and Lockhart 1998), political change (Lockhart 1999), and
policy analysis (Hoppe 1999). Stoker (2000) did the same when studying
British local governance, and Hood (1998) applied it to public
administration.
This analytical framework provides a useful tool to understand how
individuals position themselves in relation to their environment. Denters
and Geurtz (1999: 2) explain that grid-group theory ‘pretends to bridge
20 F. TELES

the gap between individual preferences and the social structure’. It can
illuminate many of the fundamental analytic questions of networked gov-
ernance, as it captures much of the variety in individual and organizational
attitudes and perspectives about how the public sphere is circumscribed by
autonomy—Grid—and the extent to which choice is constrained by for-
mal group belonging—Group (Hood 1998).

Grid and Group Dimensions

Grid-group theory is grounded on the idea that ways of ‘organizing’ the
world and ways of positioning and acting towards it are inextricable and
linked. Accordingly, the individual or the organization is an adherent of
one of a restrict number of ways of life, each characterized by mutually
exclusive sets of shared beliefs and motivations. The theory is constructed
around two dimensions, where grid brings about the prescribed auton-
omy of social units, and group refers to the constraints created by ordered
group coherence. Hence, in the first case, the greater degree to which the
individual or organization has to follow imposed rules, the higher one is
on the grid axis. On the other hand, the more one feels bound by collec-
tive decision, the higher one is on the group dimension.
Group measures the extent to which behaviour is pre-determined and
influenced by the membership of a certain group, and how much of choice
has to be made in order to privilege the interests of the collective rather
than one’s own. High group situations relate to those when organizations
or individuals are conscious of what they have to do as a consequence of
their membership of a coherent particular social unit. Low group situa-
tions are those in which the individual adheres to collective units by choice
and the role of the group is permanently negotiated. As stated by Mary
Douglas: ‘The group itself is defined in terms of the claims it makes over
its constituent members, the boundary it draws around them, the rights it
confers on them to use its name and other protections, and the levies and
constraints it applies’ (Douglas 1978: 8).
Every group varies in boundary strength and control acceptance. This
is supplied by the second dimension: Grid. This measures the extent to
which roles and autonomy in social relations are constrained by some kind
of differentiation, and options limited by rules and norms. A high grid
situation corresponds to those where behaviour is constrained by imposed
rules and where the autonomy to overcome the complexity of the real
world is particularly limited. A low grid situation is one where the role is
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 As I have alluded to the Esquimaux, my son, it will perhaps be
interesting to you to hear something further of their mode of life. I will
therefore give you a description of one of their snow villages, with an
account of a visit by a large party of them to the winter quarters of
captains Parry and Lyon, which is taken from the Narrative of
Discovery and Adventure in the Polar Seas and Regions.
“On the morning of the 1st February, a number of distant figures
were seen moving over the ice, and, when they were viewed through
glasses, the cry was raised, ‘Esquimaux! Esquimaux!’ As it was of
great importance to deal courteously and discreetly with these
strangers, the two commanders formed a party of six, who walked in
files behind each other, that they might cause no alarm. The
Esquimaux then formed themselves into a line of twenty-one,
advanced slowly, and at length made a full stop. In this order they
saluted the strangers by the usual movement of beating their
breasts. They were substantially clothed in rich and dark deer-skins,
and appeared a much more quiet and orderly race than their rude
countrymen of the Savage Islands. On the English producing their
precious commodities, knives, nails, and needles, an active traffic
was set on foot; and the females, on seeing that much importance
was attached to the skins which formed their clothing, began
immediately to strip off those with which their fair persons were
covered. The captains felt alarm for the consequences, under a
temperature more than fifty degrees below the freezing point; but
were soon consoled by discerning underneath another comfortable
suit. They were now cordially invited to enter their habitations, to
which they agreed most readily, only that there appeared no
habitations to enter. However, they were led to a hole in the snow,
and instructed to place themselves on their hands and knees, in
which position, having crept through a long winding passage, they
arrived at a little hall with a dome-shaped roof, whence doors
opened into three apartments, each occupied by a separate family.
These proved to be five distinct mansions, tenanted by sixty-four
men, women, and children. The materials and structure of these
abodes were still more singular than their position. Snow, the chief
product of the northern tempests, became here a protection against
its own cold. It was formed into curved slabs of about two feet long
and half a foot thick, put together by a most judicious masonry, so as
to present a species of dome-shaped structures, rising six or seven
feet above the ground, and about fourteen or sixteen feet in
diameter. The mode of inserting the key-slab, which bound the whole
together, would, it is said, have been satisfactory to the eye of a
regularly-bred artist. A plate of ice in the roof served as a window,
and admitted the light as through ground glass; which, when it shone
on the interior mansions, in their first state of pure and beautiful
transparency, produced soft and glittering tints of green and blue.
But, alas! ere long, accumulated dirt, smoke, and offal, converted
these apartments into a scene of blackness and stench. This little
village appeared at first like a cluster of hillocks amid the snow; but
successive falls filled up the vacuities, and converted it almost into a
smooth surface, so that even boys and dogs were seen walking and
sporting over the roofs; though, as summer and thaw advanced, a
leg sometimes penetrated, and appeared to the alarmed inmates
below. Then, too, the ceiling begins to drip; and the tenants, after
repeatedly endeavoring to patch it with fresh slabs, and catching, of
course, some severe colds, are obliged to betake themselves to a
more durable covering. In each room, suspended from the roof,
burns a lamp, with a long wick formed of a peculiar species of moss,
fed with the oil of the seal or the walrus, and serving at once for light,
heat and cookery. The family sit round the apartment, on a bench
formed of snow, strewed with slender twigs and covered with skins;
but this part of the dwelling must be carefully kept a good deal below
the freezing-point, since a higher temperature would speedily
dissolve the walls of the frail tenement.
After a cheerful and friendly visit, an invitation was given to the
Esquimaux to repair to the ships, when fifty accepted it with alacrity.
Partly walking, and partly dancing, they soon reached the vessels,
where a striking congeniality of spirit was soon found to exist
between them and the sailors; boisterous fun forming to each the
chief source of enjoyment. A fiddle and drum being produced, the
natives struck up a dance, or rather a succession of vehement leaps,
accompanied with loud shouts and yells. Seeing the Kabloonas or
Whites, as they called the strangers, engaged in the game of leap-
frog, they attempted to join; but not duly understanding how to
measure their movements, they made such over-leaps as
sometimes to pitch on the crown of their heads: however they sprang
up quite unconcerned. Their attention was specially attracted to the
effects of a winch, by which one sailor forcibly drew towards him a
party of ten or twelve of their number, though grinning and straining
every nerve in resistance; but finding all in vain, they joined in the
burst of good-humored laughter till tears streamed from their eyes.
One intelligent old man followed captain Lyon to the cabin, and
viewed with rational surprise various objects which were presented.
The performance of a hand-organ and a musical snuff-box struck
him with breathless admiration; and on seeing drawings of the
Esquimaux in Hudson’s Strait, he soon understood them, and
showed the difference between their dress and appearance and that
of his own tribe. On seeing the sketch of a bear, he raised a loud cry,
drew up his sleeves, and showed the scars of three deep wounds
received in encounters with that terrible animal. The seamen sought
to treat their visitors to such delicacies as their ship afforded, but
were for some time at a loss to discover how their palate might be
gratified. Grog, the seaman’s choicest luxury, only one old woman
could be induced to taste. Sugar, sweetmeats, gingerbread, were
accepted only out of complaisance, and eaten with manifest disgust;
but train-oil, entrails of animals, and any thing consisting of pure fat
or grease, were swallowed in immense quantities, and with
symptoms of exquisite delight. This taste was first evinced by an old
woman, who, having sold her oil-pot, took care previously to empty
the contents into her stomach, and lick it clean with her tongue,
regardless of her face becoming thus as black as soot. Capt. Lyon,
being disposed to ingratiate himself with rather a handsome young
damsel, presented her with a good moulded candle, six in the pound.
She immediately began to eat off the tallow with every symptom of
the greatest enjoyment, after which she thrust the wick into her
mouth; but the captain, concerned for the consequences to this
delicate virgin, insisted on pulling it out. In preference to strong
liquors they drank water in the most enormous quantities, by gallons
at a time, and two quarts at a draught; a supply of liquid which is
perhaps necessary to dissolve their gross food, and which, being
obtained only from snow artificially melted, is a scarce winter article.
 The Esquimaux were attended by a large pack of wolves, which
seemed to follow solely to pick up whatever might be found
straggling or defenceless about their habitation. These animals
continued through the whole winter ravening with hunger, and in
eager watch for any victim which might come within their reach. For
this purpose they took a station between the huts and the ships,
ready to act against either as circumstances might dictate. They did
not attack the sailors even when unarmed, though they were often
seen hovering through the gloom in search of prey. Every stray dog
was seized, and in a few minutes devoured. Two wolves broke into a
snow-house close to the ship, and carried off each a dog larger than
himself; but, being pursued, one of them was obliged to drop his
booty. In the extremity of their hunger they hesitated not to tear and
devour the cables and canvass found lying near the vessel. A deadly
war was therefore waged against these fierce animals, of which
thirteen were killed in the course of the season, and sent to be eaten
by the Esquimaux,—a present which was received with much
satisfaction.”
The number of seals destroyed in a single season by the regular
sealers may well excite surprise; one ship has been known to obtain
a cargo of four or five thousand skins and upwards of a hundred tons
of oil. Whale ships have accidentally fallen in with and secured two
or three thousand of these animals during the month of April. The
sealing business is, however, very hazardous when conducted on
the borders of the Spitzbergen ice. Many ships with all their crews
are lost by the sudden and tremendous storms occurring in those
seas, where the dangers are vastly multiplied by the driving of
immense bodies of ice. In one storm that occurred in the year 1774
no less than five seal ships were destroyed in a few hours, and six
hundred valuable seamen perished.
“One of the most affecting shipwrecks which ever occurred in the
northern seas was that of the Jean, of Peterhead, in 1826. Of this we
can give a full account from an interesting narrative by Mr. Cumming,
the surgeon, an eye-witness and sharer of the calamity. This vessel
sailed on the 15th March, having on board only twenty-eight men,
but received at Lerwick a complement of twenty-three natives of
Shetland; owing to which arrangement, as well as by contrary winds,
she was detained till the 28th. From the evening of that day to the
1st April, the ship encountered very stormy weather, which she
successfully withstood, and was then steered into those western
tracts of the Greenland sea which are the most favorable for the
capture of the seal. In one day the seamen killed 1138 seals, and the
entire number caught in five days exceeded 3070. This scene,
however, could not be contemplated without some painful
impressions. The seals attacked were only the young, as they lay
fearlessly reposing on the ice, before they had yet attempted to
plunge into the watery element. One blow of the club stunned them
completely. The view of hundreds of creatures bearing some
resemblance to the human form, writhing in the agonies of death,
and the deck streaming with their gore, was at once distressing and
disgusting to a spectator of any feeling. However, this evil soon gave
way to others of a more serious nature.
On the morning of the 18th April the sailors had begun their fishery
as usual; but a breeze sprung up, and obliged them by eleven
o’clock to suspend operations. The gale continually freshened, and
was the more unpleasant from their being surrounded with loose ice,
which a dense and heavy fog made it impossible to distinguish at
any distance. The mariners took in all sail, but did not apprehend
danger till six in the evening, when the wind, which had been
continually increasing, began to blow with tenfold fury. All that the
narrator had ever heard, of the united sounds of thunder, tempest,
and waves, seemed faint when compared with the stunning roar of
this hurricane. At eight the ship was borne upon a stream of ice, from
which she received several severe concussions; the consequence of
which was that at ten the water began to enter, and at twelve no
exertion in pumping could prevent her from being gradually filled.
At one in the morning she became completely waterlogged. She
then fell over on her beam-ends, when the crew, giving themselves
up for lost, clung to the nearest object for immediate safety. By
judiciously cutting away the main and fore masts, they happily
enabled the ship to right herself, when being drifted into a stream of
ice, she was no longer in danger of immediate sinking. The whole
hull, however, was inundated and indeed immersed in water, except
a portion of the quarter-deck, upon which the whole crew were now
assembled. Here they threw up an awning of sails to shelter
themselves from the cold, which had become so intense as to
threaten the extinction of life. Those endowed with spirit and sense
kept up the vital power by brisk movement; but the natives of
Shetland, who are accused on such occasions of sinking into a
selfish despondency, piled themselves together in a heap, with the
view of deriving warmth from each other’s bodies. Those in the
interior of the mass obtained thus a considerable temperature,
though accompanied with severe pressure; and blows were given,
and even knives drawn to gain and to preserve this advantageous
position. On the 19th, one Shetlander died of cold, another on the
20th, and a third on the 21st,—events felt by the others as peculiarly
gloomy, chiefly, it is owned, as forming a presage of their own
impending fate.
On the 22d the sun began to appear amid showers of snow; and
the 23d was ushered in by fine weather and a clear sky. The
opinions of the crew were now divided as to what course they should
steer in search of deliverance. Two plans were suggested. They
could either stretch northward into the fishing stations, where they
might expect, sooner or later, to meet some of their countrymen, by
whom they would be received on board; or they might sail southward
towards Iceland, and throw themselves on the hospitality of its
inhabitants. The former plan was in several respects the more
promising, especially as a vessel had been in sight when the storm
arose. But its uncertainties were also very great. They might traverse
for weeks those vast icy seas, amid cold always increasing, and with
imminent danger of being swallowed up by the waves. Iceland was
distant, but it was a definite point; and upon this course they at last
wisely determined. Several days were spent in fitting out their two
remaining boats, all the others having been swept away—and in
fishing up from the interior of the vessel every article which could be
turned to account. During this operation, the weather continuing fine,
they could not forbear admiring the scene by which they were
surrounded. The sea was formed as it were into a beautiful little frith,
by the ice rising around in the most varied and fantastic forms,
sometimes even assuming the appearance of cities adorned with
towers and forests of columns. Continual efforts were necessary,
meantime, to keep the wreck on the icy field; for had it slipped over
into the sea, of which there appeared a strong probability, it would
have gone down at once. By the 26th the boats were completely
ready, having on board a small stock of provisions, and a single
change of linen. At half past one in the morning of the 27th, the
mariners took leave, with some sorrow, of the vessel, which ‘seemed
a home even in ruins,’ leaving the deck strewed with clothes, books,
and provisions, to be swallowed up by the ocean as soon as the icy
floor on which it rested should melt away.
The two boats, having received forty-seven men on board, lay very
deep in the water; so that when a smart breeze arose, the men were
obliged to throw away their spare clothing and every thing else which
could be wanted, and soon saw their little wardrobe floating on the
face of the sea. The seamen were frequently obliged to drag their
boats over large fields of ice, and again to launch them. However, a
favorable wind in ten hours enabled them to make forty-one miles,
when they came to the utmost verge of the icy stream, and entered
upon the open ocean. Their fears were not yet removed; for if a
heavy gale had arisen, their slender barks must soon have been
overwhelmed. There blew in fact a stiff breeze, which threw in a
good deal of water, and caused severe cold; however, at seven in
the evening, they saw, with inexpressible pleasure, the lofty and
snow-capped mountains of Iceland. But these were still fifty miles off,
and much might intervene; so that the night, which soon closed in,
passed with a mixture of joy and fear. Fortunately the morning was
favorable; and about four they saw a black speck on the surface of
the ocean. It proved to be an island, naked, rocky, and seemingly
uninhabited. On turning a promontory, however, what was their joy to
see a boat pushing out to meet them! and they were received by the
natives with every mark of kindness and compassion. The seamen
were distributed among the half-subterraneous abodes, and received
a portion of the frugal and scanty fare on which the inhabitants
subsisted. After recruiting their strength, they set sail for the coast of
Iceland, and after a tedious voyage, reached Akureyri, the capital of
this quarter of the island. They were here also received with the most
humane hospitality, and remained three months before they could
obtain a passage home; during which delay unfortunately they lost
nine of their number, chiefly from mortification and other morbid
affections occasioned by extreme cold. In the middle of July, they
procured a passage in a Danish vessel, which brought them and
their boats near to the coast of Shetland. Having landed at Lerwick,
they were conveyed by his Majesty’s ship Investigator to Peterhead,
where they arrived on the 5th August.”
The Harp Seal, my son, of which you have a drawing upon the
cover, is quite common in the Greenland seas, and shows much of
the frisky or frolicksome disposition of the Common Seal. It is often
seen gamboling and whirling over as if in play with its comrades.
They live in great herds or companies, appearing to be under the
direction of a leader, who watches over the safety of the whole. The
Esquimaux and Greenlanders often drive them on shore, when they
come up to the surface in shallow water to breathe. The skin of this
species they use to cover their tents and boats.
Seal oil when properly prepared is pure and fine, and may be
employed for all purposes to which whale oil is adapted. The skins of
these animals are extensively consumed in various manufactures,
especially in trunk making, saddlery, &c.
And now, my son, do you not think that the station in which a kind
Providence has allotted to you, there are not many, very many
reasons not only for contentment, but gratitude to your heavenly
Father for the inestimable blessings conferred upon you. How
necessitous are the poor Esquimaux! Their climate forbids their
attempting the gratification of any desires beyond the commonest
animal wants. In the short summers they hunt the reindeer; and
during their long cold winters, the seal. But the most affecting
circumstance to the Christian is their present condition in the scale of
humanity, their deprivation of the means of knowledge, above all the
knowledge of the Bible.

“Weep, weep for the people that dwell

Where the light of the truth never shone,
Where anthems of praise never swell,
 And the love of the Lamb is unknown.”

As you gain more knowledge of the different beings and things

which God has made, you will gain also more and more proofs of his
existence and of his amazing power, wisdom and goodness. Let that
goodness sink deep into your soul, and form a part of your daily
thoughts and feelings. How much kindness God has shown and is
still showing you; how many sources of comfort and of enjoyment he
gives you; how it grieves him to see you think or feel or act wrong;
how he loves to see you be good and to do good, that you may go,
after death, to be with him forever,—continually to improve in
knowledge, in holiness, and in happiness!
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CATCHING OF
THE WHALE AND SEAL ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions

will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright
in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and without
paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General
Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and
distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if
you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the
trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the
Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such
as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and
printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in
the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright
law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the

free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this
work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase
“Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of
the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or
online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand,
agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual
property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to
abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using
and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for
obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms
of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only

be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by
people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.
There are a few things that you can do with most Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the
full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There
are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™
electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and
help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright
law in the United States and you are located in the United
States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying,
distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project
Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will
support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project
Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this
agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms
of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with
its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it
without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside
the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to
the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying,
displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works
based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The
Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright
status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project

Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project
Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United

States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it
away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg
License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United
States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to
anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges.
If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of
paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use
of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth
in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and
distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder.
Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™
License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright
holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files
containing a part of this work or any other work associated with
Project Gutenberg™.
 1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute
this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the
Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if
you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project
Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other format used in the official version posted on the official
Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at
no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a
means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project
Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™
works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or

providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
 about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project

Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different
terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain
permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™
trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on,
transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright
law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite
these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the
medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,”
such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt
data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other
medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES -

Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic
work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for
damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU
AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE,
STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH
OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER
THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR
ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If

you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you
paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you
received the work from. If you received the work on a physical
medium, you must return the medium with your written
explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu
of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or
entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.
If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund
in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set

forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’,
WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR
ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this
agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this
agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the
maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable
state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of
this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless
from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project
Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or
deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect
you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new
computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of
volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project
Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™
collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In
2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was
created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project
Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your
efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the
Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-
profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the
laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by
the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal
tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and
your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500

West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact
links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation’s website and official page at
www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission
of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works
that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form
accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated
equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly
important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws

regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of
the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform
and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many
fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not
solicit donations in locations where we have not received written
confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or
determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states

where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know
of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from
donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot

make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations
received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp
our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current

donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a
number of other ways including checks, online payments and
credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could
be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and