Suchergebnisse

Partnership has become a central principle of European Union (EU) policies, particularly in relation to the structural funds. This article considers the diffusion of the partnership principle in the EU, focusing on Britain and Sweden. It is concerned with two questions. First, has the partnership principle led to a process of harmonisation across states or to national resistance? Second, to what extent has the partnership principle enhanced the legitimacy of EU decision making?The evidence presented here suggests that though there has not been significant resistance to the partnership principle within Britain and Sweden, the EU's requirements have been interpreted and implemented differently in the two states. Thus it is more appropriate to speak of 'adaptation' to partnership rather than 'adoption'. This is explained by what we summarise as 'national democratic traditions'.In terms of democratic legitimacy, the Swedish adaptation to partnership was nominally more democratic in that local politicians were readily involved from the outset, whereas in Britain they were not. However, the importance of this inclusion should not be overstated in relation to substantive democratic legitimacy. The Swedish model was not supported by well‐articulated democratic strategies or principles. Despite the limitations of the Swedish model, recent developments suggest that Britain is following a similar path.

Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to explore and elaborate on how institutional conditions work to the advantage and disadvantage of disaster risk reduction (DRR) policies on different levels in two countries.


Design/methodology/approach
A qualitative case study design is used to study empirically two countries with very different traditions when it comes to political-administrative institutions: Argentina and Sweden.


Findings
As expected, the institutional foundations of DRR policy in Sweden are shown to be more consistent and stable than in Argentina. However, this difference is of less importance when considering the crucial role of local practices. National institutional foundations can function as support – but is not a necessary condition – for building disaster preparedness on the ground. The authors argue that national governments cannot do without institutionalized praxis-based preparedness, which is vital for both effective emergency management and learning.


Originality/value
This paper contributes to the disaster research debate by elaborating on institutional arrangements that can facilitate or hinder DRR strategies in a multi-level context. The main argument is that institutional practices on the ground are important to compensate for insufficient national institutions, either because they are weak or too distant from practical DRR. The authors also elaborate on how institutional practices can function as a source for learning and for building legitimate practical authority from the bottom up.

Organizational reforms in public administration have been high on the agenda for decades. A popular type is the Municipal Service Center (MSC) gathering citizen-local government interaction in one location, physically and virtually. By using a processual approach, this article reveals the trade-offs and value-priorities made in the process of establishing a MSC in a mid-sized Swedish municipality. The empirical data comprise documents and 29 semi-structured interviews with politicians, managing directors, and other key actors. We discern four key trade-offs: open process of change or final product, efficiency or democracy values, politicians or administrators as key actors, and citizens as customers or co-creators. The article also discusses the trade-offs in relation to broader public administration perspectives. The results indicate that the process was characterized by a view of citizens as service-recipients and customers, a focus on efficiency and the final product, and finally pushed forward by administrators. Most, but no all trade-offs and value-priorities were aligned with new public management (NPM), while other public administration perspectives were not applicabel as expected in a citizen-centred reform process.

Organizational reforms in public administration have been high on the agenda for decades. A popular type is the Municipal Service Center (MSC) gathering citizen-local government interaction in one location, physically and virtually. By using a processual approach, this article reveals the trade-offs and value-priorities made in the process of establishing a MSC in a mid-sized Swedish municipality. The empirical data comprise documents and 29 semi-structured interviews with politicians, managing directors, and other key actors. We discern four key trade-offs: open process of change or final product, efficiency or democracy values, politicians or administrators as key actors, and citizens as customers or co-creators. The article also discusses the trade-offs in relation to broader public administration perspectives. The results indicate that the process was characterized by a view of citizens as service-recipients and customers, a focus on efficiency and the final product, and finally pushed forward by administrators. Most, but no all trade-offs and value-priorities were aligned with new public management (NPM), while other public administration perspectives were not applicabel as expected in a citizen-centred reform process.