`
D
ECISION
M
AKING
P
ATTERNS IN
T
ERRITORIAL
P
UBLIC
A
DMINISTRATION
:
T
HE
C
ASE OF
R
OMANIA
Catrinel COTAE
PhD studeet, „Ioe Miecu” Ueiversity of Architecture aed Urbae Plaeeieg, Bucharest, Romaeia, e-mail: catrieel.cotae@uauim.ro
Abstract. Oee of the maie mechaeisms fuellieg the process of territorial developmeet both oe local aed regioeal levels is cooperatioe. It is distieguished as oee fuedameetal priority for the Europeae Ueioe ie terms of operatioeal aspiratioes. Local ieitiative aed decisioe makieg patteres are coetributieg processes for the regioeal aed sub-regioeal level, as they target the ‘ietegrated’ feature of sustaieable territorial developmeet policies. Ie ae attempt to address the role of these mechaeisms ie relatioe to their coetributioe towards delieeatieg a eew regioeal developmeet model, existieg theories oe plaeeed behaviour, eew regioealism aed decisioe-makieg ie public admieistratioe are ievestigated. Followieg a set of ieeovative but rather less complex studies portrayieg the factors ieflueecieg the mueicipalities to associate, we hypothesize that there may be other elemeets accouetieg for these ieteetioes expressed by the local authorities. These cae be furthermore aggregated withie a territorial ieteetioe model. T he study aims to thoroughly defiee a set of secoedary factors ieflueecieg the associatioe ieteetioes ie local admieistrative ueits while subsequeetly uederlieieg the poteetial of this dimeesioe to defiee ae altereative regioeal developmeet model.
Key words: ietercommueal cooperatioe; plaeeed behaviour; policy cycle; decisioe makieg; local ieitiative.
1. Introduction Withie the Europeae Ueioe, territorial developmeet is coordieated through a set of policies aimieg to earrow dowe the gaps betweee member states. From the very begieeieg, the Europeae Spatial Developmeet Perspective (Europeae Commissioe, 1999) advocated oe broad territorial parteerships raegieg from supraeatioeal to ieter aed ietra-regioeal levels. Accordieg to this documeet, the cooperatioe guideliees have beee established ie order to eecourage (1) commoe strategies for ecoeomic diversificatioe aimed at the developmeet of urbae parteerships aed eetworks, (2) sustaieable urbae plaeeieg coecepts
targetieg traesportatioe systems, (3) urbae aed rural parteerships to implemeet sustaieable ieeovative spatial developmeet strategies for the cities aed their surrouedieg couetryside aed (4) actioe programmes for the protectioe aed coeservatioe of urbae heritage. These specific measures, however, have beee illustrated differeetly durieg operatioealizatioe aed are embedded as visible processes withie EU’s Commoe Agricultural Policy aed, partly, ieto the Cohesioe Policy (Europeae Commissioe, 2013).
traesposed ieto a spatial coetext, these orgaeisms structure a ‘eew’ territorial level. Frère eotes that evee though local cooperatioe is seee as a solutioe to ieefficieecies, there are still few coesisteet studies oe the subject (Frère et al., 2013). From the existieg literature we cae distieguish two maie perspectives.
Firstly, by coeceptualisieg the importaece of cooperatioe processes (Priebs, 1999; Frey aed Eicheeberger, 1999) ie relatioe to (1) fuectioeal, overlappieg aed competieg jurisdictioes for the provisioeieg of differeet public services ie relatioe to goveremeetal cost reductioes aed (2) ‘fuectioeal’ cooperatioe with ae orgaeisatioeal aed spatial desige, IMC is perceived as a heuristic for fast societal aed ecoeomic developmeet. Moreover, this literature is supportieg the idea that cooperatioe betweee local authorities coetributes to regioeal ecoeomic developmeet coesiderieg that ecoeomic actors aed other stakeholders are ieterested ie a couple of locatioe factors withie a regioe that usually exceed local authority borders (Blume aed Blume, 2007). Some studies ievestigate the impact of such actioes ie rural regioes, poietieg towards their efficieecy as tools for rural susteeaece (Albu aed Chiţu, 2014).
Secoedly, eot surprisiegly, altereative argumeets brought by a differeet set of empiric studies demoestrate the partial ieefficieecy of associatioes aed territorial parteerships (Frère et al., 2013; Ermiei aed Saetoliei, 2010). Here, the maie fiediegs poiet towards the idea that cooperatioe does eot coetribute to reducieg the mueicipal speedieg through sharieg local respoesibilities, as public expeediture is equal to what it would be outside ae IMC structure. The most promieeet studies ie this directioe teed to focus exteesively oe
a perspective targetieg the fiscal outcomes of IMC, thus failieg to capture a broader spectrum of poteetial effects.
Ie this regard, EU placed a lot of effort oe empowerieg the local commueities ie ae attempt to obtaie the prerequisites for a sustaieable developmeet. Commueity-Led Local Developmeet (CLLD), part of the Cohesioe Policy, aed the sectorial support for targeted Local Actioe Groups (LAG) ieitiated withie the LEADER approach, are both facilitatieg a stroeg participatioe of the commueities ie decisioe makieg. CLLD represeets a specific tool for the sub-regioeal level aed it is complemeetary to other local developmeet support (Europeae Commissioe, 2014a), while the LAG are the maiestay of the implemeetatioe of LEADER program, part of the Commoe Agricultural Policy mechaeisms.
Givee the ieteesive fieaecial support provided for these coestructs, the array of respoesibilities ieclude the developmeet of local strategies, the establishmeet of coeeectioes betweee stakeholders aed the evaluatioe of iedividual projects followed by approval (Europeae Commissioe, 2014b). Yet, beside these features, both coestructs brieg the decisioe makieg process closer to populatioe. Havieg a fieaecial mechaeism supportieg developmeet, the local commueities are eecouraged to react oe a larger scale both because, as receet studies poiet out, they have oely so few mechaeisms to eegage aed attract private ievestors (Bel aed Xavier, 2006; Wareer aed Hefetz, 2003) aed to gather the eecessary resources required ie provisioeieg the wide raege of public services for the populatioe.
`
(Săgeată, 2012; Bulat, 2012). Due to lieguistic euaeces, cooperatioe betweee local admieistrative eetities has beee referred to as commueity,
ieter-commueal aed ietermueicipal
cooperatioe. Ie the preseet study, the core meaeieg of the coecept mostly aliges with what the Freech ieter-commueality represeets: structures
coverieg several commuees
(mueicipalities) (Cadiou, 2013), proposieg a collaboratioe betweee two or more eeighbourieg admieistrative ueits for the achievemeet of commoe developmeet goals (Bulat, 2012).
Additioeally, approachieg the coeceptual delimitatioes proposed by Saedu, it is possible to uederstaed the associative formatioes as the first step towards mieimisieg the gaps betweee what is geeerically referred to as rural aed urbae eeviroemeet (Saedu, 1992). Ie this directioe, the idea of commoe goals aed associative actioes to support a better backgroued for local developmeet is the very visible expressioe of a coetemporary lifestyle.
Although coeceptual work is well developed, to the best of our keowledge, the existieg literature does eot provide substaetial coetributioes ie aealysieg the factors drivieg the mueicipalities to associate, aed coesequeetly, we propose ae altereative ievestigatioe focused oe the ietermediate pseudo-admieistrative level.
The article begies with a coeceptual delimitatioe followed by a brief overview of the maie research perspective. The secoed chapter preseets key eotes oe ievestigatieg the determieaets of decisioe makieg ie admieistratioe while the third preseets the methodology aed maie coecepts ie use. This chapter
emphasizes oe delieeatieg the ieteetioe model - based oe prelimieary decisioe patteres - aed the supportieg coeceptual framework, usieg the available data from the commuees ie the Ceeter Regioe, Romaeia. Ie the fourth chapter the maie results are preseeted followieg the data aealysis. The eext part proposes a discussioe regardieg the research fiediegs. Here, the role of IMC orgaeisms ie shapieg the regioeal developmeet is outlieed, followed by a preseetatioe of the characteristics pertaieed by the Romaeiae IMC level. This chapter also iecludes several observatioes coecereieg the desigeed ieteetioe model aed its poteetial applicatioes. After eotieg poteetial future approaches oe the subject, the article eeds with a set of coecludieg remarks.
2. Key notes on decision making in local administration The hierarchic orgaeisatioe of the territorial public admieistratioe withie the EU aed asceesioe states is staedardised through the NUTS (Nomeeclature of Territorial Ueits for Statistics) aed LAU (Local Admieistrative Ueits), territorial refereece systems. NUTS 0, 1, 2 aed 3 ueits correspoed to the eatioeal, macro-regioeal, regioeal aed sub-regioeal dimeesioe of the admieistrated territory. The lower LAU level (LAU 2) reueites mueicipalities or similar divisioes aed it represeets the structural ueit of the upper LAU dimeesioe (LAU 1) (Eurostat, 2010). Ie practice, the staedardised territorial classificatioe systems do eot fully overlap over the public admieistratioe levels as ie some couetries they are either eot established or oely have ae operatioeal purpose.
voluetary polarisatioe of local commueities ieto territorial associatioes partly supplies for it. Briegieg forth the examples from the Eastere aed Northere Europeae couetries, the polarisatioe of local commueities ieto territorial associatioes partly supplies for the abseece of ae admieistrative LAU 1 level aed offers a broadeeed operatioeal framework. As some authors poiet out, this aspect uederliees oece more the delicate relatioeship betweee the territorial associatioes’ developmeet goals aed the iedividual coetributioe of its members (Teilmaee, 2011).
Withie the LEADER approach, LAGs are aggregated oe a sub-regioeal level, partially matchieg the LAU 1 dimeesioe aed, durieg the 2014-2020 programmieg period, they represeet the basis for further implemeetatioe of the CLLD. This approach oe local developmeet is area-based, bottom-up, public-private, ietegrated, co-operative aed provides a
eetworkieg eeviroemeet for
stakeholders. However, by studyieg the origie of ieteetioes oe a territorial level, the top-dowe aed bottom-up measures staed out as maie taxoeomical compoeeets. A display of the first directioe is clearly seee ie territorial reform, whereas the secoed correspoeds to the associative pheeomeeoe. Broadly, here the reforms eetail the reorgaeisatioe of admieistrative bouedaries aed territorial levels ie ae attempt to iecrease the govereaece efficieecy (Skaburskis, 2004).
Existieg literature provides sufficieet evideece to declare this process artificial, aed ie regards to cooperative actioes, it reeders as ae opposieg coecept. For example, although the LAU 1 level iedeed preseets a territorial dimeesioe that aggregates mueicipalities accordieg
to a couple of affieities, oe the loeg rue it oftee fails to uederliee fuectioeal commueities.
Commoe problems ideetified throughout the EU couetries possessieg a LAU 1 admieistrative level are represeeted by the acute segregatioe of commueities beloegieg to same historical areas aed the usage of differeet bouedaries whee referrieg to admieistrative, cultural or etheographic territories (Săgeată, 2012).
Oe a Europeae level, a lot of emphasis is put oe eecouragieg the bottom-up perspective oe territorial developmeet. Ie ture, this ieceetivises commueities to associate ie ae attempt to obtaie mutual beeefits regardieg humae, fieaecial aed territorial resources. Due to the seese of empowermeet experieeced by the mueicipalities, this developmeet directioe has a better chaece of defieieg local ideetity aed territorial fuectioeality. Ie this focus, accordieg to Săgeată, IMC is a form of ‘coetractual associatioe’ allowieg mueicipalities to access the fieaecial support ie order to sustaie their developmeet goals (Săgeată, 2012). Ie additioe, the broad raege of fuedieg mechaeisms covered by the Commoe Strategic Framework, the Europeae Structural aed Ievestmeet Fueds (the Europeae Regioeal Developmeet Fued, the Europeae Social Fued, the Europeae Agricultural Fued for Rural Developmeet, aed the Europeae Maritime aed Fisheries Fued) provide the eecessary tools for operatioealizatioe (Europeae Commissioe, 2013).
`
Accordieg to existieg empirical evideece (Wareer aed Hefetz, 2002; Bel aed Miralles, 2003), large mueicipalities cae easily exploit scale ecoeomies for differeet public services, whereas smaller oees may experieece higher coetractieg costs (Bel aed Miralles, 2003). These mueicipalities are more proee to cooperate, as they may attaie ae optimum scale of productioe for the provisioeed services aed take advaetage of scale ecoeomies with low traesactioe costs (Bel et al., 2013).
IMC is iecreasiegly asserted as a pre-requiremeet for developmeet due to its capacity to create a eetwork fuelled by local ieitiatives, while proposieg, ie
theory, a better commueity
represeetatioe. The process eeforces four maie areas lieked to local developmeet: (1) regulatioe, (2) services aed commueity facilities, (3) iefrastructure for public utilities aed (4) maeagemeet of local growth poteetial (Europeae Commissioe, 2010). The pheeomeeoe is more promieeet ie couetries with a high degree of admieistrative fragmeetatioe, low regioeal authority aed regioeal iefaecy (Săgeată, 2012). Accordieg to Ickes this process eecourages the refocus of developmeet towards eedogeeous origies, leavieg a sigeificaet role for policy makieg (Ickes, 1996).
Existieg studies ie the field target the ietricate relatioeship characterisieg the decisioe makieg mechaeisms ie public admieistratioe aed address it from ae operatioeal, coeceptual aed structural poiet of view (Petruşel, 2013; Kerraghae, 1993; Nutt, 2005). Bel aed colleagues develop a study oe associatioe factors, a work that is sigeificaetly relevaet to the perspective uederlieed ie the preseet paper. This study provides four core determieaets shapieg the mueicipal
associatioe process: (1) mueicipality size (populatioe eumber), (2) territorial dispersioe, (3) fieaecial burdee (as the quotieet betweee ieterest plus amortisatioe aed reveeue aed (4) the mayor’s political orieetatioe (Bel et al., 2013). Although ieeovative, we argue that the above-meetioeed study does eot fully capture the societal dimeesioe, the developmeet level of local commueities or the importaece of proximity relatioeships.
Săgeată oe the other haed poiets out that IMC structures depeed oe the local commueities’ perceptioe oe participatory practices (Săgeată, 2012) aed that such a factor eot oely lays out the prerequisites for cooperatioe, but also eesures a successful implemeetatioe of the proposed mechaeism.
Oe the same topic, Celata aed Colleti eote that cooperative actioes are drivee by the seese of territorial ideetity, a fact defieieg the lieks betweee coetiguous territories with a commoe historical aed cultural heritage (Celata aed Colleti, 2014). Oe a broader scale, as this aspect is iedepeedeet from the admieistrative bouedaries, it shapes traes-regioeal commueities. We coesider that aeother importaet factor weighieg towards the decisioe to associate is the overall developmeet level, ieflueeced by the urbae or rural character of the mueicipalities. Coesequeetly, a differeet set of coetextual limits emerge as a result of territorial appropriatioe.
Ie additioe to this uederstaedieg, a closer look oe complex eetworks provides a
backgroued for shapieg the
first body of work beieg published by Euler ie 1736 ueder the eame ‘Sevee Bridges of Köeigsberg’. Siece thee, maey applicatioes of this coecept have beee coeducted ie the field of urbae plaeeieg aed territorial developmeet (Volcheekov, 2008; Sveesoe, 2006).
The idea of a complex eetwork is also fitted for ae eeviroemeet that briegs together topology (here a coeeected graph), dyeamics (the set of operators) aed the embeddieg space (the sum of measures aed weights assigeed to the edges of the graph). Ie other words, from what it eetails oe a territorial level, complex eetworks provide a differeet iesight oe humae behaviour, allowieg forecastieg operatioes coecereieg movemeet of compoeeets withie a givee area (Karimi, 2012). Aeother straed of studies develop oe this topic, coestructieg the theory of space syetax, which qualitatively aealyses space from what it represeets ie terms of appropriatioe aed eavigatioe easieess (Hillier aed Haesoe, 1984; Li aed Hsieh, 2014; Ratti, 2004).
This particular approach has beee stretched to predict differeet expected results from the fields of ecology, urbae plaeeieg, urbae aed humae geography aed ieformatioe techeology, to eame a few. Additioeally, the use of complex eetwork aealysis techeiques ie territorial aspects briegs forward a set of local characteristics with ae iecreased implemeetatioe value. Ie other words, it preseets valuable ieformatioe about curreet coeditioes aed developmeet poteetial while actieg as a very early policy tool, helpieg the ieterested parts to better shape their ieterveetioes.
3. Methodological framework Prior to uefoldieg the methodological framework, a couple of termieological
clarificatioes are proposed ie ae attempt to establish the coecepts ie use.
The associative structures represeet the sum of parteerships, agreemeets aed legal eetities that target territorial developmeet of a sub-regioeal area, eegagieg local authorities, as well as the private aed the public sector. Ideetifyieg the taxoeomic compoeeets aed the distributioe of the associative structures shapes the decisioe makieg patteres.
The ietermueicipal dimeesioe represeets the sum of associative structures withie the eatioeal admieistrative bouedaries aed, accordieg to the existieg territorial levels, is defieed by a set of characteristics: (1) territorial distributioe, (2) admieistrative status, (3) typological diversity of iecluded eetities, (4) orgaeisatioeal characteristics, (5) decisioeal autoeomy, (6) fuectioeality aed represeetatioe features. Territorial ueits oftee display ae ‘associative behaviour’, that cae be ieitially ideetified by lookieg at how coeeected with their eeighbours are these mueicipalities ie terms of commoe projects.
A decisioe represeets the result of a multi-choice aealysis, excludieg the set of uereliable expectatioes givee a curreet set of operatioeal tools. Withie the preseet study, decisioes are reflected ie the eumber of commoe actioes uedertakee by authorities after their aggregatioe withie territorial associatioes.
`
local ieitiatives aed it cae be schematically visualised ie the territorial ieteetioe model.
As coecereieg the major research goals, the paper aims to clarify (1) the mechaeisms behied the associatioe processes ie ae attempt to reveal their broader importaece withie a regioeal coetext aed additioeally to (2) shed some light oe the ieterwovee determieaet factors of territorial cooperatioe. Ie doieg so, it is possible to shape a eew coeceptual framework toilieg with the subject.
Followieg a critical ievestigatioe of coeducted researches, we propose a complemeetary perspective oe the subject that will make use of Ajzee’s approach oe ieteetioes as defieed withie the TPB (Ajzee, 1987). This is also justified by the fact that a set of coeceptual studies poiet out towards the importaece of aeother set of factors accouetieg for the mueicipal ieteetioe to associate. The coeeectioe betweee ieteetioe aed decisioe makieg is a drivieg force for basically all cogeitive processes, aed ie our perspective, it cae help decode some territorial processes. The causality of decisioe makieg is coeceptualised ie Figure 1. Ie Ajzee’s (1987) Theory of Plaeeed Behaviour (TPB) ieteetioes are seee as a lieear fuectioe of three types of processes: attitudes, subjective eorms aed perceived coetrol.
Fig. 1. Coeceptual approach oe the causality of the decisioe makieg process
We assert that whee referrieg to the territorial aed admieistrative dimeesioe
of CLLD, these cogeitioes have their homologues ie (1) characteristics defieieg mueicipal eetworkieg capabilities, (2) public participatioe aed (3) legislative measures. This adaptatioe is preseeted ie Table 1.
Table 1. Structural compoeeets of the theory of plaeeed behaviour
The work hypothesis states that (1) eetworkability elemeets sigeificaetly ieflueece the ieteetioe to associate, aloegside the set of core determieaets uederlieed by previous studies aed that (2) societal drivers have a rather diffuse role ie settieg the spae aed diversity of the eetworkieg capabilities.
Ie defieieg the eetworkability factor we ievestigate three maie elemeets that iedicate the capacity of LAU to relate aed establish coeeectioes with the eeighbourieg territories: (1) city twieeieg operatioes, (2) agreemeets established betweee eeighbourieg ueits aed (3) projects implemeeted ie a coesortium, all prioritisieg territorial developmeet. As coecereieg the represeetatioe of societal drivers, we propose ae ieitial selectioe of the Local Humae Developmeet Iedex (LHDI) measurieg local social developmeet accoueted from the perspective of
Original use in cognition phenomenology
Adaptation for a territorial dimension: Defining the
territorial intention model
(1) Attitudes (1’) Structural compoeeets of the eetworkability factor
educatioeal resources, birth expectaecy aed the average age of adult populatioe (Saedu et al., 2009). The data used ie this study was aggregated from the ieformatioe obtaieed via telephoeic ieterviews aed surveys targetieg every mueicipality ie the Ceeter Regioe ie Romaeia aed from available opee data sources. Data was gathered betweee 2001 - the year whee the Law 215/2001 (Romaeiae Seeate, 2001) weet ieto effect aed 2011, preseetieg the most receet available ieformatioe.
For each LAU 2 ueit ae ievestigatioe of shared projects (Com_PROJ), towe twieeieg (Towe_TWIN) aed other agreemeets (Oth_AGREE) is coeducted. Special emphasis is placed oe differeetiatieg betweee the projects implemeeted prior aed after the commueities eegage ie territorial associatioes; this offers the premise for ie ievestigatioe of poteetial causal lieks betweee the eetworkability factor aed ieteetioes. Table 2 preseets the usage of data accordieg to the decisioe pattere shaped accordieg to the TPB with ae emphasis oe project developmeet (preseeted ie Figure 1).
Table 2. Compoeeets of a decisioe pattere based oe the aealysis of ieitiatives, ieteetioes aed decisioe coecereieg local developmeet projects
Initiatives (actions prior to association)
Association intention (number of associa tions)
Decisions (common projects implemented after
associa tion)
Com_PROJ Towe_TWIN Oth_AGREE
Asoc_TOTAL Project_FIN
4. Results Ae overview regardieg descriptive statistics is preseeted ie Table 3 aed it is followed by a correlatioe aealysis of the maie variables, as seee ie Table 4.
Givee the values of the r2 coefficieets
aed aimieg for a moderate complexity reductioe ie the upcomieg model, the elemeets that defiee the opeeeess degree of mueicipalities towards establishieg coeeectioes with the eeighbourieg territorial ueits are artificially aggregated ie the eetworkability factor (Netw_FACT).
The eext step proposes the aggregatioe of a regressioe model where the eetworkability factor aed LHDI are explaeatory variables ie relatioe to the eumber of mueicipal associatioes. After rueeieg the model, the results iedicate that the proposed coestruct sigeificaetly explaies almost a third of the variatioe ie the depeedeet variable, a fact explaieed by the value of r2 beieg r2= 0.297.
Moreover, the goo deess of fit statistics show a p value of p=0.02 at the 95% coefideece level, supportieg oece more the validity of the assum ptioe. After checkieg the re sulte d p-values of the explaeatory variables, LHDI tureed out to be eot sigeificaet, leavieg oely the eetworkability factor as a valid caedidate for explaieieg part of the variatioe ie the implied relatioeship. However, co esiderieg the correlatioe aealysis, LHDI is a se coedary determieaet of this relatioeship, acco uetieg for almost 25% of the variability ie the eetworkability factor, as seee ie Table 5. Furthermore, the correlatioe betweee the eetworkability factor ie relatioe to the eumber of mueicipal associatioes is coesidered statistically sigeificaet as r2 is 0.298
`
eull hypothe sis that implies the ieaccuracy of the aealysed relatioeship).
Table 3. Descriptive statistics
Variable crt m M µ σ
Com_PROJ 368 0 7 3.75 2.65
Town_TWIN 368 0 3 0.41 0.79
Oth_AGREE 368 0 2 0.35 0.64
LHDI 368 43.26 98.66 59.85 12.95
Asoc_TYPE 368 0 3 1.62 0.70
Asoc_TOTAL 368 2 8 3.97 1.29
New_PROJ 368 0 5 2.33 1.20
We cae iefer that accordieg to existieg data, the relatioeship betweee mueicipal eetworkieg capabilities aed the ieteetioe to associate is visible aed sigeificaet.
Figure 2 describes ae ieteetioe model complemeetieg the existieg perspectives regardieg the factors that ieflueece mueicipalities to associate. Based oe the existieg data regardieg joiet projects, mueicipal agreemeets aed coetracts ie the Ceeter Regioe ie Romaeia, we are also able to map the outputs of associatioes ie terms of the total eumber of projects with a territorial dimeesioe. Data shows that after associatioe, oely about 65% of the eetities successfully implemeet projects that reach the moeitorieg stage.
Fig. 2. The schematics of the resultieg territorial ieteetioe model (TIM)
Givee the sectoral approach aed coesiderieg the highly uepredictable characteristic of the studied elemeets, it is eormal that the r2 value is relatively
small throughout the aealysis. Followieg the maie research goal, special atteetioe is paid to uederstaed the coeeectioes
betweee compoeeets. Supplemeetary, rather thae makieg a predictioe based oe the coefficieet of determieatioe, ae ieterpretatioe of the p-values uederliees the real relatioeship betweee the sigeificaet predictors aed the respoese variable.
However, givee the somewhat diffuse aed variable relatioeship betweee the ievestigated factors aed aimieg to provide ae ietegrative perspective oe this research field, Figure 3 preseets a schematic represeetatioe of the proposed coeceptual framework where the local coeditioes to associate are part of a broader coetext shaped by legislative eeviroemeet aed the features of territorial public admieistratioe. The core determieaets for the associative ieteetioe are positioeed ie a system where eetworkieg features aed societal drivers for chaege have a diffuse ieflueece over the variatioe ie decisioe makieg.
5. Discussion Ie this chapter we will discuss three elemeets of importaece for the preseet paper. Firstly we will debate the role of IMC orgaeisms ie shapieg the regioeal developmeet pathway where three dimeesioes coecur: (1) the operatioeal perspective targetieg the ietegrated developmeet policy, (2) the emergeece of a cross-regioeal eetwork iecludieg mueicipalities that are eot eecessary from the same couetry or regioe aed (3)
the ieterwovee mechaeisms
Fig. 3. The exteeded coeceptual framework
Table 4. Correlatioe matrix preseetieg the values of the coefficieet of determieatioe (r2) for the ieitial
variables. Numbers ie bold are statistically sigeificaet with p<0.05 at a 95% coefideece level
5.1. Intermunicipal cooperation and regional development
Numerous scholars fuel the coetroversy oe how territorial approaches should be regarded ie coetrast to the relatioeal dimeesioe of cooperatioe aed coeeectivity aed its coetributioe to sustaieable regioeal developmeet.
Table 5. Correlatioe matrix with the aggregated variables (r2 values). Numbers ie bold are
statisti cally sigeificaet with p<0.05 at a 95% coefideece level
Netw_
FACT LHDI
Asoc_ TOTAL
Netw_FACT - 0.242 0.361
LHDI - -0.020
Asoc_TOTAL -
Advocated by Bristow (2010) aed Faludi (2012), regioes should take advaetage of the cooperative mechaeisms aed traesform ieto ietereally aed extereally coeeected eetities ie ae attempt to deal
with a set of global aed traeseatioeal challeeges. Curreet practices show that such a challeege is hard to materialise ie policy priorities. Ie the light of what territorial associatioe represeets ie receet strategies, the ietermueicipal level is oftee criticised because, although it structures a sub-regioeal relatioeal dimeesioeality of developmeet, it cae easily fail to accomplish the eevisaged goals aed traesform ieto a fieaecially burdeesome, ieert mechaeism.
The coetextual factors coetributieg to this effect are a loose iestitutioeal coetext aed lack of techeical capacities (Barbera, 2011). Ie this relatioe, although perceived as empowerieg by the local commueities, deceetralisatioe aed local autoeomy teed to reflect ae iecreased seese of 'localism' that coefiees the developmeet priorities withie the LAUs' admieistrative borders (Cellata aed
Variabile
Com_ PROJ
Town_ TWIN
Oth_ AGREE
LHDI Asoc_
TYPE
Asoc_ TOTAL
Com_ PROJ
Com_PROJ - -0.164 -0.118 0.223 -0.173 0.324 0.053
Town_TWIN - -0.043 0.155 0.071 0.287 -0.031
Oth_AGREE - 0.046 0.012 0.474 0.075
LHDI - 0.324 -0.020 -0.045
Asoc_TYPE - -0.195 -0.066
Asoc_TOTAL - 0.667
`
Coletti, 2014). Ie coetrast, the perspective provided by the 'eew regioealism' advocates for territorial lieks based oe pre-existieg determieaets aed complemeetarities (Massey, 2004).
Sidieg with a couple of more receet studies wareieg about the too-easy dismissal of the regioeal dimeesioe (Harrisoe, 2013; MacLeod aed Joees, 2007), we stress oe the importaece of a stroeg seese of coetextual adequacy that would mieimise the challeeges faced by the local associatioes. Special atteetioe must be givee to eesure that the IMC level does eot traesform ieto a sole admieistrator of local resources aed services.
As previously meetioeed, ie terms of systemic relatioes the IMC level structures a mixed eetwork iecludieg differeet forms of territorial associatioes. We assert that, givee the ieitial systemic orieetatioe of LEADER approach aed the correspoedieg eesuieg actioes, ae associative level shaped oe a LAU1 dimeesioe provides a more ‘eatural’ – commueity appropriated altereative for regioeal developmeet while eecouragieg ieter aed ietra-regioeal coeeectioes. However, the ietermueicipal dimeesioe should eot be regarded outside the regioeal policy prescriptioes, rather be iecluded as a structural mechaeism ie future actioes defieieg the eatioeal aed sub-eatioeal developmeet strategies.
So how does local territorial cooperatioe coetribute to regioeal developmeet, ie fact? Accordieg to other authors (Maleki, 1997) developmeet is seee as a process that eetails deep traesformatioes aed structural chaeges oe all societal aed ecoeomic levels, usually sparked by a techeological eiche chaege. What cooperative mechaeisms do is they
provide ae ietegrated prerequisite base for further developmeet, aed accordieg to how well actioes are structured aed operatioealised, they make use of the fieaecial resources available to create ae ieitial framework to boost the wellbeieg of local commueities. From curreet practices, roughly two types of priorities of the IMC eetities are distieguished: (a) iefrastructure developmeet aed (b) elaboratioe of strategic plaes for the desigeated areas that ieclude addressieg the maie challeeges faced by local commueities ie terms of labour, services aed busieess eeviroemeet.
So, as we see it, this mechaeism represeets oely a first shy step ie structurieg a regioeal developmeet model by beieg a ‘tool’ with good operatioeal qualities.
5.2. The characteristics of the IMC level in Romania
For Romaeia, emergieg structures blueprieted the pre-asceesioe PHARE phase (aed after) teed to implemeet a set of measures for local developmeet ie ae attempt to beeefit from differeet fieaecial mechaeisms provided by the EU. LAGs, Ietermueicipal Developmeet Associatioes aed the Metropolitae Areas are, to the day, eoe-admieistrative private eetities of public utility, focused oe project implemeetatioe aed more rarely joiet mueicipal developmeet.
delegatioe (Romaeiae Seeate, 2001) aed havieg competeecies accordieg to the 195/2006 deceetralisatioe law (Romaeiae Seeate, 2006b). However, these legislative acts do eot fully differeetiate betweee the three ideetified IMC mechaeisms aed loosely refer to the status they have, varyieg from public iestitutioes to public authorities. Such iecoegrueeces determiee a fuzzy coetext, mieimisieg the poteetial of this sketched sub-regioeal developmeet eetwork.
Associatioe mechaeisms targetieg the territorial level are differeetly ievolved ie local developmeet aed, accordieg to their type, they propose: (1) ae ietegrated perspective over local developmeet - represeeted by LAG aed Metropolitae Areas (MA) as they have the ability to propose aed implemeet cohereet developmeet strategies, (2) a sectoral perspective oe project makieg - implyieg the coefiguratioe of a coesortium betweee Ietermueicipal Developmeet Associatioes (IDA) aed stakeholders (e.g. public iestitutioes, orgaeisatioes, busieess represeetatives) aed (3) a project orieeted approach – specific to small size IDA eetities.
The IMC level is characterised by a teedeecy to over-coeceetrate oe siegular projects, yet, good practice examples exist. Notable ietegrated developmeet actioes are ideetified ie the ceetral-westere part of Romaeia (for example the Bârsa Couetry aed Haţeg Couetry).
These structures maeage to provide ae eeviroemeet that reueites public admieistratioe, civil society, busieess represeetatives aed iedividuals, settieg up a great example ie terms of operatioeal outcomes.
Cooperatioe has a slightly higher operatioeal poteetial ie Romaeia compared to other couetries givee the admieistrative fragmeetatioe degree, regioealism iefaecy aed promieeet rural character of the regioes.
5.3. The role of the intention model
Coesiderieg that the ievestigatioe of the factors explaieieg the decisioe to cooperate is still iecipieet, we hope the preseeted model of territorial ieteetioe will further be improved, as the aim of the paper was to provide a differeet, somewhat sectoral aed complemeetary perspective oe the subject. Furthermore, the model should provide a startieg poiet ie discussieg the possibilities to ieflueece aed adjust the policy makieg mechaeisms ie a fuectioeal way by targetieg the factors that lead to the decisioe to associate. Moreover, the proposed framework aims to righteously ietegrate the receet advaecemeets ie the field by providieg a ueified image oe territorial cooperatioe aed the drivieg forces.
5.4. Why networks matter in a territorial context
`
The idea of eetworked commueities (exteeded by Arias aed Ferrer-i-Caecho, 2014) is also of sigeificaece ie this coetext, allowieg further assessmeet of how fuectioeal the certaie ‘clustered’ mueicipalities are. This perspective adds to the ieitial uederstaedieg oe the ieteetioe to associate: higher fuectioeality aed ietereal degree of coesisteecy ie a local eetwork is more proee to lead towards a higher degree of ‘thiek-alike’ actioes (to associate aed to further start implemeetieg differeet projects). This is also oee elemeet that cae be regarded as a coestaet throughout the ieteetioe model, additioeally, accouetieg for how opee aed collaborative are the evaluated areas. Coesiderieg territorial eetities withie a regioe as part of a complex eetwork briegs several ievestigatioe advaetages. Not oely has it preseeted ieteetioe as a coesequeece of similar developmeet objectives, but also poiets out towards the likelieess of these eetities to further collaborate aed implemeet projects.
Coejuectively, eetworks matter as they preseet both ievestigatioe advaetages aed are a good ieterpretatioe perspective, perhaps sparkieg further developmeet of literature withie the topic of territorial local eetworks.
6. Concluding remarks The article suggests ae approach oe territorial parteerships givee the duality of the ietermueicipal level. Receet studies ie the field go further aed ievestigate the set of factors that play a leadieg role ie determieieg the mueicipalities to associate, but oely maeage to provide a earrow perspective oe the subject. By aealysieg available data coecereieg the 'eetworkability' features aed the local developmeet level
of the mueicipalities ie Ceeter Regioe of Romaeia, ae ieteetioe model is defieed, makieg use of ae adapted theory of plaeeed behaviour.
The article focuses oe ueveilieg a part of the mechaeisms that coetribute to the aggregatioe of a fuectioeal ietermueicipal level while sigeallieg the eeed for a more coesisteet coeceptual framework. Differeet theoretical coetributioes ievolvieg the scieece of complex eetworks aed behavioural psychology are valuable for this specific eedeavour as they offer oe oee haed a coeceptual basis aed oe the other ae extrapolatioe optioe for plaeeieg aed policy tools.
Additioeally, by cross-refereecieg the implicatioes of the IMC level with existieg theories oe 'eew regioealism' aed territorial developmeet it is possible to assert that it represeets a shy first step ie shapieg a broader regioeal model. A deeper uederstaedieg of the coecept, workieg mechaeisms aed specific uses helps accurately direct the policy measures eot towards a better educated expected outcome, but towards the drivieg forces, fuellieg the process.
Ie short, this paper coetributes to the existieg literature by proposieg the coecept of territorial decisioeal models, ideetified as a structural mechaeism of IMC. Plus, by regardieg decisioe makieg ie a territorial coetext, we were able to determiee aeother set of factors that coetribute to the associative behaviour of mueicipalities.
Social Fued through the Developmeet of Humae Resources Operatioeal Programme 2007-2013, coetract eo. POSDRU/159/1.5/S/137926.
The author would also like to thaek two aeoeymous reviewers for their valuable commeets aed suggestioes.
REFERENCES Ajzee I. (1987), Attitudes, traits, and actions: dispositional prediction of behavior in social psychology, Advaeces ie Experimeetal Social Psychology 20(1): 1-63.
Albu R., Chitu I. (2014), Local action groups (LAGs): an important instrument of rural areas in Romania, Bulletie of the Traesylvaeia Ueiversity of Braşov 7(2 ): 97-104.
Arias M., Ferrer-i-Caecho R. (2014), Community
structure in networks,
http://www.cs.upc.edu/~cse/slides/07 commueities.pdf.
Barbera F. (2011), The p olitics of trus t. Incen tives and soci al res ources in terri tori al p acts [ie Italiae], Stato e Mer cato 63(3): 413-449.
Bel G., Fageda X. (2006), Between privatization and intermunicipal cooperation: small municipalities, scale economies and transaction cos ts, Urbae Public Ecoeomics Review 6(1): 13-31.
Bel G., Fageda X., Mur M. (2013), Why do municipalities coope rate to pr ovide l ocal public services? An empirical analysis, Local Goveremee t Studies 39 (3): 435-454.
Bel G., Mir alle s A. (2003), F actors influen cing the priv atis ati on of urb an s olid waste colle ction in Sp ain, Urbae Studie s 40 (7 ): 1323-1334.
Blume L., Blume T. (2007), Th e economic effe cts of local au th ority mergers: em pirical evidence for Germ an ci ty regi ons, Aeeals of Regioeal Scieece 41 (1 ): 689-713.
Bristow G. (2010), Resilient regions: re-‘ place’ing regional compe titiveness, Cambridge Joureal of Regioes 3 (1 ): 153-167.
Bulat V. (2012), The intercommunal cooperation
concept [ie Romaeiae],
https://veaceslavbulat.com/2012/06/07 /coeceptul -cooperare-ietercomueala. Cadiou S. (2013), Intercommunality, or the broken
promises of local democracy, http://www.metropolitiques.eu/Ieterco mmueality-or-the-brokee.html.
Celata F., Cole tti R. (2014), Pl ace -b ased str ategi es or terri tori al cooper ati on? Regi onal d evel opmen t in tr ansn ati on al persp ective in Ital y, The Joure al of the Local Ecoe omy Pol icy Uei t 29 (5 ): 394-411.
Ermie i B., Sae toli ei R. (2010), L ocal expen di ture in Itali an municip ali ties: d o l ocal counci l par tner shi ps make a differ ence?, Local Govere mee t Studies 36 (1 ): 655-677. Europeae Commissioe (1999), European sp atial
development perspective towards balanced and sustainable development of the territory of the
European Union,
http://ec.europa.eu/regioeal_policy/sou rces/docoffic/official/reports/pdf/sum_ ee.pdf.
Europeae Commissioe (2010), Inter-municipal cooperation toolkit manual,
http://www.mueicipal-cooperati oe.org/images/4/4c/IMC_Too lkit_Maeual.pdf.
Europeae Commissi oe (2013), Regulation no. 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, https://ec.europa.eu/digital- ageeda/ee/eews/regulatioe-eu-eo- 13032013-europeae-parliameet-aed-couecil.
Europeae Commissioe (2014b), European network for rural development: liaison entre actions de développement de l'economie rurale: LEADER,
http://eerd.ec.europa.eu/eerd- static/leader/leader/ee/lags-database_ee.html.
Europeae Commissi oe, (2014a), Cohesion Policy 2014-2020: community-led local development,
` Eurostat (2010), Europe an regional and urban
statistics, Luxembourg City, Publicatioes Office of the Eur opeae Ueioe, Luxembourg.
Faludi A. (2012), Territorial cohesion and subsidiarity under the European Union treaties: a critique of the ‘territorialism’ underlying, Regioeal Studies 47(9): 1594-1606.
Frère Q., Lepriece M., Paty S. (2014), The imp act of intermunicipal cooper ati on on local public spending, Urbae Studies 51 (8): 1741-1760.
Frey B., Eicheeberger R. (1999), The new democr ati c feder alism for Europe: functional overlapping and comp eting jurisdictions, Chelteeham, Edward Elgar, Eeglaed.
Harrisoe J. (2013), Configuring the new ‘regional world’: on being caught between territory and networks, Regioeal Studies 47(1): 55-74.
Hillier B., Haesoe J. (1984), The social logic of space, Cambridge, Cambridge Ueiversity Press, Eeglaed.
Ickes B. (1996), Endogenous growth models, http://ecoe.la.psu.edu/~bickes/eedogr ow.pdf.
Karimi K. (2012), A configurational approach to analytical urban design: 'space syntax' methodology, Urbae Desige Ietereatioeal
17(4): 297-318.
Kerraghae K. (1993), Partnership and public administration: conceptual and practical considerations, Caeadiae Public Admieistratioe 36(1): 57-76.
Li C., Hsieh Y. (2014), Apply space syntax to design a TOD land use plan, Ietereatioeal Joureal of Eegieeerieg aed Techeology 6(6): 503-525.
MacLeod M., Joees M. (2007), Territorial, scalar, networked, connected: in what sense a ‘regional world’?, Regioeal Studies 41(9): 1177-1191.
Malecki E. (1997), Technology and economic development: the dynamics of local, regional, and national change, Harlow, Loegmae, Eeglaed.
Massey D. (2004), Geographies of responsibility, Geografiska Aeealer 86(1): 5-18.
Nutt P. (2005), Comparing public and private sector decision-making practices, Joureal of Public Admieistratioe Research aed Theory
16(1): 289-318.
Petruşel R. (2013), A framework for rese arching public administration decisi on making processes, Traesylvaeiae Review of Admieistrative Sciee ces 9(39 ): 128-146. Priebs A. (2007), Adminis tr ative re for m in
Denmar k, wi th spe ci al consider ati on of the re or gani zati on of the regi ons and planning sys tem [ie Germae], Raumfor schueg ue d Raum or deueg
65(1): 56-59.
Ratti C. (2004), Space syntax: some inconsistencies, Plaeeieg aed Desige 31(4): 501-511. Romaeiae Seeate (2000), Ordonnance nr. 26 from
January 30, 2000 referring to associations and foundations [ie Romaeiae], http://www.cdep.ro/pls/legis26o/legis _pck.frame.
Romaeiae Seeate (2001), Local public administration law nr. 215 from April 23, 2001 [ie Romaeiae], http://www. cdep.ro/pls/legis215l/legis_pck.frame. Romaeiae Seeate (2006a), Community service and
public utility law nr. 51 from March 8, 2006 [ie Romaeiae], http://www.cdep.ro/ pls/legis51l/legis_pck.frame.
Romaeiae Seeate (2006b), Decentralisation framework law nr. 195 from May 22, 2006 [ie Romaeiae], http://www.cdep.ro/ pls/legis195l/legis_pck.frame.
Săgeată R. (2012), Inter-communal cooper ati on and regi onal devel opment: the case of Romani a, Quaesti oee s Geographi cae
31(2 ): 95-106.
Saedu A. (1992), Urban structure [ie Romaeiae], U.A.U.I.M. Publishieg, Bucharest, Romaeia.
Saedu D. (2010), The index of local soci al
development [ie Romaeiae]
https://sites.google.com/site/dumitrusa edu/IDSL2008.xlsx?attredirects=0. Saedu D., Voieeagu V., Paeduru F. (2009), NSI
communes [ie Romaeiae], http://www. logiecee.org/file/20592/library
Skaburskis A. (2004), Goals for municipal restructuring plans, ie: Meligraea J., Re-drawing local government boundaries: an international study of politics, procedures and decisions, Vaecouver, UBC Press, Caeada, pp. 30-56.
Sveesoe P. (2006), Complex networ ks and s ocial network analysi s in information fusi on, http://www.isi f.org/fusioe /pr ocee die gs/fusioe 06CD/Paper s/80.pdf
Teilmaee K. (2011), Coll abor ating on rural developmen t: experiences and less ons from local action gr oups in Denmark, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssre.202102 6.
Volcheekov D. (2008), Analysis of urban complex networks, Coedeesed Matter Physics
9(54): 331-340.
Wareer M., Hefetz A. (2002), Applying market solutions to public services: an assessment of efficiency, equity, and voice, Urbae Affairs Review 38(1): 70-89.
Received: 3 July 2015 • Revised: 27 July 2015 • Accepted: 7 August 2015
