Local Challenges of the Economic Crisis: Experience of Decentralized Local Political Elites

1. Roxana Marin, PhD student, Doctoral School of Political Science, University of Bucharest doctoral fellow, Romanian Academy, Iași branch marin.roxana@fspub.unibuc.ro Local Challenges of the Economic Crisis: Experience of Decentralized Local Political Elites SCOPE International Conference. The Interdisciplinary Vocation of Political Science(s), University of Bucharest, Faculty of Political Science, Bucharest, June 27-29, 2014

2. Contents • Theoretical assessments; • Case-studies: objective, research questions; research methods; • Results; • Tentative explanations; • Conclusions

3. Theoretical Assessments • How to measure degree of decentralization ? • Level of proclivity towards decentralization (Dunn, Wetzel 2000); • Share of subnational governments to the public consumption/ GDP (IMF 2001); • Qualitative indicators: government credibility, social capital (de Mello 2000), soft/ hard budget constrains (Janos Kornai), levels of corruption, administrative capacity (Gargan 1981); • How to measure “the legacy of the past” (Jowitt, 1999) ?

4. Subnational share of general government expenditure (%) Significant level of decentralization: > 50%; Standard level of decentralization: > 30%; Low level of decentralization: < 30%

5. Case-studies: objective, research questions, research methods (I) • The present research is concerned with the issue of local leadership in the countries of East-Central Europe. • Concretely, the intended research started as an attempt to examine, in a comparative manner, the profile and the role of the local political elites in three transitional democracies of East-Central Europe, Romania, the Czech Republic, and Poland, and the elites’ impact on the evolution of the local communities in the developing region of former Sovietized Europe; • Focal case studies, three small towns, Tecuci , ČeskáLípa, and Oleśnica, Gyula, and Targovishte, quite similar in terms of demographics (roughly 40,000 inhabitants) and developmental strategies (an economy based on the alimentary industry and on commerce activities, etc.); • The scope of the research - initially, rather descriptive, exploratory; an inductive, observatory process – an inquiry into a range of aspects worth pointing out when dealing with and discussing on the study of political elites.

6. Methodological note • The positional method of identifying and analyzing the local political elites, by operationalizing the phrase “local political elites” through the following definition: The local political elite is that group comprising those individuals in legislative and executive positions within the local leading, decision-making structure; • The population of the empirical research: the members of the Local/ Municipal Councils in Tecuci (19 persons), Targovishte (33 persons), ČeskáLípa (25 persons), Oleśnica (22 persons), and Gyula (21 persons) as they were in 2011-2013; • Methods of gathering data: Written questionnaire; Document analysis; Participative Observation, etc. • Methods of identifying and analyzing elites: Positional (Wright-Mills 1956) Reputational (Warner 1941-1963; Hunter 1953, 1956; Miller 1985; Decisional (Dahl 1961; Lynds 1929,1937)

7. Results (I)

8. Results (II): Interactions with other groups/ institutions

9. Results (III): Which of the following aspects do you value the most in a democracy ?

10. Results (IV): Attitudes towards decentralization

11. Results (V): Attitudes towards state intervention in economy

12. Results (VI): Models of local councilor • The ethical model (22.65%; 28.68%; 18.91%; 32.23%; 20.75%); • The political model (23.98%; 12.93%; 4.05%; 32.23%; 18.65%); • The technocratic model (9.33%; 21.28%; 18.90%; 10.52%; 22.05%); • The pragmatic model (21.32%; 37%; 45.9%; 25%; 38.55); • The gender model (0% for all cases).

13. Conclusions • Inconclusive results for: elites’ perceptions on state intervention in economy; the level of elite satisfaction of living in the town • The lower the level of decentralization, the higher the level of acceptance for decentralization and greater autonomy • Generally, the higher the level of decentralization: • The higher the level of responsibility of the local elites, and their capacity to pinpoint key domains of interest at the local level; • The more isolated the political elite; • The more localized the political elite, in socio-geographical identification. • The impact of the “legacy of the past” is still to be considered and might supplement the explanations

14. Tentative typology • “Predominantly elitistic” (e.g.Tecuci and Targovishte), corresponding to a former “modernizing-nationalizing”, “patrimonial” communist dictatorship, followed by “elite reproduction”, and low levels of administrative decentralization and local autonomy, presently; characterized by a significant degree of “elite distinctiveness”; • “Democratic elitist” (e.g.Oleśnica and Gyula), corresponding to a defunct “national-accommodative” communist dictatorship, followed by “elite circulation”, and high levels of decentralization and local autonomy, in the present; • “Predominantly democratic” (e.g.ČeskàLípa), corresponding to a former “bureaucratic-autoritarian”, “welfare” communist dictatorship, followed by “elite circulation”, a tradition of administrative decentralization, and significant levels of local autonomy, nowadays.

15. Selective references De Mello, Luiz (2000). Can Fiscal Decentralization Strengthen Social Capital?, Washington, DC: IMF Working Paper No. 129. Eldersveld, Samuel, Political Elites in Modern Societies. Empirical Research and Democratic Theory, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1989; Stoica, Virgil, Cine conduce Iasiul ?, Fundația Axis Publishing House, Iași, 2003. Warner, William Lloyd, Yankee City, Yale University Press, New Haven (Connecticut), 1963; • Robert Staughton LYND and Helen Merrell LYND, Middletown: A Study in Contemporary American Culture, Harcourt, Brace and World, New York, 1929; idem, Middletown in Transition: A Study in Cultural Conflicts, Harcourt, Brace and World, New York, 1937. • William Lloyd Warner, Yankee City, Yale University Press, New Haven (Connecticut), 1963; • Floyd HUNTER, Community Organization: Action and Inaction, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill (North Carolina),1952. idem, Community Power Structure: A Study of Decision-Makers, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill (North Carolina), 1953. • Delbert C. MILLER, “Industry and Community Power Structure: A Comparative Study of an American and an English City”, in American Sociological Review, Vol. 23, No. 1 (February 1985), pp. 9-15. • Robert DAHL, Who Governs ? Democracy and Power in an American City, Yale University Press, New Haven (Connecticut), 1961. • Samuel ELDERSVELD, Political Elites in Modern Societies. Empirical Research and Democratic Theory, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1989; • Virgil STOICA, Cine conduce Iasiul ?, Fundația Axis Publishing House, Iași, 2003

16. THANK YOU !