Theoretical
Foundations of the Democracy and Local Governance Research Program*
University of Pennsylvania
Background Paper for the conference On Development of Democracy and Local
Government in former Soviet Union and Western Democracies
Goteborg University, June 15-19, 2000
The Democracy and Local Governance Research program targeted democratic change at the dawn of the Second Democratic Revolution in 1990. The First Democratic Revolution at the end of the eighteenth century had a universal appeal, but was trapped in the closing confines of nationalism. It spread in its Anglo-American context largely by the migrations of English speaking peoples, mainly to North America and Australia. Its continental version was diffused not only from ideas of the French Enlightenment but also by the armies of Napoleon.
The Second Democratic Revolution occurred when the dynamics of economic globalization had taken hold. Economic globalization initially was a stronger force than that of appeals of democratic ideology. The costs of diffusion across physical space and the strong barriers of national boundaries had both been tempered. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the freeing its dependent states, the world not only opened up to ideas on a global scale but also the main alternative to democratic governance had been discredited.
Democratization after the conclusion of the First World War in 1918, forced democratic institutions on the defeated and new countries of Europe at the national level. In the 1920s the primary objectives were expansion of the voting franchise, competitive elections, and more powerful national legislatures. It did not address political parties, an independent judiciary, or local self-governance. It was also a period of shrinking international trade and inward turning of states. Unlike that period, democratization in the1990s came from grass roots pressures for democratization, in some countries mixed with various initiatives from national governments. Whatever happened in particular countries, both in the old and new democracies there was a diminution of central government control and acquisition of greater autonomy by localities either by design or default. The Democracy and Local Governance project (DLG) took local government as its primary point of departure. Indeed, one of its theoretical tenets was that democratization would be manifest by the beginnings and expansion of politics at the local level, something that in many countries was either suppressed or never took root. A second point of departure is that for democracy to become stabilized in institutions, processes, and values, it must be part of every day life in localities and their communities.
*A version of this paper was presented to the Conference on Democracy and Local Governance-Greece, Department of Planning and Regional Development, University of Thessaly and the National Center of Public Administration, Athens, November, 1999.
The most important feature of what is taking shape as a global political economy, led by a variety of international institutions, is the structure of a nearly totally encompassing global system. It is a mosaic of human organizations and multiple levels of aggregation of human activity. In order to reflect that, a complex design of levels of democratization was articulated in the Democracy and Local Governance research program: the world as a whole, reflected in changes over time; significant world cultural regions, sharing common origins; countries, continuing as the important political actor for the past two centuries; regions within countries, having common historical experiences; and, especially, localities, providing opportunities to bring together the values of community and politics.
Countries initially were selected for comparisons between the established and new democracies in Europe. Local governments were randomly selected within countries with adjustments to reflect the nature of settlements, especially between the rural and urban populations. Regions and transnational regions, cutting across countries, would be aggregates of leaders within localities. This multi-level design is presented in the diagram below.
The observational base of the research are individuals who have definable political positions as mayors, deputies, members of elected councils, and political party leaders in specific local political units. The general theoretical position is that democracy is an individually based political ideology. In the words of our Swedish colleague, Stefan Szucs, it is "democracy in the head", hopefully also in the heart as fundamental values.1 Hence, whatever the definition of democracy, as well as how it is indicated in measures of democracy, the empirical referents at some point must be observable as characteristics and behaviors of individuals especially those of local, community importance.
The first level above the individual is the locality, the local government. The next level is the aggregation of those localities into historically defined regions within countries. Then, of course, there are countries, followed by the great regional aggregations of Central, Eastern, and Western Europe and Central Asia. These are some of the great "cultural regions" of the world defined by geography and shaped by historical experiences, often, a physical environment.
The Globalization and Local Democratic Politics Hypothesis
The theoretical connection between globalization and local politics is through democratization. The working hypothesis is that globalization would open-up the political barriers and boundaries of counties and expand collective alternatives, a necessary condition for local political units to become politicized and receptive to democratic politics. The democratic disposition of localities was defined by the democratic values of local political leaders. The democratic values of local political leaders were the primary variable tying globalization to democratization.
One implication of this is that the global involvement of localities would impact the democratic values and behavior of local political leaders. To the extent that they were engaged in democratic politics, those leaders would also aspire to more local political autonomy and would be willing to assume more responsibility locally. Local leaders with strong commitment to democratic values would be in places that were more involved in the global. This is generally true for the local leaders in the 26 countries so far studied as well as the additional countries on which data have been collected.2
Being receptive to global political economies outside of their countries would be reflected in local leaders’ identification with transnational regions, Europe or Asia being prime examples. Being linked to the global would be indicated by the local leaders’ perceptions about the local impact of foreign exports and imports; media; environmental pollution; and workers and tourists in their localities. This is also generally supported by the data, but the relationship is complicated by local conditions, especially those foreign influences that disrupt--imports replacing local jobs, for example.
The democratic involvement of local political leaders was assessed by the number of groups on which they relied for support when making political decisions. Local leaders were asked about a variety of groups, ranging from ethnic group and religious leaders to the local media. Those leaders with democratic values reported seeking out support from more local groups. This relationship is also complicated by the fact that different countries have different histories in allowing such "civic" groups to exist or, in a few cases, actually encouraging them.
Democratization and Local Politics about Democracy and Markets
A sharp contrast between the new and most of the old democracies is the extent to which democracy and markets are contested politically. This is seen in the distribution of local political leaders who actually reject democracy or markets or both. In the countries and localities of the established democracies of Europe, local leaders have institutions of political participation, but want more it. They may differ on the value of a market economy, but not about democracy. In some countries and areas of the new democracies, local leaders reject both democracy and markets. It appears that in eight of the nine former communist countries for which data are available for more than one point in time, democracy has taken firmer root, if only in the sense of being less contested by local leaders, than a market economy.
The Influence of Political Culture
Values, among other orientations, as well as beliefs and habits, taken together define cultures. That which is delimited by what is considered authority, independence, and group identity, among other things judged good or bad and right or wrong about collectivities, is political culture.3 There are significant differences in political cultures at the transnational regional level. Most of the data are from Europe, running from west to east, in addition to three countries from Asia. There are clear differences in patterns of relationships among the main variables of the DLG in Central, Eastern, and Western Europe defined in the standard ways. There are also differences between Asian political leaders and those of Europe. With the exception of Spain, there is only one country from the Southern tier of Europe and only a few from the Northern. The evidence so far suggests that there also may be a North-South axis dividing patterns of democratic and market values of local political leaders, their behavior, and their perceptions about the nature of local politics.
At this point, analyses of the DLG data has not indicated whether or not the great cultural divides of the world will persist in the face of globalization and democratization. Central and Western Europe and parts of the Asian countries have been impacted much less by the forces of globalization than Western Europe and the United States.
It is very likely that these cultural patterns in Europe, some of which can be traced back to at least the Great Schism of the Christian Church and before, will persist as they have, despite waves of democratic fervor, fascism, socialism, or other ideologies. What are likely to emerge are many regional and local cultures of democracy within a loose global democratic framework. But whatever happens to national democratic practices, it is nearly certain that the impact of globalization will usher in a new era of local democratic politics, even if present day commitments to a market economy weaken and even in the face of reactive political movements to close down national borders and re-assert the authority and control of national governments.
Democracy and Local Autonomy
Those leaders more committed to democratic values and sharing those values with other leaders in their locality have been more impacted by the global. The data from DLG are consistent with this relationship. Democratic leaders were hypothesized to want to engage in local politics. To do so they should seek to expand the political domain of the local authority. That should also hold true across regions within countries. Democratic local leaders who see their authority as too limited should also believe that they should have more responsibility. This is generally true.
Local democratic politics require that there be political differences within the locality. Politics must matter. Those localities and regions with political leaders that are more committed to democracy also see that they have more political conflicts to deal with. They are less likely to view these differences negatively. These relationships are also present in the DLG data.
Alternative Theoretical Interpretations of the DLG Data
Any large scale, macro social science research program carries may research agenda, both purposeful and hidden. Some of these are transparent in the variables; others are easily constructed. Only a few so far have been systematically exploited.
First, political elites, their recruitment, background, beliefs, and leadership behavior. The primary points of observation are individual political leaders. This avenue of data collection, rather than from documented political decisions, for example, provides opportunities to study the family and educational background, gender, socioeconomic status of local political elites, defined as those having formal positions of political authority or influence. One such analysis has focused on Western European local political elites.4 Some values of these elites can be compared with those of samples of the general population or elites from other studies.
Second, decentralization and local-center relationships. Not only did the research instruments of the DLG focus on local autonomy but also on a variety of expectations and norms about the appropriate functions of government itself and various levels of governmental responsibility. Decentralization of national governments has been one of the imputed consequences of globalization. Some studies on this theoretical interpretation of the data have been done in single countries rather than comparatively.
Third, political, social, economic, and ethnic conflicts. Politics is driven by conflicts and cleavages. Several DLG variables examine local conflicts: rural vs. urban, social class and wealth; ethnic minorities and immigrants; ideological differences. From these data as well as its intellectual precursor, the International Studies of Values in Politics,5 the DLG demonstrates the centrality of conflicts as one of the most productive theoretical variables, differentiating localities, countries, and transnational political cultures. In general, conflict is not a negative force in established democracies; it is in those with a political tradition of rulership.
Fourth, the local political system and local politics. The DLG data can be used to help configure the main characteristics of the local political system of countries or those with a special political traditions (e.g. Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, Napoleonic, and Asian). In addition there are variables about local political participation, the functioning and structures of political parties at the local level, and the activities of groups.
The Globalization Hypothesis and the Findings of the DLG
The general hypothesis that globalization is linked to democracy in the values of local political leaders is supported by data from about 15,000 local political leaders in over 600 localities, aggregated into about 120 regions across 26 countries. These leaders clearly seek to expand local democratic politics. Those that are more democratic find that their authority to solve problems is too limited, that is, they lack local autonomy and should have more responsibility.
The data are congruent with globalization, democratization, localization, and democratic politics. These relationships obtain for individual political leaders, the group of political leaders in the local governmental unit and for those same leaders aggregated by regions within countries. That can be said for the research of the DLG on a macro level. Although more countries are being added to the database, it is likely that these basic relationships will continue to hold globally.
