Complexity in local government change

Abstract This article discusses empirical research findings indicating that complexity is a dominant characteristic in local government change and addresses that the current complexity sets limits to rational reform processes and gives way to political leadership. During the recent decade, intermunicipal co-operation has emerged as a major issue in local governance in Finland. Despite the fact that the need for intense co-operation is acknowledged in most surveys, practical steps are often difficult to take due to complexity of the interorganizational action. Actors come upon complex situations involving many issues; situations where the issues are continuously changing and complicatedly interdependent. Circumstances are further blurred by the fact that actors often hide their preferences. In the changing local governance, complexity, paradoxes and uncertainty decrease the prospective of managerial and expert knowledge, because rational calculations do not give definitive support for decision making. From this perspective, we have reached the limits of rational, clear-cut reforming. More than before, the implementation of change depends on the emergence of political leaders willing and able to take responsibility for reforms.

[1]  S. Clegg Modern Organizations: Organization Studies in the Postmodern World , 1990 .

[2]  D. Harvey,et al.  The Condition of Postmodernity. An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change (an excerpt) , 1991, Journal of Economic Sociology.

[3]  David L. Harvey,et al.  The New Science and the Old: Complexity and Realism in the Social Sciences , 1992 .

[4]  B. Glaser The Grounded Theory Perspective: Conceptualization Contrasted With Description , 2001 .

[5]  David Byrne,et al.  Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences : An Introduction , 2002 .

[6]  Tony Bovaird,et al.  Developing local governance networks in Europe , 2002 .

[7]  S. Lash Sociology of postmodernism , 1990 .

[8]  Peter Bogason,et al.  Public policy and local governance : institutions in postmodern society , 2001 .

[9]  D. North Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance: Economic performance , 1990 .

[10]  C. D. Foster,et al.  A Strategy of Decision , 1963 .

[11]  C. Oliver,et al.  Organizations Working Together , 1992 .

[12]  P. Bogason Public Policy and Local Governance , 2000 .

[13]  R. Kanter,et al.  The Challenge of Organizational Change: How Companies Experience It and Leaders Guide It. , 1994 .

[14]  Laurence E. Lynn,et al.  Studying Governance and Public Management: Why? How? , 1999 .

[15]  Theo A. J. Toonen Administrative Reform: Analytics , 2003 .

[16]  Michael Mcguire,et al.  Collaborative Public Management: New Strategies for Local Governments , 2004 .

[17]  B. Peters The Changing Nature of Public Administration: From Easy Answers to Hard Questions , 2002 .

[18]  I. Sanderson,et al.  Evaluation in Complex Policy Systems , 2000 .

[19]  L. Pellizzoni Knowledge, Uncertainty and the Transformation of the Public Sphere , 2003 .

[20]  Thomas A. Schwandt Evaluation as Practical Hermeneutics , 1997 .