Historical and Intellectual Pioneers of Local Governments and Governance

The question that underlies the study of local government and governance comes down to whether politics and public administration should be treated as separate fields or not. Viewing from the American tradition looking back at Woodrow Wilson politics and public administration are separate for the very reason that identifies where power lies and what the relationship should be to the bureaucratic apparatus.

Urbanization signifies the large-scale shift of people from rural areas to urban centres, resulting in the sustained growth and expansion of cities. This phenomenon necessitates the development of infrastructure like housing, transportation, and utilities to accommodate the burgeoning urban population. Urbanization is often accompanied by social, economic, and environmental changes, including higher living standards, increased job opportunities, and challenges like congestion, pollution, and inadequate resource management. It reflects the shift from agrarian societies to industrial and service-oriented economies, reshaping landscapes and cultures worldwide.

Milieu is the surrounding conditions, both natural and human-made, that impact a particular ecosystem or habitat. It encompasses factors such as climate, geography, biodiversity, land use, pollution levels, and human activities. The milieu influences the health and stability of ecosystems, shaping the distribution of species, nutrient cycles, and overall ecological dynamics. Understanding the milieu is essential for effective environmental management and conservation efforts, as it provides insight into the interconnected relationships between organisms and their environment and the potential effects of anthropogenic disturbances. By studying the milieu, scientists can develop strategies to mitigate environmental degradation and promote sustainability.

Aristotle believed that the best form of government was one that was tailored to the specific needs of the community. He argued that local governments were better able to understand the needs of their citizens than larger, more centralized governments. For this reason, he advocated for a system of local government that was decentralized and autonomous. Aristotle also believed that local governments should be participatory. He argued that citizens should have a say in how their communities are run.

The term “polis” originates from ancient Greece, referring to a city-state comprising a central urban area and its surrounding territory. Robert Dahl’s interpretation of Aristotle is that the polis is a gathering place where all citizens could gather and still hear the speaker address. It encapsulates the political, social, and cultural organization of the community, fostering civic participation, governance, and identity. The polis was characterized by its independent governance structure, with citizens engaging in decision-making processes through assemblies, councils, and courts. It served as a hub for commerce, education, and religious activities, influencing Greek philosophy and shaping the foundation of democratic principles and urban development. Therefore, the governance perspective of the ancient Greek thinkers was about the size of the citizenry and the physical ability to participate in decision-making. These conditions were obviously also about the efficiency and effectiveness of local governance.

By contrast, local governments within the Roman Empire operated with diminished autonomy, being ultimately subject to the overarching authority of the emperor and the Roman Senate. Ancient Greek local governments predominantly embraced representative democratic structures wherein all citizens, irrespective of socio-economic standing, were entitled to participate directly in the political process or through elected representatives. The Roman local governance framework exhibited a less representative character, restricting political participation to male citizens of a specific social class.

During the Roman Empire, local government was organized into a hierarchical system designed to efficiently administer the vast territories under Roman control. At the local level, cities, towns, and regions were governed by officials appointed by the central authority. The basic administrative unit was the city or town (municipium), which typically had its own local council (ordo) composed of wealthy citizens. Cities were granted varying degrees of self-governance, depending on their status and relationship with Rome. Some enjoyed full Roman citizenship, while others had limited rights or were governed directly by Roman officials. Local government officials included magistrates, such as duoviri (chief magistrates) or aediles (responsible for public works and maintenance), who were elected by local elites or appointed by Rome. Provincial administration was overseen by governors appointed by the emperor, who held significant authority over both civil and military matters. Provinces were further divided into smaller administrative units called civitates or pagi, each with its own local council and officials. The Roman system of local government facilitated the integration of diverse regions into the empire, promoting stability, economic development, and the spread of Roman culture and law. However, it also led to disparities in governance and taxation, contributing to social tensions and occasional revolts in some regions.

During the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, philosophers like Thomas Aquinas and Niccolò Machiavelli considered political structures and governance. Aquinas, drawing on Aristotelian ideas, discussed the role of government in maintaining order and justice. Thomas Aquinas argued for a form of governance that balanced the authority of rulers with the welfare of the people, emphasizing the importance of justice, law, and the common good. Aquinas was a proponent of a mixed form of governance where he would combine some components of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. From his perspective Aquinas believed that each of these mixed components would serve to be a check on potential abuses.

Another point that Machiavelli recognized was the importance of natural law, where human laws were aligned with divine and moral principles to be just. Therefore, he supported the view of a ruler who was also a servant of the people and who would promote the common good and protect the rights of individuals. He believed that rulers derived their authority from God but were accountable for their actions to both God and their subjects.

Local communities can be seen as microcosms of civil society, where individuals can interact on a smaller scale and pursue their particular interests. Local government can play a role in mediating between the interests of individuals and the needs of the community as a whole. While Hegel did not explicitly use the term “subsidiarity”, his emphasis on the organic development of the state implies a certain decentralization of authority. Subsidiarity is the principle that decision-making authority should reside at the most localized level capable of effectively addressing issues, with higher tiers of government intervening solely when lower levels are unable to manage these matters adequately. Hegel’s focus on the internal evolution of institutions resonates with a principle akin to subsidiarity. According to Hegel, the state is indispensable for the actualization of ethical life. As an integral component of the state, local government contributes to this process by overseeing justice and upholding order at the grassroots level. In this context, local government emerges as a pivotal institution for nurturing ethical interactions and conduct within a community.

Alexis de Tocqueville, the eminent French political philosopher and historian, is renowned for his seminal work “Democracy in America”. In this ground-breaking book, he posited that the vitality of American democracy stemmed from its decentralized governance structure, as of its robust local governments. Notably, Robert Dahl, in his work “Who Governs?” underscores Tocqueville’s admiration for the United States as the highlight of modern representative democracy. Tocqueville’s insights also echo across ideological divides, attracting attention from intellectuals and politicians spanning the political spectrum. Regarded as a champion of community and civic engagement by the Left, he cautioned against the emergence of an industrial aristocracy and decried the pursuit of material wealth at the expense of communal values. Conversely, the Right applauds his critique of “Big Government” in favour of decentralized administration, defending individual initiative while denouncing excessive egalitarianism.

Wilson’s ideas were deeply rooted in the ethos of progressivism, meaning comprehensive reforms to address social and economic injustices prevalent in American society at the time. Central to his governance philosophy was the concept of the “New Freedom”, which argued for the dismantling of monopolies, banking reform, and tariff reduction to foster economic opportunity and social equity. Wilson’s ideas for the New Freedom reflected a commitment to progressive ideals, emphasizing the role of government intervention in regulating big business and protecting the interests of ordinary citizens. He argued that unchecked corporate power stifled competition and undermined the principles of fairness and equality essential to a democratic society.

Brandeis is well-known for what he had labelled as “laboratories of democracy,” referring in his terms to innovative social and economic researches that could be conducted without risk to the nation as a whole. Brandeis was convinced that local communities were well-equipped to address their social problems and nurture solutions to their circumstances. For Brandeis a well-rounded social community would be equal to protection of local self-governance from interference by external factors. At the very most local communities were entitled to the right to determine their own affairs according to the principles of subsidiarity and local control, allowing communities to explore different approaches to draw lessons from both successes and failures. In a way Brandeis wished that local governments needed to be responsive to the needs and preferences of its constituents as local officials were supposed to be accountable to the citizenry. Brandeis recognized the crucial role of local government in safeguarding individual rights and liberties and believed that officials have a responsibility to uphold the Constitution and protect the rights of all residents within their jurisdiction. Brandeis argued that a strong and a vibrant local government is an essential foundation for a healthy and functioning society that is in need for social cohesion, and a sense of belonging.

Sabahaddin’s local government is a drastically reformed structure of primarily social change and transformation where local institutions are central in promoting social justice, inclusivity, and challenging structural inequalities. It is for this reason we may reason that Sabahaddin’s views should be considered to be transformative in the creation of a new society. Sabahaddin’s insights into local governance have for this very reason had a positive impact on Turkish urban theory, as his work has helped to shape our understanding of the role of local government in Türkiye.

Weber’s bureaucratic understanding of what he would call efficient and effective public service is one that is to be broken down into much smaller tasks. These tasks are then taken up by specialized individuals each with the studied skills. These individuals are highly trained in the standard tasks they must execute. In this context Weber infers to what he would label as the division of labour, which simply means that these highly specialized individuals enhance the efficiency of the work they execute by improving overall productivity. Weber’s bureaucracy as a term comes from the word bureau, also a desk where a highly specialized worker would sit to execute his/her tasks. All these individuals who are divided into distinct labours or tasks as pointed out in this paragraph, are characterized by a clear and formalized chain of command. Such a chain of command in Weber’s view highlights various levels of hierarchy where heads of each task groups report to the level above. For Weber such a set up establishes the required structure of an organizational authority. This hierarchical structure streamlines precise decision-making and therefore ensures good accountability. Weber is known for his centrality of rules and procedures that in his perspective are essential for rules make up standardized setups for effective decision-making. The result is not only effectivity and efficiency but also is ensured of consistency and predictability in how tasks are carried out. The citizens can then be better informed of how rules can be applied in the best ever bureaucratic tasks and ascertaining fairness in decision-making.

Osman Nuri Ergin in our chronological chapter was a Turkish historian, an educator, and a writer who was best known for his work on the history of local government and urbanism in Türkiye. Ergin was specialized on the workings of Ottoman municipalities, which he published in his five-volume work, Mecelle-i Umûr-ı Belediyye (1928-1938). Ergin’s work is considered to be a seminal on the history of local governments in Türkiye. Besides his research on Turkish local governments, Ergin also was famous regarding his work on the history of education and culture in Türkiye. His most well-known work in this area is Türkiye Maarif Tarihi (1939-1943), a five-volume work that covers the history of education in Türkiye from the Ottoman period till the sixties of the last century.

Ergin’s work has had impact on contemporary thinkers as his understanding of Turkish history and culture were also characteristic to the way Turkish local governments were functioning. He depicted that Turkish local governments just as Prens Sabahaddin needed a high degree of autonomy beyond the bounds of the central government. Such as his predecessors he too argued that local governments were better off on basis of the needs of their communities and to develop solutions that meet those needs. Ergin also argued that local governments needed to be democratically elected and accountable to their constituents. He too was a proponent of strong democratic participation in local governments in order to ensure responsiveness of local governments to the needs of all residents. Ergin believed that local governments needed to play a central role in promoting social justice and equality and argued that local governments were to address issues such as poverty, discrimination, and exclusion.

Another central figure in our chronological chapter is W.J.M. Mackenzie who was quite significant in the provision of one of the best historical accounts of the British local government. Mackenzie was well-known for one of the most vague notions of what came to be known as self-government. One of Mackenzie’s most important contributions to the study of local government was his development of a typology of local government systems. He argued that there were four main types of local government systems:

Corporatist: a type of system characterized by a strong central government and weak local government.

Pluralist: a system characterized by a balance of power between the central government and local government.

Dualist: a system characterized by a clear division of power between the central government and local governments, with each level of government having its own distinct responsibilities.

Clientelist: a system characterized by a close relationship between local governments and powerful individuals or groups.

Jane Jacobs’ idea of adaptive governance in urbanisation and the management of urban planning is about the effectivity of urban planning which requires a perpetual evaluation and modification to respond to emerging social challenges and opportunities. Jacobs’ thoughts emit a regard for iterative processes where policies and strategies are continuously refined based on feedback and real-world outcomes as these would take place within real urban lives. What Jacobs calls adaptive within the bounds of local governance is a representation of a form of urban management that demonstrates resilience, flexibility, and learning from both successes and failures. From this adaptivity one may conclude that local governments have vast opportunities to create regulatory environments that may support grassroots initiatives and encourage local economic development. Another point to make is that Jacobs was also a big proponent for decentralization of central governances. Decentralization of the power from central authorities to local communities would further aid civic participation and bring about clarity regarding neighbourhood needs and preferences. As mentioned above Jacobs argued for well-informed decisions about diverse and mixed-use neighbourhoods for more social cohesion.

Elinor Ostrom was an American political economist, who in 2009 won the Nobel Prize in Economics for her work on the governance of common-pool resources. What Ostrom meant by common-pool resources was that local communities would be better off in managing own resources than local governments. Elinor Ostrom’s acknowledged work and her scientific contribution to what she would call self-governing communities were clearly challenging the traditional assumptions about the so-called limitations of local governance and community power. Ostrom had somehow unlocked an understanding for the communal potential in terms of effective management of common resources. For Elinor Ostrom, these common-pool resources were all that was common such as forests, fisheries, water sources that were inevitably doomed to become victims of overexploitation or also called the tragedy of the commons as first written in 1968 by Garret Hardin in an essay. Various types of common-pool resources are subject to mismanagement and examples can be also observed on urban settlements of humanity.

One of the most current scholars among the bunch is Mark H. Moore whose concept of “strategic management” has had much influence within the bounds of local governance discipline. Moore’s work too revolves around the adaptation of local governments to be responsive to societal changes. Moore’s work too has had influence on conventional paradigms, with much emphasis on aspects such as strategic management and the creation of public value. According to Moore local governments have begun to struggle with increasing complexities in their own organizational structures as well as social and communal challenges. Moore’s work enunciates the strategic focus with which according to Moore local governance institutions must learn to navigate by a highly responsive outreach. From this perspective Moore’s work centralizes what he would call public value which would be different than traditional efficiency metrics. Moore therefore perceives the dynamic nature of local governances and argues that this highly changing social dynamics can only be coped with by innovative and multifaceted approaches.

Moore’s approach serves as a tool for delineating and measuring the impact and outcomes of public actions, shifting the evaluative focus from narrow efficiency metrics to a comprehensive assessment of the value created for the public. For Moore this is a time period where transparency and accountability are overriding, and the public value emerges as a critical instrument for local governments. Moore’s framework also introduces the notion of the authorizing environment that is a profound understanding of contextual constraints forced by political, legal, and societal factors. This recognition demonstrates the need for strategic thinking requiring local governments to build trust and legitimacy among its stakeholders. Moore’s strategic management idea is constructed on what Moore calls a strategic triangle, made up of organizational means to meet public ends, with strategic flexibility in mind. This triangle is made up of public value, legitimacy and support and operational capacity. Moore argues for creating value for the public, by considering the extent to which the initiative is accepted and supported by those of authority. The operational capacity refers to the organization’s ability to effectively implement the initiative.

Kürşat Bumin, a prominent Turkish academic and urban theorist, emphasized the importance of context-specific approaches, stakeholder engagement, and adaptive governance in addressing the challenges of urban development. Bumin advocated for context-specific approaches to local governance, recognizing that the unique characteristics, challenges, and aspirations of each city require tailored solutions. He emphasized the need to understand the historical, cultural, and socio-economic context of a city to develop effective governance strategies. Bumin stressed the importance of stakeholder engagement and collaborative governance in addressing complex urban issues. He believed that local governments should actively involve diverse groups of stakeholders, including residents, businesses, community organizations, and non-governmental organizations, in decision-making processes. This collaborative approach fosters shared ownership and enhances the effectiveness of urban governance.

Bumin advocated for adaptive governance that can respond to the dynamic and constantly changing nature of cities. He believed that local governments need to be flexible, innovative, and capable of learning from experience to adapt to evolving challenges and opportunities. This adaptability is crucial for building resilient and sustainable cities. Bumin emphasized the importance of empowering local communities and leveraging social capital in urban development. He believed that local communities possess valuable knowledge, skills, and networks that can contribute to effective governance and sustainable solutions. This focus on community empowerment fosters ownership and resilience. Bumin advocated for local governance that actively addresses urban inequalities and promotes social justice and he believed that local governments have a responsibility to ensure that all residents have equal access to opportunities, services, and a healthy environment. This focus on equity and inclusion is essential for creating just and sustainable cities. Bumin viewed local government as a key driver of sustainable development in cities.