1

66th Annual PSA conference in Brighton 21-23 March 2016. Local Politics Specialist Group 4: How to Lead Local Government in Times Of Crisis And Austerity?: Challenges for Local Leaders.

Author: Dr. Eva Marín Hlynsdóttir, University of Iceland

Title of paper: Presenting Local Leadership Roles on a Continuum: Comparing and Contrasting

the Icelandic Mayors Role Perception

Abstract

The paper discusses the creation of a typology or more precisely a continuum of local

leadership roles based on the Icelandic mayors role perception and in what way such

classification may be useful. Lehnert (2007) claims that such continuous types “are not a

matter of ‘either/or’ but rather one of ‘more or less’ (p64). An example of a continuum type is

the political-administration relationship as treated by the followers of the Interaction School

(Demir 2009; Demir and Reddick 2012). The supporters of these ideas present the interaction

between politics and administration as a continuum rather than as a matrix (Demir and Nyhan

2008). Thus in order to create a more fine-grained differentiation between different types of

mayors I turn to continuous types and inspired by earlier work that used continuums to

explain different roles of city managers (Demir and Reddick 2012; Demir and Nyhan 2008) I

used the techniques of fsQCA to create the continuum.

The results suggest that the Icelandic mayor’s leadership roles fall on a continuum

moving from the most politically neutral to the most politically orientated. In addition the

analysis exposes two distinctive clusters at each end with four clusters in between.

1 Introduction

The majority of Iceland’s 74 municipalities are small with more than half having less than

1000 inhabitants. Political and administrative leaders at the local level are therefore, in close

proximity to citizens. Following each Icelandic local government elections, there is regularly

heated debate on who will become the next local administrative leader (is. “Bæjarstjóri” in

towns or “Sveitarstjóri” in rural areas). However, unlike Denmark and Norway where

relatively clear roles have been created for administrative leaders and political leaders

(Hlynsdóttir 2015), the most important leadership position at the local level (is.

Bæjarstjóri/sveitarstjóri) is a complex mixture of both political and administrative

responsibilities. Thus the position contains both administrative elements (as in a chief

executive) as well as political elements (as in a mayor). Therefore, the position of the

Icelandic mayor does not fit easily into any available typologies. Furthermore, it is possible to

define two main types of the Icelandic mayor. The first is the political mayor who is also a

member of the council and the latter is the manager-mayor who is not a member of the

council.

The main aim of this paper is therefore to discuss the process of creating a continuum

of Icelandic local leadership roles based on the position of the Icelandic mayor. The existence

2

of a systematic classification of the role of the Icelandic mayor is useful both on the national

level as it may help to explain why certain types of mayors seem to be more popular than

others. Furthermore, it makes the position of the Icelandic mayor more comparable than

before.

2 Creating a continuum for a complex position

Typologies of various kinds are widely used in social sciences. In the area of local

government research, the Mouritzen and Svara (2002) typology on the interaction between

politics and the administration is one of the best-known typologies. Furthermore, local

government studies on the political-administration relationship often draw on the typology

created by Aberbach, Putnam, and Rockman (1981) based on the interaction between

bureaucrats and politicians in Western democracies. These typologies were both created by

using large datasets from numerous countries and were thus useful for comparative studies

however; they were not necessarily designed to demonstrate internal systemic differences and

nuances. Attempts to classify within system differences may be found in e.g. Leach and

Wilson (2000) and Berg and Kjær (2005; 2007).

Bailey (1994) points out that a classification is an important tool for identifying

similar cases. However, there are several different ways of conceptualising such

classifications. Based on discussions on the purpose and design of classifications in e.g.

Gerring (2012), Elman (2005), Caramani (2009), and Georg and Bennett (2005), among

others, two main conclusions may be drawn. First, even though the concept typology is a

widely used; there is no shared definition available. Secondly, most typologies are based on

the assumption that there should be one and only one classification for each item and all items

should be fitted to a classification. Therefore categories should be mutually exclusive as well

a jointly exhaustive. Finally, no cases should be left out of the classification. It has been

argues that the rule of mutual exclusiveness is more often than not at odds with the real world

and Goertz and Mahoney (2012) suggest an alternative approach through their Principle of

Conceptual Overlap where “[a]djacent categories in typologies can overlap and not be

mutually exclusive.” (p. 167). This approach is in line with the use of fuzzy-set analysis

which does not apply sharp breaking points, thus, empirical cases may represent a type to a

greater or lesser degree. Lehnert (2007) classifies such types as continuous types. Lehnert

points out that classificatory typologies are different from continuous types that are based on

3

“more or less” and thus “empirical cases approximate a type to a greater or lesser degree” (p.

64).

Continuums have been used to explain different roles of e.g. city managers (Demir and

Reddick 2012; Demir and Nyhan 2008) however it has not been attempted to combine a

political role and an administrative role into one continuum.

3 The comparative method

The study is based on 44 interviews that were conducted with Icelandic mayors during 2012. Out of

those, 12 were political mayors and 32 were manager-mayors.

The majority of studies that apply QCA or the comparative method belong to so-called macro

studies (Mello 2014)1. Moreover, only a handful of micro-level studies use semi-structured interviews

which has raised considerable challenges in relation to the coding process (the term calibration is used

for this process within set-theory). When using fuzzy-sets methods, there is a requirement to create

three anchors based on sets (Schneider and Wagemann 2012; Goertz and Mahoney 2012; Basurto and

Speer 2012). “Full set membership (1), full non-membership (0), and indifference (0.5)” (Schneider

and Wagemann 2012, 28). The position of the indifference (0.5) is crucial as a post above or below

this anchor points denotes a membership in or out of the given set. Schneider and Wagemann advice

against assigning cases to the 0.5 fuzzy set values as it makes it impossible to say whether a case is

more in than out of a given set. A similar practice in quantitative methods is to use a four-level Likert

scale, thus omitting the choice of “neither agree nor disagree” and thus forcing respondents to choose.

Figure 1 The proposed continuum with assigned anchor points

Figure 1 demonstrates the anchor points for the Icelandic mayor continuum. The anchor points were

created based on the theoretical background of the politics-administration relationship that places the

American “city manager on a continuum from the political to the professional” (Demir and Reddick

2012, 527). Research on political leaders has also shown that there is a difference within the group of

executive or strong mayors. Such differences are established as inward versus outward looking, or

more management versus more entrepreneurial leadership orientated (Svara 1990; Egner and Heinelt

2006; Leach and Lowndes 2007). This continuum is designed to catch both the role of the politician

1 An overview of recent work applying QCA is found on www.compasss.org

4

through the political mayor and the role of the administrator through the manager-mayor’s role. Thus

the anchor point 1 is assigned to the political leader. The first qualification is to be a council member;

secondly one must fully participate in the political dimension in all key tasks. Similarly, the other end

of the continuum (0) is based on the ideal of the neutral bureaucrat. The qualifications for this set are

to identify with ideas related to political neutrality as much as possible. Thus, there is no, or a

minimum of political activity and individuals are inward looking concentrating on daily management.

The anchor point of indifference (0.5) is based in the middle between the neutral administrator and the

political leader. For obvious reasons council members cannot be located below the anchor point, and

individuals who strongly emphasise their political neutrality are thus not found above the anchor point.

It is the political dimension that creates the foundation of the continuum. The more politically

orientated or involved an individual is the closer to the political end s/he is assigned and vice versa.

Assigning the anchor points is only the beginning of the creation of the Icelandic mayors’

continuum. The next step is to decide on which conditions the continuum should be based as well as

how to calibrate the data. The following three conditions were chosen:

Importance of internal networking (X1)

Importance of participating in decision-making and emphasis on clear task division (X2)

Importance of external relations i.e. the ambassador role (X3)

The first condition is the importance of internal networking (X1). This condition is connected to

political orientation. The higher the score, the more politically involved the individual is, and the

lower the score, the more politically neutral the individual is. The second condition is importance of

participating in decision-making and emphasis on clear task division (X2). A combination of high

participation in agenda setting and unclear task division gives a high score while less policy making

activity and an emphasis on clear task divisions gives a lower score. The last condition is importance

of external networking or the ambassador role (X3). The more activity one shows in external relations

e.g. participation in politically orientated committees on behalf of the municipality or independent

interaction with central government, the higher the score. The less the individual is connected to the

external world through committee work, or when committee work is mainly technical or not politically

affiliated, the lower the score.

As explained by Schneider and Wagemann (2012), fuzzy values are used to quantify levels of

membership in a given case. As has already been explained, fuzzy values always take values ranging

from 0-1. Based on the evaluation of how fine-grained the data is, a four-value fuzzy-set membership

score (0, 0.25, 0.75, 1) was created. As pointed out earlier Schneider and Wagemann (2012) advise

against using the 0.5 fuzzy set values. The main argument is that by assigning cases to the 0.5 fuzzy

set values it becomes practically impossible to tell whether the cases are more in than out of the given

set. More importantly there is a significant qualitative difference between cases above or below the 0.5

anchor point in fuzzy-set scales (Schneider and Wagemann 2012). After designing fuzzy-set values to

5

each case through the process of calibration, a raw data matrix was produced. The data matrix was

loaded into the data analysis software R and analysed using specific R packages for set theory and

fsQCA (Dusa and Thiem 2014).

Table 1 Truth table for the Icelandic mayors’ continuum

*X1= internal networking. X2= decision-making and clear task division. X3= external networking or ambassadorial role

As represented in Table 1, the truth table demonstrates seven different combinations based on the raw

data matrix: four larger groups and three rows with only one case assigned to each. Firstly the issue of

rows with only one case will be addressed before discussing the larger groups. As the purpose of this

analysis is to create a classification of the Icelandic mayor, it is unfortunate that there are groups

which have only one case. When faced with such a situation it is possible to change the definition for

each cluster so as to make them cover a larger area (Elman 2005; Goertz and Mahoney 2012). In

general, the aim of any classification is to categorise to make comparison easier. In cases where many

types or categories have only one or two instances, the danger is that the classification loses its

explanatory power (Goertz and Mahoney 2012). One of the strengths of fsQCA is the in-depth

knowledge of each case. By going back to the data and exploring these three cases a common

denominator in all three cases was identified. All three individuals come from municipalities with no

clear majority/minority in the council. Thus in the event of a manager-mayor they play an unusually

large role in the area of internal networking (X1) while there is no definite pattern for decision-making

(X2) and the ambassador role (X3). In this group of three, both types of mayors are present which

makes it difficult to assign them to a special group. As the overall data set does not include more

individuals from municipalities with no clear minority/majority features these three individuals will

not be assigned to a group on the continuum. The main reason for this is that the interaction with the

majority in council is a vital part of the continuum. Therefore including mayors from municipalities

with councils that do not have a clear minority-majority is not advisable. The analysis thus continued

with the remaining 41 cases.

Row number 1 has 16 cases and truth table values of 0 for all three conditions. Furthermore, as

the raw data matrix revealed, the fuzzy-values for each case were more finely tuned, and thus a simple

truth table obscures the true values of the cases. In the event of the intention to do a full fsQCA

Row X1 X2 X3 N Cases

1 0 0 0 16 6,7,8,9,12,13,15,17,29,30,31,33,35,36,39,41

8 1 1 1 14 4,11,16,19,20,21,22,24,25,26,28,38,42,43,

2 0 0 1 5 10, 32,34,40,44

4 0 1 1 6 5,14,18,23,27, 37

7 1 1 0 1 2

5 1 0 0 1 3

6 1 0 1 1 1

6

analysis, this would not pose any problems as the software would still base its calculations on the raw

data fuzzy-values. However, when using fsQCA for the classification of data, the analytical process

ends with the truth table. The same problem is identified for row number 8 as it has 14 cases and truth

table values of 1 for all conditions. Thus by going back to the raw data matrix it is possible to identify

some of the group differences for rows 1 and 8 based on the true fuzzy-set values. In order to extract

group differences the true values for each case were examined. In the group of 16 cases, there were

only two fuzzy-set values (0 and 0.25), and, therefore, the group was split into two groups, one which

had more 0s than 0.25s and another which had fewer 0s than 0.25s. The group with more 0s was thus

deemed more politically neutrally inclined than the one with more 0.25s. The same procedure was

followed for row number 8 with 14 cases which were split into one group where each case had fewer

1s and more 0.75s, and another group where each case had more 1s and fewer 0.75s. When assigning

rows number 2 and 4 to the continuum, the following procedure was used. The crossover point is 0.5

which means that those who are above 0.5 are more politically involved than those below 0.5. In the

case of row number 2, there were more 0s than 1s and the row was thus positioned below the

crossover point. Row number 4 had more 1s than 0s and was therefore positioned above the crossover

point.

4 The Icelandic mayor continuum

7

The truth table analysis in the previous section revealed a continuum of six groups with three groups

on each side of the crossover point. Figure 2 presents the continuum vertically from top to bottom.

Figure 2 The Icelandic mayors continuum

As was pointed out in the above section, the continuum is based on three components: the mayors’

internal network, the mayors’ level of participation in decision-making and task accomplishment at the

local level and his/her external networking role. Of these three components, the task of internal

networking is the decisive element when it comes to deciding if a mayor is more in than out of the set

of a political leader. Thus, as was pointed out earlier, this categorisation is unusual because it is

designed to catch the role of the politician through the political mayor as well as the role of the

administrator through the manager-mayor’s role. Therefore, the continuum is designed to move from

the most politically active to the most politically neutral or professional. The top two groups cover

political mayors, while the manager-mayors are members of all groups except the first one. In the

following subsections, each group will be introduced and discussed.

The Political Leader

The first identified group is the Political Leader (4 cases). Individuals assigned to this group score

high under all three conditions. They take their role as leaders of the political side very seriously, often

representing strong party political leadership. This type of leader is highly visionary as well as

entrepreneurial in regards to the development of their municipality. They also demonstrate strong

symbolic leadership as well as high media visibility. Finally, they play a crucial role as political

ambassadors of their municipality. These leaders come from municipalities of all sizes, are of both

8

sexes, and party politics plays a crucial role in council politics. These leaders are able to use their

leadership position to create room to put their visions or agendas into action. This is often the case

when political roles and executive roles are combined in the same individual (Goldsmith and Larsen

2004). First and foremost they are political leaders with administrative responsibilities.

The Politician Turned Manager and the Political Manager-mayor

As pointed out earlier, one of the strengths of the Icelandic mayor continuum is that it represents both

political mayors as well as manager-mayors. Therefore, the second group covers both types of the

mayor. First there is the Politician Turned Manager (7 cases). The individuals belonging to this group

are mainly of two origins. There are the political mayors who play a significant role in the

administrative management of the municipality as well as being the leading politicians. They do not

stress their visionary role in the same way as the political leaders in the first group, and the

ambassador role is often secondary to their other tasks as they are more likely to delegate this role to

someone else within their political surroundings. The political mayors in this group come from

municipalities of all sizes where party politics are an important part of council politics and are of both

sexes.2

Icelandic political mayors are not so easily classified into different leadership roles. They play

important roles in all four key tasks of local leadership; nevertheless, there is a significant difference in

the degree of their participation in key tasks. Similar to the group of Political Leaders they derive their

influence from their position as political mayors as well as from their position as the heads of local

administration. However, unlike the Political Leaders, administrative responsibilities have in many

cases overshadowed their political responsibilities although they are not able to present themselves as

experts in the same way as the manager-mayors. They are truly Politicians Turned Managers.

The latter parts of this group are the Political Managers (3 cases). This group includes

manager-mayors who are closely connected to the political majority in the council. They see

themselves as an extension of the council, reflected in their use of “us” instead of “them”. They are

also highly active in ambassadorial activities on party political grounds. These individuals come from

medium-sized to large municipalities, they are male, well educated, highly experienced and have been

in their positions for more than one election term. From a theoretical perspective, the position of this

type of manager-mayor is much more controversial than the other two types of political mayors

introduced above. The main reason for this is that a manager-mayor with a political affiliation is

positioned on the higher end of the continuum and thus very close to the political dimension. While

the political mayor enjoys direct political legitimacy, there is no such formal political role for the

manager-mayor. Therefore, they are only able to draw influence from their formal position as the head

of administration. Despite that, they participate in highly political activities that are far beyond the

formal scope of their position as the head of the administration. Thus, when politically affiliated

2 There were only three female political mayors who participated in the interviews.

9

manager-mayors draw the legitimacy of their involvement in politics from their party membership,

they are referring to unwritten and informal rules (Leach and Lowndes 2007; Klok and Denters 2005).

The Strategist

The third group covers six cases and is termed the Strategist. Individuals belonging to this group are

highly educated and/or highly experienced in the area of administration. Out of the six individuals

there was only one female strategist manager-mayor. Additionally, four out of the six had family

connections in the municipality. The Strategists work closely with the council but do not see

themselves as part of the council in the same way as the more politically orientated manager-mayors.

They stress strategic approaches in their work thus presenting a high-level of administrative

leadership. They are also highly active as ambassadors on behalf of their municipality. Nevertheless,

their participation is based more on knowledge and experience and less on party political connections.

Their high involvement in strategic decision-making, as well as their ambassadorial role, is the main

reasons this group is positioned more in than out of the set of political orientation. In addition, to being

highly educated and experienced in administration, these individuals (except one) come from

municipalities that are the central service providers in their area. Thus, the number of their

administrative staff is in many cases disproportionally large. It has been claimed that this type of

administrator is on a mission of some kind. They want to improve their municipality, make the

administration more efficient or assist a deprived group in some way. They wish to make the

administration better or create more jobs in the local community. This leads to a close collaboration

with the political side (Jacobsen 2009) in line with how the individual manager-mayors in this group

described what drives them at work. Overall, they are highly visionary in their ideas.

The Active Administrator

The fourth group represents the Active Administrator (5 cases). The individuals in this group work

closely with the council. They value their professional integrity and try to make a clear separation

between themselves and the council. They are more politically neutral than the other two groups of

manager-mayors already presented (hence their position below the crossover point, Figure 2). Unlike

the Strategist this group of manager-mayors is much less outward looking and, in the case of an

ambassadorial role, they participate in more politically neutral committees and boards than do the

Strategists. The manager-mayors in this group belong to small to medium sized municipalities. The

majority of the respondents (three) has a degree in business or economics. They are also highly

experienced in local government procedures, and only one of them has not been in service for a long

time (more than one election term). Several have served in more than one municipality. Because of the

differences in population size there is a similar number of municipalities that have active party politics

in the council and those where council politics is based on local lists. There are no women in this

group of manager-mayors, and only one has family connections to his municipality.

10

The Reluctant Participant

The fifth group is the Reluctant Participant (9 cases). The individuals in this group value their

political neutrality even more than the group of Active Administrators. Similar to the other types of

manager-mayors they are often asked to step into an area that they identify as the provision of the

politicians. They are often reluctant participants in policy making and political activity, and they likely

to try to keep a low political profile. These individuals usually have a very limited ambassadorial role

and their participation in that area is concentrated on technical boards and committees. They regard

themselves as professional experts while the politicians are amateurs who should stay out of the area

of administration as much as possible. The manager-mayors in this group serve in small to medium

sized municipalities. Most of these municipalities belong to the group of service receivers in regards to

the IMCs, although there are a few exceptions to that rule. All except two manager-mayors were in

their first or second term. Similar to the Active Administrator, a degree in business or economics was

their most common educational background, with more than half of the manager-mayors holding a

degree in that field. Around half of the manager-mayors had family connections in the municipality

and there were two women manager-mayors in this group. These individuals stress their political

neutrality as defined by Demir and Nyhan (2008) nevertheless they are often expected to contribute to

policy formulation and local leadership, activities in which they are more often than not reluctant

participants.

The Neutral Administrator

The sixth and final group is the Neutral Administrator (7 cases). These manager-mayors usually see

themselves as politically neutral serving all the citizens and not just those supporting the majority.

They are also likely to zealously guard this position. The members of this group are mostly inward-

looking with very limited functions outside the municipality, and their role is ambassadorial only on

very rare occasions. They are mainly occupied with the daily management of the administration.

Although there are municipalities of all size groups in this category, they are usually rather small

(below 2500 inhabitants). There is only one case of a service provider in regards to the IMCs; overall

the municipalities in this group receive services from outside the municipality. This also means that

they are often short of staff, so the expert role of the manager-mayor is of great importance. The

number of supporting staff to the manager-mayors in this group is even more limited than in the group

of the Reluctant Participant. More than half of the manager-mayors are newcomers in their first

election term in the municipality in question. Nevertheless, several of them had previous experience as

manager-mayors however, only two out of the seven had family ties in the municipality. Moreover,

this is the only group that has more female members (four) than male members (three). The majority

also had education in business or economics. Therefore, their influence and source of power are highly

dependent on their position as experts. The mantra of this group is “neutrality, hierarchy, and

expertise” (Demir 2009, 507). However, in their emphasis on political neutrality they may end up

11

becoming too passive and undecided in their role (Jacobsen 2009). Many of the manager-mayors who

had experienced the greatest difficulties in creating a positive working atmosphere with the council

minority were members of the group of Neutral Administrators and to a lesser extent the group of

Reluctant Participator. This is interesting as the majority of manager-mayors below the crossover point

were hired through a job posting. This stands in direct contrast to the manager-mayors situated above

the crossover point, where the majority were asked to become manager-mayors.

5 Conclusions

This paper has gone step-by-step through the creation of a continuum of the role of the Icelandic

mayor. By using the set-theoretic method of fsQCA it was demonstrated that the classification of the

role falls straightforwardly on a continuum moving from the most politically neutral to the most

politically orientated. Furthermore, the paper has revealed that each type has both theoretical and

empirical foundations. The continuum reveals both the complexity of the Icelandic mayors’ position as

well as the simplicity. It is complex as it is able to cover both highly politically orientated individuals

as well as more politically neutral orientated individuals. However, it is also simple as it demonstrates

a clear thread of mutual understanding of what it means to occupy the role of the Icelandic mayor,

which is the service to the people within local communities.

References

Aberbach, Joel D., Robert D. Putnam, and Bert A. Rockman. 1981. Bureaucrats & Politicians in

Western Democracies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Bailey, Kenneth. 1994. Typologies and Taxonomies: An Introduction to Classification Techniques.

Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.

Basurto, Xavier, and Johanna Speer. 2012. “Structuring the Calibration of Qualitative Data as Sets for

Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA).” Field Methods 24 (2): 155–74.

doi:10.1177/1525822X11433998.

Berg, Rikke, and Ulrik Kjær. 2005. Den danske borgmester. Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag.

———. 2007. Lokalt politisk lederskab. Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag.

Caramani, Daniele. 2009. Introduction to the Comparative Method With Boolean Algebra. Sage

Publications Inc.

Demir, Tansu. 2009. “Politics and Administration: Three Schools, Three Approaches, and Three

Suggestions.” Administrative Theory & Praxis 31 (4): 503–32.

12

Demir, Tansu, and Ronald C. Nyhan. 2008. “The Politics-Administration Dichotomy: An Empirical

Search for Correspondence between Theory and Practice.” Public Administration Review 68: 81–

96. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00839.x.

Demir, Tansu, and Christopher G. Reddick. 2012. “Understanding Shared Roles in Policy and

Administration: An Empirical Study of Council-Manager Relations.” Public Administration

Review 72 (4): 526–36.

Dusa, Adrian, and Alrik Thiem. 2014. “Qualitative Comparative Analysis. R Package Version 1.1-4.”

http://cran.r-project.org/package=QCA.

Egner, Björn, and Hubert Heinelt. 2006. “European Mayors and Administrative Reforms.” In The

European Mayor: Political Leaders in the Changing Context of Local Democracy, edited by

Henry Bäck, Hubert Heinelt, and Annick Magnier, 335–52. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für

Sozialwissenschaften.

Elman, Colin. 2005. “Explanatory Typologies and Property Space in Qualitative Studies of

International Politics.” International Organizations 59 (2): 293–326.

Georg, Alexander L., and Andrew Bennett. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social

Sciences. MIT Press.

Gerring, John. 2012. Social Science Methodology: A Unified Framework. 2nd ed. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Goertz, Gary, and James Mahoney. 2012. A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative

Research in the Social Sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Goldsmith, Michael, and Helge O. Larsen. 2004. “Local Political Leadership: Nordic Style.”

International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 28 (1): 121–33.

Hlynsdóttir, Eva Marín. 2015. “Ordførermakt eller rådmannsmakt: Lokalpolitisk lederskap på Island.”

In Lokalpolitisk lederskap i Norden, edited by Nils Aarsæther and Knut H Mikalsen, 69–87.

Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.

Jacobsen, Dag Ingvar. 2009. Administrasjonens makt-om forholded mellom politik og administrasjon.

4th ed. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.

Klok, Pieter-Jan, and Bas Denters. 2005. “Urban Leadership and Community Involvement.” In Urban

Governance and Democracy: Leadership and Community Involvement, edited by Michael Haus,

Hubert Heinelt, and Murray Stewart, 40–64. Routledge.

Leach, Steve, and Vivien Lowndes. 2007. “Of Roles and Rules: Analysing the Changing Relationship

between Political Leaders and Chief Executives in Local Government.” Public Policy and

Administration 22 (2): 183–200. doi:10.1177/0952076707075892.

Leach, Steve, and David Wilson. 2000. Local Political Leadership. Policy Press.

Lehnert, Matthias. 2007. “Typologies in Social Inquiry.” In Research Design in Political Science:

How to Practice What They Preach., edited by Thomas Gschwend and Frank Schimmelfennig,

62–79. Palgrave Macmillan.

13

Mello, Patrick A. 2014. Democratic Participation in Armed Conflict: Military Involvement in Kosovo,

Afghanistan and Iraq. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Mouritzen, Poul Erik, and James H. Svara. 2002. Leadership at the Apex: Politicians and

Administrators in Western Local Governments. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.

Schneider, Carsten Q., and Claudius Wagemann. 2012. Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences:

A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Cambridge University Press.

Svara, James H. 1990. Official Leadership in the City : Patterns of Conflict and Cooperation. Oxford

University Press.