substantial. The second and third trends are less universally observable but again,
in the judgment of Denters and Rose ( 2005 , 261 ), the diVerences that do emerge do
not follow any clear north–south divide, in Europe at least. Studies of
local leadership in particular conWrm a pattern of enhanced focus on political
leadership and an increased emphasis on using the oYce of leadership to bolster
the democratic legitimacy and eVectiveness of local government (Borraz and John
2004 ; Mouritizen and Svara 2002 ).
The central questions addressed in the formal study of comparative local
governance institutions can be related to those identiWed by Bo Rothstein ( 1996 ,
134 ) in the study of political institutions in general: What explains the variety of
institutional arrangements? What diVerence do diVerent institutional arrange-
ments make to the behavior and practice of local politics? Finally, and explicitly
from a normative perspective, what arrangements are best for good governance or
eVective local democracy? The greatest (but still modest) progress has been made in
answering theWrst question. The second question has received some considerable
attention in a few speciWc areas of institutional reform. The third question remains
the most problematic and an area where it would be diYcult to highlight much,
if any, progress. It remains uncertain whether the drift from government to
governance is an enhancement of local democracy, or whether greater eVectiveness
in governing has been achieved, and if so whether it has been at the cost of a loss of
meaningful accountability. What is clear is that many systems are now so complex
and opaque in the way they make decisions that insidersWnd it diYcult enough
to fathom what is going on let alone the relatively disengaged voting citizen.
Comparativists are not alone in being tripped up by the complexity of the systems
of local governance that we are in the process of creating.
3 Local Governance as Institutional
Regime Building
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
The formal institutional literature has tended to conclude that local governance
over the last two decades has become more complex and at the same time more
informal. This understanding has opened the door to more ‘‘new’’ institutionalist
understandings that are concerned to address the informal construction and
maintenance of institutions. These newer ways of working are not assembled in
some ad hoc manner; they follow patterns and can in their construction have a
determining inXuence on access to power. The ‘‘new’’ institutional concern with
comparative local governance 503