61 2591-2259 / This is an open access article under the CC-BY-NC-ND license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Stučka, M. (2023). Local Leadership During the Territorial Amalgamation Process – The Case of Latvia. Central European Public Administration Review, 21(1), pp. 61–84 DOI: 10.17573/cepar.2023.1.03 1.01 Original scientific article Local Leadership During the Territorial Amalgamation Process – The Case of Latvia Malvīne Stučka University of Latvia malvine.stucka@gmail.com https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5919-4044 Received: 20. 3. 2023 Revised: 6. 5. 2023 Accepted: 30. 5. 2023 Published: 30. 5. 2023 ABSTRACT Purpose: The article aims to present evidence of the role of the mayors in the territorial amalgamation process, focusing on their relationship with voters and other stakeholders and on the transformation processes ex- perienced by local governments. Given their status as the highest-ranking officials enjoying voters’ and deputies’ support, mayors play an essential role in either implementing or, on the contrary, impeding local govern- ment reforms. As they have the power, knowledge, and expertise to in- fluence the implementation of local government reforms, it becomes es- sential to evaluate their role. Design: The article examines the role of mayors in local government re- forms, particularly in the context of the recent territorial amalgamation reforms in Latvia. Through a literature review and analysis of results from the recent amalgamation, the article explores the complex relationships that mayors have with other stakeholders and the transformation pro- cesses within their respective local governments. Findings: The study highlights the importance of mayors in providing effective leadership during reform initiatives and the potential implica- tions for their reputation and electoral outcomes. The results show that mayors primarily use media, public consultations, public letters, and even the possibility of resignation to influence the territorial amalgamation process. Academic contribution to the field: While there has been research on territorial amalgamation, the role of the mayor is often overlooked, es- pecially in a top-down initiated process where, despite its features, the mayor still possesses the tools to shape the course of the territorial amal- gamation process. The article presents the reform experience in Latvia as a small state. Value: This research provides valuable insights into the role of mayors in the territorial amalgamation process in Latvia and its implications for Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/202362 Malvīne Stučka local government reform. The findings contribute to the existing litera- ture by comprehensively analysing the mayor’s influence on the reform agenda and implementation strategies. Keywords: local government, territorial amalgamation, local leadership, Latvia JEL: H83, R58 1 Introduction Local public authorities have traditionally been a platform where reforms have been experimented with and with varying impacts on the overall insti- tutional framework. There has been the third wave of amalgamation reforms as several countries have recently initiated territorial amalgamation reforms (Swianiewicz et al., 2017). Mayors have played an essential role in implement- ing or, on the contrary, non-implementing these reforms as the highest-rank- ing officials in local governments. They have the ability to influence the im- plementation of local government reform through their power, knowledge and expertise. They have the capacity to shape the reform agenda, create a space for dialogue among stakeholders and make decisions with a long-term orientation. Furthermore, mayors are in a privileged position to negotiate and collaborate with other stakeholders, such as the national government, local and regional politicians, entrepreneurs and civil society. Additionally, their strategies and approaches are likely to affect the efficiency and effectiveness of the reform process significantly (Kübler et al., 2020). At the same time, their reputation may be rapidly diminished as they are closer to the electorate, and voters can affect election results in Latvia. This article presents evidence of the link between the role of the Latvian mayor during territorial reform process and their relationship with the local governments they lead, other stakeholders involved and the transformation processes to which these local governments are subject. The research question is as fol- lows: what kind of role does the mayor have in the territorial amalgamation process in Latvia? The discussions on the need for administrative-territorial reform started im- mediately after the independence of Latvia. In 2009, the first territorial amal- gamation aimed to create economically viable local governments that would provide qualitative services to their citizens. Recently, in 2021, there was the second territorial amalgamation. Its main aim was to improve national and lo- cal government’s economic growth and competitiveness. In addition, the aims also included rationalisation of budgetary resources, the improvement of the capacity and autonomy of local government, an attractive environment for investment and job creation and the reduction of emigration (VARAM, 2021). This article firstly represents a literature review of theories that explains and describes the mayor’s role in the local government reform process and the stakeholders involved, along with the context of Latvian local government Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/2023 63 Local Leadership During the Territorial Amalgamation Process – The Case of Latvia reforms and the system. Secondly, there is an analysis of Latvia’s latest lo- cal government reform process, including mayors’ and stakeholders’ roles. Thirdly, based on studies, the positions that mayors take concerning territo- rial reform processes are identified in Latvia. 2 Literature review A review of mayors’ positions on local government reform is closely linked to the academic debate on the division of roles and functions between mayors (as local political leaders) and local government managers and civil servants and the relationship between them (Alba and Navarro, 2006). However, in this article, the relationship in the administration of the local government is not analyzed, but the role the mayor takes while the administrative territorial reforms take place. It is essential to look at the interaction between mayors and involved stake- holders, their role in local governance during reform processes, and how they interact not only with each other but also at the national level. As Swianiewicz et al. (2022) states, many aspects of territorial reforms may trigger conflicts and disagreement, and strong disagreement/resistance may be even harsher in countries with failed reform attempts. Thus there is many stakeholders in- volved, for example, at the reform-deciding level of government (ministries, the government and the parliament), at the local level, and at different lev- els of public institutions and other relevant stakeholders (Swianiewicz et al., 2022). The lines of conflicts may be not just, for instance, between different political parties at the same level of government, but also within the same po- litical party at the national/regional level and local level. In addition, conflicts between stakeholders with positional interests other than political–ideologi- cal interests are evoked. However, there have been territorial amalgamation reform in 2009. The administrative-territorial reform shifted from two-tier to one-tier local government: 26 district councils were abolished, towns, their rural areas and local governments were merged into districts, and nine large cities were granted the status of republican towns. In addition, it was decided to rename all rural areas of cities as local governments to restore their histori- cal names or to add them to existing ones. The county’s merged administra- tive territories (towns and parishes) acquired the status of a county territorial unit and kept their names. The Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development (fur- ther in the text – MEPRD), which monitors local governments, did a review of the reform mentioned above, and they concluded that the local govern- ment system in many areas was not meeting the criteria for the establish- ment of local governments established by law. This issue was further com- pounded by the lack of strong development centers, which has hindered the ability to implement a balanced regional development policy. Moreover, the local government system was heterogeneous in terms of population, making it challenging to decentralize functions. This created a situation where trans- ferring certain functions to local governments was complex. Furthermore, Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/202364 Malvīne Stučka many small local governments were made, and they could not independently carry out their autonomous functions due to a lack of sufficient tax revenue base and financial resources. As a result, it was difficult for these local govern- ments to carry out rational and efficient administration (MEPRD, 2013). And after this report, there were many discussions going on. As Swianiewicz et al. (2022) describes, there was political-ideological conflict, center-periphery, central-local government and large versus small entities conflicts. There is also a part for the mayor and his party in the Council in all these conflict types. Several comparative studies on local administrative reforms have highlighted many key areas where changes tend to converge – internal organizations, re- lations with external stakeholders, and distribution of competencies (Bouck- aert and Kuhlmann, 2016). Among the most important of these are internal changes in the local government and the governance of local governments. Although initially (in the 1990s), many governance changes were inspired by the New Public Management (hereinafter – NPM) model, their actual impact on local government in continental Europe was limited. In any case, they did not lead to radical transformations (Kuhlmann and Wollmann, 2014). New ways of working and new management practices have been introduced, re- sulting in a reorganization of structures, processes, human resources, and budget management (Bouckaert and Kuhlmann, 2016). The NPM model re- flects the private sector’s ideas – how to improve the efficiency and quality of organizations in delivering public services. Thus, if we also look at efforts to improve local governance, the NPM model elements appear in the ration- ale for reform. Thus, whether these changes will make the local government more responsive to community needs is important. And NPM also stresses the importance of politicians. For example, in local government cases, the mayor as the manager is the one who invests in the prevention of problems, are result oriented and empowers the citizens to participate in the decision- making process and helps to happen or initiate innovations (Hansen, 2011). The Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development report on the need to complete the administrative-territorial reform states that it is necessary to implement it in order to provide better quality and more cost- effective services to the population, to be able to further decentralize public administration by transferring certain public administration functions to local governments and to increase the responsibility of local governments for man- aging their territory (VARAM, 2019). Thus, also in the case of Latvia, it can be observed that the justification of the need for amalgamation reforms in 2009 and 2021 contained elements from the NPM. Moreover, another area where changes during local government reform may converge is the distribution of competencies and functions between govern- ment levels and institutions. In addition, the essential factor is local power and consensus-building dynamics, which includes stakeholders, party compe- tition and vote or office-seeking aspect, the influence of the media and the use/instrumentalisation of democratic participation tools. Each can function as a game changer concerning reform outcomes. Also, it is essential to look at the administrative system and culture, the initial status of the local gov- Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/2023 65 Local Leadership During the Territorial Amalgamation Process – The Case of Latvia ernment before the reform and reforms in the past, reform implementation strategy, political incentives and political steering of the reform process, the existing resources and performance level in the future (Ebinger et al., 2019). Swianiewicz (2014) describes local governments of Latvia as relatively decen- tralized as they have a broad scope of functions. Their possibility to affect the tax rate is low (the local government can only change the real estate tax rate, but there is no local government tax). Still, financial decentralization (power to control taxes) is shared with the central government. According to the IDEA typology, local government deputies are elected based on a propor- tional representation list system. Citizens vote for a political party or an as- sociation of two or more political parties. Voters have the possibility to cross out or put a “+” for candidates, expressing their opinion on each candidate and thus changing their order in the list. Each local government is a separate constituency, regardless of its size. A threshold of five per cent is set for both local and national elections, which means that lists receiving less than five per cent of the total vote in local government elections are excluded from the allocation of seats. The Sainte Laguë method is used to allocate local council seats between lists (Saeima, 1994). There is collective leadership, as the local council deputies (Figure 1) vote for the candidate for the mayor’s position. Based on the mayor’s influence, Mouritzen and Svara (2002) have identi- fied four municipal models: 1) The Council-manager form; 2) The Collective form; 3) The Committee-leader form; 4) The Strong-mayor form. According to them, there is the committee-leader type in Latvian municipalities (Figure 1). The mayor does not hold the most powerful position due to not being directly elected. However, there is a need to stress out that this typology ex- amines the distribution of roles and functions among the mayor, deputies, commissions, and the local government’s administration within the frame- work of horizontal relations. Like the executive director and vice-chairperson, the deputies also elect the mayor. Therefore, it is evident that the mayors may not be influential if one is evaluating horizontal relations as they are not directly elected and their executive functions are largely shared with other actors in the municipality, such as the executive director, deputies, and com- mittee chairperson. Figure 1. The procedure for the election of local government political positions Voters Deputies The Mayor The Vice-Mayor The Committee Chairperson Source: own. Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/202366 Malvīne Stučka However, the local council and voters’ choice is mostly the same, as the dep- uty elected as mayor usually receives the most votes and “+”. For example, in the elections of 2021, deputies who received the most “+” and votes in local council elections were mainly elected as mayors. 80 % of all the elected may- ors were the ones who received the most “+” in the 2021 local government elections (author’s calculations). Peripheral political mobilization against central political institutions is emerg- ing as a new trend in several European nations, albeit in various political forms. The persistence of regionalism demonstrates the inadequacy of national inte- gration and a regional absence of trust in national governmental processes. As a result, tension between the national level and local authorities could appear, complicating processes where the relationship between these two powers is crucial. For example, during a discussion about financial equalization or distribu- tion of funds (Stein et al., 2022) and also during the top-down reform process. One of the reasons for territorial amalgamation, which is not related to eco- nomics, is that bigger local governments decide and administrate more (im- portant) decisions. It is argued that as a result, the interest in political par- ticipation increases too (Ebinger et al., 2019). However, the impact on voter turnout is complex and influenced by various factors. The size of a municipali- ty has a medium- to long-term effects, as larger municipalities may have more extensive powers. On the other hand, the effects of amalgamation, such as citizens’ reactions to the merger and their perceptions of representation loss or gaining critical mass, are more immediate. Consequently, voter turnout is influenced by many factors, especially in the elections following the merger (Bolgherini and Paparo, 2023). While some argue that amalgamation leads to increased interest in political participation, other authors have reached differ- ent conclusions. Stein et al. (2022) suggest that structural reforms, including mergers, can lead to a decline in trust and affect political and social involve- ment. Additionally, Simon Lapointe et al. (2018) found that the merge of local governments resulted in a substantial decrease in voter turnout and political efficacy. These effects were particularly pronounced in smaller municipalities, indicating that the impacts of mergers on turnout and efficacy are significant and policy-relevant. Similar findings in Denmark by Y. Bhatti and K. M. Hansen (2019) suggest the potential generalizability of these results to other coun- tries using open-list proportional representation in local elections. Therefore, while territorial amalgamation is a widespread trend, it is important to con- sider the combined effects of factors such as municipality size, amalgamation, citizens’ reactions, and perceptions of representation loss or gain, as they in- fluence voter turnout, especially in the initial post-merger election. Kjaer et al. (2010) point out that amalgamations have led to an increase in the perceived influence of leading councilors vis-à-vis back-bench councilors and a decrease in the perceived influence of the council vis-à-vis its top adminis- trative officers. This research also displays the role of the mayor in territorial amalgamation. Other research indicates that the electorate punished local parties at the polls for implementing amalgamations decided by the central Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/2023 67 Local Leadership During the Territorial Amalgamation Process – The Case of Latvia government. However, the effect on the mayoral parties’ electoral results is more indirect than direct (Kjaer and Klemmensen, 2015). This is the reason why mayors are mostly against territorial amalgamation. Some articles sug- gest that the political parties holding the mayoralty in times of amalgama- tions tend to designate very tenured mayors as candidates, thus missing the positive first-term incumbency effect, which a new mayor could have acquired (Tavares, 2018). In this article, I will test whether these assumptions can also be observed in the case of Latvia. 3 Methods This article is based on quantitative method (data analysis) to evaluate the mayor’s role in the territorial amalgamation process. As a matter of research design and method applied, this work focuses on the mayor’s role and rela- tionship between involved stakeholders in the territorial amalgamation pro- cess in Latvia. Case studies commonly afford multiple observations of a single case, so providing firmer evidence of the factual accuracy of a given proposi- tion would be possible in the analogous cross-unit study (Gerring, 2004). The conceptual frame (Figure 2) includes not only mayor and its position in the process but also other stakeholders involved in the territorial amalgama- tion process, as they are behind the actions. These other stakeholders will be discussed in the results section. There is a need to look at all local gov- ernments affected by the amalgamation process and also at those that the territorial amalgamation process did not affect, as they will give an overall picture of the trends. In total, fifteen local governments (if we add the capital city) were unaffected by territorial amalgamation reform in 2021, so there were no changes in the composition or boundaries of the local government (Valsts, 2021). In order to compare and to see whether there is divergence of trends between amalgamated and non-amalgamated municipalities, the qua- si-experimental design will be used. A quasi-experimental design is chosen as it is not possible to randomly select the units of analysis for the experimen- tal and control groups (Blom-Hansen et al., 2016). According to A. Gendźwiłł et al. (2021), quasi-experimental method is a more precise to analyze causal relationship, when evaluating different local governments, in comparison to cross-sectional studies. A quasi-experiment has control group, and pre- and post- treatment group (Blom-Hansen et al., 2016). In this case, the pre-treat- ment group consists of the 104 local governments, which were merged af- ter territorial amalgamation and formed treatment group, which consists of 28 local governments (Table 1). The control group consists of 14 local gov- ernments before and after the territorial amalgamation. To understand the change of local governments after territorial amalgamation, the local govern- ment population is added. The local government population changed a lot in the amalgamated local governments (the treatment group). Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/202368 Malvīne Stučka Table 1. Size of local governments in control group and treatment group before and after territorial amalgamation Control group Treatment group Population size Prereform Postreform Prereform (pretreatment) Postreform Under 30000 9 9 103 15 30000-60000 3 3 1 13 More than 60000 2 2 0 0 Total 14 14 104 28 Source: calculated by author. First, to understand the mayor’s role in the local government reform pro- cess, there is a need to analyse Latvia’s latest administrative-territorial reform process, thus understanding how long it took to finish the territorial amal- gamation process and what kind of stakeholders were involved. Secondly, it is also necessary to understand the end result of the reform process and, at the same time, the starting point of the new territorial units, i.e. whether the reform had an impact on voter turnout, how party turnout changed and what the election results were. This also includes looking at how these results have influenced the mayor. To evaluate the territorial amalgamation results, the above described quasi-experimental method will be used. In addition, whether there have been changes between the merged local governments and those that were not. Thirdly, to evaluate the mayor’s role and the rela- tions between central and local authorities, it is necessary to look at the ex- ternal and internal actions. External actions will be understood as activities that the mayor and the council did outside the local government to affect the territorial amalgamation process. Internal actions will be understood as ac- tivities that the mayor and the council did inside of the local government, for example, what was the message to the citizens of the local government, did they organize meetings, consultations or surveys about the planned reform. Mayors opinion were collected from official state institution web pages, local governments’ official web pages and local newspaper web pages during the period between April 2019 and October 2021. Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/2023 69 Local Leadership During the Territorial Amalgamation Process – The Case of Latvia Figure 2. The conceptual analysis frame Discussions with the national level parties in the parliament Application to the Constitutional Court External actions New territorial unit Territorial amalgamation did not affect Citizens Local Elections The municipality’s and the mayors’ activities against or for the reform Rising the support for reelection Internal actions The mayor Source: made by the author. 4 Results There have been involved many stakeholders from different kinds of decision- making levels (Figure 3) in the 2021 territorial amalgamation process. Figure 3. Stakeholders in territorial reform in Latvia • European Union and its institutions • Congress of Local and Regional Authorities • Governments • Ministry of Environemntal Protection and Regional Development • The President of Republic • The Parliament • Latvian Association of Local and Regional Governments • The Constitutional Court • Local governments • Mayors (participates also in Latvian Association of Local Governments and takes part in the work of Parliaments commissions) • Regional political parties • Citizens Source: own. It is necessary to focus attention and identify the stakeholders so that their roles can be better understood in the amalgamation process and the relation- ship between them—especially the mayor’s place in the net of stakeholders. In 2015, the MEPRD proposed to reduce the number of local governments significantly. One proposed option was to reduce the number of local gov- ernments from 119 to 49 while retaining nine State cities. However, at that Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/202370 Malvīne Stučka exact moment, there was no political will to introduce this reform. However, it changed when in the declaration of the Cabinet of Ministers on the planned activities, written in early 2019, a commitment was declared to implement the territorial amalgamation reform by 2021. The plan from the beginning was to make all district centers that existed before 2009 the centers of the new districts, with seven State cities (except Riga and Jurmala) merging with their surrounding neighbourhoods. For example, the number of local govern- ments in the territory of the former Riga District was to be reduced from 16 to 6. The Cabinet of Ministers approved the draft law, which envisages the establishment of 39 administrative territories – 5 State cities (Daugavpils, Jurmala, Liepaja, Rezekne and Riga) and 34 districts. However, the number changed during long discussions in the Parliament. Before discussions in the Parliament, there were 28 public consultations in 2019 and 2020. The public consultation aim was to involve the public in the process of local government reform and explain the implementation of the reform and changes related to the new administrative-territorial division. The Minister and/or representatives of the Ministry took part in this consultation and listened to local MPs, citizens and businesses. However, at the end of 2019, there was a fact-finding visit by the Congress of Local and Regional Au- thorities of the Council of Europe rapporteurs to Latvia to clarify the Latvian Association of Local and Regional Governments’ allegations that there have been violations of the European Charter of Local Self-Government. Moreover, the rapporteurs expressed concern about the administrative territorial pro- cess, lack of proper public consultation, and reduced financial autonomy of local governments (Cadoret and Cools, 2020). A specially established parliamentary commission – the Commission on Ad- ministrative and Territorial Reform, examined the draft law. It was found at the end of 2019. And its work lasted until the middle of 2022. It was set up to examine the draft Law on Administrative Territories and Populated Areas and other draft laws and issues related to territorial reform and its implementa- tion (Saeima, 2019). However, all the time, there was Public Administration and Local Government Committee. The draft law was discussed at 22 com- mittee meetings. Representatives of the local governments involved in the reform were invited. However, as the minutes of the Committee show, there were also meetings at which the invited representatives of the local govern- ments did not speak or comment on the planned changes. In addition, in al- most every committee meeting, there were representatives from the Latvian Association of Local and Regional Governments and other NGOs representing cities or employers. It can therefore be concluded that representatives of local governments had the opportunity to participate in the public consultation and the parliamentary committee’s work. In addition, the opportunity was taken to involve international experts to evaluate these participatory measures. On 23 June 2020, new Law on Administrative Territories and Settlements were announced. From now on, the cities of the Republic of Latvia are divided into State cities and cities. The State cities are Daugavpils, Jelgava, Jekabpils, Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/2023 71 Local Leadership During the Territorial Amalgamation Process – The Case of Latvia Jurmala, Liepaja, Ogre, Rezekne, Riga, Valmiera and Ventspils (three of which are not separated will be local governments but are part of the counties as units of territorial division) (Saeima, 2020). 1 July 2021, there was the transi- tion to 43 local governments, which includes 7 State cities and 35 local gov- ernments, many of which were created on the territories of former districts. Recent electoral statistics suggest that the assumption that participation would be lower in newly created local governments due to unfamiliar political environments and candidates, insufficient emotional attachment to the new territorial formation, and inadequate information about the current affairs of the local government is supported. The voter turnout was 34,01 % (Figure 4). Figure 4. Voter turnout for local elections in Latvia, 1994-2021 Source: Central Election Commission. The data suggest that introducing newly created local governments led to a slight decrease in voter turnout. The average participation rate in the 14 local governments (without the capital city) whose boundaries were unchanged was 34.93 %, while in 2017, the average participation rate in these municipali- ties was 45.38 % (Table 2). While the difference in the same year is minimal, the difference between the election year of 2017, indicate that introducing new local governments can have a negative impact on voter turnout if we compare how it was before the merger. This could be due to a lack of aware- ness of the changes, difficulties understanding the system, or lack of motiva- tion to participate in the newly created local government elections. Table 2. Voter turnout (%) of local governments in control group and treatment group before and after territorial amalgamation Control group Treatment group Voter turnout Prereform Postreform Prereform (pretreatment) Postreform Average voter turnout 45.38 % 34.93 % 48.66 % 34.98 % Source: calculated by author. Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/202372 Malvīne Stučka In the context of low turnout, it is also important to focus on trust before and after the reform. In 2020, 33.9% of the population trusted or partially trusted local governments, and 25.2 % trusted or partially trusted the parlia- ment (SKDS, 2020). In 2021, after the reform was adopted, 22.2 % trusted or partially trusted the parliament and 54.4 % trusted local governments (Kraut- manis, 2022). Perhaps one of the reasons the trust to local governments grew was that some of the mayors and councils were submitting the applications to the Constitutional Court. In addition, the important role of local governments in containing the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic and in providing support measures to citizens and entrepreneurs could also have boosted trust (MK, 2021; LR VK, 2022). To understand the overall situation, it is essential to examine whether the participation from national-level and regional parties increased. In the 2021 elections, national-level parties mainly participated in the local government elections. Still, the regional parties also participate, and even one could con- clude that bigger local governments can develop regional parties and boost their participation in them. There were 318 lists submitted to local elec- tions in 2021, but 65 parties were participating, of which 25 were regional ones (Figure 5). And in 2017, there were 588 lists submitted to local elec- tions, but 178 parties and voter unions were participating. There were no lo- cal governments, where only regional parties participated. Still, 20 % of local governments participated only the national-level parties and/or alliances of national-level parties, where the election happened on 5 June 2021. As of the elections in 2021, there were no voter unions as there was the decision to exclude them from the law. Figure 5. Percentage of the number of total lists in the 2021 Latvian local elections (national, alliances of national-level parties, alliances of national and regional parties and regional parties) 57 % 3 % 2 % 20 % 18 % 75 % 5 % 3 % 16 % 0 % National level parties Alliances of national level parties Alliance of national level and regional parties Regional parties Voter unions Source: Central Election Commission and Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia The Control group has few pre-territorial reform electoral alliances, as it is predominantly composed of national cities, where national parties, their al- liances or their alliances with regional parties submit more lists (Table 3). The data in the Table 3 suggests that territorial amalgamation had a positive impact on the popularity of national level parties. However, there can be a Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/2023 73 Local Leadership During the Territorial Amalgamation Process – The Case of Latvia discussion about the trust in the national level parties, who are mostly also represented in the parliament, and the low turnout in the 2021 local govern- ment elections. Table 3. Percentage of lists in local governments in control group and treatment group before and after territorial amalgamation by type Control group Treatment group Lists Prereform Postreform Prereform (pretreatment) Postreform National level parties 53 % 71 % 58 % 76 % Alliances of national level parties 4 % 6 % 3 % 5 % Alliance of national and regional parties 4 % 4 % 1 % 3 % Regional parties 36 % 18 % 17 % 15 % Voter Unions 3 % (None in 2021) 20 % (None in 2021) Total number of lists 98 93 490 237 Source: calculated by author. During the process of administrative territorial reform in May 2020, a citizen survey conducted by the research centre SKDS revealed that 36 % of the population supports the reform, while 33 % are against it, with 31 % of re- spondents remaining undecided. The region of Kurzeme exhibited the most negative attitude towards the reform, with 50 % of respondents opposing it, followed by Pierīga with 39 % expressing a negative opinion. The region of Zemgale had a slightly lower percentage of dissatisfied citizens at 39 %, but also showed 42 % support for the reform. On the other hand, the regions of Vidzeme and Latgale had the highest support for the reform, with 47 % and 45 % of the population, respectively, in favour of it (LETA, 2020). In a previous survey in 2019, prior to the parliamentary discussions, 35 % of respondents supported the reform, while 30 % were against it. Notably, the largest share of reform supporters was found among the 64-75 age group, with 41 % in favour and only 28 % opposed. Higher levels of support were also observed among those with higher education (38 %) and middle (41 %) or high (42 %) incomes (LETA, 2019a). However, a growing phenomenon is the increasing portion of the population that does not have a clear opinion, which is also evident in surveys related to elections and voter preferences, as well as a lack of interest in participating in local government elections (Zute-Vītola and Važnaja, 2022). Local surveys conducted by various municipalities, such as Ikšķile, Jaunpils, Rucava, Rūjiena, Naukšēni, Jaunnjelgava, Lielvārde, and Rauna, demonstrated different levels of support for the merger plans (Mače, 2019; LETA, 2019b; Valmieras Ziņas, 2019; Matisone, 2019; TVNET/LETA, 2019; LETA, 2019c; Vid- Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/202374 Malvīne Stučka zemes televīzija, 2019). It should be noted that concerns about the validity of these surveys arose when journalists discovered that personal identification documents were not required. Thus, individuals could potentially vote under false names (Kārkliņš, 2019). To fully evaluate the effect of partisanship and the representation of the mayor in local governments, it is still essential to consider the party affilia- tion of the mayors. Among 27 merged local governments, the mayor’s party received the most votes in 21 cases. Furthermore, in 21 out of 27 merged lo- cal governments (78 %), the elected mayor was the deputy who received the most “+” from the voters (Table 4). Similarly, in 82 out of 104 merged local governments in 2017 (79 %), the elected mayor was the deputy who received the most “+” from the voters. In addition, if we do not look into whether these municipalities were merged or not, the trend that the deputy who receives the most + from voters is elected in the mayor position is quite high – 78 % in 2017 and 81 % in 2021. Data in the table suggests that merging local gov- ernments did not significantly affect the outcomes of the choice of mayor in the case of Latvia. In both merged and non-merged local governments, the elected mayor was mostly the deputy who received the most votes. This im- plies that the merging of local governments was not influential in determin- ing who would get the mayor’s position. When considering both the most popular mayors (based on the “+”) and their position as having the most seats in the Council, in the treatment group, it dropped from 74% to 70%. This sug- gests that the reform may have influenced the relationship between the most popular mayors and their political influence, as measured by the number of seats they held in the Council. A. Tavares (2018) said that parties usually chose very tenured mayors as candidates. This, in some part, is also the case in Lat- via, where in 24 of 42 (57 %) local governments, there was the same mayor as before the territorial amalgamation. Mayors changed in 16 local govern- ments, which constitutes 38 %. Table 4. Percentage of mayors with most “+” in local governments in control group and treatment group before and after territorial amalgamation Control group Treatment group Mayors with most “+” Prereform Postreform Prereform (pretreatment) Postreform Mayors with most “+” 79 % 87 % 79 % 78 % Mayors with most “+” and most seats in the Council 79 % 80 % 74 % 70 % Total number of local governments 14 15 104 27 Source: calculated by author. Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/2023 75 Local Leadership During the Territorial Amalgamation Process – The Case of Latvia 4.1 Where were the mayors during the territorial amalgamation and after it? H. Wollmann (2008) believes that the reform debate in Europe is taking place because of widespread criticism of transparency and accountability in local government, followed by low participation in local elections, as local govern- ments are less and less able to respond to the social, economic and environ- mental complexities and challenges. Consequently, these challenges also call for different solutions from the mayor as a local leader and possibly a different decision-making process to increase participation and improve transparency and responsible use of financial resources. I have looked into the decision- making process and what opportunities there were for the mayor to commu- nicate with parliament and the ministry. However, as territorial amalgamation reforms are not related only to the administration of local government but also can affect service delivery and local communities, it is important to look at what mayors said to the voters about reform and whether they explained it or criticised it. Therefore, this subsection examines the mayors who actively expressed their thoughts about territorial amalgamation. All the opinions of mayors, who have spoken publicly, have been shared and published on the lo- cal government’s or regional newspaper’s websites. For example, mayors of Jaunpils, Engure, and Kandava actively expressed their thoughts about terri- torial amalgamation. All of these local governments were merged and added to Tukuma novads. The Mayor of Jaunpils said that reform is needed, but there are many ifs. He was worried about school closure, service delivery and money access. He also expresses the idea that there should be a referendum about territorial amal- gamation. Also, the Mayor of Engure doesn’t see many advantages of reform. “In the end, I see practically no benefits. On the contrary, power will move away from the people. The one wish is for people to live better. But without listening to each other, it is unlikely to happen.” (Reinsone and Trēde, 2019) The Mayor of Kandava also was against reform and expressed the same thoughts against reform. He highlights the importance of local patriotism. Says that economically it will be wrong but at the same time says that the only advantage would be the possibility to make a loan: “In this case, it is seen only in the ability to borrow or to engage in large EU projects that are sometimes unaffordable for smaller local governments with smaller budgets.” (Reinsone and Trēde, 2019) These opinions were collected on a regional news portal before the vote in the Parliament. Given that these were local governments, which were added to a larger one, the position of the council presidents is clear. However, one of the mayors still takes the opposite view on attracting funding and points to significant benefits for the local government’s development. The mayors of four local governments – Jelgava, Daugavpils, Ventspils and Rēzekne, were united in favour of sending a public letter to the President Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/202376 Malvīne Stučka of Latvia, Prime Minister, Latvian Association of Local and Regional Govern- ments, the Latvian Academy of Sciences and the Parliament. These local gov- ernments had an appeal to stop the territorial reform in its current form as developed by the MEPRD. Representing four administrative-territorial units covering rural areas without towns, they state that they want a democratic and unhurried reform implementation. They stressed the need to respect the principle of voluntarism and assess what has and has not been achieved in the local governments so far. There was a need for a clear vision of the criteria for attracting funding in the “post-reform” period (Rēzeknes novads, 2019). This finding indicates that the mayors of four local governments in Latvia are united in opposition to the current form of the MEPRD’s territorial reform. Before the administrative-territorial reform, mayors made collective and indi- vidual attempts to halt the reform. A separate section about activities against administrative-territorial reform has been made on Iecavas’ local govern- ments’ online page. For example, a public consultation was published with the question, “Do you support the preservation of Iecava local government as an independent administrative territory of the Republic of Latvia?” The Mayor of Iecava opened the consultation meeting with the following text: “We don’t want to live worse, but we will if we are added to Bauska local government. … So far, all the MEPRD has to offer are figures and statistics. But this is not what interests the inhabitants of our local government. What is needed are arguments that can genuinely show that living conditions in the local government will improve after the reform.” (Iecava, 2019a). Through this questionnaire and introduction, he clearly shows his attitude towards administrative-territorial reform. Iecava was one of those territorial units that were added to Bauskas novads (Iecava, 2019b). There is a need to note that Vecpiebalgas novads were added to Cēsu novads. Also, Vecpiebalgas’s mayor expressed mostly negative connotations towards the work of the MEPRD minister. However, he mentions that he supports the reform and doesn’t deny its necessity. There has also been demission from the mayors’ position as a protest against this reform. For example, Beverīnas mayor announced about demission be- cause: “The reform is probably necessary to some extent, but the way it is being carried out is unacceptable.” (Leta, 2019d) Again, he is one of the mayors who say that reform is needed to some extent, but he does not accept how it is carried out. Beverīna were also added to Valmieras novads. After the territorial amalgamation, there was a meeting with the new minis- ter of MEPRD about the situation in local governments. The Mayor of Bauska pointed out that: Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/2023 77 Local Leadership During the Territorial Amalgamation Process – The Case of Latvia “After the reform, Bauska region is one of the largest local governments in Latvia and is a big challenge for deputies and employees. Moreover, it turned out that there are huge differences between the merged local governments. This includes population density - not only between towns and local governments, but also, for example, between Kurmene, where there are five people per square kilometer, and Īslice, where there are 33 people per square kilometer.” (Varnevičs, 2021) The thoughts of territorial amalgamation ranged from support to opposition between the mayors who expressed their opinions on the territorial amal- gamation. The majority of mayors who have voiced their opinions have ex- pressed opposition to the reform, citing concerns such as school closures, difficulties in accessing services and economic reasons, and even a lack of lo- cal patriotism. There is also a general sentiment among the mayors that the reform is necessary to some extent but that the current form of the reform needs to be revised. In the 2022 autumn, there were Parliament elections be- fore which some parties in election campaigns said that they would look into the territorial reform process and how effective it is so as to know whether there is a need to change it. 4.2 The aftermath of territorial amalgamations After the law was adopted (on 10 June 2020) in the Parliament, several local governments challenged the administrative-territorial reform in the Consti- tutional Court. Specifically, the Law on Administrative Territories and Popu- lated Areas has been challenged in Constitutional court by 21 local govern- ment councils, which compared to territorial reform in 2009, is way more. In 2009, there were 4 cases (Satversmes tiesa, 2009). Currently, 19 cases have been initiated in the Constitutional Court, two decisions on refusal to initiate a claim have been adopted, and several cases have been merged (Satversmes tiesa 2021). This is important to look at because the mayor is the one who rep- resents the local government and can initiate to submit an application to the Constitutional Court. Of course, local government deputies have to vote on whether they accept this application submission in the council meeting and decide that the mayor will be authorised to represent the local government in the application preparation. In addition, while evaluating the mayor’s role in the territorial amalgamation process, another important aspect is that they can decide when to convene the council meeting and set the agenda. On 12 March 2021, the Constitutional Court recognised that the local gov- ernments’ annexation of Skulte novads to Saulkrasti novads and its separa- tion from Limbazi novads was unconstitutional. Following this judgement, also a separate Varaklani novads was established. As a result, the elections in Varaklani and Rezekne were postponed until 11 September 2021. During this decision-making process, mayors have had the opportunity to speak up. For example, the residents of Limbazi protested against incorporating Skulte and Vidrizi parishes into Saulkrasti. Despite several thousand residents’ signa- tures, the Saeima did not fully hear the residents’ objections and decided to separate Skulte from Limbazi. The local government contested this decision Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/202378 Malvīne Stučka in the Constitutional Court, which ruled that the annexation of the local gov- ernment to Saulkrasti was arbitrary and not in accordance with the law (TV3 Ziņas, 2021). The mayors can play a significant role in the territorial amalgamation process. Through their authority to initiate applications to the Constitutional Court, convene council meetings, and set the agenda, mayors can help ensure that residents’ voices are heard and that local governments can challenge deci- sions if there are legal grounds. 5 Discussion and conclusion This article presented an analysis of the role of the mayor in the territo- rial amalgamation process in Latvia. This paper aimed to evaluate how and whether the mayor participates in the reform process if it affects their local governments. It is evident that a significant number of mayors, whose local governments is merged with others, strongly oppose the plan of territorial amalgama- tion. Additionally, following the amalgamation, negative connotations have emerged as mayors grapple with evaluating the financial situation of their newly merged local governments. G. Ó. Erlingsson et al. (2021) emphasize that the argument for coercive amalgamations based on economies of scale is difficult to justify in research. However, as indicated in the literature review, the effects of the amalgamation process can be observed relatively quickly, while the full impact of the changes in the municipality may take longer to manifest. Thus, to comprehensively evaluate the aftermath of this reform in Latvia, it is prudent to allow for additional time. It is vital to see to what extent there was the involvement and analysis of documents, functions and possibilities to participate in the decision-making process during the territorial amalgamation process. To evaluate the role of the mayor in territorial amalgamation, interviews cannot be conducted, and the position of the opinions is evident, especially for those that are added to other ones. Moreover, participation in local elections between newly created local governments and not merged ones in Latvia is the same. Finally, mayors representing local governments, which were planned to be merged, can express their concerns during public consultation, which ME- PRD organized, and during the parliamentary committee meetings. However, there were times when these public consultations were just formal ones or mayors did not take full advantage of the opportunities. It is more difficult to influence the territorial amalgamation process if it is top-down. However, if the local community clearly expresses different attitudes, there are tools for mayors to affect it. For example, one of the platforms that the mayor has to affect territorial reform are NGO’s which represent municipalities. Addition- ally, the Constitutional Court did affect the look of the map of planned local governments in the case of Latvia. Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/2023 79 Local Leadership During the Territorial Amalgamation Process – The Case of Latvia To fully understand the role of the mayor in the territorial amalgamation pro- cess, it is essential to look at the context. The mayor is one of the many stake- holders involved in the territorial amalgamation process, and that not always stay in office when the new territorial reform is introduced after elections. There was no firm evidence that the interest in political participation increas- es if there are bigger local governments, as they need to decide and adminis- trate more decisions. The tools that mayors used to influence the process were media, public con- sultations, public letters and even demission. In addition, an important demo- cratic participation tool was used after the law regarding local government amalgamation was adopted – application to the Constitutional Court. How- ever, the application to the Constitutional Court can be considered the last possibility for mayors to change the law. Despite that there is collective lead- ership, there is still evidence that mostly those deputies who receive the most votes and “+” are indirectly elected as mayors. Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/202380 Malvīne Stučka References Alba, C.R. and Navarro, C. (2006). Mayors and Local Administrators: A Puzzling Relationship. In: H. Bäck et al. (eds) The European Mayor. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-90005-6_13. Bhatti, Y. and Hansen, K., M. (2019). Voter turnout and municipal amalgamations –evidence from Denmark. Local Government Studies, 45(5), pp. 697–723. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2018.1563540. Blom-Hansen, J. et al. (2016). Jurisdiction size and local government policy expenditure: Assessing the effect of municipal amalgamation. American Political Science Review, 110(4), pp. 812–831. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0003055416000320. Bolgherini, S. and Paparo, A. (2023). Process matters: The variegated effects of municipal amalgamation features on voter turnout revealed in a 10-country comparative investigation. European Political Science Review, pp. 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175577392300005X. Bouckaert, G. and Kuhlmann, S. (2016). Introduction: Comparing Local Public Sector Reforms: Institutional Policies in Context. In Local Public Sector Reforms in Times of Crisis, edited by Geert Bouckaert and Sabine Kuhlman, pp. 1–20. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137- 52548-2_1. Cadoret, X. and Cools, M. (2020). Fact-finding report on territorial reform in Latvia. At , accessed 20 November 2022. Central Election Commission. Local elections. At , accessed 21 November 2022. Ebinger, F., Kuhlmann, S. and Bogumil, J. (2019). Territorial reforms in Europe: effects on administrative performance and democratic participation, Local Government Studies, 45:1, pp. 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2018 .1530660. Erlingsson, G. Ó., Ödalen, J., and Wångmar, E. (2021). How coerced municipal amalgamations thwart the values of local self-government. Urban Affairs Review, 57(5), pp. 1226–1251. https://doi.org/10.1177/10780874209214. Gendźwiłł, A., Kurniewicz, A. and Swianiewicz, P. (2021). The impact of municipal territorial reforms on the economic performance of local governments. A systematic review of quasi-experimental studies. Space and Polity, 25(1) pp. 37–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562576.2020.1747420. Gerring, J. (2004). What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for? American Political Science Review, 98(2), pp. 341–354. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0003055404001182. Hansen, M. B. (2011). Antecedents of organisational innovation: The diffusion of new public management into Danish local government. Public Administration, 89(2), pp. 285–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 9299.2010.01855.x. Iecava (2019a). Mazās pašvaldības varat apvienot, bet Iecavu neaiztieciet!. At < https://www.iecava.lv/lv/zinas/pasvaldiba/26274-mazas-pasvaldibas-varat- apvienot-bet-iecavu-neaiztieciet>, accessed 29 October 2022. Iecava (2019b). Pašvaldības nostāja pret reformu joprojām ir negatīva. At , accessed 29 October 2022. Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/2023 81 Local Leadership During the Territorial Amalgamation Process – The Case of Latvia Kārkliņš, S. (2019). Kā rīdziniekam nobalstot 7 reizes – žurnālista eksperiments novadu reformas aptaujā. At accessed 20 May 2023. Kjaer, U. and Klemmensen, R. (2015). What are the Local Political Costs of Centrally Determined Reforms of Local Government? Local Government Studies, 41(1), pp. 100–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2014.887564. Kjaer, U., Hjelmar, U. and Olsen, A., L. (2010). Municipal Amalgamations and the Democratic Functioning of Local Councils: The Case of The Danish 2007 Structural Reform. Local Government Studies, 36(4), pp. 569–585. https://doi. org/10.1080/03003930.2010.494112. Korac, S., Saliterer, I. and Walker, M., R. (2017). Analysing the environmental antecedents of innovation adoption among politicians and public managers. Public Management Review, 19:4, pp. 566–587. https://doi.org/10.1080/1471 9037.2016.1200119. Krautmanis, M. (2022). Iedzīvotāji lielāko pašvaldību vadītājiem uzticas vairāk nekā ministriem, izņēmums ir Rīgas mērs Mārtiņš Staķis. At accessed 24 May 2023. Kübler, D. et al. (2020). Strengthen governability rather than deepen democracy: why local governments introduce participatory governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 86(3), pp. 409–426. https://doi. org/10.1177/0020852318801508. Kuhlmann, S. and Wollmann, H., (2014). Public administration and administrative reforms in Europe. An introduction in comparative public administration. Lapointe, S., Saarimaa, T. and Tukiainen, J. (2018). Effects of municipal mergers on voter turnout. Local Government Studies, 44(4), pp. 512–530. https://doi. org/10.1080/03003930.2018.1465936. Latvijas Republikas Valsts kontrole (2022). Valsts civilās aizsardzības sistēmas plānošana un gatavība. Lēmumu pieņemšana un krīzes pārvaldība COVID-19 pandēmijas laikā. At accessed 2 June 2023. LETA (2019a). Aptauja: Jauno pašvaldību reformu atbalsta un noraida līdzīgs īpatsvars iedzīvotāju. At accessed 20 May 2023. LETA (2019b). Rucavas novada dome izzina iedzīvotāju viedokli par novadu reformu. At accessed 20 May 2023. LETA (2019c). Teritoriālā reforma: Lielvārde neatbalsta VARAM ieceri. At accessed 20 May 2023. LETA (2019d). Protestējot pret administratīvi teritoriālo reform, no amata atkāpjas Beverīnas novada domes priekšsēdētājs. At , accessed 30 October 2022. LETA (2020). Aptauja: Iedzīvotājiem dalītas sajūtas par gaidāmo administratīvi teritoriālo reformu. At accessed 20 May 2023. Mače, Z. (2019). Ikšķilē aptaujā vairums ir pret novadu reformu, piedalījās mazāk par pusi balsstiesīgo. At accessed 20 May 2023. Matisone, G. (2019). Caur Valku uz Rīgu. Kāpēc Rūjienas un Naukšēnu iedzīvotāji gatavi protestēt pret novada reformu? At accessed 20 May 2023. Ministru kabinets (2021). Kariņš: pašvaldībām ir būtiska loma Covid-19 pandēmijas izplatības ierobežošanā. At accessed 2 June 2023. Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development (MEPRD) (2013). Informatīvais ziņojums “Administratīvi teritoriālās reformas izvērtējums”. At , accessed 17 November 2022. Mouritzen, P. E. and Svara, J. H. (2002). Leadership at the apex: politicians and administrators in Western local governments. University of Pittsburgh Pre. Peters, B. Guy. (2013). Institutions in context, and as context. In C. Pollitt (ed.), Context in public policy and management: The missing link? Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Reinsone, B. and Trēde, L. (2019). Kā gaidāmo reform komentē novadu mēri? At , accessed 30 October 2022. Rezeknes novads (2019). Four provinces merge in the call to stop the current reform of the reform model. At , accessed 30 October 2022. Saeima (1994). Pašvaldības domes vēlēšanu likums. At , accessed 18 November 2022. Saeima (2019). Par speciālās Administratīvi teritoriālās reformas komisijas izveidošanu. At , accessed 18 November 2022. Saeima (2020). Administratīvo teritoriju un apdzīvoto vietu likums. At , accessed 18 November 2022. Salvador, M. and Riba. C. (2015). Epistemic Communities and Service Delivery Choices in Spanish Municipal Administrations. Journal of Urban and Regional Analysis, 7(2), pp. 145–159. At accessed 2 November. Satversmes tiesa (2009). Satversmes tiesa izbeidz tiesvedību administratīvi teritoriālās reformas lietās. At , accessed 7 December 2022. Satversmes tiesa (2021). Satversmes tiesa pieņēmusi spriedumu visās lietās par administratīvi teritoriālās reformas atbilstību Satversmei. At accessed 7 December 2022. SKDS (2020). Latvijas iedzīvotāju aptauja. At accessed 24 May 2023. Stein, J., Broderstad, S., T. and Bjørnå, H. (2022). Territorial reforms, mobilisation, and political trust: a case study from Norway. Local Government Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2021.2025360. Swianiewicz, P. (2014). An Empirical Typology of Local Government Systems in Eastern Europe. Local Government Studies, 40(2), pp. 292–311. https://doi.or g/10.1080/03003930.2013.807807. Swianiewicz, P., Gendźwiłł, A. and Zardi, A. (2017). Territorial Reforms in Europe: Does Size Matter? Brussels: Centre of Expertise for Local Government Reform, Council of Europe. At , accessed 2 November 2022. Swianiewicz, P. et al. (2022). Patterns of conflicts. In P. Swianiewicz et al. (eds.), Municipal Territorial Reforms of the 21st Century in Europe (1st ed.), pp. 117–130. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003022589. Tavares, A. F. (2018). Municipal amalgamations and their effects: A literature review. Miscellanea Geographica. Regional Studies on Development, 22(1), pp. 5–15. https://doi.org/10.2478/mgrsd-2018-0005. Torres, L.M. and Pina, V. (2002). Decentralization, Local Governments and Market: An International Perspective. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. TV3 Ziņas (2021). Skultes pagasta iedzīvotāji gandarīti par iespēju palikt Limbažu novadā. At accessed 9 December 2022. TVNET/LETA (2019). Jaunjelgavas novada iedzīvotāju izsaka atbalstu izmaiņām pašvaldību kartē. At accessed 20 May 2023. Valmieras Ziņas (2019). Naukšēnu novada pašvaldība rīko iedzīvotāju aptauju par reģionālo reformu. At accessed 20 May 2023. Valsts zemes dienests (2021). Administratīvi teritoriālā reforma Latvijā. At , accessed 1 November 2022. VARAM (2019). Informatīvais ziņojums “Par turpmāko rīcību administratīvi teritoriālās reformas pabeigšanai”. At accessed 23 May 2023. Varnevičs, U. (2021). Sarunā par reformu viedokļi atšķiras. At , accessed 30 October 2022. Vides aizsardzības un reģionālās attīstības ministrija (VARAM) (2021). Administratīvi teritoriālā reforma. At , accessed 2 November 2022. Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/202384 Malvīne Stučka Vidzemes televīzija (2019). Raunas novadā rīko iedzīvotāju aptauju par teritoriālo reformu. At accessed 20 May 2023. Wollmann, H. (2008). Reforming local leadership and local democracy: The cases of England, Sweden, Germany and France in comparative perspective. Local Government Studies, 34(2), pp. 279–298. https://doi. org/10.1080/03003930701852344.