Research Related To A Person’s Self-identity

According to Paasi (2011) In the middle of our sense of belonging is identity. Identity can exist naturally in an individual, in a population or in an area. Identity is constructed through hidden and complex processes. Identity can be communicated through shared values, views, structures and processes. To exemplify this, they note that an individual can define his/her identity through nationality, gender, age, place of residence, religion, interests, work or education. Identity is therefore something that one carries and deals with how one interprets events and from there form opinions, impressions, hopes, feelings and expectations. Similarly, Lysgård (2001), asserts that a person can have multiple identities and belong to multiple groups leading to the mixture and creation of new groups. In other words, there are no sharp or defined boundaries between two cultures and identities.

Identities can change over time, and specific identities are formed through complex processes. Therefore, theorizing identity can be helpful in answering why and how identity plays a role in municipality mergers (Kvåle & Wæraas, 2017). When creating new regions, local identity is an important issue that should not be overlooked. A lot of the literature focusing on local identity concentrates on the extent to which people identify themselves at the local level by comparing local identification with other spatial identification (Casey 2010; 2010a, 2010b; Kato 2011; Brown and Deem 2014; Soguel & Siberstein 2015). The term Local identity or place identity was first labelled by Proshansky, Fabian and Kaminoff in 1983. The defined place identity as “as “a sub-structure of a person’s self-identity and consists of knowledge and feelings developed through everyday experiences of physical spaces”(Zimmerbauer & Paasi, 2011).

Vestby and Skogheim (2014) discuss how we can include local identity and belonging in a municipal merger. They explain that local identity and belonging are based on the relationship between people and place. Local identity, in the sense of human relationships, is about feeling at home and being part of a context i.e. part of nature, landscape, settled surrounding and the physical environment. They further explain that people need to feel like they belong in the human and social environment, the community, local culture and everyday life. Such belonging varies differently from person to person, but their common trait is that these ties become stronger over time through experience, and partly as memories. In short, places that at first functioned for people as a functional attachment, i.e. a place to conduct practical business and tasks, would over time promote the growth of social and emotional ties, leading to a sense of belonging (Vestby & Skogheim, 2014).

Zimmerbauer & Paasi (2013), note that regional/place identity has of late become an important matter when it comes to planning, regional marketing and cultural discourse. They argue that “regional identity is much more than a mere instrumental ad hoc asset of place branding; it is also an emotional phenomenon related to regional consciousness, thus entailing a sense of belonging as well as distinctions between social groups” They further explain that identity is a “complicated, politically loaded category that bring together ideas of the both open and bounded character of regions”. Since one can view regions as simultaneously open and bounded, Zimmerbauer and Paasi (2013), analyse that the “current relational approaches tend to see regions as relationally constituted thus the tension between the relational concept of a region as a non-bounded unit and regional identity due to the latter implying a certain boundedness as well as an “us” and “them” distinction.” Zimmerbauer and Paasi explain that this means that although there is a meaningful increase of interactions and networks between borders, the borders are simultaneously be “highly meaningful” for identification.

Paasi (2011;2013) then argues that local and central leaderships need to consider local identities when planning municipality mergers in order for the mergers to be successful. He explains that local identity and mobility are contextual, therefore hard to generalize, making it vital for each case to be studied independently, therefore justifying the need to study the merger between Søgne, Songdalen and Kristiansand municipalities. He further argues that borders between the municipalities are socially constructed, but the meaning and values of these borders are directly linked with the place´s identity, meaning only the inhabitants can truly know the significance of their municipality(Paasi, 2011; Zimmerbauer & Paasi, 2013). Additionally, Frisvoll and Almas (2004), assert that there are three I´s which are related to the link between local identity and the move of geographical boundaries. The three I´s are Interaction, identification and institutionalisation.

They explain interaction as the shared identity that can emerge from cooperation and collaboration between the municipalities that are to merge, Identification as the feeling of belonging and togetherness with the merging municipalities and lastly, institutionalisation as how the new municipality is developed and accepted as a natural unity by the other people. Furthermore, they challenge that a greater focus on a shared identity is key to ensuring successful municipality mergers, assuring that the new and the emerging identities are equally as important. 2.2 Theories about Citizen participation, local democracy and referendums Direct democracy and referendum usage have been a highly debated topic for centuries. In around 350 BC, Aristotle argued that voting improved collective decision making.

According to Butler and Ranney (1994) there are two main schools of thought when it comes to democratic theories that are; participationist and representationist theory. The participationist theory also known as direct democracy, is based on the belief that people should be involved as much as possible in order to ensure a full democratic society, while the representationist theory is based on the belief that the representatives elected by people and are mandated to make decisions on their behest (Butler & Ranney, 1994). In the last decade, there has been a wave of support for supplementing referendums in the representative democracy, the main benefits being maximized legitimacy and participation(Buček & Smith, 2000). Their main argument is “if representative democracy has advantages in reconciling differences, participatory democracy works better in revealing preferences” (Buček & Smith, 2000). Furthermore, they explain that there has been a rise in the usage of referendums in Europe, thus the increase of academic research in the use of citizen participation.

They further discuss the two theories that are commonly used in explaining referendum use in Europe namely; stakeholder theory and institutional theory (Buček & Smith, 2000). The stakeholder theory suggests that local governments use referendums and citizen participation in order to satisfy stakeholders i.e. the people while the institutional theory suggests that referendums and citizen participation are often used as a means to increase legitimacy and trust between local government and the people, without incorporating the results to make real policy changes(Buček & Smith, 2000). Yetano et al. (2010) note that an argument against citizen participation and referedums is that citizens are insufficiently informed in order to make adequate/knowledgeable decisions on single issues. On the other hand, Benz and stutzer (2004), Lupia and McCubbins (1994) argue that citizens are better informed when and if they have a larger say in political decisions, by obtaining information from media, political parties and interest groups in order to make informed decisions.

Cooper et.al (2006) note that the advocates of referendums “believe that one of its greatest virtues is that most ordinary people believe that decisions they make themselves are more legitimate than those made by public officials.” Further on, they remark that referendums and citizen participation are now, more than ever, important in this era, where cynicism about elected officials have been growing in many democratic nations(Cooper, Bryer, & Meek, 2006). Yetano et al. (2010) use the above sentiments to justify the increasing need for local authorities to demonstrate the legitimacy of their decisions, thus the rise of citizen participation and referendum usage(Yetano et al., 2010). On the other hand, there are several contentions against the use of referendums, and even general citizen participation.

Maskin and Tirole (2004) note the most common arguments as “ ordinary citizens have neither the analytic skills nor the information to make wise decisions; decisions by elected officials involve weighing the intensity of preferences and melding the legitimate interests of many groups into policies that will give all groups something of what they want; decisions made by representatives are more likely to protect the rights of minority groups; allowing elected officials to be bypassed and encouraging officials to evade divisive issues (by passing them on to the voters) weakens the prestige and authority of representatives and representative government”.(Maskin & Tirole, 2004). Additionally, critics of referendums and citizen participation argue that using these tools “subvert representative democracy by allowing ordinary citizens to reject decisions made by elected representatives. Popular initiatives enable ordinary citizens to enact laws without participation by–and even over the objections of elected officials.” Therefore, using citizen participation and especially referendums may subvert the authority of local government(Maskin & Tirole, 2004).