The 24th NISPAcee Annual Conference

Conference photos available

Conference photos available

In the conference participated 317 participants

Conference programme published

Almost 250 conference participants from 36 countries participated

Well organized, as always. Excellent conference topic and paper selection.

M.S., Serbia, 23rd Conference 2015, Georgia

Perfect conference. Well organised. Very informative.

M.deV., Netherlands, 22nd Conference 2014, Hungary

Excellent conference. Congratulations!

S. C., United States, 20th Conference 2012, Republic of Macedonia

Thanks for organising the pre-conference activity. I benefited significantly!

R. U., Uzbekistan, 19th Conference, Varna 2011

Each information I got, was received perfectly in time!

L. S., Latvia, 21st Conference 2013, Serbia

The Conference was very academically fruitful!

M. K., Republic of Macedonia, 20th Conference 2012, Republic of Macedonia

 :: Anonymous user Login / Register 

Optimised for Tablet | Smartphone

 Paper/Speech Details of Conference Program  

for the  24th NISPAcee Annual Conference
  Program Overview
VIII. Local Services and Infrastructure
Author(s)  Arvydas Mikalauskas 
  Vytautas Magnus University
Kaunas  Lithuania
 
 
 Title  The Mayoral Election Reform in Lithuania: Research of the Citizens’ and Mayors’ Attitudes
File   Paper files are available only for conference participants, please login first. 
Presenter  Arvydas Mikalauskas
Abstract  
  
The paper analyses the case of self-government in Lithuania by focusing on the influence of the legitimization of direct mayoral elections on the self-government system of Lithuania. By utilising the reform divide between government and governance, it is observed that the changes in the self-government of Lithuania are, first and foremost, to be associated with the political perspective, which is enthusiastically supported by the citizens. The employed agent-principal approach highlights certain issues of self-government in Lithuania: the voters find it particularly important to have influence on the self-government politicians and officials, therefore the possibility of direct elections is highly appreciated. On the other hand, opportunistic behaviour of the elected mayor may emerge after the elections as a consequence of the characteristics of the self-government’s conjuncture and personal ambitions. Still, positive assessments of the mayors’ activities and the services provided by the municipalities imply that both the mayors and their voters are satisfied by the mutual contract.