Some researchers claim that we are witnessing the advancement of becoming a network society, and in spite of the different problems associated with the network form of organization, many cities still choose to engage in different types of networks. On account of that the aim of the study is to examine which expectations Swedish member cities of the network Eurotowns might have, and if their actions in the initial period of engagement in Eurotowns mainly could be explained by “Logic of Consequentiality” or “Logic of Appropriateness”. A qualitative research method was used and a major part of the empirical material consists of the information given by the interviewees. Regarding the expectations Swedish member cities have on Eurotowns, the result showed that five main areas could be identified mutual resource exchange, activities, breadth, security and meeting place. The results also showed that the actions of Swedish member cities may vary between “Logic of Consequentiality”, “Logic of Appropriateness” or a combination of the both logics. Furthermore the study also provides empirical evidence supporting the previously theoretical criticism expressed regarding the central assumption that the strategic actions of an actor can be regarded as a direct consequence of the mutual resource dependency.

The study examines which understanding of rationality is expressed in the Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth's evaluation processes and how rationality is manifested. The logic of consequences and the logic of appropriateness are used to interpret what rationality within the administration means and how it can be understood in the context of evaluation. The study's empirical data were collected through content analyses of relevant documents and interviews with actors who participated in the evaluation processes. The results indicate that the underlying drivers of rationality are mainly visible during the initial phase and the ongoing dialogue between the actors. It also emerges that the logic of consequences and the logic of appropriateness are empirically close to each other in terms of visible views on rationality, which makes the understanding of rationality in the processes subjective and sometimes it's difficult to separate the theories on an empirical level. In the material, there are varying degrees of support for both logics in different parts of the process. Overall, the different logics are not necessarily mutually exclusive.