Comparing Local Political Leadership: From Innovation to Change?

Abstract

In many European countries, local political leadership is innovated. The latter is often seen as a response to the emergence of local governance, entailing the proliferation of governing institutions (multi-level) and the development of new networks and policy initiatives (multi-actor). The complexity and fragmentation that stem from these shifts evoke dilemmas of coordination and accountability. As a cure, strengthening local political leadership is often turned to. Leaders are expected to pull the frameworks of local decision-making together, act as entrepreneurs in an increasingly competitive environment and function as figureheads of the municipality. While in some countries roles transformed within the existing frameworks, others have deliberately sought an institutional redefinition of their local leadership. In search for a ‘symbolic synthesizer’, many have individualized the selection of leadership positions and concentrated executive powers in their hands. Often, but not exclusively these are coinciding and concentrating in the office of mayor. Others have chosen less radical options. In any case, today’s local leadership is increasingly expected to be both visionary (providing strategic direction to the policy-agenda) as well as integrative (creating and mobilizing networks) including both authoritative as well as empowering style aspects. Leadership is thus considered to be a focus of innovation in governance, both institutionally as well as in terms of attitudes and behavior. This panel scrutinizes the extent to which the innovations present since the last two decades have actually led to change in local leadership conduct and governance. In particular, it wants to focus on the following subtopics where change might be brought about as a result of innovations: • Changes in the acquisition of local political leadership (e.g. recruitment and career, electioneering); • Changes in the performance of local political leadership (e.g. tasks and key-roles, style and conduct and relations with other decision-makers); • Changes in the consequences of local political leadership (e.g. for policies, politics and polities). The panel conveners encourage comparative and empirical research but will also consider country or case studies and more conceptual contributions.

Title	Details
Kaleidoscopic Leadership in Consensus Democracies	View Paper Details
Vitalising Democracy by Direct Election of Mayors and Parliamentarism in the Norwegian Municipal sector? A Review paper	View Paper Details
Leadership at the intermediate government level. Comparing changing contexts and capabilities of Flemish governors and Dutch Commissioners of the Queen	View Paper Details
Can Elected Mayors really make a difference: The impact of institutional and political change on English local government’	View Paper Details