Examining the Role of ‘Informal Governance’ as a Local Leadership Asset

The aim of this paper is to examine how city leaders harness and utilize ‘informal governance’ as a leadership asset. Informal governance can be defined as a means of decision-making that is un-codified, non-institutional and where social relationships and webs of influence play crucial roles. The issue of informality in policy making is particularly timely as global nations and cities seek to manage complex policy problems within contested and uncertain environments. This development has prompted a new style of city leadership - one that relies less on bureaucracy and formal structures and more on networks and informal relations. In many cities around the world, this issue has been compounded by austerity politics. Public spending cuts and reductions in state capacity have created new fluid spaces for non-state actors, which has transformed the ways that the state, market and civil society coalesce at city level. This draws attention to the importance of governance forms beyond formal hierarchy and markets in influencing the political ecology of cities. This issue will be explored through an in-depth case study of the city of Bristol in the United Kingdom. In the context of austerity, the contraction of Bristol City Council and its formal role has affected many aspects of city life. Into this vacuum, business, community and third sector organizations are playing an increasing role in the encouragement of public policies that better serve residents and the wider community. This paper will examine how local leaders utilize inter-personal relationships, social networks and so-called ‘soft power’ to enact local leadership in complex governance networks. Findings reveal that informal governance offers a number of advantages in engaging a diversity of stakeholders, maintaining and developing trust in difficult circumstances and making tough decisions in the context of austerity. However, these benefits need to be mitigated against the potential downsides of informality, including accusations of elitism and perceptions of a lack of transparency that could undermine public trust in local democracy.