Suchergebnisse

Bosses, and their followers and apologists, peren nially inquire how alternative sources for leadership may be developed in lieu of a boss. A boss is the principal but not the sole leader of a political clique or faction at the top of a monolithic power structure in a community with a monopolistic political style. Alternatives to a boss are a clique or faction, a popularly elected mayor, a city manager, or a political party. Some Florida communities exhibit a monopolistic political style; others, a competitive style. Towns with a monopolistic style show a narrow set of economic interests; the entrance of competing economic interests leads to competitive politics. Ruling cliques are of varying kinds and can exist in either a monopolistic or competitive situation. A popularly elected mayor also can function as the leader in either situation. A manager is a source of policy leadership, but several factors condition his leadership. The elected mayor often inhibits the manager. The manager's scope may also be greatly restricted in a monopolistic setting, for he usually has no political base of his own in such a situation. He will often have more scope when competition is the style. A few managers succeed by forming their own bases, as, for example, that composed of city employees. Party participation is a concomitant of competi tive politics in a few Florida cities, but the rise of the Republi cans may lead to some local monopolies. Alternative sources of leadership are enhanced by competition.

Collectively, cities take up a relatively tiny amount of land on the earth, yet emit 72 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. Clearly, cities need to be at the center of any broad effort to reduce climate change. This text argues that too many cities are only implementing random acts of greenness that will do little to address the climate crisis. It instead calls for 'greenovation' - using the city as a test bed for adopting and perfecting green technologies for more energy-efficient buildings, transportation, and infrastructure more broadly. Further, the work contends that while many city mayors cite income inequality as a pressing problem, few cities are connecting climate action and social justice-another aspect of greenovation.

The article asks how political leadership and community involvement together can contribute to legitimate and effective policy making in the context of urban governance. Particularly, the question is discussed if the interplay between both increases capacities for governing localities. Conceptually, this is based on Jessop's assumption that every mode of coordination is failure prone and that there is a need for enduring "metagovernance." The concept of metagovernance is then linked with considerations on institutional contexts and a comparison of four case studies, situated in different contexts. Whereas the case studies can show different practices or failures of metagovernance in the interaction between political leaders and involved societal actors, the institutional contexts are shown to more or less facilitate these practices.

Political bossism in American cities developed as a pragmatic response to the rise of American urbanism. Its political style developed out of a combination of the new direc tions of American society as it entered the age of enterprise and of the existing political system which was geared to a rural, decentralized mode of life. The power structure of bossism was based on a twofold relationship maintained by the city machine: the patron-client relation with blocs of voters—par ticularly ethnic minorities—and a brokerage relationship with business. Relations with state government were directed more toward the maintenance of control over the city than to sub stantive government policy. The appropriate political response to an urban, technological society came with the reorganization of national politics by Franklin Roosevelt and the institution of New Deal economic and social reform. This change affected urban politics by making it increasingly pluralistic and program- oriented. The new style of urban politics may be called a cosmopolitan politics, and it strongly affected, if indeed it did not dominate, state politics in most places. The city of New Orleans is a special case of the development of a cosmopolitan style of urban politics out of an earlier bossism within a state which has not yet assimilated to cosmopolitan politics.

The authors reassess the recent history of U.K. urban politics. Following the local entrepreneurialism promoted by the Thatcher governments in the 1980s, they trace the gradual emergence of a more inclusive approach to urban policy. This shift, which began with the Major government in the early 1990s, marks a move toward a more community-orientated vision of social regeneration. Through a survey of the evolution of partnership styles and economic development in Leeds and informed by recent cross-national work on regime theory, the authors provide insights into the structural factors that have shaped the formation, composition, and actions of local coalitions in U.K. governance.

AbstractThis article reviews the changes that have taken place in local government leadership in France and Spain. It has been argued that political leadership in local government in Southern Europe is characterized by major political leaders who are able to obtain resources from central government through their political connections. However, both French and Spanish local governments have evolved while developing new forms of leadership that are more connected to territory, its people and local issues than to the respective administrative capitals. The article argues that the development of new policies at the local level, the opening of new avenues of citizen participation and the introduction of new methods of public management have changed the relationship between elected representatives and the people. Institutional innovations at the supra‐municipal level have also created a space between regions and municipalities for local leaders to develop their capacity as project leaders and network creators.Cet article examine les changements survenus au niveau de l'autorité gouvernementale locale en France et en Espagne. L'autorité politique dans un gouvernement local du sud de l'Europe se caractérise, assure‐t‐on, par de grands leaders politiques capables d'obtenir des ressources du gouvernement central grâce à leurs relations. Pourtant, les gouvernements locaux français et espagnols ont évolué tout en élaborant des formes originales de leadership, plus proches du territoire, de sa population et des affaires locales que les capitales administratives concernées. La conception de politiques publiques novatrices au plan local, l'ouverture d'autres accès à la participation des citadins et l'introduction de nouvelles méthodes de gestion publique ont modifié le rapport entre représentants élus et population. De plus, des innovations institutionnelles au niveau supra‐municipal ont généré un espace entre régions et municipalités permettant aux leaders locaux de développer leurs aptitudes en tant que chefs de projet et créateurs de réseaux.

AbstractIn the post‐1945 rebuilding of local democracy and local government in West Germany the local government statutes enacted by each of the regions (Länder) created a conspicuous variety of local governments that ranged from the council/directly elected (chief executive) mayor form (installed in the South German Länder of Baden‐Württemberg and Bayern) to that of the (British local government‐derived) council/council‐elected mayor, and the city director form (introduced in the Land of Nordrhein‐Westfalen). This made almost for a natural experiment with different local government models. Since the early 1990s, in a striking sequence of legislative moves, all Länder have adopted the ('South German') directly elected (chief executive) variant. The legislative motives behind this shift were twofold: first, to strengthen the direct democratic rights of citizens ('local democracy'); and, second, to improve the capacity of local leadership in running and managing the city ('governability'). The article argues that — as evidenced by the 50 year‐long practice in the South German Länder — the directly elected (chief executive) mayor form seems capable of fulfilling the double goal of strengthening the administrative leadership in local government and of enhancing its political accountability to the citizens. Furthermore, experience indicates that the potentially 'over‐powerful' position of the directly elected mayor (as political and administrative leader) has been counterbalanced and held in check by an active local council and by vigorous local political parties.Lors de la reconstruction de la démocratie locale et des gouvernements locaux en Allemagne de l'Ouest après 1945, les régions (Länder) ont chacune mis en place des statuts de gouvernement local aboutissant à une extraordinaire variété allant de la combinaison conseil‐maire (directeur) élu par la population (dans les Länder du Bade‐Wurtemberg et de Bavière, au Sud) et conseil‐maire élu par le conseil (inspirée du gouvernement local britannique), jusqu'à une forme d'administrateur de la cité (introduite dans le Land de Rhénanie‐du‐Nord‐Westphalie). Il en a résulté une quasi‐expérience naturelle de différents modèles de gouvernement local. Depuis le début des années 1990, dans une succession frappante de mesures législatives, tous les Länder ont adopté la variante ('sud‐germanique') par élection directe (d'un directeur). Cette mutation obéit à deux sortes de motifs législatifs: d'une part, renforcer les droits des citoyens à la démocratie directe ('démocratie locale') et, d'autre part, améliorer la capacité de l'autorité locale à diriger et gérer la ville ('gouvernabilité'). Comme le prouve la pratique de cinquante années dans les Länder du sud, la formule du maire (directeur) élu directement paraît en mesure de répondre au double objectif de renforcement de la direction administrative dans un gouvernement local et d'accentuation de sa responsabilité politique vis‐à‐vis des citoyens. En outre, l'expérience montre que la position potentiellement 'toute‐puissante' des maires élus au suffrage direct (en tant que chef politique et administratif) a été contrebalancée et contenue par un conseil local actif et d'énergiques partis politiques locaux.