Suchergebnisse

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.

Traditional notions of leadership have been found to be problematic in their application to people of color and women because such notions were constructed based on research that did not include people of color. Inlight of these issues, this article explores problems associated with omitting traditionally subjugated groups. The article concludes with a recommendation for those interested in leading in urban environments to explore a combination of the notions of stewardship and critical leadership. These notions provide an appropriate framework for addressing the difficult issues facing leaders called to serve and lead in urban environments.

The concept of urban regime has emerged as a widely used instrument to explore the responses of local leaders to processes of change. This study of regime building in Detroit during the long period of Coleman Young's mayoralty, contrary to some previous studies, shows how problems of cooperation between private and public leaders have been only partially overcome in Detroit. The key contribution of regime theory is its focus on the problems of collective organization and action. In Detroit, an effective public-private partnership has not emerged, and the authors examine the consequences. They conclude by examining the neglected issue of regime succession and by presenting a formal schema of the process of regime transition.