Leadership and systems of governance: the constraints on the scope for leadership of place-based development in sub-national territories

Facilitating spaces for place-based leadership in centralized governance systems: the case of Newcastle City Futures

“…In turn, the complexity of these multi-partner governance arrangements requires mobilization and coordination through PBL (Beer & Clower, 2014). The reciprocal quality of this relationship is such that some have explicitly defined concepts of place leadership as a capacity for collective governance (Bentley et al, 2017;Brooks et al, 2016).…”

“…Recent studies have emphasized that for these places to adapt to an environment of heightened global competition, there is a need for effective leadership that can articulate a clear vision for economic restructuring and social renewal (Bailey, Bellandi, Caloffi, & De Propris, 2010;Brooks, Vorley, & Williams, 2016;Rossiter & Smith, 2017). However, a comparative weakness of regional and local government in the highly centralized UK state (particularly in England), compounded over the past decade by substantial austerity measures, means that this need for strong sub-national leadership is often not met by conventional actors (Bentley, Pugalis, & Shutt, 2017). This represents a significant barrier to transformative change in many cities, but corresponding to a broader conception of PBL, may also create opportunities for this missing capability to be provided from other sources.…”

Making sense of leadership in urban and regional development

“…The seven papers that follow provide us with a nuanced set of conceptualizations in different contexts. In this issue, contributors use the concepts of regional leadership (Normann, Garmann Johnsen, Knudsen, Vasström, & Garmann Johnsen, 2016, in this issue;Raagmaa & Keerber, 2016, in this issue), place-based leadership (Benneworth, Pinheiro, & Karlsen, 2016, in this issue;Bentley, Pugalis, & Shutt, 2016, in this issue), and place leadership (Hu & Hassink, 2016, in this issue;Nicholds, Gibney, Mabey, & Hart, 2016, in this issue;Sotarauta & Beer, 2016, in this issue). A careful reading of the articles suggests that they contribute, firstly, to a growing body of leadership-related work in our field that embraces diversity in methods, theoretical foundations and engagement with theory, while maintaining an overlapping set of conceptualizations; secondly, the papers reveal place leadership as an identifiable form of leadership that takes us beyond the limitations of studies of single organizations; and thirdly, the concept of place leadership appears to be scalable, as it allows identification and discussion about leadership experience across different territorial scales and geographies.…”

Territory, power and statecraft: understanding English devolution

“…Indeed, this view is confirmed by Kenealy (2016, p. 1) who claims that in the Manchester deal, for example, 'key decisions were taken quickly and by a small number of key officials'. The vast majority of interviewees referred to a 'streamlined and closed process' (P1, local government official) whereby central and local actors could exert strong leadership (Bentley, Pugalis, & Shutt, 2016). Interestingly, the majority of respondents in P1 research expressed their support for closed discussions and process-light arrangements.…”