Local Political Leadership: Nordic Style

Abstract

In a context where changes brought about by globalization and Europeanization, and where local governments increasingly operate in a governance mode, different countries place increasing stress on the importance of strong local leadership. This article reviews local political leadership in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. Outside of a few major (mainly capital) cities, local government in the Nordic area remains small scale and frequently rural, is strongly partisan, yet relies on a strong tradition of consensual, corporatist style of decision-making. Furthermore, this social democratic consensus places a stress on the continued production and delivery of high quality welfare state services. This domestic environment produces a style of local leadership which is essentially collective in nature and in which the strong mayor concept is alien. The article reviews the experience of local political leadership in the four Nordic countries and concludes that, though there is some small country variation and without many examples of strong mayors, local political leaders play an important role, especially in managing and maintaining the consensual style of politics. Copyright Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004.

Professionalism among Icelandic Mayors: Job Postings, Experience and Education as Determinants of Professionalism at the Icelandic Local Level

“…This is in line with the findings of Goldsmith and Larsen (2004), who argued that when the leader of a political party has a formal leadership position, such as a mayoral position, there is room for strong-minded leaders to exploit that role. As Kristinsson (2015) pointed out, Icelandic citizens have mixed feelings about the use of political mayors.…”

Exogenous and endogenous determinants of Spanish mayors’ notions of democracy: a multilevel regression analysis

“…This view of the role of institutions has favored studies that try to identify instances of different "adjustments" of notions of democracy to various institutional frameworks. For instance, Haus and Sweeting (2006a, b) used the rich existing theoretical framework on typologies of local government (Borraz and John, 2004;Genieys et al, 2004;Goldsmith and Larsen, 2004;Leach and Wilson, 2004;Wollmann, 2004;Heinelt and Hlepas, 2006) to model different types of local democracy -such as "local representative" northern European local democracy and "strong mayor" models in southern Europe-to predict distinct types of local leadership. On the other hand, Denters and Klok (2013) explored whether local institutions that promote citizen participation are related to more responsive attitudes among local leaders.…”

From Princeps to President? Comparing Local Political Leadership Transformation

“…For one thing, the smaller, less populated Nordic countries with their welfare oriented municipalities largely seem to stick to the collective form of leadership (Goldsmith & Larsen, 2004). Moreover, as the highlighted examples of Germany and Italy do in fact express a tendency for directly electing the mayor in many European countries, approximately half of them still opt for alternative types of allocating the primary leadership position (see Kerrouche and Gue´rin in this collection).…”