Suchergebnisse

Michael Kenny and Guy Lodge consider the case for introducing more elected mayors in England

AbstractAn ancient office enjoying sgmbolic prerogatives is in danger of be coming "politicalized"︁.

Policymakers and scholars are increasingly looking to cities to address challenges including income inequality. No existing research, however, directly and systematically measures local political elites' preferences for redistribution. We interview and survey 72 American mayors—including many from the nation's largest cities—and collect public statements and policy programs to measure when and why mayors prioritize redistribution. While many of the mayors' responses are consistent with being constrained by economic imperatives, a sizable minority prioritize redistributive programs. Moving beyond the question of whether mayors support redistribution, we find that partisanship explains much of the variation in a mayor's propensity for redistribution. Moreover, the impact of partisanship very rarely varies with institutional and economic contexts. These findings suggest that national political debates may be shaping local priorities in ways contrary to conventional views, and that they may matter even more than other recent findings conclude.

PurposeThe paper aims to compare the office of directly elected mayor in England, Germany and the USA. Proposing and applying a conceptual model of government, governance and allegiance, it assesses the leadership role of the elected mayor in the three countries.Design/methodology/approachQualitative interviews were conducted with a sample of mayors in each country over a period of 11 years. These formed part of the authors' continuing research into local leadership and political management, which has also included interviews with ex‐mayors, elected representatives and senior officials.FindingsThe operation and success of the elected mayor in specific countries is influenced by formal variables (e.g. state constitutions, formal requirements) and informal relationships (e.g. with officials), represented in the distinction between structure and agency. The role of the individual mayor also varied in the light of local party affiliations. The paper considers the impact of these variables on the government, governance and allegiance functions of the elected mayor.Research limitations/implicationsIn providing an analytical framework and in the discussion of original research, a basis is provided for the further study of the office of elected mayor in different national contexts. This is likely to prove valuable as the future of sub‐national government is subject to continuity scrutiny.Practical implicationsThe adoption and growth of the elected mayoral system may be considered as an example of lesson drawing. This has both positive and negative implications. Positively, much can be learned from comparative experience. Mayoral systems have resulted in quicker decision making. The mayor provides a very visible form of local leadership and accountability. However, dangers lie in the over‐concentration of powers in the office of mayor and, in England especially, the failure of the mayoral system to enhance public engagement in local government.Originality/valueThe discussion will be of value to practitioners, policy‐makers and academic researchers who are concerned with the future of the elected local state and its office holders.