Breeding grounds for local independents, bonus for incumbents: directly elected mayors in Poland

Directly elected mayors were introduced in Poland in 2002 in all local governments at the municipal level. This chapter discusses the rationale behind the reform, the arguments of the proponents of the change, the politics of implementing the reform, as well as actual outcomes. It argues that – opposite to some expectations – the reform has not resulted in increasing citizen interest in local elections. But it has strengthened the position of the mayors in municipal relations, brining Poland very close to the classic strong mayor model, stabilized position of mayors, and stopped the process of the conquest of local governments by national political parties. The increasing frequency of multi-term, long lasting mayors leads to discussion of possible further reforms, reducing the advantage of incumbents. But the system of direct election itself seems to be a very stable element of the local government architecture in Poland – it is not questioned by the current debates by any of important political parties or even by the councillors, whose role was reduced by the 2002 reform.

Directly elected mayors in Germany: leadership and institutional context

Each German state has adopted its own municipal code which defines the horizontal power relations between the two most powerful players in local politics, the mayor and the municipal council. The aim of this chapter is to find our whether variances in formal power between states are connected to the assessment of mayors and councillors concerning the relationship between them. For that purpose, an index of mayoral power is established. Within reference to six regression models, the explanatory power of formal institutions is found to be relatively weak.

Directly elected mayors: necessary but not sufficient to transform places? The case of Liverpool

This chapter explores the introduction of a directly elected mayor in Liverpool. We draw on empirical data, including diary analysis and extensive elite interviewing, to explore the changes that mayoral leadership has brought about both in terms of the governing style of the leader, and in the context of the broader governance structures of the surrounding city region. We note that there does appear to be a change towards a more outward facing form of leadership introduced. However, we argue that such are the broader limits available to local actors in the Liverpool City Region, the impact of mayoral governance is limited. In short, we argue that, drawing on the case of Liverpool, mayors are necessary, but not in themselves sufficient to have a transformative impact on places.

Do mayors make a difference? In their own words…

Over a decade the author and John Fenwick have interviewed English elected mayors. The analysis uses the Political Leadership Matrix to assess these interviews in terms of whether mayors have made a difference and if so, how they did it. The analysis is presented in the mayors' three functions: their government of the local authority itself, their governance role – the mayor's relations with other organisations and citizens. Last comes their approach to maintaining their public support and campaigning for their re-election: their allegiance role. The mayors' attributes are analysed in terms of their formal powers and functions, their informal relations with party groups, officers and the public and their personal qualities. The conclusion is that mayors most certainly think they have made a difference.

New and established mayoralties: lessons for local governance in constructing new political institutions – the English and Polish cases

Reforming local government is a policy tool of central government when faced with local, national and international pressures for change and this is no more so than in times of political, social and economic crisis. The re-design of the institutional architecture of local political decision-making is therefore driven as much by the needs of the centre as by the needs of the localities, with a series of arguments for change propagated by the centre that reflects a set of central policy preferences. Once the shape, size, decision-making process, functions, purpose and tasks of local government are re-designed at the macro level, local political actors are the faced with opportunities for micro-level re-engineering of the systems bequeathed by the centre. The chapter employs the findings of separate research conducted among political leaders in England and Poland to explore how institutional design by central government, aimed at solving one set of policy problems, can energise further local re-design of local political institutions. Central government re-design of local politics can create a pattern of unfinished business which leads to further central interference in the architecture of local politics.

Popular leaders or rats in the ranks? Political leadership in Australian cities

Australia is a highly urbanised country but its cities are governed by local councils organised and led in a variety of ways. This variety stems in part from the fact that local government is shaped principally by laws enacted by each of the eight State and Territory governments that comprise the Commonwealth of Australia. In most cases the single tier of local government is led by a mayor working with a relatively small group of councillors, but only in Queensland are all of these mayors required to be directly elected by popular vote. This chapter uses this pattern of variability to explore the extent to which the mayors of Queensland have been able to realise in practice the notional benefits associated with direct election and whether this experience provides a plausible foundation for the transformation of local political leadership across the country as a whole. The chapter considers also the relationship between different models of local political leadership and the realisation of wider goals of urban governance.

The two worlds of elected mayors in the US: what type of mayor should cities choose?

This chapter explores two different kinds of elected mayors in cities in the United States, and the debate about which form should be used. The two types of mayor are the executive mayor in mayor-council cities and what I have called the facilitative mayor in council-manager cities. Traditionally, the mayor in council-manager cities was chosen by the city council from its members. Now two-thirds of the council-manager cities have directly elected mayors. The chapter examines the dynamics of change in American cities regarding the role of the mayor as part of the larger debate about the use of the mayor-council and council-manager form and compares the competing arguments for executive and facilitative mayors and their corresponding forms of government. The analysis draws on the arguments used on each side in 15 large cities that held referenda to change their form of government and determine what kind of mayor the city will have.

Introduction: directly elected mayors in urban governance

This chapter opens the work by introducing directly elected mayors as political leaders in systems of urban government, and the expectations that are placed upon them. It identifies the core features of the directly elected mayor model, of direct election, of the creation of a single identifiable leader with a secure term of office, before discussing its advantages and disadvantages. Directly elected mayors are then placed in the context of urban governance, urbanization, and globalization. The chapter ends with a description of the other chapters that comprise the book.

Directly elected mayors: a route to progressive urban leadership?

Directly elected mayors are on the rise internationally. Enthusiasts for this form of local political leadership claim that it can provide visible, strategic, accountable leadership for cities. Opponents argue that the model concentrates too much power in the hands of one individual, and that it can result in local government decision-making being skewed to serve powerful economic interests. This chapter offers a contribution to this debate. An opening section outlines a way of conceptualising the political space available to place-based leaders. It is then suggested that, in any given locality, there are likely to be different realms of leadership, with players from inside and outside the state making a significant contribution to urban policy making. Three examples of bold and progressive mayoral leadership are then presented in the form of three short cameos: Greater London, UK (in the period 2000-08), Portland, Oregon, USA; and Freiburg, Germany. The comparative discussion of mayoral leadership that follows is structured around three themes: the role of directly elected mayors in expanding place-based power; connecting the realms of place-based leadership and bringing progressive values back into city politics.

Debating directly elected mayors in the Czech Republic: political games and missing expertise?1

This chapter discusses and analyses the proposals for the introduction of directly elected mayors in the Czech Republic. Particular attention is paid to the proposed models of direct election and their potential impacts on the functioning of the municipal executive, and on the relationship between the mayor and other institutions of local government. It draws on research conducted by the author, in addition to government reports, legislative materials, and material from political parties and the media. It is argued that the reform process involves a debate that resembles a political game, which is connected to the experience of Austrian and Slovak mayors. Distinct periods can be identified within this debate.