Search results

Philosophers and political scientists have a long history of dealing with the difficult puzzle of leadership, and how it is to be distinguished from management and administration. The purpose of this paper is to explore the question of whether the innovative role of elected executive mayor in England can be considered as leader or manager. The paper critically assesses the concept of leadership before using empirical evidence to come to conclusions about the current role of elected mayor, an office with an uncertain history and unclear future in English public sector leadership.

The paper draws from the authors’ qualitative interviews with mayors from the inception of the office to the recent past.

The study finds that elected executive mayors are both leaders and managers, but that the notion of leadership in the local public sector remains contested as the mayor is a part of a bureaucratic structure of administration which limits the exercise of leadership as outlined in the existing literature.

As central government continues to advocate the expansion of the office of mayor, not least as part of English regional devolution, the study relates to future practice and to overall understanding of just what elected mayors do.

The paper provides useful insight into the forthcoming expansion of the mayoral system into the new Combined Authorities.

The paper provides original evidence about the faltering progress of the mayoral system in the English public sector.

Explores comparisons between the English and Greek local government systems, in the hope of offering some fresh insights into the regeneration and management of local areas.

Discusses the issue of local political leadership at a time when changes in local political management arrangements are taking place in many European countries.

The English and Greek experiments with developing local self‐government provide some reassurance and some causes for concern but, above all, they demonstrate that in, unitary states, Ministers and Civil Servants at the centre find withdrawing from interference in local affairs a very hard exercise in self‐denial.

Illustrates the problems facing two centralised countries struggling with varying but limited success to cope with various public management issues raised by local devolution and decentralisation.

The 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.

Qualitative 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.

The 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.

In 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.

The 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.

The 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.

The purpose of this paper is to explain the global, historic context of public administration and the specific British context of teaching and research for public administration. Also, it asks the question, “is twenty-first century public administration still ‘fit for purpose?’”.

The paper is a personal reflection on the changes to public administration and management during the twentieth and early part of the twenty-first century, in particular how the UK Learned Society has responded to a number of global, policy and cultural changes.

The findings demonstrate how the UK Joint University Council (JUC), representing public administration, has responded to changes, in particular to recent forces impacting on HE and training providers. It includes the outcomes of a series of recent UK debates as JUC approaches its 100-year centenary in 2018. It concludes by showing that public administration research, teaching and scholarship are as necessary, if not more so, in 2018. In particular, issues such as accountability, legality, integrity and responsiveness, the overall ethical guidelines are vital for both public and private educational curricula. For either theory building or empirical descriptions, public administration research can still positively contribute to the wider economy

As a personal reflection, the findings are offered to add to a debate on the future of public administration scholarship in the UK, and much wider afield.

The contents should be of benefit to academics, policy and practitioners in the field of public administration and management.

This study has wider societal implications, as all states are facing growing social problems and a need to seek novel ways of delivering public services.

Though the paper is a personal reflection, and may therefore be challenged, it is based on wider literature to support the claims being made.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.