The article asks how political leadership and community involvement together can contribute to legitimate and effective policy making in the context of urban governance. Particularly, the question is discussed if the interplay between both increases capacities for governing localities. Conceptually, this is based on Jessop’s assumption that every mode of coordination is failure prone and that there is a need for enduring “metagovernance.” The concept of metagovernance is then linked with considerations on institutional contexts and a comparison of four case studies, situated in different contexts. Whereas the case studies can show different practices or failures of metagovernance in the interaction between political leaders and involved societal actors, the institutional contexts are shown to more or less facilitate these practices.
Bäck, H., G. Gjelstrup, M. Helgesen, F. Johansson, and J.E. Klausen.2005. Urban political decentralisation. Six Scandinavian cities. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
2.
Balducci, A., C. Calvaresi, and F. Prosacci.2004. Participation, leadership, and urban sustainability: PLUS-Italian case study report. Milan: Politecnico di Milano.
3.
Borraz, O., and P. John.2004. The transformation of urban political leadership in Western Europe. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research28 (1): 109-22.
4.
Carmichael, L., C. De Zeeuw, J. Howard, M. Stewart, and D. Sweeting.2004. Participation, leadership, and urban sustainability. National report-England. Bristol: University of the West of England.
5.
Denters, B., and L. Rose , eds. 2005. Comparing local governance. Trends and developments. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
6.
Egner, B., M. Haus, H. Heinelt, and C. König.2004. Participation, leadership and urban sustainability: Country report Germany. Darmstadt: Technical University of Darmstadt.
7.
Egner, B., M. Haus, and C. König.2006. Strong mayors and policy innovations: Lessons from two German cities. In Legitimacy and urban governance. A cross-national comparative study, edited by H. Heinelt, D. Sweeting, and P. Getimis, 144-60. London: Routledge.
8.
Elcock, H.2001. Political leadership. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
9.
Getimis, P., and D. Grigoriadou.2005. Changes in urban political leadership: Leadership types and styles in the era of urban governance. In Urban governance and democracy: Leadership and community involvement, edited by M. Haus, H. Heinelt, and M. Stewart, 168-89. London : Routledge.
10.
Hambleton, R.2005. Leading localities-Rethinking the agenda. In Urban governance and democracy: Leadership and community involvement, edited by M. Haus, H. Heinelt, and M. Stewart, 190-213. London : Routledge.
11.
Hanssen, G.S., J.E. Klausen, and S.I. Vabo.2004. Participation, leadership and urban sustainability. National report-Norway. Oslo: Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research.
12.
Hanssen, G.S., J.E. Klausen, and S.I. Vabo.2006. Traces of governance: Policy networking in Norwegian local government. In Legitimacy and urban governance. A cross-national comparative study, edited by H. Heinelt, D. Sweeting, and P. Getimis, 90-101. London: Routledge.
13.
Haus, M.2006. District development planning in Heidelberg: Realizing change through political leadership and community involvement. In Reform in Europe: Breaking the barriers in government, edited by L. Heyse, S. Resodihardjo , T. Lantink, and B. Lettinga, 139-56. London: Ashgate.
14.
Haus, M., and H. Heinelt.2005. How to achieve governability at the local level? Theoretical and conceptual considerations on a complementarity of urban leadership and community involvement. In Urban governance and democracy: Leadership and community involvement, edited by M. Haus, H. Heinelt, and M. Stewart, 12-39. London: Routledge.
15.
Haus, M., and H. Heinelt.2006. Sustainability and policy challenge: The cases of economic competitiveness and social inclusion. In Legitimacy and urban governance. A cross-national comparative study, edited by H. Heinelt, D. Sweeting, and P. Getimis, London: Routledge.
16.
Haus, M., H. Heinelt , and M. Stewart, eds. 2005. Urban governance and democracy: Leadership and community involvement. London: Routledge.
17.
Heinelt, H., and N. Hlepas.2006. Typologies of local government systems . In The European mayor. Political leaders in the changing context of local democracy, edited by H. Bäck, H. Heinelt, and A. Magnier, 21-42. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
18.
Heinelt, H., D. Sweeting , and P. Getimis, eds. 2006. Legitimacy and urban governance. A cross-national comparative study. London: Routledge.
19.
Hesse, J.J., and L.J. Sharpe.1991. Local government in international perspective: Some comparative observations. In Local government and urban affairs in international perspective. Analyses of twenty Western industrialised countries, edited by J. J. Hesse and L. J. Sharpe, 603-21. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
20.
Howard, J., D. Sweeting, and M. Stewart.2006. Tackling community leadership in the confined spaces of local governance in England. In Legitimacy and urban governance. A cross-national comparative study, edited by H. Heinelt, D. Sweeting, and P. Getimis, 131-43. London: Routledge.
21.
Jessop, B.2000. Governance failure. In The new politics of British local governance, edited by G. Stoker, 11-32. London: Palgrave MacMillan .
22.
John, P.2001. Local governance in Western Europe. London: SAGE.
23.
Kooiman, J.2002. Governance. A social-political perspective . In Participatory governance: Political and societal implications , edited by J. Grote and B. Gbikpi, 71-96. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
24.
Mouritzen, P.E., and J.A. Svara.2002. Leadership at the apex. Politicians and administrators in Western local governments. Pittsburgh : University of Pittsburgh Press.
25.
Page, E. C., and M. J. Goldsmith, eds. 1987. A comparative analysis of West European Unitary States. London: SAGE.
26.
Pierre, J.1999. Models of urban governance: The institutional dimension of urban politics. Urban Affairs Review34 (3): 372-96.
27.
Procacci, F., and C. Rossignolo.2006. New urban leaders and community involvement: The Italian case studies. In Legitimacy and urban governance. A cross-national comparative study, edited by H. Heinelt, D. Sweeting, and P. Getimis, 61-75. London: Routledge.
28.
Rhodes, R.A.W.1997. The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies44 (4): 652-67.
29.
Stoker, G.2000. Urban political science and the challenge of urban governance . In Debating governance. Authority, steering and democracy , edited by J. Pierre, 91-109. Oxford , UK: Oxford Univ. Press.
30.
Stoker, G.2002. New Labour and local governance in Britain. In Local government at the millennium, edited by J. Caulfield and H. O. Larsen, 27-44. Opladen : Leske + Budrich.
31.
Stone, C.N.1995. Political leadership in urban politics. In Theories of urban politics, edited by D. Judge, G. Stoker, and H. Wolman, 96-116. London: SAGE.
32.
Stone, C.2004. The governance conundrum. Paper presented at the ECPR joint sessions of workshops, Uppsala, Sweden.
33.
Wollmann, H.2003. The directly elected (chief executive) mayor and local leadership in German local government: in comparative perspective. Kunnallistieteellinen aikakauskirja31 (2): 126-43.
