The Emergence of Local Government Policy Leadership

• Author: Robert F. Blair,Anthony M. Starke
• Published date: 01 December 2017
• Date: 01 December 2017
• DOI: 10.1177/0160323X17754237
• Subject Matter: Mini-Symposiums

Mini-Symposium
State and Local Government Review
2017, Vol. 49(4) 275-284
The Emergence of Local
ª The Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permission:
Government Policy
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0160323X17754237
Leadership: A Roaring Torch
journals.sagepub.com/home/slg
or a Flickering Flame?
Robert F. Blair1 and Anthony M. Starke, Jr.1
Abstract
State and local governments traditionally exerted leadership in policy areas that directly affected
their communities and citizens. The leadership of cities, however, has expanded into a number of
policy areas where the states and the national government have reduced their policy footprint. This
article summarizes research on local policy leadership, examines it within the context of historical
state–local intergovernmental relations, and reviews three expanding policy areas. As creatures of
state government, localities are subject to legislative restrictions; however, recent research reveals a
significant upsurge of state governments preempting policy actions of local governments. Therefore,
it can be concluded that the flame of local government policy leadership burns brightly now, but
forces appear to be gathering that may cause it to flicker.
Keywords
policy leadership, state–local intergovernmental relations, preemption
The mantle of policy leadership in the Ameri-
alternated between the national and state gov-
can federal system can be described as a shared,
ernments, especially where there is vague or
yet complex, endeavor among the various lev-
unspecified leadership or responsibility. Even
els of government. While the constitution
though the constitution provides broad bound-
describes the scope and primary responsibility
aries between Washington and the states in
for the national and state governments in many
many policy areas, the role of local govern-
policy areas, the founders were reluctant to spe-
ments in this framework remains unclear. Nota-
cify these roles in order to provide flexibility
bly, the constitution does not mention cities and
and ensure that the states retain significant pol-
local government. Historically, state and local
icy autonomy. In particular, the Tenth Amend-
ment states: “The powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor prohib-
1 School of Public Affairs and Community Service, Univer-
ited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
sity of Nebraska Omaha, Omaha, NE, USA
respectively, or to the people.” Federalism
ensures that Washington, DC, and the state
Corresponding Author:
Robert F. Blair, School of Public Affairs and Community
capitals share policy leadership.
Service, University of Nebraska Omaha, 6001 Dodge,
Since the founding of the Republic,
Omaha, NE 68182, USA.
however, dominance in many policy areas
Email: rblair@unomaha.edu

---

276
State and Local Government Review 49(4)
governments tend to exert leadership in policy
deliver programs. Leadership, logically, initi-
areas that directly affect their communities and
ates the policy development process. Policy
citizens. Periodically, the federal government
leadership, as one would expect, is an action-
intervenes, providing varying levels of support
oriented and purposive response by elected
through grants and direct assistance in many
officials and key administrators to perceived
policy areas.
social and economic situations. Eyestone
Trends, however, seem to indicate that the
(1971, 153) identifies three conditions that
policy leadership roles of state and local gov-
initiate policy leadership: “an opportunity or a
ernments have expanded, particularly in
problematic situation exists; political leaders
selected policy areas, where the national gov-
perceive this opportunity or problem; and polit-
ernment has minimized its role. In fact, in a
ical leaders are legally and politically free to
number of arenas, local governments have ele-
choose among alternative courses of action in
vated their leadership position, while the states
light of this opportunity or problem.” Policy
and the national government have reduced their
leadership, however, notably at the local level,
policy footprint. Devolution or the delegating
is not solely within the hands of elected offi-
of policy responsibilities from the national gov-
cials, as research demonstrates.
ernment to the states clearly factors in this shift-
Classic studies of local government policy
ing of policy leadership, but it is also evident
leadership primarily emphasize the role of indi-
that Washington has systematically removed
viduals within local political environments.
itself from numerous policy areas that have sig-
These studies find that mayors act as policy
nificant national relevance. Local governments
leaders in their deployment of formal and infor-
have stepped in to fill that policy leadership
mal resources (Pressman 1972; Wilkstrom
vacuum in many cases.
1979), while city managers often work between
This article examines the implications and
political and administrative realms, rather than
challenges of this shift in policy leadership to
solely within the administrative domain (Mor-
local government. How enduring is this? First,
gan and Watson 1992). Kingdon (2003)
it presents a discussion of research on local pol-
describes policy leadership in terms of the
icy leadership, emphasizing the relationship
function of a policy entrepreneur bringing var-
between top elected officials and chief adminis-
ious sets of actors together to develop policy.
trative officers. Second, it looks at policy lead-
This research tradition implies shared authority
ership within a state–local intergovernmental
and responsibility between elected and
context, summarizing extant research on the
appointed officials. It challenges conventional
institutional dynamics of policy leadership at
wisdom that assumes local government
the local level. Finally, by reviewing three pol-
policy-making occurs within at least two dis-
icy areas, it describes trends in local govern-
tinct and dichotomous realms—that is adminis-
ment policy leadership.
trative and political (Boynton and Wright 1971;
Svara 1985). Although these findings provide
insight into policy leadership at the local level,
Local Policy Leadership
little-to-no scholarly research on policy leader-
At the junction of administration and politics,
ship utilizes local government as the unit of
and in the center of democratic governance at
analysis. This may be due, in part, to scholars’
the local level, sits public policy. The develop-
varied conceptualization of policy leadership
ment and delivery of public programs requires
praxis.
the collaborative efforts of a collection of
Some research, however, points toward a
diverse sets of actors and institutions in a range
collaborative leadership arrangement between
of policy actions. In the classical description,
the chief elected official, such as the mayor,
the policy development structure is dichoto-
and the chief administrative officer, such as a
mous: Elected officials craft and enact policy
city manager or city administrator (Zhang and
while administrators implement policy and
Feiock 2009). Shared policy leadership at the

---

Blair and Starke
277
local level was among the range of topics
higher government laws and policies to bring
explored by a team of researchers in the mid-
about policy change” (Riverstone-Newell
to late 1990s as Europe underwent a series of
2012, 402). Therefore, on all accounts, local
structural changes in local government (Mour-
policy leadership refers to situations wherein
itzen and Svara 2002). The researchers sur-
local government leaders, both political and
veyed 4,300 chief appointed administrators
administrative, respond to social and economic
from fourteen countries including the United
situations by enacting policies or taking actions
States. They examined a number of questions,
that are discordant with actions and/or policies
but the one most relevant to policy leadership
of higher governments (i.e., state and/or fed-
asked: “How do politicians and administrators
eral). These locally developed policies may not
engage in local government leadership?” Their
be intentional and direct challenges of author-
research identified leadership at the local gov-
ity; rather, they can be viewed as attempts to fill
ernment apex as the “ . . . point in the govern-
policy gaps left by higher levels of govern-
ment process at which the perspectives and
ments (Riverstone-Newell 2017). In summary,
contributions of top politicians and administra-
the limited amount of research that focuses spe-
tors are blended” (Mouritzen and Svara 2002,
cifically on local policy leadership concludes
107). In terms of policy leadership, the
that it can be a contentious issue in a chaotic
researchers concluded that the elected officials
intergovernmental system of policy design and
and administrators form an interdependent and
implementation. In the next section, this article
shared leadership structure that results in exten-
examines the pertinent issues and challenges
sive and creative exchange of policy proposals.
related to policy leadership in...