Economic Development Perspective and City Leadership

Abstract

The viability of traditional economic development strategies has long been questioned by urban policy scholars; yet traditional strategies remain the norm among city leaders. Traditional concerns emphasize economic and business considerations at the expense of nontraditional community considerations such as quality of life. In this paper, we examine the conditions under which city leaders give weight to nontraditional community concerns when making economic development decisions. Our analysis of the results of a survey conducted of more than 200 leaders in over 150 Texas cities indicates that although traditional economic development concerns remain dominant, certain conditions may exist that allow or compel city leaders to give increased weight to non-traditional community considerations. Conditions revealed by our study include the socioeconomic status of Texas cities and the relative differences in leadership positions and professionalism among city leaders. The paper concludes with a discussion of how our study contributes to the literature about economic development policy and points to avenues for future research on the conditions under which decision-making strategies are pursued by city leaders.

Leading cities: a global review of city leadership

“…The topic is addressed by scholars from a broad range of disciplinary perspectives, including political studies, planning studies, public administration and economic geography to name a few. Empirical studies have examined the changing role of leadership in the context of local government reform, the role of leadership in fostering participatory democracy, the role of leaders in policy-making and regeneration processes and the links between local leadership and economic development (Bussu and Bartels, 2014;Clark et al, 2015;Hemphill et al, 2006;Purdue, 2001;Vanderleeuw et al, 2011;Zhang and Feiock, 2010). The topic of what constitutes effective city leadership has been addressed in literature from scholars as well as private companies and multilateral organisations (Elcock, 2008;Hambleton and Sweeting, 2004;Hemphill et al, 2006;McKinsey & Company, 2013;PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2005;Svara, 2003).…”