Non-profit leadership at local level: Reflections from Central and Eastern Europe

Successful leadership in local development requires not only a vision, but good communication skills, stakeholder involvement, strategic planning and coordination and popular support via public participation. Our empirical study contributes to filling the gap in the literature about the role of non-profit leadership in urban and regional development. We study the characteristics of politicians in civil society and that of civil society’s leaders in politics as a prerequisite for successful local development. For this, we draw on the survey data of 374 local politicians from four large cities in Central Europe: Prague, Bratislava, Budapest and Poznań. The research affirms that non-profit non-governmental organisations do play an important role in local development and reveals similarities in all analysed cities, though with some variance. Local political elites are identified as engaging significantly in civil society organisations, despite low levels of general trust in these countries. About two-thirds of the local politicians who took part in the survey participate actively in civil society organisations in their respective cities but not coming from a previous non-profit non-governmental organisation employment. Not only are they active, but many of them also have positions as managers or directors, or as members of the board of directors in these organisations. Although neither membership nor leadership in non-profit non-governmental organisations appears to increase a local politician’s chance of being elected, except when those are engaged in local development or environmental issues. As spatial leadership plays an important role in the construction of new agendas and identities we have also investigated the views of local politicians on decentralisation, government service provision efficiency and the importance of several local policy topics, and found some puzzling differences across our V4 cities that possibly reflect cultural differences. Non-profit leadership in urban development is a neglected topic so far in the literature, our study adds empirical results from Central and Eastern Europe, yet there is ample room for future research.

[1]  Markku Sotarauta,et al.  Governance, agency and place leadership: lessons from a cross-national analysis , 2017 .

[2]  Erwin Dekker.  Corporatism and Civil Society , 2016 .

[3]  L. Paarlberg,et al.  The Impact of Local Economic Structure on Community Philanthropy , 2016 .

[4]  R. Cnaan,et al.  National Culture and Prosocial Behaviors , 2015 .

[5]  B. Pieliński,et al.  Poland: A New Model of Government–Nonprofit Relations for the East? , 2015 .

[6]  C. Cornforth,et al.  Nonprofit–Public Collaborations , 2015 .

[7]  Archon Fung.  Putting the Public Back into Governance: The Challenges of Citizen Participation and Its Future , 2015 .

[8]  R. Hambleton.  Power, place and the New Civic Leadership , 2015 .

[9]  Oto Potluka,et al.  Managing European Union Structural Funds: Using a Multilevel Governance Framework to Examine the Application of the Partnership Principle at the Project Level , 2014 .

[10]  Andrew Beer,et al.  Leadership and the governance of rural communities , 2014 .

[11]  Charles C. Manz,et al.  The leadership disease...and its potential cures , 2014 .

[12]  Robert G. Lord,et al.  Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives , 2014 .

[13]  Andrew Beer,et al.  Mobilizing leadership in cities and regions , 2014 .

[14]  M. Sotarauta.  Reflections on ‘Mobilizing leadership in cities and regions’ , 2014 .

[15]  F. Yammarino,et al.  What makes leadership, leadership? Using self-expansion theory to integrate traditional and contemporary approaches , 2013 .

[16]  Burak Oc,et al.  Followership, leadership and social influence , 2013 .

[17]  L. Horlings,et al.  Leadership for Sustainable Regional Development in Rural Areas: Bridging Personal and Institutional Aspects(Online first) , 2013 .

[18]  Markku Sotarauta,et al.  Strategic leadership relay: how to keep regional innovation journeys in motion? , 2012 .

[19]  C. Kesteloot,et al.  Socio-spatial Inequalities and Social Cohesion in European Cities , 2012 .

[20]  Santiago Eizaguirre,et al.  Multilevel Governance and Social Cohesion: Bringing Back Conflict in Citizenship Practices , 2012 .

[21]  L. Horlings,et al.  Leadership and change in sustainable regional development , 2012 .

[22]  A. Cartwright,et al.  Re‐Visiting the Partnership Principle in Cohesion Policy: The Role of Civil Society Organizations in Structural Funds Monitoring , 2011 .

[23]  K. Parry,et al.  Grounded theory and leadership research: A critical realist perspective , 2011 .

[24]  G. S. Hanssen.  Ensuring Local Community Interests in Market-Oriented Urban Planning? The Role of Local Politicians , 2010 .

[25]  J. Gibney,et al.  Place-making and the limitations of spatial leadership: reflections on the Øresund , 2010 .

[26]  J. Gibney,et al.  Connecting place, policy and leadership , 2010 .

[27]  H. Bjørnå,et al.  Networking for Development in the North: Power, Trust, and Local Democracy , 2010 .

[28]  R. Stough.  Leadership and Creativity in Regional Economic Development , 2010 .

[29]  C. Hyde,et al.  Does Attitudinal Consensus Lead to Neighborhood Collaboration? An Exploratory Analysis of an Urban Community , 2010 .

[30]  I. Bache.  Partnership as an EU Policy Instrument: A Political History , 2010 .

[31]  Michael D. Mumford,et al.  A Framework for Understanding Collective Leadership: The Selective Utilization of Leader and Team Expertise within Networks , 2009 .

[32]  R. Stimson,et al.  Leadership and Institutions in Regional Endogenous Development , 2009 .

[33]  Chen Lin,et al.  Political decentralization and corruption: Evidence from around the world , 2009 .

[34]  M. Baun,et al.  EU Cohesion Policy after Enlargement , 2008 .

[35]  Elizabeth Strom.  Rethinking the Politics of Downtown Development , 2008 .

[36]  S. Rose-Ackerman.  From Elections to Democracy in Central Europe: Public Participation and the Role of Civil Society , 2007 .

[37]  H. Wollmann.  The Fall and Rise of the Local Community: A Comparative and Historical Perspective , 2006 .

[38]  Adam Fagan.  Transnational aid for civil society development in post-socialist Europe: Democratic consolidation or a new imperialism? , 2006 .

[39]  S. McGreal,et al.  Leadership, Power and Multisector Urban Regeneration Partnerships , 2006 .

[40]  J. Collin,et al.  The Borough System of Consolidated MontréAl: Revisiting Urban Governance in a Composite Metropolis , 2005 .

[41]  L. van den Berg,et al.  Organising Capacity and Social Policies in European Cities , 2003 .

[42]  S. Osborne,et al.  Local Strategic Partnerships, Neighbourhood Renewal, and the Limits to Co-governance , 2003 .

[43]  E. Zhuravskaya,et al.  Decentralization and Political Institutions , 2003 .

[44]  Raymond J. Fisman,et al.  Decentralization and Corruption: Evidence Across Countries , 2000 .

[45]  P. Halfpenny,et al.  Rebuilding civil society in Northern Ireland: the community and voluntary sector's contribution to the European Union's Peace and Reconciliation District Partnerships Programme , 2000 .

[46]  A. Rodríguez‐Pose.  In Economics and Social Sciences Working Papers Series Do Institutions Matter for Regional Development? Do Institutions Matter for Regional Development? § Do Institutions Matter for Regional Development? , 2022 .