Chapter 1. Establishing a Collaborative Regional Leadership Framework

Regional leadership is considered a key variable for explaining why some regions grow and others lag behind (Rodriquez-Pose 2013). As Collinge et al. (2010: 367) note, ‘effective leadership is one of the factors that explains how and why some localities are able to adapt to and exploit the opportunities afforded by the complex and rapidly changing social and economic circumstances of the modern world.’ Indeed, regional institutions and actors have a central role to play in pandemic recovery processes and identifying place-based, citizen-centred policy solutions to societal challenges, including climate change, energy transition, ageing, digitalisation, and education and training (Bourdin et al. 2024). Regional stakeholders are viewed as key drivers of regional growth, cultivating new policy development pathways, and promoting societal resilience. Consequently, interest in the concept of regional leadership has grown in recent years with academics attempting to define what constitutes effective leadership at both a conceptual level and in practice (Sotarauta & Beer 2021). 

Regional leadership, or “place leadership”, is about drawing attention to how regional resources, competences and powers are mobilised to reach collective goals through collaborative group processes, behaviours, and tools (Sotarauta and Beer 2021). Sotarauta and Beer (2021) view regional leadership as a collective process to set shared goals, promote learning, and achieve shared ambitions. Beer et al. (2019) point out that place leadership sheds an important light on the relationship between institutional structures and agents. More specifically, the concept examines the collaborative interplay between “formal leaders” or “assigned leaders” (e.g. those with a mandate or responsibility for promoting regional development including regional-level politicians and public authorities), and “informal leaders” or “non-assigned leaders” (e.g. those stakeholders without a formal mandate but in a position to drive regional socio-economic development, such as industries, business, universities, societal groups). 

The regional leadership concept is grounded in notions of collaborative governance rather than hierarchical forms of government. This point is highlighted by Stimson, Stough, & Roberts (2002: 279), who argue that ‘leadership for regional economic development will not be based on traditional hierarchical relationships; rather it will be a collaborative relationship between institutional actors encompassing the public, private and community sectors – and it will be based on mutual trust and co-operation.’ Regional endogenous change is not driven by lone individuals, but through cross-sectoral and multi-stakeholder collaboration based on the pooling of resources, knowledge and capacities between multiple institutions, organisations, and actors (Beer et al. 2019). This is confirmed by Nicholds et al. (2017: 251), who note that place leadership is built on ‘complex, large-scale social and economic co-production of activity comprising a range of power and resource-related, community and personal agendas and negotiations across organizations, disciplines and professions.’

While regional leadership is based on the ideas of stakeholder collaboration and consensus, the concept does recognise the important role of “place leaders”, who are individuals or organisations skilled in facilitating cooperation between regional stakeholders. Beer et al. (2019:173) note that effective place leaders have the capacity to build ‘pathways in collective action’ and the ability to persuade and influence key regional stakeholders to look for common solutions to shared problems based on their position and expertise. Place leaders are highly effective at building interpersonal relationships based on trust by creating an environment in which all stakeholders feel valued (Beer & Clower 2014). An entrepreneurial spirit and willingness to be proactive are perceived as important character traits of place leaders. MacNeil & Steiner (2011) argue that place leaders can emerge from both the public and private sectors, with private actors having greater capacity to exert influence than individuals in public institutions who face political, capacity and resource constraints, including formal rules that restrict the mandate of civil servants. 

Beer and Clower (2014) argue that the concept is based on the idea of transformational leadership rather than transactional leadership. In other words, leadership is not based on top-down compliance within vertical governance structures, but on collaborative processes where power and influence are shared equally between stakeholders in horizontal governance structures. The transformational element of regional leadership is also linked to shared learning processes, working towards common goals, building social capital and trust between actors, identifying new development pathways and policy diversification (Grillitsch & Sotarauta 2019; Sotarauta & Suvinen 2019). Too much emphasis is placed on the transformational potential of regional leadership; the concept could also be useful for exploring whether more stakeholder collaboration makes policymaking more efficient and promotes effectiveness in thematic areas where regions are already strong. 

Beer and Clover (2014: 13-14) note that ‘there is no single style of leadership for places, nor a set of institutions or roles that invariably generate a cohort of leaders.’ Indeed, regional context matters and there is no one-size-fits-all model of regional leadership, as different contexts shape the scope and capacity for effective regional leadership (Beer et al. 2019). The concept can be applied in different contexts across different levels of spatial analysis covering both urban and rural areas, including cities, towns, villages, and neighbourhoods (Beer et al. 2019). The all-encompassing nature of the concept can be seen as a strength, although some academics critique that the research has not gone far enough in its attempts to identify the key features of the concept at different territorial scales (Ayres 2014). 

Sotarauta et al. (2017) recognises this weakness in the literature, noting that researchers are producing in-depth case studies of regional leadership but are unable to draw conclusions across a wider spatial scale, economic structures, time periods or systems of government. As Hu and Hassink (2017:225) states, ‘despite valuable insights, research on place leadership is still in its infancy, conceptually vague and insufficient’. Despite this criticism, a survey of the literature identifies some key features of the concept which are outlined in Table 1 below. 

Table 1. The Key Tenets of Regional Leadership.
Source. Authors own construction based on a synthesis of key literature on regional leadership, including Beer & Clower (2014); Sotarauta et al. (2017); Beer et al. (2019); and Sotarauta & Beer (2021).

The literature highlights several key enabling and constraining variables that can increase or decrease regional leadership potential; for example, regional leadership is more likely in countries with decentralised systems of governance, where substantial policy responsibilities and tasks are performed at sub-national levels (Sotarauta & Beer 2021). In contrast, regional leadership is less likely to emerge in countries with highly centralised systems of government where a lack of local-level competence and the dominance of central government act as a constraint on regional actors (Beer & Clower 2014). A recent study has shown, however, that effective regional leadership can create a critical mass of pressure capable of overcoming centralised national constraints (Vallence et al. 2019). Decentralised regional governance structures, an existing culture and custom of collaboration, economic stability, and high levels of social capital and trust between stakeholders are important variables that provide positive conditions for effective regional leadership. This is particularly the case in smaller rural regions where stakeholders know each other and are in regular contact. This is in contrast to larger metropolitan urban areas where bigger public and private actors often have the capacities and resources to work alone. Sotarauta and Suvinen (2019) point out the important role institutional and networking arrangements play in creating leadership conditions, particularly the strength of existing innovation ecosystems and industrial symbiosis networks that encompass a rich variety of stakeholders and knowledge. Moments of crisis are also viewed as a potential catalyst or window of opportunity for regional actors to instigate changes in collaborative governance processes and policy directions (Stimson et al. 2009).

At the sub-national level, constraints on effective regional leadership include competition and overlapping responsibilities, which can lead to gridlock in regional and local authority departments (Grillitsch 2016). Competing stakeholder ideas and interests also make it difficult to find common ground in relation to a future vision and shared goals (Sotarauta and Suvinen 2019). Limited time, capacity, and resources are also regarded as obstacles to regional leadership potential. Leadership deficits can also result from a lack of the time and financial resources required to build collaborations and engage in multi-stakeholder dialogues. Leadership deficits can occur if there is a lack of quality individuals in leadership roles or if leaders have narrow interests and lack the capacity to facilitate discussion and build social capital between different actors (Beer & Clower 2014). 

The existing academic literature lays important foundations for enhancing our understanding of the key features of regional leadership and the impact various contextual variables on leadership capacities. However, the concept can be potentially challenged on the grounds of democratic legitimacy as collaborative regional leadership activities can include stakeholders with no democratic mandate (Ayres 2014). Nicholds et al. (2017) point out that certain regional actors have greater capacities and resources than others and these power asymmetries create unequal collaborative conditions and the potential for the collaboration to be dominated by a small group of powerful stakeholders. Sotarauta and Beer (2021) also acknowledge conceptual weaknesses, noting that the field of regional leadership has been “under-theorised” meaning that it is difficult to link empirical descriptions of leadership to broader conceptual analyses. 

The regional leadership concept outlined in this chapter provides the theoretical framework for examining practical examples of regional leadership in a Nordic context. It is important to note that the term ‘collaborative regional leadership’, rather than ‘regional leadership’, is used throughout the report to emphasise that the focus of the analysis is not on individual actors but on how multiple regional public and actors work together. The key dimensions of regional leadership outlined in Table 1 above have been used to structure the Nordic collaborative regional leadership survey questions and the semi-structured interview questions used as part of the four case studies. The following chapters highlight the key survey and case study findings.

Ayres, S. (2014). Place-based leadership: reflections on scale, agency and theory. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 1(1), 21-24.

Beer, A., & Clower, T. (2014). Mobilizing leadership in cities and regions. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 1(1), 5-20.

Beer, A., Ayres, S., Clower, T., Faller, F., Sancino, A., & Sotarauta, M. (2019). Place leadership and regional economic development: a framework for cross-regional analysis. Regional studies, 53(2), 171-182.

Bourdin, S., Moodie, J., Gassen, N. S., Evers, D., Adobati, F., Amdaoud, M., ... & Remete, Z. (2024). COVID-19 as a systemic shock: curb or catalyst for proactive policies towards territorial cohesion?. Regional Studies, 58(8), 1543-1556.

Collinge, C., & Gibney, J. (2010). Place-making and the limitations of spatial leadership: reflections on the Øresund. Policy studies, 31(4), 475-489.

Grillitsch, M. (2016). Institutions, smart specialisation dynamics and policy. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 34(1), 22-37.

Grillitsch, M., & Sotarauta, M. (2020). Trinity of change agency, regional development paths and opportunity spaces. Progress in human geography, 44(4), 704-723.

Hu, X., & Hassink, R. (2017). Place leadership with Chinese characteristics? A case study of the Zaozhuang coal-mining region in transition. Regional studies, 51(2), 224-234.

MacNeill, S., & Steiner, M. (2013). Leadership of cluster policy: lessons from the Austrian province of Styria. In Collinge, C. Gibney, J. & Mabey, C. Leadership and place (pp. 91-106). Routledge.

Nicholds, A., Gibney, J., Mabey, C., & Hart, D. (2017). Making sense of variety in place leadership: The case of England’s smart cities. Regional studies, 51(2), 249-259.

Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2013). Do institutions matter for regional development?. Regional studies, 47(7), 1034-1047.

Sotarauta, M., Beer, A., & Gibney, J. (2017). Making sense of leadership in urban and regional development. Regional Studies, 51(2), 187-193.

Sotarauta, M., & Beer, A. (2021). Handbook on city and regional leadership. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Sotarauta, M., & Suvinen, N. (2019). Place leadership and the challenge of transformation: policy platforms and innovation ecosystems in promotion of green growth. European Planning Studies, 27(9), 1748-1767.

Stimson, R., Stough, R., & Roberts, B. (2002). Regional economic development: Analysis and planning strategy. Berlin: Springer.

Vallance, P., Tewdwr-Jones, M., & Kempton, L. (2019). Facilitating spaces for place-based leadership in centralized governance systems: The case of Newcastle City Futures. Regional Studies.