Local and Regional Management Approaches for the Redesign

Local and Regional Management Approaches for the Redesign: Comparison

Please note this is a comparison between Version 1 by Stavros Kalogiannidis and Version 2 by Dean Liu.

The efforts of different local and regional administrations are increasingly seen as very important drivers of the economic vitality and well-being of territories in a world where subnational government levels continue to gain levels of authority.

local government
regional development
local development

^[1][2][3][3]1. Role of Local–Regional Management Practices in Development

Pike et al. (2016b) indicated that before the twentieth century, the world comprised several strong or strategic national governments and regional governments that were relatively weak or non-existent, with regional governments being either weak or non-existent in many cases as compared to local ones. Before 1970, the number of truly devolved countries was so small that it could almost be counted on the fingers of a single hand. Following this initial wave of empowerment at the local level, primarily through devolution, the concept has spread rapidly throughout the world, explaining the importance of delegating or dividing government roles at different levels of governance. Consequently, different subnational governments have gradually been entrusted with a variety of governance powers. This has resulted in the responsibility of the government of taking better decisions or utilizing the most effective mechanisms to achieve the desired level of development for local communities. When compared to the manner in which socio-economic development was undertaken and achieved in the past, it represents a very significant shift in its paradigm. Place-based strategies for economic development, which take into account the different preferences as well as needs of local agents and make use of local characteristics, are utilized to replace centrally driven approaches to economic development (Metaxas 2010; Ioannidis 2016).

Blair and Olpadwala (1988) indicated that the fact that subnational authorities now have the ability to utilize different territorially oriented approaches or mechanisms all aimed at enhancing development is undeniable. This also represents an important opportunity for most localities or regions across the world to fully realize their economic potential. Although this is a promising prospect, realizing it in practice is frequently fraught with difficulties, and solutions are not guaranteed. First and foremost, there are questions about the most effective manner in which strategies for development should be implemented in a given setting. It is undeniable that the federal level of a country, such as the United States, is usually not enough to deal with the different local development problems (Kalogiannidis et al. 2021).

Local empowerment successfully offers local authorities the autonomy, capabilities, and resources that were before unavailable to them, allowing them to mobilize and act on the information that they have acquired. Policymakers can use their understanding of the needs of local communities to effectively design and implement the different types of contextually tailored policies that are unlikely to be implemented otherwise. Policymakers also have the ability to undertake different decisions that may be very hard to make under a centralized system but that appear to be completely necessary given the recognized uniqueness of each jurisdiction. One of the most significant benefits of local empowerment is the ability to modify governmental policies to meet the requirements of individual communities (Krasniqi 2019). Regions and municipalities, on the other hand, often find themselves in a difficult situation. The fact that they have been granted this empowerment and, more specifically, the option to adopt methods that in theory represent the different needs of local communities that may have been overlooked in a top–down framework is one of the benefits they stand to obtain (Bachtler et al. 2014; Ioannidis 2016).

In southern Europe, the economic downturn of the last decade, but also the high unemployment rates observed combined with the low-investment activity, continues to characterize growth based on the global financial crisis and austerity policies (Leick and Lang 2018; Hadjimichalis 2011; Ballas et al. 2017; Papadopoulos 2016). This situation was inevitably exacerbated by COVID-19 and continues to be exacerbated by the war in Ukraine (Mbah and Wasum 2022; Liadze et al. 2022).

Hadjimichalis and Hudson (2014) argued that these problems date back to the 1990s and that the national systems of the euro-area countries failed to detect the onset of the crisis due to a wider maladaptation and neglect of the capitalist crisis, a failure that can also be ascribed to formerly successful regions. Furthermore, Hadjimichalis and Hudson (2014) estimated that approaches driven by neoclassical geographical and regional development theories have failed to develop a systemic view of capitalism. Thus, because periodic capitalist crises have been neglected, problems have escalated and manifested as a global financial crisis (Hadjimichalis and Hudson 2014; Harvey 2011).

As Rodríguez-Pose and Wilkie (2017) argued, local and regional governments are constantly gaining power and are de facto protagonists of economic dynamism and prosperity. This empowerment is a consequence of globalization—not entirely, but certainly in part (Rodríguez-Pose 2011; Barca et al. 2012; Smoke 2003; Pike et al. 2016a). At the regional level, the pressures imposed by increasingly competitive global economy ends, but also the more specific national pressures, are specialized for the regions, thus shaping the growth trajectory (Rodríguez-Pose and Wilkie 2017).

It is understood that the institutional framework is a key factor in the effectiveness of local development strategies. The policymakers behind the development strategies need to know and understand the potential of these regions or, better, locations, in order to make the most of human capital, infrastructure, or innovation interventions (Rodríguez-Pose and Palavicini-Corona 2013; Rodríguez-Pose and Wilkie 2017; Mura and Hajduová 2021). Therefore, a comprehensive institutional and, at the same time, explanatory framework should be based on the interactions among the economic and political factors (Martin 2015). After all, deficiencies in the socio-economic context jeopardize the institutional, social, and environmental factors (viability of local businesses and derailment of the effectiveness of any policy action designed to make them viable).

One point that is mentioned simply because it is an important element of local and national development is the relevance of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Small and medium-sized enterprises are the backbone of a good economy, the basis of employment, added value, and prerequisite for sustainable economic growth. Furthermore, small and medium-sized enterprises, when properly functioning, create entrepreneurship, contributing to innovation and healthy competition (Mura and Hajduová 2021; Dvorský et al. 2020; Hudáková and Masár 2018; Chreneková et al. 2016; Zaušková and Rezníčková 2020; Bărbulescu and Constantin 2019). Sustainable development strategies are very essential in the mitigation and overcoming of a territory’s limitations. Bachtler et al. (2014) indicated that a localized strategy for development that is implemented in one area may consist of completely unique programs as compared with a strategy implemented in another context, and the two approaches may ultimately appear to be diametrically opposed to each other. Among other types of policies, localized approaches and strategies may also focus on enhancing education and skill development programs among the locals, which is important for the growth of a local community (Figure 1). The way different initiatives or policies are integrated into a localized strategy or approach for economic growth varies from one context to the next, depending on how specific the broader strategic goals are, as well as the context in which they are to be pursued (Pugalis and Tan 2017).

Figure 1. Greek administrative structure of rural and local development. Source: Authors’ scheme.

The concept of sustainability has occupied the scientific community in relation to its integration into university management practices, teaching, and research and, more generally, for the adoption of the terms “sustainable university” and “entrepreneurial university” (Velazquez et al. 2006; Adomssent and Michelsen 2006; Waas et al. 2010; Lozano 2006; Brătucu et al. 2020). Universities in the field of regional development have attracted attention since the 1950s in central European countries. For example, economics considers universities to be soft local agents of knowledge and know-how that enhance innovation. Educational sciences emphasize the reduction in spatial and social inequalities, the access to educational opportunities, and the strengthening of the local labor market. Geographical sciences study the spaces required by the university to operate, as well as the mobility of students, graduates, and teaching staff to include the spatial dimension in research. In general, what universities look at when they think about how to help their communities to grow, excluding aspects such as production and social capital, is how human and intellectual capital can help (Peer and Stoeglehner 2013; Moulaert and Sekia 2003; Lehmann et al. 2009; Gensch 1980).

2. Multilevel Governance

Multilevel governance plays a key role in enhancing the level of local and regional development. The different coordination as well as collaboration activities associated with local governments help ensure the proper allocation of resources or the allocation of resources to the most essential areas that support development. Research has indicated that the most common barrier to the desired development under multilevel governance is when there is a mismatch that may exist between the resources and authorities transmitted downward to the local government (Bachtler et al. 2014). Local governments may become overloaded as a result of their duties in relation to the authorities and resources assigned to them. Makowska (2021) indicated that addressing vertical coordination shortcomings seems to be critical to ensuring that communities receive the advantages of increased decision-making ability at the local level. One way to address vertical coordination failures is to promote multilevel governance by mostly undertaking decisions that help in the implementation of public policies. Most policies under multilevel governance are effective when formulated through collaborative relationships between vertical and horizontal levels of governance. Multilevel governance structures, especially territorial networks, help people to talk to each other and share information, which is important for cross-territorial coordination and, eventually, better devolutionary processes (UCLGA 2016; Ioannidis 2016).

According to Pugalis and Tan (2017), most local leaders can become actively involved in political processes leading to economic growth and may be better able to communicate and push central governments on their behalf. As a result, these concerns of influence may be more severe in smaller locales and communities, but they are by no means confined to them (Pugalis and Tan 2017). While vertical coordination failures offer different obstacles to economic growth, the failures of horizontally based coordination, such as that among subnational agencies, do occur and must be addressed. Promoting interconnection, conversation, and territorial networks but, this time, among subnational players, can help mitigate these horizontal coordination problems (Makowska 2021).

Horizontally based collaboration may help promote conversation and cooperation between subnational authorities to a greater extent, resulting in an effective alignment of both the territorially oriented policies adopted by local governments and the subnational authorities’ aims. This might reduce the prevalence of wasteful inter-territorial investments as well as economic activity, among other things. Makowska (2021) explained that coordination at the horizontal level can help disclose and enable the general realization of different synergies among smaller subnational authorities. This always leads to resource utilization and contributes to improved coherence between planning procedures and the goals of the different subnational territorial collectives. The overall impact would be to boost their influence on higher-level government decisions, all of which would help mitigate the capacity and other restrictions that these territories regularly face (Herrmann and Kritikos 2013).

3. Capacity Building to Overcome Barriers to Local and Regional Development

Local governments are frequently confronted with a slew of technical capacity issues. Absolute shortages of technical knowledge, skills, or experience may be the source of these constraints. Mismatches between the available and required capacities are the most common causes of these problems. Krasniqi (2019) stated that there are times when policymakers or people in charge of making decisions in a certain territory are capable in a broad sense, but they lack the experience, skills, and technical knowledge to perform a certain set of tasks.

Local capacity constraints have a variety of effects on the level of economic growth. In the current era of globalization, it is very important to look at the discussed issue in terms of economic growth (Mura and Hajduová 2021). Deficits in technical capacity at the local level, for example, may make it impossible to design and monitor efficient fiscal systems (Makowska 2021). Local and regional governments’ ability to raise revenue through taxes may jeopardize their ability to implement viable development plans. Capacity constraints can greatly limit the ability to effectively communicate with different stakeholders at the local level and to articulate the needs and demands to central governments. Inadequate skills, technical knowledge, and experience limit local governments’ ability to mobilize resources and powers and thus achieve development goals. Krasniqi (2019) indicated that capacity-building initiatives are also very essential with regard to ensuring that different localities are able to achieve the desired economic growth and development, as well as improvements in the well-being of the people who live there.

Boyce and Brown (2019) indicated that efforts to improve local technical capacities can take a variety of different shapes. Capacity development is associated with the different processes in which individuals and institutions, as well as societies, develop abilities in order to perform functions, set achievable goals, and solve different governance problems. Krasniqi (2019) indicated that capacity building for localities should include efforts at both the individual and institutional levels. Upskilling, training, sharing knowledge, and learning from other people’s experiences all fit into this category. Capacity-building projects of all kinds are necessary to help local governments deal with the frequent shortages of people with the right skills (Mura and Hajduová 2021; Nordic Working Group 2006).

References

Pike, Andy, Andrés Rodríguez-Pose, and John Tomaney. 2016b. Local and Regional Development in Practice. In Local and Regional Development, 2nd ed. Edited by Andy Pike, Andrés Rodríguez-Pose and John Tomaney. London: Routledge, pp. 257–314. Stavros Kalogiannidis; Stamatis Kontsas; Fotios Chatzitheodoridis; Managerial Styles and Employee Productivity. An Empirical Study From Bank Sector Employees in Greece. WSEAS TRANSACTIONS ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT 2021, 17, 1234-1244, 10.37394/232015.2021.17.113.
Metaxas, Theodore. 2010. Local Economic Development and Public-Private Partnerships in Greece: Some Empirical Evidence from Enterprises of the City of Larissa, Thessaly Region. New Medit 9: 48–58. Available online: https://newmedit.iamb.it/share/img_new_medit_articoli/322_48metaxas.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2022).Stavros Kalogiannidis; Ermelinda Toska; Fotios Chatzitheodoridis; Dimitrios Kalfas; Using School Systems as a Hub for Risk and Disaster Management: A Case Study of Greece. Risks 2022, 10, 89, 10.3390/risks10050089.
Ioannidis, Panos. 2016. Successive Local Government Institutional Reforms in Greece: From Regionalization to Regionalism? Journal of Economics and Business XIX: 99–131. Available online: https://www.u-picardie.fr/eastwest/fichiers/art201.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2022).Stavros Kalogiannidis; Ermelinda Toska; Fotios Chatzitheodoridis; Contribution of Civil Protection to the Urban Economy: Evidence from a Small-Sized Greek City. Sustainability 2022, 14, 981, 10.3390/su14020981.
Blair, Harry W., and Porus D. Olpadwala. 1988. Rural Development Strategies. In Forestry in Development Planning, 1st ed. Edited by Harry W. Blair and Porus D. Olpadwala. New York: Routledge, pp. 89–113.
Kalogiannidis, Stavros, Stamatis Kontsas, and Fotios Chatzitheodoridis. 2021. Managerial Styles and Employee Performance. An Empirical Study from Bank Sector Employees in Greece. WSEAS Transactions on Environment and Development 17: 1234–44.
Krasniqi, Ibrahim. 2019. Strategic Management for Regional Economic Development and Business Sustainability: Countries in Transition. International Journal of Economics and Business Administration 7: 47–67.
Bachtler, John, Carlos Méndez, and Heidi Vironen. 2014. Regional Development and Policy in Europe: Contributions for the Debate in Latin America. Edited by John Bachtler, Carlos Méndez and Heidi Vironen. Madrid: EUROsociAL Programme, Available online: https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/51417/ (accessed on 1 May 2022).
Leick, Birgit, and Thilo Lang. 2018. Re-Thinking Non-Core Regions: Planning Strategies and Practices beyond Growth. European Planning Studies 26: 213–28.
Hadjimichalis, Costis. 2011. Uneven Geographical Development and Socio-Spatial Justice and Solidarity: European Regions after the 2009 Financial Crisis. European Urban and Regional Studies 18: 254–74.
Ballas, Dimitris, Danny Dorling, and Benjamin Hennig. 2017. Analysing the Regional Geography of Poverty, Austerity and Inequality in Europe: A Human Cartographic Perspective. Regional Studies 51: 174–85.
Papadopoulos, Orestis. 2016. Economic Crisis and Youth Unemployment: Comparing Greece and Ireland. European Journal of Industrial Relations 22: 409–26.
Mbah, Ruth Endam, and Divine Wasum. 2022. Russian-Ukraine 2022 War: A Review of the Economic Impact of Russian-Ukraine Crisis on the USA, UK, Canada, and Europe. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal 9: 144–53.
Liadze, Iana, Corrado Macchiarelli, Paul Mortimer-Lee, and Patricia Sanchez Juanino. 2022. The Economic Costs of the Russia Ukraine Conflict. London: National Institute of Economic and Social Research Policy Papers, Available online: https://www.niesr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/PP32-Economic-Costs-Russia-Ukraine.pdf (accessed on 28 April 2022).
Hadjimichalis, Costis, and Ray Hudson. 2014. Contemporary Crisis Across Europe and the Crisis of Regional Development Theories. Regional Studies 48: 208–18.
Harvey, David. 2011. Roepke Lecture in Economic Geography—Crises, Geographic Disruptions and the Uneven Development of Political Responses. Economic Geography 87: 1–22.
Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés, and Callum Wilkie. 2017. Revamping Local and Regional Development Through Place-Based Strategies. Cityscape 19: 151–70. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/26328304 (accessed on 1 May 2022).
Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés. 2011. Economists as Geographers and Geographers as Something Else: On the Changing Conception of Distance in Geography and Economics. Journal of Economic Geography 11: 347–56.
Barca, Fabrizio, Philip McCann, and Andrés Rodríguez-Pose. 2012. The case for regional development intervention: Place-based versus place-neutral approaches. Journal of Regional Science 52: 134–52.
Smoke, Paul. 2003. Decentralisation in Africa: Goals, Dimensions, Myths and Challenges. Public Administration and Development 23: 7–16.
Pike, Andy, Andrés Rodríguez-Pose, and John Tomaney. 2016a. Local and Regional Development, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés, and Eduardo I Palavicini-Corona. 2013. Does Local Economic Development Really Work? Assessing LED across Mexican Municipalities. Geoforum 44: 303–15.
Mura, Ladislav, and Zuzana Hajduová. 2021. Measuring Efficiency by Using Selected Determinants in Regional SMEs. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues 8: 487–503.
Martin, Ron. 2015. Rebalancing the Spatial Economy: The Challenge for Regional Theory. Territory, Politics, Governance 3: 235–72.
Dvorský, Ján, Zora Petráková, Khurram Ajaz Khan, Ivo Formánek, and Zdeněk Mikoláš. 2020. Selected Aspects of Strategic Management in the Service Sector. Journal of Tourism and Services 11: 109–23.
Hudáková, Mária, and Matej Masár. 2018. The Assessment of Key Business Risks for SMEs in Slovakia and Their Comparison with Other EU Countries. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review 6: 145–60.
Chreneková, Marcela, Katarína Melichová, Eleonóra Marišová, and Serhiy Moroz. 2016. Informal Employment and Quality of Life in Rural Areas of Ukraine. European Countryside 8: 135–46.
Zaušková, Anna, and Monika Rezníčková. 2020. Solomo Marketing as a Global Tool for Enhancing Awareness of Eco–Innovations in Slovak Business Environment. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy 15: 133–50.
Bărbulescu, Oana, and Cristinel P. Constantin. 2019. Sustainable Growth Approaches: Quadruple Helix Approach for Turning Brașov into a Startup City. Sustainability 11: 6154.
Pugalis, Lee, and Su Fei Tan. 2017. The Role of Local Government in Local and Regional Economic Development. Sydney: University of Technology Sydney, Available online: https://www.uts.edu.au/sites/default/files/2017-09/The%20Role%20of%20Local%20Government%20in%20Local%20and%20Regional%20Economic%20Development.pdf (accessed on 28 April 2022).
Velazquez, Luis, Nora Munguia, Alberto Platt, and Jorge Taddei. 2006. Sustainable University: What Can Be the Matter? Journal of Cleaner Production 14: 810–19.
Adomssent, Maik, and Gerd Michelsen. 2006. German Academia Heading for Sustainability? Reflections on Policy and Practice in Teaching, Research and Institutional Innovations. Environmental Education Research 12: 85–99.
Waas, T, A Verbruggen, and T Wright. 2010. University Research for Sustainable Development: Definition and Characteristics Explored. Journal of Cleaner Production 18: 629–36.
Lozano, Rodrigo. 2006. Incorporation and Institutionalization of SD into Universities: Breaking through Barriers to Change. Journal of Cleaner Production 14: 787–96.
Brătucu, Gabriel, Radu C. Lixăndroiu, Cristinel P. Constantin, Alina S Tecău, Ioana B. Chițu, and Adrian Trifan. 2020. Entrepreneurial University: Catalyst for Regional Sustainable Development. Sustainability 12: 4151.
Peer, Verena, and Gernot Stoeglehner. 2013. Universities as Change Agents for Sustainability-Framing the Role of Knowledge Transfer and Generation in Regional Development Processes. Journal of Cleaner Production 44: 85–95.
Moulaert, Frank, and Farid Sekia. 2003. Territorial Innovation Models: A Critical Survey. Regional Studies 37: 289–302.
Lehmann, Martin, Per Christensen, Mikkel Thrane, and Tine Herreborg Jørgensen. 2009. University Engagement and Regional Sustainability Initiatives: Some Danish Experiences. Journal of Cleaner Production 17: 1067–74.
Gensch, Frowin. 1980. Hochschulneugründungen, Eine Raumwirksame Maßnahme? Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung 3: 243–70.
Makowska, Beata. 2021. Practical Functioning of a Sustainable Urban Complex with a Park-the Case Study of Stavros Niarchos Foundation Cultural Center in Athens. Sustainability 13: 5071.
UCLGA. 2016. State of Local Economic Development of Zimbabwe Report. Rabat, Kingdom of Morocco. Available online: https://knowledge.uclga.org/IMG/pdf/_del-zimbabwe_-web.pdf (accessed on 28 April 2022).
Herrmann, Benedikt, and Alexander S. Kritikos. 2013. Growing out of the Crisis: Hidden Assets to Greece’s Transition to an Innovation Economy. IZA Journal of European Labor Studies 2: 14.
Boyce, Tammy, and Chris Brown. 2019. Economic and Social Impacts and Benefits of Health Systems. Copenhagen: World Health Organization, Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/329683/9789289053952-eng.pdf (accessed on 28 April 2022).
Nordic Working Group. 2006. The Role of Urban Areas in Regional Development—European and Nordic Perspectives. Stockholm, Sweden. Available online: http://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:700427/FULLTEXT01.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2022).