6. Embracing social responsibilities through local leadership: comparing the experience of the mayors of Bristol and Liverpool

This chapter analyses the extent to which the notion of social responsibility through leadership has been embraced by Bristol and Liverpool mayors, as the only elected mayors in England’s core cities, operationalised through the broad framing principles of accountability, integrity, dependability, and authenticity. At the macro level, whilst the Localism Act 2011 enables the mayors to deliver authentic solutions during times of austerity, there is no sense of real devolution of powers from Whitehall, calibrated by the risk-averse provisions under the Public Sector (Social Value) Act 2012. At the meso level, the discussion pivots around the transformation of mayoral relationships with non-state actors, from co-production of the public services to co-determination of the local decision-making. At the micro level, socially responsible leadership has been theorised from the citizens’ expectation viewpoint, such as paving the way, inspiring a shared vision, and challenging the status quo.


Introduction
The concept of social responsibility in leadership has not been frequently articulated in the policy and politics debate. I argue such a concept emerges from, and entails notions of accountability (Cameron and Caza, 2005), integrity (Badaracco and Ellsworth, 1986), dependability (Meindl and Ehrlich, 1987), and authenticity (Freeman and Auster, 2011), which comprises large second-tier English cities where for two decades, they have shared best practices in the political governance and have lobbied the national government on issues relating to economic development (Meegan et al, 2014). Yet, both leaders are different in their social leadership approaches. Their applications are context driven and locally contingent. As such, the comparative perspective that this chapter adds nuances how we theorise social responsibilities in leadership.
Using Hudson and Lowe's (2004) model of governance, the chapter will explore the convergence of the socially responsible leadership concept from three levels: the macro level (national level), meso level (city governance), and the micro level (city electorates). It will use several broad framing principles, such as accountability, integrity, dependability, and authenticity, to support the comparative analysis.
The chapter begins by mapping out the emergence of socially responsible leadership from the statutory framework at the macro level. It will highlight a tension in the legal structure between, on the one hand, the Localism Act 2011 in addressing the prevailing fiscal austerity, and on the other hand, the battle against the real lack of power conferred from Whitehall and the risk-averse framework under the Public Sector (Social Value) Act 2012.
It then goes on to explore the relationship of the mayors with their political networks at the meso level, particularly with the non-state actors. Here, consideration will be given to how successful both Mayors Ferguson and Anderson have been in transforming the two-way relationship from a mere co-production of the local services to co-determination of the local decision-making with stakeholders.
In the final section, the discussion will shift towards local electorates' perception at the micro level. As such, both Mayor Ferguson and Mayor Anderson's leadership experiences will be benchmarked against the three traits of social leadership, namely paving the way, inspiring a shared vision, and challenging the status quo within the urban governance context. The analysis within this chapter will draw upon publically available evidence, documents, and statements, to operationalise the public representations of the mayors from the external locus point of view. Whilst this may be viewed as a limitation of the study, it provides a fair depiction of the mayors in observing their social responsibilities in their local leadership, taking into account the distinct variations reflecting the political conditions and the individual aspirations of the mayors for their city.

Macro level: facing the reality of Localism
At the macro level, social responsibility in leadership is enshrined through the statutory framework of Localism Act 2011, which devolves the central responsibilities back to the local realm in 2010, albeit bucking the trend of the UK constitutional landscape.
The government opined: [W]e share a conviction that the days of big government are over; that centralisation and top-down control have proved a failure. We believe that the time has come to disperse power more widely in Britain today; to recognise that we will only make progress if we help people come together to make life better. In short, it is our ambition to distribute power and opportunity to people rather than hoarding authority within government (HM Government, 2010 7).
In effect, the 2011 Act codifies the notion of socially responsible leadership, whereby such a concept no longer enjoys a normative, non-binding, and soft power status. Section 1(1) of the 2011 Act mandates a 'general power of competence', where directly elected mayors are given more freedom to work with their political networks, to deliver creativity, authenticity, and innovation to meet local people's needs.
The autonomy to act is key. Rather conveniently, this apparatus was established at the critical time when, following a 'baptism of fire', both Ferguson and Anderson faced an uphill struggle in mitigating the impact of urban austerity across Bristol and Liverpool. Consequent to the central government's proposal of a £5.5 billion reduction in the budget for local government (HM Treasury, 2010), the budget cuts were set at £83 million in Bristol, after accounting for greater tax revenues and changes to government funding (BBC: 2014). The cuts in Liverpool were almost double that of Bristol, where Mayor Anderson was tasked to find a further £156 million of savings by March 2018 (Liverpool Echo, 2015).
As a response, Mayors Ferguson and Anderson may exercise the mandated general power of competence by delegating the service delivery functions of the councils to the non-state actors. Section 81(1) of the same Act can be triggered by the non-state actors to acquire the right to express an interest in taking over the running of a local authority service, where the local authority must consider and respond to this challenge; and where it accepts it, and runs a procurement exercise for the service in which the challenging organisation can bid. Here, there is a movement towards co-production, which ensures greater collaboration in urban governance, claimed to become 'a hegemonic discourse' (Skelcher and Sullivan, 2008: 41), with the use of partnerships as the mechanism of choice when it comes to implementing most public initiatives (Turrini et al, 2010). Some scholars argue that integrated service delivery increases the capacity to respond to local challenges and thus should be the way forward in the local urban governance. Hambleton and Howard (2012) are even optimistic that if public services can be co-delivered by state and voluntary and community sector organisations working in partnership more effectively, there is no reason for the alliances not being able to grow the resources available to improve the quality of life in an area, even a time of fiscal austerity.
Nevertheless, it can be argued that the 2011 Act's provisions remain too aspirational, and run the risk of being yet another political rhetoric of the Coalition government. None of these statutory provisions has been formally activated by any mayors across England, nor by nonstate actors since receiving a royal assent on 15th November 2011. Perhaps they are too ambitious for the mayors and other network actors to implement. Furthermore, along with provisions in the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 which introduces directly-elected mayors to combined local authorities in England and Wales, it can also be viewed as a tool of convenience for the Coalition to delegate the neoliberal politics of austerity, rather than a genuine apparatus that can be used by both mayors to further embrace the cause for social responsibilities and make the real differences to the local areas.
The failure of the Localism agenda in this context is two-fold. Perhaps tellingly, the overcentralised state remains deeply entrenched within the local government, without a major increase in local power for the mayors to exercise. This has, to a certain extent, hindered the implementation of localism rhetoric, not only in Bristol and Liverpool, but across the areas of urban governance. Hambleton and Sweeting (2004) once entered a caveat that whilst we seem to notice the lift and shift of the US-style local leadership and decision-making model into the UK political landscape, the central government still dictates the majority of the local decision-making. This then leaves very little room for the mayors to maneuver which resonates with the University of Liverpool's study: English directly-elected mayors still lack the taxation and spending powers to make a real difference, compared to their transatlantic friends such as New York Mayor, Bill de Basio, where 69% of the city income is generated through the local regeneration of funding (Harding et al, 2013).
At the same time, the wide power for the mayors under section 1(1) of the 2011 Act is hampered by the introduction of the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, just 68 days after the 2011 Act was enacted. The 2012 Act chiefly confines the interpretation of the socioeconomic impact of the local mayors' decision's impact on the matters pertaining to commissioning and procurement of local services only. Furthermore, the 2012 Act encourages the mayors to be risk-averse, by requiring them to conduct impact assessments of their commissioning decisions on the local community. It was therefore not surprising when a survey found that 83% of English local authorities did not quantify social value within procurement practices (Dobson, 2012), which resembles lack of coherence in embodying the social value virtues under the 2012 Act, reinforcing the rhetoric of the Localism agenda at the macro level of governance.
Without a real sense of devolution of powers to the mayors, and constriction of innovation under the 2012 Act, it is impossible to see the applicability of the Localism concept as advanced under the 2011 Act in mayoral governance, especially in Bristol and Liverpool. In this respect, it is highly questionable whether the provisions under the 2011 Act, which was once seen to be capable of 'delivering a radically different form of local governance' (Lowndes and Pratchett, 2012, 22), can aid the mayors in embracing socially responsible leadership in their urban governance context.

Meso level: making the leap of faith from co-production and co-determination
Compared to the macro level, the concept of socially responsible leadership moves more organically and arguably, more effectively at the meso level through the evolution from 'coproduction' of local services to the 'co-determination' of local decision-making.
Such a movement is catalysed by the steering from Whitehall, through the visionary idea of 'Big Society' by central government, caricatured around social action, public sector reform, community enablement, direct financial aid from the central government to charities, and removing the roadblocks that hinder the implementation of local initiatives (Cabinet Office: 2010). Such an aspiration inevitably renews the shift in paradigm from 'local government' to 'local governance', and emerges through the reduction of the functions for local authorities, which is axiomatic of the growth of other bodies at the local level (Stoker, 1998). Here, we seem to witness the increasing trend of the voluntary and community sector organisations in acting extra-politically to deliver local services.
Mayors Ferguson and Anderson have fully embraced co-production of the public services with the non-state actors, which runs parallel to the principal-agent relationship discourse (Buse et al, 2012 Here, Bristol chooses a conventional mode of governance: co-production of local services through the pooled budgets with strategic partners and delivery of services through the voluntary and community sector organisations. In contrast, the movement in Liverpool is even bolder. Mayor Anderson established the Mayoral Development Corporation that unites partners from the private, voluntary, and other public sectors to drive growth and development in the city (Liverpool Vision: 2013), which signifies the transformation from co-production to co-determination of the local decision-making process.
Distinguishing Bristol and Liverpool mayors' experience illuminates an underlying struggle that requires the decision-makers to embrace 'a paradigm shift…to ensure that the non-state actors can take part in the co-determination of the decision-making process' (Pugh, 2011: 14). At the same time, there is a question whether the non-state actors are capable of submitting themselves to the Big Society challenges. The leap of faith in question perhaps stems from what Hayman (2011) proposes: there are still doubts about whether social enterprises are capable of delivering the public services on a scale that the government wishes, which requires a change in the mindset of the mayors. Trust and confidence are key to the success of the relationship to transform from a mere co-production to co-determination, with the mayors still maintaining the chain of accountability of the local governance, as witnessed in the Liverpool context.
We also witness the emergence of the voluntary and community sector organisations as the new pathway of social consciousness by local people, to translate the individual interests into collective and public issues, whose relationship to rights is most precarious. These organisations act as a 'sounding board' for a specific cause that seeks to influence the public policy design and operation (Grant, 1989). In this instance, the use of the voluntary and community sector organisations as the social consciousness mechanism demands the mayors be accountable towards their decisions, and in turn, equalises the bargaining power between the mayors and the local residents. It also summons them to address the strategic leadership challenge facing the locality, as well as empowers them to make tough decisions that call upon their dependability and integrity. On the other hand, this apparatus is generally a passive mechanism that must be activated by citizens; it requires a commitment of time and resources. People may feel intimidated using them unless they are widely institutionalised (Danet, 1981). They may have little interest in participating in the democratic debate, which outweighs the benefits (Osmani, 2007).
Perhaps, the social consciousness concept is still at its infancy with some continual growth witnessed in Bristol and Liverpool. It will require time to see if the area develops further in the future, along with its impact on the urban governance.

Micro level: theorising electorate expectations
At the micro level, it is contended that the social responsibilities in leadership arise from the local electorate expectations. Borrowing from Kouzes and Posner (2002), both Mayor Ferguson and Mayor Anderson will be benchmarked against three universal keys of social leadership traits: paving the way; inspiring a shared vision; and challenging the process.
These traits indicate a thicket of good governance indicators for mayoral leadership, which may reassure some ardent critics that there is enough evidence of the positive benefits of elected mayors on the local residents (Marsh, 2012;Fenwick, 2013).

Paving the way
Paving the way refers to the expectation of the local residents that the mayors will make things happen in their cities. This can be seen from Bristol and Liverpool's regeneration plan, demonstrating their authenticity and creativity in managing the cities' resources. Upon reflection, the unwillingness of the central government to listen to these mayors' quests for the high-speed rail is remarkably specious. Despite the political endorsement in the roles of mayoral leadership at the macro level, the lack of courage to support these local leaders indicates the reluctance of the central government in listening to the local areas, which shows the lack of real sense of devolution of powers from Whitehall to both Bristol and Liverpool.
In fact, there should be a scope for a bargain between the mayors and the central government, which requires more persuasion and mature discussion at the national level in order to sustain the longevity of the mayoral governance in the local areas. Without political support and appropriate incentives for these mayors, conducive and sufficient conditions for effective observation of socially responsible leadership are not provided at the micro level, and it will be difficult for the central government to maintain its position considering the public endorsement of the mayoral prefecture in the urban governance.

Inspiring a shared vision
Inspiring a shared vision involves aligning the local residents and strategic partners to support the mayoral visions for the local areas. Hambleton and Bullock (1996: 8-9) assert that a good leader is able to express a clear vision for the area, by setting out an agenda of what the future of the area should be, by formulating a strategic policy direction, and by listening to local people and leadership.
Mayor Ferguson is seen to be more creative in engaging with the local electorates compared to his Liverpool counterpart. An interactive, two way collaborative approach between Mayor Ferguson and the local residents transpired when the former launched Ideas Lab in 2013, which generated more than 300 innovative ideas from the residents for the city (Bristol City Council: 2013b). The mayor empowered the local residents to come up with innovative ideas in the hope of informing the Mayor's Vision for Bristol, a plan that sets out his priorities to make Bristol better for its citizens: a healthier city, with improved transport, better connected neighbourhoods, a stronger focus on education and training, more jobs and homes, more involved citizens, and more power to make decisions locally (Bristol City Council: 2013a;Bristol City Council: 2013c). Such an authentic move at the micro level is also congruent with Stoker's contextualisation of soft power in inspiring a vision, which is 'the power to get other people to share your ideas and vision via framing, influencing, bargaining and diplomacy' (Stoker, 1998: 27-8

Challenging the Process
Finally, challenging the process refers to the capability of the local mayors in challenging the status quo of the political architype. Challenging the status quo is particularly pertinent to Mayor Ferguson, who stands in as an independent candidate, compared to Mayor Anderson who stands as a Labour party candidate. Freedom from group discipline provides 'a basis for a stronger, more proactive and individualised style of leadership than over models of local government leadership' (Leach et al, 2005), despite the fact that partisanship politics is a crucial characteristic of English local government (Mouritzen and Svara, 2002) and that scholars have insisted that it remain a dominant feature (Leach et al, 2005).
Here, Mayor Ferguson uses his independence as a strategy to convince the public that the citizens are at the heart of the decision-making process rather than implementing self-serving activities that may resemble loyalty to the governing parties, which is notably in line with the notion of integrity and accountability.
However, whilst being free from the need to form tactical coalitions to stay in power and be able to provide clear and decisive leadership, the problem also presents itself when a candidate is party-neutral. Evidenced through his struggle in forming a 'rainbow cabinet' post the mayoral election, Mayor Ferguson was met with initial rejection from the Labour party, when they refused to be part of his leadership team, by insisting that it would provide a healthy political environment as a self-elected scrutiny group (Bristol Post, 2012).
Benjamin's (1998) theory on self-identity will be operationalised to contextualise Ferguson's experience: In trying to establish itself as an independent entity, the self must yet recognise the other as a subject like itself in order to be recognised by the other…In its encounter with the other, the self-wishes to affirm its absolute independence even though its need for the other and the other's similar wish to undercut that affirmation (1998: 32).
In this context, Mayor Ferguson has a challenge in mediating between the acceptability of his political network of his freedom from political affiliation, whilst being able to use his departure from the party line to challenge the status quo in the governance of urban polity, something that is not an issue to Mayor Anderson. Hambleton and Sweeting (2004) have aptly reasoned that despite being unconstrained by party discipline, Mayor Ferguson has the tasks to appeal to popular sentiment if he wishes to be re-elected. Thus, a balancing act is required to acting neutrally, which reflects the nature of integrity and to appeal to the popular sentiment.
The table below shows a comparison between Bristol and Liverpool mayors according to the broad framing principles of social responsibility in leadership of accountability, integrity, dependability, and authenticity at the macro, meso, and micro levels: Opted for a conventional model of co-production: pooling of budgets with public sector partners and commissioning of services through the voluntary and community sector organisations. Such a struggle demonstrates the lack of courageousness of the central government to listen to the local mayors, which can stem from reluctance to devolve more powers to the local areas, reinforcing political rhetoric of the Localism.