Transformational Leadership as a Source of Participatory Governance

The purpose of this article is to justify the new role of the municipal official, i.e. the role of a transformation leader, whose activity is increasingly connected with the introduction of participatory governance, with the development of citizen participation and through this participation, progressive changes in the local community and the municipality as a whole. The method of research was theoretical analysis of foreign experience in the use of social technologies at the local level, which made it possible to form a theoretical model of transformational leadership. The formation of such a model is important from the point of view of developing key competencies of municipal officials in the near future. Empirical support for the theoretical analysis was obtained through content analysis of documents published on the website of the Governor of St. Petersburg (https://www. gov.spb.ru/governor). The research made it possible to conclude that transformational leadership behavior of municipal authorities is aimed at increasing the participatory nature of governance, the mission of valence in the ratio of clear and attractive development priorities at the municipal, regional and federal levels with the interests of local communities. The constant need to solve new social and political problems and contradictions by municipal leaders means a continuous search for a balance between efficiency and fairness, and the effectiveness of this balance depends on the transformational potential of municipal managers. The participatory style of municipal management implies that transformation leaders use social technologies for public participation in state and municipal management. Transformational leadership is based on the principles of democracy, efficiency, effectiveness, openness, rule of law, ethics, competence, innovation, sustainability, performance, and accountability. It makes it possible to replenish the deficit of public resources, which is increasing due to economic crises, as well as unjustified and excessive expansion of social services and the number of their recipients. Transformative leadership involves reaching consensus among different social groups, finding a balance between economic rationality and social justice, between extensive growth and environmentally friendly sustainable development. This becomes the main task of any level of government, primarily the municipal government as the closest to the place where problems arise and the search for optimal solutions.

1. Ageeva A. N. Participative social technologies for making municipal management decisions in foreign countries // Juvenis scientia. 2017. N 8. P. 38‒41. (In rus)

2. Sintomer Y., Herzberg C., Röcke A., Allegretti G. Partisipative budget and its diversity // Municipality: economics and management [Munitsipalitet: ekonomika i upravlenie]. 2013. N 2. P. 5‒23. (In rus)

3. Giddens E. A slipping world: how globalization is changing our lives. M.: The whole world, 2004. (In rus)

4. Erashova O. V. Issues of strategic development of municipalities // Bulletin of the Samara Municipal Institute of Management [Vestnik Samarskogo munitsipal’nogo instituta upravleniya]. 2016. N 1. P. 39‒44. (In rus)

5. Zakirova Yu. A., Khusnutdinova S. R., Kasimova A. R. Methodology of participative design of the urban environment in modern Russian urban planning // Izvestia KazSASU [Izvestiya KazGASU]. 2016. N 1 (35). P. 81‒86. (In rus)

6. Karlina A. A., Ryazanov D. I. Partisipative principles of public management of the socio-economic development of the city // Bulletin of the Samara Municipal Institute of Management [Vestnik Samarskogo munitsipal’nogo instituta upravleniya]. 2016. N 4. P. 44‒51.

7. Lapygin Yu. N., Lapygin D. Yu. Management decisions. M.: Eksmo, 2009. (In rus)

8. Perezolova A. S. Practices of partisipative management in public policy // Bulletin of RUDN. Series: Political Science [Vestnik RUDN. Seriya: Politologiya]. 2018. N 1. P. 122‒130. (In rus)

9. Sadovnikova N. P., Sanzhapov B. Kh., Parygin D. S., Gnedkova E. P. Partisipative management of city development. Mechanisms of implementation based on information technologies // Biosphere compatibility: Man, region, technologies [Biosfernaya sovmestimost’: Chelovek, region, tekhnologii]. 2013. №3. P. 80‒85. (In rus)

10. Sergeeva S. Yu. Dynamics of social activity of associations of citizens in modern Russia. Results of expert survey // Bulletin of the International Market Institute [Vestnik Mezhdunarodnogo instituta rynka]. 2016. N 1. P. 137‒143. (In rus)

11. Shamakhov V. A., Balashov A. I. New socio-political normality and lessons in modernization of the post-Soviet public administration system // Administrative consulting [Upravlencheskoe konsul’tirovanie]. 2016. N 12. P. 6‒15. (In rus)

12. Ansell C., Gash A. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Re search and Theory. 2008. 18. P. 543–571.

13. Aragonès E., Sanchéz-Pagés S. A Model of Participatory Democracy: Understanding the Case of Porto Alegre. European Economic Review.2005. 53 (1). P. 1–43.

14. Bardhan P., Mookherjee D. Capture and governance at local and national levels. American Economic Review. 2000. 90 (2). P. 135–139.

15. Barnes M., Newman J., Knops A., Sullivan H. Constituting “the public” in public participation. Public Administration. 2003. 81. P. 379–399.

16. Borja J., Castells M. Local and Global. The Management of Cities in the Information Age. London : Earthscan & Habitat, 1997

17. Boulding C., Wampler B. Voice, votes, and resources: Evaluating the effect of participatory democracy on well-being. World Development. 2009. 38. P. 125–135.

18. DeCaro F. A., Stokes M. K. Public Participation and Institutional Fit: A Social-Psychological Perspective. Ecology and Society. 2013. 18 (4). P. 40.

19. Fischer F. Citizens, Experts, and the Environment. The Politics of Local Knowledge. Durham : Duke University Press, 2000.

20. Foth M., Brynskov M. Participatory action research for civic engagement. In: Gordon E., Mihailidis P. (eds.). Civic media: Technology, design, practice. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press, 2016.

21. Ganuza E., Baiocchi G. The Power of Ambiguity: How Participatory Budgeting Travels the Globe. Journal of Public Deliberation. 2012. 8 (2). P. 1–12.

22. Goodhart M., Fung A., Gauri V. Democratic Imperatives: Innovations in Rights, Participation, and Economic Citizenship. Washington, DC : American Political Science Association, 2012.

23. Innes J. E., Booher D. E. (). Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory & Practice. 2004. 5. (4). P. 419–436.

24. Kübler D., Rochat P. E., Woo S. Y., van der Heiden N. Strengthen governability rather than deepen democracy: why local governments introduce participatory governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences. 2019.

25. Kwaja A. I. Can good projects succeed in bad communities? Journal of Public Economics. 2009. 93 (7–8). P. 899–916.

26. Mahadevia D. Institutionalising spaces for negotiations for the urban poor: New vocabulary for urban planning. Inclusive Urban Planning: State of the Urban Poor Report 2013. New Delhi : Oxford University Press, 2014.