The influence of mayoral power on the electrification of transport infrastructure : comparative analysis of Amsterdam and London

(1)

June 2018

The influence of

mayoral power on

the electrification of

transport

infrastructure

(Comparative

analysis of

Amsterdam and

London)

Master Thesis Political Science,

International Relations

Joe Chambers

11420618

Supervisor: Philip Schleifer

Second Reader: John Grin

Research Project: Transnational Sustainability

Governance

(2)

(3)

2

6.3. Decision making ... 38 6.4. Institutional Arrangements ... 40 6.5. Conclusion ... 43 7. Discussion ... 45 7.1. First Hypothesis ... 45 7.2. Second Hypothesis ... 45 7.3. Third Hypothesis ... 46 7.4. Conclusion ... 48 8. Acknowledgement ... 51 9. Bibliography ... 52 10. Appendix ... 56 10.1. Contact Information ... 56

(5)

4

List of Abbreviations

AKEF- Amsterdam Climate & Energy Fund

AUAS- Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences C40- C40 cities

GLA- Greater London Authority

OFLEV- Office for Low Emission Vehicles RVO- Netherlands Enterprise Agency TFL- Transport for London

ULEZ- Ultra-Low Emission Zone UK- United Kingdom

(6)

5

Does mayoral power impact the

facilitative leadership capacity and

effectiveness in transitioning a city to

electric vehicles?

1. Introduction

The aim of this research is to discover whether mayoral power impacts a mayor’s ability to be a facilitative leader in the transport policy domain. This was built on the supposition that a facilitative leader was the most effective form of leadership with regards to transnational sustainability governance (Svara, 2003, Gains et al, 2009, Teles, 2014). This form of leadership is about giving direction and then mobilising various stakeholders (Svara, 2003). In modern transnational sustainability governance, cities in particular have become more important as leading actors. However across cities, mayors have different approaches and levels of power, this research aims to understand the dynamics that exist between mayoral power and their ability to be a facilitative leader and effectively govern in the urban context. A real world context to which the topic of mayoral power and facilitative leadership can be applied to is the area of electric vehicles and sustainable transport, this will be the basis for measuring the real world utility of mayoral power and facilitative leadership.

Since the end of the 1990’s there has been a proliferation of changes to the powers of mayors in the UK (Fenwick and Elcock, 2014, Sweeting, 2002) which brings into question whether greater mayoral power is more effective in transnational sustainability governance. This research will explore two perspectives of urban governance and leadership that relate to how power is exercised by a mayor. The central research question that underpins this work is ‘Does mayoral power impact the

facilitative leadership capacity and effectiveness in transitioning a city to electric vehicles? The two concepts of leadership reviewed are ‘Power over’ and ‘Power to’ (John and Cole, 1999). ‘Power over’ is about dictating, while the ‘Power to’ exercises their power to enable other actors. What is yet underexplored is which level of mayoral power is most conducive to facilitative leadership and which is most effective in the transport policy domain. The two cases of Amsterdam and London offer a good base to compare different levels of power and varying institutional arrangements and deducing what is effective in the electric vehicle transition. For instance, London, which on the surface seems

(7)

6 to have greater ‘power over’ the various stakeholders is a contrast from Amsterdam, which gives ‘power to’ the various stakeholders (Sweeting, 2002), two approaches to the same goal of reducing emissions. For instance in London, the mayor has more executive power than the mayor in

Amsterdam (Sweeting, 2002, Fenwick and Elcock, 2014). But the question remains how best can mayors govern and utilise their power and institutional architecture to have an effective and successful transition to the electrification of transport and specifically electric vehicles. Urban governance leadership nowadays requires leaders such as mayors to bring together a range of stakeholders and actively influence the dynamics of the market as much as is deemed necessary in their city context (Svara, 2003, Teles 2014, Gains et al, 2009, Sweeting, 2002). This research aims to compare the contrasting styles of mayoral power and leadership and measure its impact on its facilitative leadership capacity, the ability to work with the broad range of stake holders in cities today. Exploring the issue of electric vehicles as a basis for study into the complex dynamics within city governance and how this impacts the effectiveness of sustainability.

This research suggests that mayoral power does have an impact on the facilitative leadership capacity of a mayor but that a very important factor is the context of each city. London and Amsterdam are cities with ambitious goals regarding reducing emissions and this can be

demonstrated through their membership to the C40 cities organisation. Comparing these cities has demonstrated that both ‘power over’ and ‘power to’ (John and Cole, 1999) have their place in effective leadership in this policy domain but also reflect the two nation’s attitudes towards individual leadership (Karsten and Hendriks, 2017). The key contextual factors that differ are the profile of the mayor, the institutional arrangements and size of the city. I refer to Amsterdam as a city more than I do London where I refer to the mayor, this is a real reflection of how the different approaches create an emphasis on different areas of leadership from an individual leader to the city and its council.

This thesis will first introduce the research question which drives this paper. I will then address the current debate about mayoral power and facilitative leadership in the literature review. This debates the perspectives that would advocate greater mayoral power and those who believe that greater emphasis of facilitating is most effective in urban governance. Following this I will establish my theoretical framework that will guide the analysis, focusing on the concepts of mayoral power and facilitative leadership and the criteria by which it will be analysed. This will be followed by a chapter for each case, first, Amsterdam followed by London which addresses the hypotheses and the sub questions. Finally, a discussion based around my earlier stated hypotheses in relation to the cases will lead to a conclusion.

(8)

7

1.2. Research Question

Does mayoral power impact the facilitative leadership capacity and effectiveness in transitioning a city to electric vehicles?

With the following sub-questions:

 What are the different approaches to leadership by mayors in C40 cities?

Amsterdam and London are both progressive cities and are both members of C40, an organisation comprised of cities with ambitions to improve environmentally and reduce emissions. However the Dutch and British attitudes towards mayors differs substantially.  How do different institutional arrangements effect a mayor’s ability to lead in the

transport policy domain?

Institutional arrangements are the framework by which mayors have their power and their ability to lead, comparing different systems can highlight what aspects of the institutional arrangements are important for leadership in transport policy.

 How should the mayors with different levels of power best lead to bring about a successful

transition in their electric vehicle goals?

Understanding both perspectives for ‘power over’ and ‘power to’ leadership may allow for this research to present recommendations for mayors depending on the leadership style and context.

1.3. Relevance

The relevance of this research is its application to urban governance in particular furthering the research on the concept of facilitative leadership (Greasley and Stoker, 2008, Svara, 2003, Teles 2014, Gains et al, 2009). This research also looks to build on various authors work (Greasley and Stoker, 2008, Svara, 2003, Teles 2014, Gains et al, 2009), who discuss the emergence of new forms of urban leadership, that are better suited for dealing with the complexity of urban governance. This issue incorporates the energy sector, automotive industry, municipalities and civil society groups. This thesis explores the role of the city mayor in transnational sustainability governance and draws on the debate about the merits of reform, largely drawn from the example of the UK and London (Fenwick and Elcock, 2014, Sweeting, 2002). The new UK system is being compared with Amsterdam, a city with an alternative system but yet seemingly no less effective in the area of electric vehicles. With regards to real world and sustainability relevance much of the literature around electric vehicles has been largely drawn from the examples of Nordic nations such as Norway and Sweden (Nilsson and Nykvist, 2016, Figenbaum, 2017) which are useful as a reference but will not be entirely

(9)

8 transferable to the context of London and Amsterdam which itself should be studied to understand the dynamics of these cities. It now seems apparent that the real impediment to a successful

transition to low emission vehicles such as electric vehicles is no longer being able to show the value of electric vehicles as a viable technology (Amsterdam Smart City, 2018), but assessing from now on who will be best placed to show leadership and enforce the necessary steps to make it sustainable and scalable (Tamis, 2018). When transport becomes electrified it will help to reduce emissions and oil dependency but in turn will create new issues such as new standards, energy usage,

infrastructure and behavioural changes (Kester, 2017).

2. Literature Review

2.1. Introduction

The rise in importance of urban cities in transnational sustainability governance calls for a greater understanding of the dynamics of governance in these cities. Since the millennium there have been some significant changes to the institutional architecture and powers of mayors. In countries like the UK a proliferation of changes to the powers of mayors (Sweeting, 2002) brings into question

whether greater mayoral power is more effective in transnational sustainability governance. This research aims to compare the contrasting styles of mayoral power and leadership and measure its impact on its facilitative leadership (Svara, 2003) capacity, the ability to work in a more open, flexible and networked fashion with the broad range of stake holders in cities today (John and Cole, 1999). In particular there is a need for greater knowledge about how different institutional setups impact the transport policy domains in urban contexts, with particular focus on the rise of electric vehicles in cities. This literature review will explore two perspectives of urban leadership that can be described as how power is exercised by a mayor. The two forms of leadership reviewed are ‘Power over’ and ‘Power to’ (John and Cole, 1999), the former being more representative of acting for others to follow, while the latter exercises their power with other actors. What is yet underexplored is which level of mayoral power is most conducive to facilitative leadership and which is most effective in the transport policy domain. Leadership in urban governance has become far more expansive and requires interaction with stakeholders from business, communities and NGO’s (Sweeting, 2002). What is yet underexplored is, does the level of power a mayor has at their disposal, as a result of institutional arrangements for example, help or hinder a cities progress in the realm of electric transport. The issue is to what degree should mayors intervene or drive transitions to electric transport, what is the best balance between harnessing innovation and picking a winner and backing it till it succeeds. If mayors can reduce risk for other partners they may take the risk on themselves

(10)

9 but it may be possible to find a synergy between the complex array of actors that can reduce

barriers to technology, such as cost and infrastructure (Trutnevyte et al, 2015). The motive behind this literature review is to better understand how to utilise the governance architectures and if necessary change and alter institutional arrangements and policy decisions.

This review will present prevalent themes in the literature surrounding the topic of urban governance and more specifically mayors. These themes are based on work by John and Cole (1999) who defines the continuum of power and its use by mayors. On each end of the

spectrum is ‘power over’ and ‘power to’, which will be discussed in more

depth in their sections. These typologies of leadership are an effective way to address the major themes in mayoral power and leadership, as they address the two major perspectives of how a mayor should lead. Following this the concept of facilitative leadership will be discussed (Svara, 2003), a type of leadership that is a response to the complexity of modern urban leadership. This research intends to find the relationship that the typologies of power discussed in John and Cole (1999) have on the ability to be a facilitative leader as described by Svara (2003). Whilst some literature is built around the mayoral power changes in London, it is worth noting the clear

distinction between the perceptions of what a mayor is or should be in Anglo-Saxon nations, in this instance the UK, presents a stark contrast to the perception in the Netherlands (Sweeting, 2002, Karsten and Hendriks, 2017, Fenwick and Elcock, 2014). These contexts will be considered in the case studies.

2.2. Power over

This section will review the different perspectives about power and leadership that mayors can utilise and develop. I will present arguments to suggest the effectiveness of giving more mayoral power and also why others push for the concept of facilitative leadership. Power in the mayoral context derives largely from the institutional framework of the office and the constitution and laws (John and Cole, 1999) but can also come from the mayors own personality and background (Teles, 2014). By first discussing the concept of ‘power over’ and then ‘power to’, it is possible to see the merits of each approach towards leadership. When the emphasis is on ‘power over’ (John and Cole,

(11)

10 1999), leadership is more on directing and controlling the behaviour of others. Authors such as Ahman (2006) and Trutnevyte et al (2015) would advocate the idea of utilising power and policy to drive and push the direction of change. As discussed earlier the context is important for

understanding where the power to act in this form comes from. For instance Svara (2003) observes that a mayor’s power and influence grows in accordance with the size of the city, an interesting factor to consider for the two cases. With the changes in the UK creating the first elected mayor in London (Fenwick and Elcock, 2014), greater powers were given to the mayor. Along with the institutional alterations the new mandate also gives the directly elected mayor a mandate which is an enabling factor for acting in a ‘power over’ typology (Gains et al, 2009, John and Cole, 1999). Has this made the mayor more effective? Gains et al (2009) conducted research around this area measuring the impact of these changes and found that with an increase in power and position the decision making time of the mayor had become quicker. Perhaps suggesting that greater powers can be more effective for decision making. This research also looked at how the increased level of power effected partnerships, particularly important in urban governance and a fundamental aspect of being a facilitative leader (Svara, 2003, Teles, 2014). Gains et al (2009) find that whilst there is no significant differences in how mayors engage with external partners as a result of more powers, those leaders with fewest powers were considered more susceptible to influence from other stakeholders. The question that stems from this is whether greater power is more conducive to forming partnerships and leading in urban governance. Would a mayor with more power be more effective in leading a wide range of stakeholders towards the same goal by directing and controlling or as will be discussed next by focusing on ‘power to’ (John and Cole, 1999).

2.3. Power to and Facilitative Leadership

Gains et al (2009) think that the debate about ‘strong leadership’ can be misleading and distracts from the more important debate around what constitutes effective urban governance. Many authors agree that to be most effective in urban governance leaders must develop cooperation with a range of stakeholders (Teles, 2014, Svara, 2003, Gains et al, 2009) but is having significant power over these partners or giving power to them most effective. Power to as discussed by John and Cole (1999) is about exercising power so that other stakeholders can exercise their own potential

(Sweeting, 2002), in a sense to facilitate the actions of others. This fits with the form of leadership widely featured in literature around mayors, Facilitative leadership (Svara, 2003, Teles 2014, Gains et al, 2009). This form of leadership. ‘power to’ is not about the direct exercise of detailed influence or control over decision-making, but rather it is about giving direction and then mobilising the

(12)

11 of power enables certain actors to blend their capacities to achieve common purposes (Gains et al, 2009). Whilst this emphasis seems to be on facilitating, I don’t want to commit to thinking this is necessarily always the best way to be a facilitative leader. A facilitative leader ‘promotes positive interaction and a high level of communication among officials in city government and with the public and also provides guidance in goal setting and policy making’ (Svara, 2003). This type of leadership is a response to the growing regime complexity and the need to interact with an ever greater range of stakeholders, from business, NGO’s and local communities (Sweeting, 2002). As towards the debate about whether to empower mayors, Svara (2003) believes that by leading in a ‘power to’ way is more effective than needing to effect the current institutions themselves to give the mayor more powers and empowering mayors could also serve to cause discontent amongst other actors. However, Gains et al (2009) discuss the change in the mayoral powers in the UK and find there to not have the undesirable effects of exploitation of those powers. They also argue that simply giving more powers to a mayor is itself not sufficient to be an effective leader but the context and

capabilities of the mayor are more important a view echoed by Teles (2014). Perhaps the growing interest in facilitative leadership is driven by the reality of modern contexts where cities have grown so complex the structures that exist simply can’t work without being cooperative with a complex network of actors particularly in the area of sustainability (Greasley and Stoker, 2008, Sweeting, 2002, Teles, 2014). Moving on to the next section discussing these perspectives applied to a real world context.

2.4. Conclusion

Urban governance is becoming more significant particularly in the realm of sustainability, the lead cities take towards reducing emissions is pivotal in curbing climate change and as cities grow more important the role of mayor becomes more significant too (Greasley and Stoker, 2008). Mayors have taken a lead in many issues around sustainability as can be demonstrated by the creation of C40, a knowledge sharing organisation designed at driving ambition. But with such contrast between the levels of power and institutional architecture for mayors in different cities, future research as to which system and form of leadership is most effective for sustainability is necessary. This research will explore the domain of electric transport and how well cities have lead in this area. The debate about whether to empower mayors, challenges the notions of leadership and power. Some authors believe more powers for mayors and a more ‘Power over’ approach will mean that they can most proactively control and guide action towards sustainability (Ahman, 2006 and Trutnevyte et al 2015, Gains et al, 2009). Whilst other authors do not think more powers need to be given to mayors but more emphasis should be placed on empowering other stakeholders (Greasley and Stoker, 2008,

(13)

12 Sweeting, 2002, Teles, 2014). What the existing literature does not do is offer a comparative look at contrasting types of power and institutional arrangements and analyse them against a particular policy domain. Perhaps through exploring this area will unearth the fundamental dynamics of effective leadership and how power is best utilised based on context (John and Cole, 1999). Future research should look into how the power of institutions like the mayor’s office can lend itself to facilitative leadership which is widely believed to be a necessary approach to urban governance (Svara, 2003, Teles 2014, Gains et al, 2009, Greasley and Stoker, 2008). This research looks to compare two different systems from city mayors that showcase the contrasting ‘power over’ and ‘power to’ typologies in London and Amsterdam and applying the concept of facilitative leadership to an area of sustainable transport governance.

3. Theoretical Framework

In this section I will establish the theoretical framework that I will use to analyse each case and establish the levels of mayoral power based on the leadership typologies developed by John and Cole (1999) and each cities disposition to facilitative leadership (Svara, 2003). I will briefly describe each concept that will be explored, basing the criteria of what constitutes a facilitative leader on Greasley and Stoker’s (2008) four features of political leadership, with the omission of partisanship. This was not felt to be as significant in the two cases selected. This will then be followed by

hypotheses about the relationship between mayoral power and facilitative leadership.

3.1. Mayoral Power

An important concept to establish is mayoral power as it will be analysed throughout this research. Mayoral power is the independent variable between the two cases of Amsterdam and London, it is commonly accepted that in Amsterdam the power of the mayor is weak by European standards (Karsten and Hendriks, 2017) and in London it is strong (Fenwick and Elcock, 2014). The importance of mayoral power is that it is believed to be conducive towards facilitative leadership (Greasley and Stoker, 2008) and facilitative leadership is most effective for the modern landscape and complexity in urban governance (Teles, 2014). There is a difference in emphasis of ‘power over’ other

stakeholders in London compared to in Amsterdam where the emphasis seems to be more concerned with giving ‘power to’ (John and Cole, 1999, Sweeting, 2002). ‘Power over’ is seen as ‘directing and controlling the behaviour of others’, whereas ‘power to’ is the exercising of power in order for other actors to exercise their potential (John and Cole, 1999). There are also different styles of power defined on continuum between responsive and directive (John and Cole, 1999, Sweeting, 2002). The distinction between these two styles is essentially whether you are reactive,

(14)

13 solving issues after they have arisen or proactive, looking to solve them before they become an issue.

Using John and Cole’s (1999) leadership styles to demonstrate the varying types of power that each mayor has in London and Amsterdam, displays the distinction between a ‘power over’ type mayor and a ‘power to’ type mayor. Amsterdam would fall into the typology of consensual facilitator, generally considered to be responsive to local concerns and focused on building the capacity to respond to local issues (John and Cole, 1999). Visionaries are more concerned with driving agenda’s, but are deemed to have limited decision making power, so this does not seem an appropriate typology for either Amsterdam or London, as both cities can act more decisively than this typology would suggest. Due to the more significant powers and also the more directive approach of London, this mayor would be considered a ‘City boss’. They are well equipped for finding strong and creative solutions. A caretaker is considered to be ineffective at governing complex coalitions in urban governance, this typology also is not reflective of either city (John and Cole, 1999, Sweeting, 2002). It is possible to have elements of different typologies but each mayor has been assigned a more specific role.

Table 1 Amsterdam and London mayor Power Profile Adapted from John and Cole 1999

Leadership Roles In Urban Governance

Types of Power Utilised Responsive or

Directive style

Power Over Power To Responsive Caretaker Consensual facilitator

(Amsterdam)

Directive City boss (London) Visionary

3.2. Facilitative leadership

The dependent variable in this research will be facilitative leadership, this will be measured through three features of leadership largely based on the criteria established by Greasley and Stoker (2008) with the exclusion of partisanship. This is because both mayors are granted significant freedom from their political parties. The three dimensions are: profile and partnership skills, decision making and institutional arrangements (Greasley and Stoker, 2008, Sweeting, 2002). Facilitative leadership is a response to the modern dynamics of tackling issues of sustainability, it is necessary to align

objectives and initiatives to bring about the most effective action. Facilitative leadership looks to build cooperation in the complex networks between business, local government and

(15)

non-14 governmental groups (Svara, 2003, Gains et al, 2009, Teles, 2014). Whilst both the mayor in London and Amsterdam aim to be facilitative leaders both approach it in different ways, Dutch mayors do not give such substantive policy direction and concern themselves more with monitoring the quality of local decision making, quite different to the attitudes in London (Karsten and Hendriks,2017). But the higher ‘power over’ in London may be useful for bringing together other actors (Sweeting, 2002). To monitor what level of power is most conducive to facilitative leadership and which is most

effective will require process tracing. This research is interested in how mayoral power effects facilitative leadership and will use the issue of electric vehicles to establish whether ‘power over’ or ‘power to’ is most conducive to urban governance.

3.3. Profile and Partnership skills

A key criteria of facilitative leadership is the idea of partnership as set out by Greasley and Stoker, (2008). Similar to the idea of ‘Collaborative advantage’ (Sweeting, 2002), this is about aligning the aims of collaborating stakeholders with the aims of the mayor and generating more substantial initiatives as a result. This can be measured qualitatively by analysing various stakeholders’ aims and the degree to which collaboration has altered these aims in line with the mayor’s. It will also be insightful to analyse which actor initiates partnerships. As for profile, the profile of a mayor may be something that effects the desirability of partnerships both positively and negatively. This research aims to find how influential a mayor’s profile is to developing partnerships and how varying levels of power impact the variety and depth of partnerships.

3.4. Decision making

The significance of London having a directly elected mayor is that there is a mandate for their leadership and authority unlike in Amsterdam which is a ‘crown appointment (Karsten and Hendriks, 2017). As mentioned previously the role of the mayor in Amsterdam is more relevant to monitoring the quality of decision making rather than making decisions themselves, due to a Dutch aversion to strong leadership (Karsten and Hendriks, 2017). The mayor of London dominates decision making in the greater London authority, making them a strong leader by European standards (Fenwick and Elcock, 2014). Decision making will be measured qualitatively by sourcing the root of initiatives and where the influential decision to move forward came from.

3.5. Institutional Arrangements

Institutional arrangements are based on Sweeting’s (2002) framework for local leadership. Clearly this is a necessary area to research, the institutional arrangements are themselves the framework by which mayors gather their ability to make decisions and the context in which their mayoral power

(16)

15 derives (Gains et al, 2009). For instance the institutional arrangements in Amsterdam mean that the mayor has very few executive powers and most decision making is vested in the Board of Mayor and Alderman (Karsten and Hendriks, 2017). In the UK there has been a significant change in the

institutional design moving from the traditional council leader model to directly elected city mayors (Fenwick and Elcock, 2014, Greasley and Stoker 2008). This new institutional arrangement has shifted the emphasis on to individual leadership, which has also given greater independence to act outside of their political party parameters supported through their individual mandate.

3.6. Hypotheses

 ‘Power Over’ mayors are more effective in decision making than ‘Power to’ mayors

making them more conducive to being a facilitative leader

I will investigate this hypothesis through measuring the volume and significance of initiatives in the contrasting cases to see which form of mayor is most effective in aligning agendas and actively driving initiatives. Decision making is a key component of facilitative leadership and will be explored to measure whether it has a strong effect on facilitative leadership. Can additional powers and the exercising of them by mayors over stakeholders actually enable them to help other stakeholders act to their potential?

 London’s institutional arrangements make the city more capable of supporting the

upscaling of projects than Amsterdam’s institutional arrangements allow it to be.

Another determinant of facilitative leadership in this research is institutional arrangements. Whilst Amsterdam may seem more focused on a ‘power to’ leadership style, may London’s greater powers actually enable it to take initiatives from small to large more effectively and facilitate stakeholders to exercise their potential whilst acting in a ‘power over’ style. I believe that the institutional arrangements of London will mean that more decisive action and funding can be exercised allowing London to best upscale initiatives from experimentation to mass market. The difference in mayoral power may be most significant in supporting a project to drive public perception of the availability of electric vehicles and the ambition of these projects. Amsterdam may show more reluctance to invest time and money and may look for the market to dictate the course of action.

(17)

16 A mayor that places greatest emphasis on giving ‘power to’ other stakeholders will be able to best facilitate them in utilising their potential and capabilities and ultimately this will lead to greater effectiveness in the transition to electric vehicles.

3.7. Potential Alternative Explanations

Different national level initiatives

It is not always practical to isolate initiatives by city as countries will roll out national agenda’s in accordance to their Paris agreement targets. National level governance may supersede municipal governance and be crucial in shaping targets. Particularly in the case of Amsterdam, which is more in line with wider national goals than London which has more freedom and power to drive its own unique course. This could have an impact on the mayor’s ability to lead in this domain. Whilst the Mayor of London has more executive power than in Amsterdam, there is a recognised need for national level initiatives to help the transition to electric vehicles further, improvements in planning regulations and infrastructure developments would make owning electric vehicles a more

convenient choice (Mayor of London, 2017). There has also been the creation of a governmental department, the Office for Low Emission Vehicles, which together with the Department for Transport launched the on-street residential charge point scheme, which offered funding for local authorities to buy and install electric car charging points (OFLEV, 2018). However, the results nationally so far have been disappointing. It seems apparent that wealth is a strong factor in the uptake and demand on electric vehicles and incentives are needed to drive demand (Morton et al, 2017). London and Amsterdam have more affluent populations than the rest of their countries. Nationally both the Netherlands and the UK offer some form of grants to incentivise the purchasing of electric vehicles for instance in the UK the ‘Electric Vehicle Home charge Scheme, and Plug-in Car Grant which provides up to £4,500 to help motorists make the switch to electric.’ (OFLEV, 2018). This could cause extra tiers on regulation which may have an effect on the ease of implement charging stations in a city. Finally, Visibility of other electric vehicles also has a positive effect on the decision to purchase electric vehicles (Morton et al, 2017). So the more electric vehicles there are in cities like Amsterdam and London the greater chance other residents will imitate the preferences of other residents. National level policies and attitudes towards electric vehicles could be factors that affect the facilitative leadership capacity of a city mayor.

(18)

17

4. Methods, Research Design and Data

This section will explain the research design and the methods by which data was collected as well as the case selection for the comparative case study. In order to answer the question ‘does mayoral power impact facilitative leadership capacity?’, I used the theoretical framework around facilitative leadership established earlier, that is adapted from Sweeting (2002) and Greasley and Stoker (2008) to analyse the impact of

mayoral power on facilitative leadership. Whilst there are more tangible quantitative measurements for electric vehicles themselves, this is predominantly qualitative research project measuring concepts such as power and leadership. Conducting Interviews with various stakeholders enabled the research to reflect different perspectives about the nature of leadership in this field and the role that the mayor plays in each city towards building

partnerships and making influential decisions.

Reviewing policy documents was effective for measuring the activity of each city, cross referencing targets with what has been achieved as well as the various influences of external stakeholders. Due to the fast changing nature of electric vehicles, I had access to numerous documents, many released by the mayor’s office or the municipality themselves, regarding strategy and targets for this policy domain. I was looking for clear signs of the exercise of power, whether it be through decision making, funding but also of partnerships and the extent to which a city prioritised this in their policy output.

Figure 2 London mayoral power (C40)

(19)

18 Both cities are signed up to the C40 initiative and both share progressive and affluent demographics which controls these variables somewhat allowing the variable of mayoral power to be more

prominent for studying its effect on the transition to electric vehicles. In terms of data that relates to mayoral power, initially I have used as a guide, data that is drawn from the C40 website. Figure 2 and 3 show the level of mayoral power in respective categories for both London and Amsterdam, both charts correspond with the impression gathered from the interviews so I believe they portray an accurate view of the mayoral powers in each city. I tried to gain access to the Amsterdam council, its board of alderpersons and mayor but unfortunately I was not able to receive an interview. However, I was able to discuss directly with a member of the municipal electric vehicle team, which may have proven more insightful on the initiatives of the city if not the nature of leadership. I conducted 3 face to face interviews in each case city and also additional phone interviews with representatives from each city. I certainly feel more insight was derived from speaking personally, particularly when issues could be contentious and related to difficulties in this policy domain, particularly important when speaking with the Greater London Authority about the upcoming strategy from the current mayor. Being based in Amsterdam allowed me to be flexible with meeting interviewees for this case but I also travelled to London. I was fortunate enough to be able to meet and interview the former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone who gave me a deep insight into the nature of being a mayor and the context of London. For both cities, interviews were selected to gain perspectives from those who work under and with the mayoral bodies. In the case of Amsterdam, I was able to speak with Amsterdam Smart City, who are funded by the mayor but are heavily involved in initiatives and partnerships with external stakeholders, making them valuable interviewees. In terms of

quantitative data relevant to electric vehicles and their charging stations, there is significant access to data about the increase in vehicles bought and registered at a national level and charging points in each city respectively. This data is a good indicator of the overall confidence in the technology which could be another factor influencing stakeholders. Triangulating interviews with quantitative data strengthened the validity of interviews, which can often reflect a particular point of view and agenda.

4.1. Case Selection

For the purpose of the comparative case study, the choice of Amsterdam and London as the cases of this research has been influenced by a number of things that will be discussed in this section. First of all, both are European cities that have sustainability at the heart of their agendas, this is best

demonstrated through membership to organisations such as C40. This organisation was in fact formed as a result of action undertaken by the then Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, who

(20)

19 convened global cities to cooperate on reducing greenhouse emissions through knowledge sharing and a cohesive strategy amongst cities, which inhabit large populations and produce a great amount of the greenhouse gases worldwide (C40, 2016). Cities are generally early adopters to new

technologies and can act as a benchmark for broader policies nationwide. Lots of major cities are also more ambitious than the rest of their countries and can be places of experimentation and innovation.

Secondly, both Amsterdam and London have shown that they are active in the area of electric vehicles and are amongst the most progressive cities in the world in this respect. For example Amsterdam has the highest concentration of electric vehicle charging stations in the world and ‘Amsterdam is the first city in the world that installed public charge points that can charge electric vehicles and deliver electricity back to the grid by using Vehicle to Grid technology.’ (Amsterdam Smart City, 2018). According to the C40 site, of all areas to focus emissions reductions, Amsterdam is focusing most on private transport. Amsterdam has two funds ‘the Amsterdam Climate & Energy Fund (AKEF) and the Sustainability Fund’ which total around 30 million euros and is meant to be utilised to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2025 (C40 Good Practice Guides:

Amsterdam, 2016). Amsterdam is clearly ambitious and committed to electric vehicles and reducing emissions. The same can be said of London, ‘In 2015, the Mayor of London committed to introduce the world’s first Ultra-Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) to address London’s Nitrogen Dioxide challenge and encourage the use of cleaner vehicles. For the first time, emission standards will be set for every vehicle driven in central London, including the five million cars seen over the course of a year. These standards will be fully operational by 2020, 24 hours a day and 7 days a week, in the same area as the Congestion Charge. Smaller vehicles will be charged £12.50 a day and larger vehicles £100 a day if they do not comply’ (C40 Good Practice Guides: London, 2016). Both cases have demonstrated that they are active and ambitious and examples of cities that are trying to tackle to issue of greenhouse gas emissions.

Finally and most importantly, the reason why these cases in particular have been selected is the differing level of mayoral power present in each city and the different approach they have to the same issue. This presents a good opportunity to study how effective different types of power, leadership and governance structure can affect transnational sustainability governance. To what extent should mayors in each city look to govern this particular area? In both cities there are multiple stakeholders that can offer great chances for experimentation but there is a fine balance between experimentation and more centralised guidance and decision making (Hammond and Pearson, 2013). Both cities allow the market to act relatively freely but there is a difference in how

(21)

20 each city uses their power to shape and organise their markets, which will be looked into in the analysis. Ahman (2006) may describe this a strategic niche market management, which would be exercised through taxes, legislation such as the Ultra-low emission zone for example, as well as funding and raising profile.

4.2. Measuring central concepts

The concept of mayoral power is largely based upon literature regarding Dutch mayors (Karsten and Hendriks, 2017) and literature around the levels of power granted to the Mayor of London when the role was reformed (Sweeting, 2002); as well as mayoral powers profile available on the C40 website (C40 Cities London, 2018, C40 Cities Amsterdam, 2018). With regards to the concept of mayoral power each city is already relatively predetermined, the study moved towards analysing the difference in emphasis of ‘power over’ in London compared to in Amsterdam where the emphasis seems to be more concerned with giving ‘power to’ (John and Cole, 1999, Sweeting, 2002). Ultimately aiming to find which has been most conducive to facilitative leadership (Svara, 2003, Teles, 2014 and Greasley and Stoker, 2008). In order to measure facilitative leadership, I have asked interviewees questions relevant to the theoretical framework established, adapted from Greasley and Stoker (2008), about how they believe the governance structure exists in this area and the role each mayor is playing in their city. I sought to measure the concepts of facilitative leadership through analysing the following categories: profile and partnership skills, decision making and institutional arrangements. I guided the interviews to cover these three areas, which alongside researching relevant materials like policy documents and agenda documents allowed me to acquire an in depth perspective of this topic in each city. I measured the transition to electric vehicles by seeing the levels of importance by which it is placed in dialogue but also in practice, it can then be cross checked with quantitative data for registered vehicles and charging capacity for significant initiatives to establish some form of influence. Drawing upon different forms of data will

demonstrate the reliability of the research. In particular policy documents can be used to indicate levels of ambition and can indicate whether they have had the desired effect and have been successful. Policy documents will provide a good description of the differing governance systems in each city as well as the power each mayor holds.

4.3. Challenges of validity and reliability

First of all there is always going to be an inherent issue of replicability when using interviews as part of your research. You cannot conduct the same interview twice but you can broadly aim to ask the same types of questions and skilfully probe in a way that asks the same types of questions in each

(22)

21 interview. I allowed significant freedom for my interviewees to discuss their thoughts but I asked each respondent to answer questions relevant to my central research question, sub-questions and hypotheses. To counteract these issues using quantitative data can help substantiate the findings of the interviews, at least quantitative data may be more replicable and perhaps more objective.

To make the research about governance and the influence of mayoral power reliable it is useful to contact a broad spectrum of actors to gain a truer perspective of the governance landscape. If this research only drew on information from a narrow range of sources then it may only represent the perspective of the mayor for instance. I was able to have interviews with a former mayor, members of the Greater London Authority, Gemeente Amsterdam and also private business’s involved with producing electric vehicles and charging points. I hope that by asking all respondents to think about the impact of mayoral power has on their capacity to utilise facilitative leadership, I can see how and if the perception is the same or proves very different amongst stakeholders. Power will need to be defined as there are different types at play which may be different for each actor in each city. I would expect the mayor to have structural power but each city may have different levels of instrumental power. This is certainly the case between Amsterdam and London. For example instrumental power will be best shown through enforcement, discursive power may be best demonstrated through agenda setting.

5. Case Study: Amsterdam

This Chapter will look to apply the theories of facilitative leadership (Svara, 2003, Teles 2014, Gains et al, 2009) to the case of Amsterdam. From the outset it is important to establish that Amsterdam as a case has been picked to represent a mayor who acts as a ‘power to’ type leader (John and Cole, 2009). This case study will look at each component of facilitative leadership as set out in the

theoretical framework and analyse the impact of the mayoral power and style of Amsterdam on the ability to be a facilitative leader in relation to the hypotheses. Following the analysis in regards to these specific aspects, I will discuss the findings of the interviews and research in relation to the earlier stated sub questions.

(23)

22

5.1. Mayoral Power

First, I will look at how mayoral power is exercised in Amsterdam and its relationship to facilitative leadership. According to C40 (Figure 3), the mayoral powers in Amsterdam are significant but not as strong as those of London’s mayor. The mayor’s office has powers on decision making and has the ability to set and enforce policies for energy supply, public transport and city roads (C40 Cities Amsterdam, 2018). When looking at Amsterdam from a mayoral power perspective and following the typology of leadership roles in

urban governance as proposed by John and Cole (1999), Amsterdam remains predominantly, a

‘Consensual facilitator’. The focus and use of the mayoral power is designed to be responsive to local concerns, however it is certainly true that in the area of electric vehicles that

Amsterdam has been far more

proactive than reactive and has been pivotal in making Amsterdam such a hub of innovation and a destination for electric vehicles companies (Wijnen, 2018). Largely as a result of their emphasis on fostering innovation and engagement with a range of stakeholders. Another typology that could be considered true of Amsterdam’s mayor is that of ‘visionary’ (John and Cole, 1999, Sweeting, 2002). This form of power is also ‘power to’, looking to empower other actors. Visionary leaders look to drive the agenda , which is true in Amsterdam but this typology is considered to have limited decision making power, but Amsterdam and its mayor actually can have greater decision making power than this typology would suggest. The municipality has shown particular leadership through its own investments to offset risk for commercial stakeholders and to encourage other actors to take responsibility (Amsterdam Smart City, 2018). All of the actions taken by Amsterdam can be

considered facilitative leadership (Svara, 2003, Teles, 2014, Greasley and Stoker, 2008). The actions taken so far have been made to develop an infrastructure that can attract and harness investment from the wider market, by pre-empting the electric vehicle market, Amsterdam became an attractive partner and destination for various stakeholders. Amsterdam, its mayor and board of alderpersons want to reduce emissions, they want cleaner traffic but also less traffic, so it’s a fine balance between supporting new electric vehicles whilst also reducing cars (Wijnen, 2018), but it is the case that mayoral power is used to be a facilitative leader. Next we shall look at the criteria laid

(24)

23 out for establishing how mayoral power can impact the facilitative leadership capacity in

transitioning a city to electric vehicles.

5.2. Profile and Partnership skills

In this section I will analyse the profile and partnership skills in the case of Amsterdam and evaluate its relationship to facilitative leadership. Profile and partnership skills are essential in driving forward the adoption of a new technology on a large scale, the criteria for the effectiveness of the Mayor of Amsterdam is how well partnerships have been attained and utilised. As well as to what degree has the mayor’s office and municipality been able to facilitate all actors towards the same goal, defined by Sweeting (2002) as ‘collaborative advantage’. A key advantage for Amsterdam that made it an effective and attractive partner is that it was such an early mover in the electric vehicle movement which in turn gave the market confidence (Wijnen, 2018). The council can now through their

partnerships with Liander and Construction Company Heijmans install a charging location that will be ready for use within four hours (Plan Amsterdam, 2016). The greatest challenge with all new

infrastructure projects and in particular in transport is that it entails a significant risk and cost, particularly with regards to developing the charging infrastructure. According to the municipality, 2018 is a ‘tipping point’, initially most companies were happy to leave it to the city to take the risk but now these companies want to become more involved in developing their own charging stations. Even big oil companies are hoping to convert existing petrol station infrastructure into fast charging stations for electric vehicles. The city initially put the charging infrastructure up for tender but it wasn’t deemed cost effective for many businesses, so Amsterdam took on the cost itself. This has made it attractive for companies such as Car2Go and even for the European headquarters of electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla (Wijnen, 2018, Van Der Giessen and Van Der Linden, 2016). The ‘tipping point’ represents a time in which companies are more interested in partnership because they see a real opportunity for a return on investment. Amsterdam has used its mayoral powers to alleviate uncertainty through subsidies, policies and investment (Van Winden and Van Den Busse, 2017), which has increased its partnership skill and also its profile as being an ambitious city in the realm of electric vehicles and sustainability. The desire for Amsterdam to lead in this area is made clear by car manufacturer like Tesla, who insist the major responsibility for developing infrastructure is on the municipality (Plan Amsterdam, 2016), which is a commercial actor finding ‘power to’ leadership desirable. Amsterdam has created lots of public parking charging points as 90% of Amsterdam’s population don’t have their own parking space (Iamsterdam, 2018). This is in contrast to London which is a more market led system in terms of the charging infrastructure. However, it will be more market led for the future private parking charging points but supported with subsidies. In summary,

(25)

24 Amsterdam has been able to bolster both its partnership skills and profile through developing its own charging infrastructure.

In order for Amsterdam to achieve its ambitious targets it needs to be effective at developing

partnerships. Amsterdam has ambitious goals, although slightly watered down to being as ‘emissions free as possible by 2025’ as opposed to previously stated, emissions free (Wijnen, 2018). In order to achieve this the municipality has set specific and differentiated targets for different modes of transport and has looked to push sectors such as the taxi sector firmly to adopt electric vehicles. In this respect Amsterdam and the mayor’s office has shown ‘power over’ the private sector in order to reach its goals. In 2016 the municipality signed a covenant with entrepreneurs about sustainability

(Tamis, 2018). The covenant is a strong and clear goal that set rules and guidelines and looked to encourage taxi companies to be front runners in the electric vehicle market. It offered incentives Figure 5 Clear and tiered goals (Sustainable Amsterdam, 2015)

(26)

25 initially but will also respond strongly if there hasn’t been an adequate effort made to move to electric (Tamis, 2018). One incentive for the adoption of electric vehicles is the Amsterdam Schiphol Airport scheme that was announced in 2014, which was still very ambitious, is that all taxi journeys from the Airport will be made by electric cars and they will be operated by Schipholtaxi and BIOS Groep (Van Der Giessen and Van Der Linden, 2016). This clearly is a big incentive when considering 80% of taxis from Schiphol head to Amsterdam and the same is true of the reverse journey (Van Der Giessen and Van Der Linden, 2016). Not only is this quite symbolic as many tourists first taste of Amsterdam, experiencing electric vehicles and seeing them in such high number, it presents a huge incentive for private business firms to adhere to the goals set out by the mayor and the board of alderpersons in order to be profitable. A good example of how Amsterdam has used its power in order to both incentivise but also penalise actors who aren’t working towards the city’s goals. The biggest impediment to a greater uptake of electric vehicles in the taxi sector seems to be the price of the cars themselves which still remains high (Tamis, 2018). Car manufacturers are not as involved in this particular project despite what may seem like an opportunity for them, largely because it is not the municipality’s remit to influence what car consumers want but rather simply facilitate the overall adoption of electric vehicles. Through dialogue and partnership with the taxi industry, Amsterdam has been able to push them in the direction of electric vehicles, with a combination of subsidies and policies.

Finally, when looking at profile and partnership skills, an area where Amsterdam needs to develop is the issue of upscaling projects. Amsterdam is a hub for innovation but this can mean that multiple approaches divides attention and resources and issues arise when looking to scale up initiatives to a city wide scale. Rather than the mayor directly attended to this issue, power in this regard has been delegated to Amsterdam Smart city, an organisation that looks to bring together various actors for innovative projects and knowledge sharing. It incorporates the municipality, utility companies, car manufacturers and universities, which are under recognised institutions in the governance of the electric vehicles. It is perhaps more proactive as an organisation for bringing actors together than the mayor’s office itself (Amsterdam Smartcity, 2018). As mentioned earlier, cost effectiveness is a key component of any technological transition. Whilst Amsterdam will support many initiatives, they need to find the right partners and right business models to make it sustainable past the point of incubation and able to be cost effective and self-sufficient without funding from the municipality (Amsterdam Smartcity, 2018). The most successful projects can be best scaled up when economies of scale offer lower unit costs and higher profits (Van Winden and Van Den Buuse, 2017). The mayor and municipality will want to support initiatives that present this potential of growing. In The Hague,

(27)

26 another ‘smart city’, projects cannot be started without a clear framework for how the upscaling process can happen (Amsterdam Smartcity, 2018). Knowledge sharing is pivotal for being able to scale up projects and this can happen between cities and various actors. Applying different initiatives that may have worked elsewhere in the Netherlands for instance will require great knowledge transfer with a deep understanding of the different contexts that they will be involved in (Van Winden and Van Den Buuse, 2017). When discussing with Amsterdam smart city it seemed that there is a need for greater communication links amongst the many different actors, particularly with the many different offices that present a dilemma of whose remit it falls under (Amsterdam

Smartcity, 2018). For instance, there are separate offices for transport and electricity in the

municipality, this strains communication on this issue and there is a greater need to be more aligned in communication. This view was also echoed by the municipality itself (Wijnen, 2018). Amsterdam smart city also believed that a clear and responsible spokesperson who is both reachable and accountable may be useful for coordinating this issue (Amsterdam Smart City, 2018), which could relate to the lack of a direct point of contact with profile that could help facilitate knowledge sharing and help scale up projects like the mayor in London.

 ‘Power to’ type leadership is most conducive to facilitative leadership with partners Based on the evidence presented above for the case of Amsterdam and the apparent ‘power to’ leadership from the mayor and the council, it is clear that ‘power to’ leadership is conducive to facilitative leadership. In the final discussion this hypothesis will be addressed in light of both cases but for now the case of Amsterdam will be the focus. The Mayor of Amsterdam has achieved success and the city has become a desirable partner through the leadership style as described by John and Cole (1999) of ‘power to’. The success in partnership skills is the result of gaining a profile as a leading city for electric vehicles, largely as a result of investment, early strategy and sensible policy aimed at businesses like the taxi industry. However, when it comes to developing ideas from a small to a large scale Amsterdam has been less effective. The Mayor of Amsterdam is utilising their partnership skills to be a facilitative leader although a greater profile may increase their ability to be a facilitative leader. The concept of profile will be explored further for the case of London.

(28)

27

5.3. Decision making

In this section I will discuss, the capability to make decisions as well as reflect on those already taken by the Mayor of Amsterdam and the city more generally, to analyse its impact on facilitative

leadership. There are many factors that impact the types of decisions that are made by a mayor but also the ability to make decisions. This section will look at how Amsterdam and its mayoral office has acted with regards to electric vehicles. As discussed earlier there seems to be a Dutch aversion to strong leadership (Karsten and Hendriks, 2017), however this is only an aversion to an individual having such a strong position rather than the municipality itself which in fact does show strong leadership and the ability to make decisive and assertive decisions. The importance of Amsterdam’s decision making is on its ability to be a facilitative leader and create an environment for other actors to flourish. Like many new technologies there are competing systems, for low emission vehicles there is both electric battery

vehicles and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Both have their merits and most suited to certain tasks but Amsterdam was able to essentially pick its winner from an early stage. When discussing this decision with the municipality it was quite a clear choice and something they wanted to

act quickly about to help facilitate a more effective transition from fossil fuel vehicles. Hydrogen as a fuel source was not seriously considered for private cars, but it may be useful for heavy vehicles and can be used for municipal vehicles like buses and waste collection. This decision making has enabled the market to see the direction set by the city of Amsterdam and has been a strong endorsement in electric vehicles. The example of other cities reticent to commit is due to the high cost and risk involved, Amsterdam acted boldly and quickly. As charging infrastructure develops more Amsterdam will be equipped to continue to transition to fast charging stations, utilising petrol stations and other existing infrastructure, ‘once you choose a way to go it’s hard to change, maybe when fast charging comes into place the old (petrol stations) infrastructure can be utilised’ (Wijnen, 2018).

The decision to act before the market has been expensive but it was a decision that was accepted across the board of alderpersons, the issue of sustainability is one of the few that can truly unite

(29)

28 across the political spectrum. However, in hindsight Amsterdam may have left the market to invest more strongly in order to be more cost effective (Wijnen, 2018). No actor can induce another to act first and often it is the responsibility of the mayor to act decisively if the market does not drive forward the agenda of sustainability, a mayor and their office can only facilitate others even if that comes at great expense of the municipality itself (Tamis, 2018). The implementation of

environmental zones for transit is a strong move from the city and demonstrates the ability to make decisions that suggest a city with power and not as some literature suggests a weak mayor. The distinction should be made between a weak individual in relation to mayors in other countries and a weak office. The office of mayor in Amsterdam with its board alderpersons can act quite definitively as it has by banning diesel vehicles from the environmental zones as of 2018 (Wijnen, 2018, Van Der Giessen and Van Der Linden, 2016). As well as transforming its own municipal fleet to electric alternatives, and as previously mentioned heavy vehicles to hydrogen (Sustainable Amsterdam, 2017). Despite literature claiming Dutch mayors are relatively weak and passive, in this area there is wide support for sustainability, so the institutional arrangements don’t seem to be an impediment on the ability to make strong decisions whilst also looking to facilitate others.

It seems that the mayor is able to make decisions in the area of sustainability but largely due to support from the board of alderpersons, the electorate and also from business. The decisions are designed to first incentivise and then penalise slow actors as shown by the example of Amsterdam Schiphol airport being available for electric vehicles only (Tamis, 2018). Another strong statement of intent was pushing forward a partnership with Nuon-Heijmans to develop over 4000 charging stations to counteract the inactivity of the market (RVO, 2016). However, issues arise when business becomes almost indispensable and the balance of power alters. For instance the great need for new homes in Amsterdam means property developers are able to exert power over the municipality. New housing projects being built now to meet the rising demand were designed in some cases 10 years prior and haven’t been designed with charging points in mind. It’s a dilemma for the

municipality of Amsterdam as the sustainability needs collide with housing needs, developers want to build quickly and as cost effective as possible and Amsterdam wants them also to be sustainable, so there is a trade-off. Amsterdam has power to be heard but can it act when it needs more homes? (Wijnen, 2018). It is particularly important that the expansion of the charging infrastructure

continues out of the city centre and to the suburbs which has more access to parking especially for new builds. Private garages and parking spaces need permissions from other tenants to build charging points and can also be more expensive building them after than installing them during construction. This may create a situation where charging points are only accessible to the wealthy,

(30)

29 the next challenge for Amsterdam is how to approach private parking spaces (Wijnen, 2018). The mayor is pivotal for using their decision making capabilities for planning and shaping the growth of this technology as well as helping projects scale up. In some cases Amsterdam could be firmer with business in order to best prepare for the future uptake in this technology. Amsterdam Smart city (2018) suggests that the mayor could use their power to push the emphasis on investment and upscaling onto business. Nurturing innovation with long term goals and scaling up as a priority is a must and utilising data for intelligent and informed decisions as well (Tamis, 2018). Data will be essential for future governance of energy supply and charge demand.

 ‘Power Over’ mayors are more effective in decision making than ‘Power to’ mayors making

them more conducive to being a facilitative leader

The key findings when looking at decision making from an Amsterdam perspective are that this policy domain benefits greatly from a broad political support which enables the city to act boldly in terms of developing infrastructure. However, competing priorities and a reluctance to act in a ‘power over’ manner with regards to tighter rules for newly built homes effects the mayors ability to be a facilitative leader. Perhaps the inability or the reluctance to act in a directive way (John and Cole, 1999) in some areas as demonstrated through the issue of new construction guidelines not expecting charging points as standard shows that without the ability to enforce other stakeholders to follow a direct path that there can be divergence. Whether ‘power over’ is more effective will be discussed in the case of London as well as the final discussion comparing both cases.

5.4. Institutional Arrangements

Finally, I will discuss the third component of facilitative leadership which is perhaps the most relevant to mayoral power, by analysing the impact of the institutional arrangements on facilitative leadership in the case of Amsterdam. The Dutch attitudes towards leadership and mayors offers a good opportunity to explore how the contrasting levels of mayoral power effects urban governance. Mayors in the Netherlands do no act within the same executive power of Anglo nation mayors (Karsten and Hendriks, 2017, Schaap et al, 2009). So it is important to acknowledge that the phenomena of leadership is viewed differently amongst different cities. There is certainly greater emphasis in the mayoral leadership to focus on bridging and bonding or what might be called ‘democratic guardianship’ (Karsten and Hendriks, 2017, p.158). However, the relationship between the powers of a mayor and effectiveness has not been clearly established. For instance, Amsterdam has the highest density of electric charging stations in the world (IAmsterdam, 2018), clearly an indication of effectiveness in some respects. Unlike in London the mayor of Amsterdam is not

(31)

30 directly elected but rather appointed by central government (Schaap et al, 2009). ‘The ‘Crown appointment’ is one of the strongest expressions of the fact that Dutch mayors are expected to adopt a non-political stance’ (Karsten and Hendriks, 2017, p.160). It seems that Dutch mayors by most European standards are relatively weak leaders or perhaps less visibly strong, with very little decision making power, often expected to respect the board of mayor and aldermen’s majority decisions. In Karsten and Hendriks (2017) a mayor describes their experience and it is both insightful and puzzling for those with more Anglo-centric perceptions of what a mayor is and should do. ‘I don’t do anything substantive anymore. Instead, it’s all about my social skills and about bringing people together’. So once again it seems that the Dutch mayoral leadership focus and context is more inclined to bridge building and ‘power to’. The contrast between London and Amsterdam in the role of the mayor presents an interesting dichotomy. Both could argue to be effective forms of leadership but more can be understood about the contextual factors that impact the effectiveness of each style. It is also argued that there is an English language bias around the idea of strong

leadership being that of a more decide and accomplish leader, like London rather than a more process orientated leader in Amsterdam (Karsten and Hendriks,2017).

Evaluating the mayor of Amsterdam and the institutional arrangements, a criteria based on Sweeting’s (2002) framework for local leadership, is essential for defining and contrasting the different contexts that exist between Amsterdam and other cities, particularly those outside of the Netherlands. In Amsterdam most decision making is vested in the Board of mayor and Alderpersons (Karsten and Hendriks, 2017). Perhaps the area of sustainability is considered a less controversial topic and is a more broadly supported area of politics where mayors can really act and receive wide ranging support (Van Der Giessen and Van Der Linden, 2016). In the most recent elections the green party was the largest in Amsterdam showcasing the citizen’s interest in policies around sustainability and desire to be ever more ambitious. Which will be reflected in policies and decisions made from the council and the mayor. Despite this reluctance to adopt a party political stance support for the electric vehicle transition is quite ubiquitous. An interesting insight that highlights how broad the support for sustainability is in the city of Amsterdam, is that the second biggest party the democrats are also considered green and even parties less renowned for their sustainability, have through the board of alderpersons suggested the implementation of a congestion charge similar to London (Wijnen, 2018). So broad support empowers the mayor and also the city in this respect, maybe on issues that are more divisive the limited powers to make decisions may impede necessary progress but in this context it has not proved to be a considerable issue. Amsterdam also benefits with support from National level initiatives a large part of the legal and regulatory framework, including