This article takes the standpoint that, due to high levels of uncertainty, local economic development work suffers from both input- and output-based legitimacy. Nevertheless, local governments are active development agents and try to come up with economic development initiatives. In order to better understand the legitimate basis for uncertain economic development work, this article offers an unconventional analysis of economic development projects. Drawing on scholars of organization theory, legitimacy is defined as congruence in values between the studied projects and the stakeholders in the surrounding environment. The article examines what kinds of values pervade local governments’ economic development projects. The empirical material is based on thick interview and observation data derived from a study of eight local development projects in Sweden. The results show that values of professionalization and deliberation pervade the analysed projects. Taking the two sets of values together, the results indicate that local government administration seeks to legitimize its economic development work as being based on professional directed processes of public deliberation. Both these sets of values challenge the local representative democratic system of government as the prime source of the legitimacy of local governments’ interventions.

It has been argued that political entrepreneurship is playing an increased role for public organizations and play a vital role in local government organizations. Political entrepreneurship has previously been studied from the motivations and actions of the individual entrepreneur. We argue that in order to understand why political entrepreneurship occurs in local public administration, these aspects are not enough. Instead, we need to consider entrepreneurship as situated, and analyse contextual conditions which form institutional demands for political entrepreneurship. A tentative framework is presented, which distinguish conditions coming from reformed organizational setting and conditions coming from new policy challenges. Finally, we conclude that the character of the conditions and thus the institutional demands directs political entrepreneurship towards either value-generative or collaborative entrepreneurship.

Local development practitioners in local government administration play a significant role in the governance of local development. This category of public officials – development officers, managers, strategists, secretaries, etc. – have received some attention in the local development literature. However, the directions in the literature are just as varied as the descriptions of the different aspects of local development governance they are taking part in. That means that the overarching understanding of what local development practitioners actually do is blurred, and is left to detailed case studies with very little or no conceptual ambition. Against this backdrop, the ambition of this article is to grasp what the local development practitioner role consists of at a conceptual level.

This article offers a better understanding of what local development practitioner roles in particular consist of and how these roles relate to existing theories of governance and public administration. In order to do so, we first clarify and refine what the literature has stressed about local development practitioners’ roles and functions, and cluster the findings into three theoretically separated roles: the coordinator, the creator and the inside lobbyist. Second, we bridge these roles with recent trends in public administration research. Finally, we discuss how this conceptualization informs us about governance modes of local development, as well as ‘new and modern’ public official roles in local government administration.