Authors

Hilde Bjørnå¹;  ¹ UiT Norges arktiske universitet, Norway

Discussion

The geopolitical significance of the Arctic region has grown due to the Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the recent accession of Sweden and Finland into NATO. These developments came on top of the combined effects of climate change and technological advancements, in particular, in energy domain, incentivizing global powers to raise stakes int their competition for the region. 

Against this background, Norwegian municipalities in the Arctic experience rising insecurities due to the disruption in Arctic collaboration and the region’s exceptionalism amidst the Russia’s war against Ukraine. Moreover, such insecurities are fueled by the change in how the region is perceived within Norway. While the Norwegian Arctic has been identified and cherished though its links and cooperation with the Russian and Fennoscandia population, the cooperation with Russia is no longer legitimate. Therefore, the Arctic population currently feels ‘left behind’ by the state in local economic and identity turmoil amidst the continuing Russia’s war against Ukraine and sanctions on Russian industries, -collaborations and -tourism. Norwegian municipalities in the Arctic thus experience a multifaceted disruption, posing new pressures on local leadership.
The paper thus focuses on the dynamics of political and administrative leadership in times of disruption. 

The guiding question of the paper is: What are the key strategies of transformative local Arctic leadership in times of disruption? To which extent have local leaders managed to not only address challenges but use opportunities to re-imagine, re-invent and re-interpret local governance systems and institutional arrangements, in which they are embedded? Based on the recent conceptual enquires into ‘disruption’ (e.g. Chua, 2023) and ‘turbulence’ (Ansell and Trondal, 2018) and related governance responses, the analysis zooms in on the ways local leadership grasp new opportunities; adjust to the impact of the war by re-formulating their narratives in new directions; utilize governance networks (Crosby et all. 2016) and emphasize legitimacy to deliver practical results to the local population (Ansell et all. 2023). Empirically, the analysis is based on the analysis of policy statements by local leaders and semi-structured interviews.