Leadership
Outlook
With Australian cities disproportionally impacted by COVID-19, leaders are starting to engage more deeply with the idea of sustainable and inclusive growth. Globally, the role of cities in addressing these critical development challenges is beginning to take shape.
In this context, Urbis invited the nation’s city leaders to tell us how they think our cities will perform over the next two years, across economic, environmental and social dimensions. Near-term sentiment can serve as a proxy for how leaders assess the capacity of our institutions to transform the systemic conditions that create and sustain vulnerabilities in our cities. Here’s what we found.
City leaders are optimistic about near-term economic and environmental performance for their cities but less so about future social outcomes
While 43% of leaders expect economic outcomes to improve and 42% anticipate improved environmental outcomes, only 22% of city leaders expect social outcomes for urban dwellers to improve, with 30% of leaders expecting conditions to worsen. Nineteen per cent and 12% of leaders expect worsening conditions for economic and environmental outcomes respectively, while net sentiment is positive for the environment (+30%) and the economy (+25%) but negative for social outcomes (-7%).
Figure 1
Leadership outlook for Australian cities
Do you believe the performance of your city in terms of overall economic, environmental and social outcomes will improve, stay the same, or worsen over the next two years?
Percentage (%) of all respondents
Improve | Stay the same | Worsen
Economic | Environmental | Social
43 | 42 | 22
38 | 46 | 48
19 | 12 | 30
Net Sentiment
Source: Urbis 2022 National City Leaders Survey
Despite the relative optimism around Australia’s urban economies, new risks to growth have emerged since we surveyed leaders in the first quarter of 2022, increasing already high levels of complexity and uncertainty in our cities. At the time of writing, many analysts and economists fear that rapid interest rate rises to tame inflation could lead to significant housing downturn, constrain business investment, hurt consumer confidence and increase the likelihood of a recession in Australia.
While net sentiment around environmental performance is positive, findings later in the survey highlight an imperative for cities to act on climate change and sustainability, and a significant gap between current challenges and our preparedness to address these. We suspect positive sentiment is due to broader signs of optimism across Australia, with political leaders finding common ground on and directing more resources towards climate change and sustainable development challenges than ever before.
In contrast, many leaders expect our performance on social outcomes to deteriorate in the near term. This, combined with expectations of improved economic conditions, underscores the persistent inequalities we see in Australian cities and society. What role do our cities play in reinforcing economic and social divides?
City leaders from smaller capital and regional cities are more optimistic about future performance than their big city counterparts
Leaders from cities most impacted by COVID-19 restrictions are less positive about near-term economic performance, with sentiment lower among leaders from Sydney (+22%), Melbourne (+4%) and Brisbane (0%). Leaders from Perth (73%) and smaller capital and regional cities (58%) share a more positive outlook. Sentiment on economic performance among Perth leaders is especially bullish – 75% believe it will improve over the next two years.
Unlike leaders from other cities, in Perth no respondents foresee worsening performance. This reflects the relative strength of Western Australia’s economy, which performed strongly during the pandemic and is poised for growth over the next two years. Similar sentiment sits with leaders from smaller capital and regional cities, many of which benefited economically from internal migration during the pandemic.
Figure 2
Leadership outlook for Australian cities
Do you believe the performance of your city in terms of overall economic, environmental and social outcomes will improve, stay the same, or worsen over the next two years?
Percentage (%) of respondents by city
Improve | Stay the same | Worsen
Sydney | Melbourne | Brisbane | Perth | Small Cap/Reg
Economic
39 | 33 | 23 | 73 | 67
44 | 37 | 54 | 27 | 25
17 | 30 | 23 | 0 | 8
Environmental
39 | 37 | 38 | 45 | 58
50 | 48 | 31 | 55 | 42
11 | 15 | 31 | 0 | 0
Social
6 | 15 | 23 | 27 | 58
56 | 56 | 46 | 36 | 33
39 | 30 | 31 | 36 | 8
Net Sentiment
Source: Urbis 2022 National City Leaders Survey
Conversely, almost one-third of leaders from Melbourne believe their city’s economic performance will deteriorate over the next two years. No doubt, this reflects the profound impact of COVID-19 and Melbourne having spent more days in lockdown than any other city in the world. Melbourne’s economy is forecast only to return to its pre-COVID-19 output by 2024.
When it comes to environmental outcomes, similar differences play out. Around half of all leaders from Perth and smaller capital and regional cities expect improvements in the near term, while sentiment in other major capital cities is weaker but remains positive. That said, leaders from Brisbane have a more subdued outlook for their city than those in Sydney and Melbourne, with close to one-third anticipating poorer performance on the environment in the near term.
The outlook on social performance varies significantly between leaders from cities of all sizes. Net sentiment for the nation’s four largest cities is negative, particularly for Sydney (-33%) and Melbourne (-15%), while smaller capital and regional cities are overwhelmingly positive (+50%). We suspect the extent and severity of COVID-19 lockdowns in our major cities – and the impact this had on amplifying already entrenched social and economic inequalities – may have influenced these leaders’ perceptions of near-term performance.
The pandemic has been a huge disruption, but Australia’s future is still a nation of cities attracting people and investment in equal measure. Shaping our cities for a successful future remains one of the nation’s most important tasks.
Public sector city leaders are more upbeat about how their cities will perform across all three measures
While net sentiment is marginally higher among public sector leaders on both future economic performance (+29% vs +24%) and environmental performance (+35% vs +26%), a significant disconnect between expectations on social outcomes remains. Public sector leaders are far more optimistic, with overall net sentiment standing at +12% compared to -20% in the private sector. Over one-third of government and institution leaders believe their city’s social outcomes will improve over the next two years, whereas only 13% of leaders from the private sector share such optimism.
Figure 3
Leadership outlook for Australian cities
Do you believe the performance of your city in terms of overall economic, environmental and social outcomes will improve, stay the same, or worsen over the next two years?
Percentage (%) of all respondents: public vs private sector
Improve | Stay the same | Worsen
Public | Private
Economic
47 | 41
35 | 41
18 | 17
Environmental
50 | 37
35 | 52
15 | 11
Social
35 | 13
41 | 54
24 | 33
Net Sentiment
Source: Urbis 2022 National City Leaders Survey
University and not-for-profit leaders account for 10% of public sector respondents
These disparities underscore fundamental differences between sectors, such as ownership, motives, and the goods and services they provide. Another differentiating factor is where their financial resources come from and how significant the incentives are to be more efficient and productive.
Each sector’s priorities and objectives are also shaped by different drivers. Leaders in the public sector typically focus on providing goods and services to benefit the public and upholding the values of the government of the day, while private sector leaders are more focused on providing goods and services for a profit and maximising shareholder wealth.
Additionally, leaders in the public sector often have access to different information and data sources which may in turn shape what they believe to be the main priorities and challenges facing our cities. Differences in motivation, incentives, objectives and information can impact how leaders view city-shaping across sectors.