Reflections on Leadership and Impact
By Eduardo Plasencia
Eduardo Plasencia is Georgetown Global Cities Initiative Student Scholar and a masters candidate in the Urban and Regional Planning Program. Eduardo interviewed Mayor Rodriguez Larreta during his recent visit to Georgetown University.
Editor’s Note: The Autonomous City of Buenos Aires is the third-largest metropolitan area in Latin America, with three million people living in the municipality and another thirteen million in the extended metropolitan region. Despite decades-long national economic stagnation, Buenos Aires has made remarkable recent progress in transportation, education and security. Horacio Rodriguez Larreta has served in municipal government since 2007 and was elected mayor in 2015 and re-elected in 2019. Mayor Rodriguez Larreta is now considered a front runner in Argentina’s 2023 presidential election.
Eduardo Plasencia: During almost sixteen years, Buenos Aires has seen an incredible transformation. Of all the changes made during your time in municipal government, which has been the most socially just or inclusive with the porteños, i.e. the citizens of the city?
Horacio Rodriguez Larreta: Broadly speaking, I would say that the improvements in education quality are very much the “equalizer”. But if I have to pick a specific area of action, I will say security. There is nothing more discriminatory towards the most vulnerable communities than insecurity. Because when the State is absent, the people with more resources have their own mechanisms to protect themselves and to be safe. People with fewer resources don’t.
Take the homicide index in Villa 31. [Editor’s note: Villa 31 or also known as Barrio 31 is an extended informal settlement in the port area of Buenos Aires, immediately adjacent to the commercial center of the downtown. It has been the subject of a comprehensive formalization process which has integrated the neighborhood into the city’s fabric.] Ten years ago, it was 3 or 4 times higher than in the rest of the City.
Today, it is almost the same. This change was fundamentally created by two things. First, a strong presence of the city government, where we advanced a social integration framework and an action plan. Second, a relentless war against the narcotics networks that controlled the local community and other similar neighborhoods. If you look at the decrease in homicide statistics and how these changes were advanced by working directly with the community, you see that the social equalization for these people was enormous.
EP: Since the City of Buenos Aires gained the governing status of statehood in 1994, the municipality of Buenos Aires has produced two future national presidents. What do you think Argentineans see in Buenos Aires as a source for leadership?
HRL: If you look at the sixteen years of our Administration, the transformation of the City is enormous and undeniable, even by our greatest political opponents. There’ll always be those who say ‘all right, Buenos Aires is Buenos Aires, and is not like the rest of the country’. I think that the message we send and the attitude we communicate is “change”.
What is attractive is the idea that change can indeed happen, and that it is possible to make change in a new way, or in a different way. In a country that has been deteriorating everywhere you look, the fact that in the same period of time the City of Buenos Aires was able to make a huge transformation and turn into a capital city that in many respects is comparable to European cities, proves that there is a different way of doing things.
And for me, this is an affirmation of the method of change that was advanced in our city government. People don’t generally perceive this, but I do believe strongly in administration, i.e. in the attachment to good management, in generating results, in quantifying metrics, in planning and tracking. And in doing all of this administration with an obsession, with accountability, with oversight, and with coordination. It is what might be called ‘pure and hard-core management’. This devotion to ‘the method’, as I like to call it, is a replicable approach and philosophy. Again, this is not necessarily perceived by people outside the city government, but they do perceive the results and the ideal that change is possible.
EP: When thinking of other mayors of big cities around the world, city leaders who want to achieve influence at a national level, which of your experiences do you think are most valuable and useful?
HRL: I’m thinking about two experiences.
The first is that the value of shaping a good administration will work to your advantage in terms of electoral exposure. Clearly, more visible cities like capital cities give you greater exposure. In the Argentinean case, this is paradigmatic in terms of the relative weight that Buenos Aires holds in the national landscape. We have a saying, “God is everywhere, but his office is in Buenos Aires”. Obviously, this can work out for good or bad. A mistake you make in Buenos Aires can resonate in the entire country.
The other way of answering your question is to look at what is useful as an experience to govern a nation. Here we need to understand that these are two essentially different jobs. Using a sports comparison, it is not like going from the American Cup to the World Cup; it’s more like going from playing football to rugby. What does this mean? It means that governing Argentina is not simply governing Buenos Aires times ten, which in terms of population could be the case. The job description is completely different.
The position of Mayor is similar to a vendor, a supplier of services – from education to transportation – that are measurable services as in any procurement plan. I associate the role of a Mayor more with the true meaning of “management”; and I do believe we need to stop being prejudiced about cities not being similar to a company. The municipal government is an organization, and as such, it has organizational needs that are just as valid as any other organization such as an NGO, federal agency, or private firm.
The position of President is very different. It is a different sport. The President makes the rules of the game; he sets up the field and establishes the framework; the President supports the citizens who are the ones who play. He is a policy-maker, a regulator, and there’s much more ideological load in that role. The presidency is a position of pure leadership, of setting the north star, of sharing a vision of a country, and as a result, a much more challenging responsibility to communicate with all.
EP: Thank you for visiting Georgetown and for your time today!