As the green shoots of economic growth bloom into renewed prosperity over the next few years, public sector noses will be pressed cold against the glass as our own fiscal austerity continues well into the next decade.

Nowhere will this be felt more acutely than in local government – with possibly even worse still to come if all parties sign up to George Osborne's proposed spending levels for 2015-20.

As part of their response, many councils are looking to the power of ‘enterprise' to square the circle of declining income and rising demand. This might be through the creation of new delivery vehicles or a step-change to a more entrepreneurial organizational culture that generates new, marketable innovations.

Our observation here is that different councils, depending on their geography nd circumstance, approach enterprise in quite different ways.

At one end of the spectrum, we have ‘besieged councils'.  These councils have the poorest financial settlements (including a particularly uncomfortable post 2015-16 position), a weak local income base, large numbers of pensioners eligible for council-funded care and high volumes affected by changes to the national benefit system.

Usually these councils are to be found in the northern regions and the more deprived parts of the South, East and Midlands.

Often they are, after the NHS, the largest employer in an area where the private sector is historically weak. Jobs lost here do not tend to be quickly replaced.

Confidence in these areas is low and rates of business start-up are low.

At the opposite end of the scale are ‘high potential councils'. Here, finances are decidedly better. High levels of locally generated income coupled with a growing economy all help to soften the impact of relentless central cuts.

Changes will have already been made to services to accommodate future cuts. Jobs lost in the council are quickly replaced in the private sector.

Coupled to this, demand pressures may not be so acute due to both the more affluent and self-reliant nature of the dependent population. Economic confidence is high and the small and medium enterprises (SME) sector is often very strong.

Across that spectrum, then, how do councils approach the question of enterprise?

Very differently, it appears. For besieged councils, internal capacity around the enterprise agenda is nearly always a challenge.

Most of these councils feel under immense short-term pressure to save money, services as well as jobs and they know that new delivery arrangements are part of the answer. But, equally, they often just don't have the bodies, time, or capital to develop high levels of internal capacity to make this happen.

Quicker fixes are needed. Therefore the more imaginative of the besieged councils are turning to a variety of external partners, from the major outsourcers to their local voluntary sector – anyone, really, who can help them to set up new delivery vehicles that reduce costs and boost productivity.

The enterprise agenda in besieged councils is, therefore, mainly about creating these partnerships at pace, rather than developing long-term internal capabilities around enterprise development.

For the high potential councils, the approach to enterprise is almost the opposite. In these councils there is both the time and resource to engage in long-term enterprise-development.

Most high potential councils have already made adjustments to a new level of operation. Many will also have restructured the council's offer, often in close partnership with a corporate or public sector partner.

Indeed in these councils there is capacity to invest in demand-management, creating scope here for radical downscaling of the council (council jobs locally are probably not an issue).

Finally, high potential councils are likely to be best-placed to develop their own ‘business' propositions – they will have money to invest, and mental bandwidth to engage with the creation of commercial activity, whether that is as simple as sharing services with another authority, or as complicated as developing new services such as enhanced care offers for local self-funders.

They have the time to pick unusual commercial partners with which to work (eg, providers of social impact bonds), and nurture their staff teams so that they can go on to create their own mutually-owned businesses.

An important point here is that sweeping generalisations about how local government responds to austerity are not all that helpful. What is right for Surrey is probably not right for Sunderland.