issues of governance in regional planning
DESCRIPTION
This is a lecture prepared for the Randstad Research Group of the Department of Urbanism of the TU Delft. It presents basic notions of governance and circumscribes these notions by presenting some issues or challenges concerning networked and multilevel governance.TRANSCRIPT
Issues of Governance in Spatial Planning
SpatialPlanning&Strategy
Prepared by Roberto RoccoChair Spatial Planning and Strategy
TU Delft
SpatialPlanning&Strategy
Governance entails
an understanding of how policy making and implementation happens in complex societies
Consolidation of objectives in Spatial Planning around the notion of sustainability:
•Deliver sustainable and fair futures
• Increase public goods
• Redistribute gains
• Increase life chances and prosperity
‘Enhanced’ Sustainability
“For sustainability to occur, it must occur simultaneously in each of its three dimensions” (economic, social and environmental)
Larsen, 2012
The main goal is to create conditions
for the full realization of human potentials, through
healthy, sustainable and fair environments
“Sustainable development” http://www.hrea.org/
©Ro
nald
Voge
l
Planners and
designers are inserted
in and must understand
complex systems of
governance
©Ro
nald
Voge
l
What’s Governance Again?
Normative dimension X
Descriptive dimension
The Normative Dimension: Governance
Private Sector
Civil Society
Public Sector
The great sectors of society (civil society, public sector and private sector) ought to be in positive tension, where they simultaneously apply and receive pressure from other sectors. In doing so, they keep each other in check and avoid overrunning each other. The problem with this model is that not everyone has an equal voice or power to express his or her views.
Networks of coalitions
Private Sector
Civil Society
Public Sector
Civil
Public Sector
Agents form networks of coalitions between sectors and within sectors towards objectives
Spatial Planners and designers are inserted
in networks (and bureaucracies).
Diagram by Shuying Yu, 2010
What’s governance again?
State (the rule of law)
Private Sector
Civil Society
Public Sector
Civil
Public Sector
Values and nomrs (informal institutions)
What’s governance again?
State (the rule of law)
Common values and norms (informal institutions)
Explains behaviours like patronage, nepotism,
corruption, ingrained practices and traditions as well as and
how networks are formed
The law is king in the nation State
Lex Rex (the law is
king) (Samuel
Rutherford, 1644) versus
Rex Lex (The king is
the law)
We are not amused!
and its bound to a territory!
Source: Wikipedia Commons.This work is in the public domain in the United States, and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years or less.
The rule of lawThe rule of law provides the framework for the Public sector, the Private sector and the Civil society to exist in certain forms and in certain relationships with each other.
Informal institutionsAre derived from common values and norms, which result in rules-in-use. Rules-in-use constitute both formal and informal institutions. (Suwanna Rongwiriyaphanich based on E. Ostrom)
Why is governance important for us?These relationships are our object because we need to know:
• How to operate with the relationships in place in order to better achieve objectives (significance for the way we do planning)
• How to propose new relationships and tools to articulate different actors, to FORMULATE, develop and implement desirable spatial visions and guarantee political/ economical and institutional support and successful implementation.
Normative modelA network of agents that coexist in positive tension in the societal arena
State (the rule of law)
And the ‘governance of’ Governance refers to the emergence of a policy making style dominated by cooperation among government levels and between public and non public actors and the civil society.
Papadopoulos, 2007
©Ro
nald
Voge
l
Changes in governing (& planning)
Emergence of a particular style of governing where there must be sustained co-ordination and coherence among a wide variety of actors with different purposes and objectives from all sectors of society.
Papadopoulos, 2007
Multilevel governance‘Involves a large number of decision-making arenas, differentiated along both functional and territorial lines and interlinked in a non-hierarchical way’
Eberlein and Kerwer, 2004
©Ro
nald
Voge
l
Network governancePolicy making and implementation is ‘shared’ by politicians, technocrats, experts, dedicated agencies, authorities, semi private and private companies, the public, NGOs, etc which constitute NETWORKS of policy and decision making across levels, territories, mandates, etc.
Across Administrative bounda
ries
Across SectorsAcross sectors
of society
Across levels of government
Multilevel Governance
European Union
United Kingdom
England
English regions
Greater London Authority
City of London Corporation (borough)
Ward (ellects the members of the Court of commons)
Meaning of ‘local authority’ in the Local Government Act of 2000 (in England and Wales)
(a)in relation to England—
(i)a county council,
(ii)a district council,
(iii)a London borough council,
(iv)the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority,
(v)the Council of the Isles of Scilly,
Networked decision makingCity of London Corporation
Primary decision making
Courtofcommons
Courtofaldermen
Elected councilors by residents, landowners, land leasers(25 wards with di!erent numberof elected councilors)
Elected by livery men (108 livery companies)
Lord Mayor +2 Sheri!s
121 committees in 2012
72 outside bodies
Governance City of LondonElected
councilors
UKlocal
authoritylegislation
Standingorders
Network Governance
UKlocal
authoritylegislation
Standingorders
Primary decision making
Courtofcommons
Courtofaldermen
Lord Mayor +2 Sheri!s
121 committees in 2012
72 outside bodies
Elected by 108 livery companies
Elected in 25 wards by residents and
landowners
Greater LondonAuthorityMayor of London
London Assembly (25)
transport
police
!re
Great London Plan
Elected by residentsof London
Elected by 14 constituencies+
11 from a party list
UK Parliament
House of Lords(powers are limited)
House of Commons
Lords Temporal (Appointed)
Lords Spiritual (Appointed)
MPs (Elected)
Queen (advised by Prime Minister)
History, tradition, uses and customs
Directives and conventions that have subsequently been enacted into UK legislation and in"uenced the develop-ment of the thinking behind the Government's policies, like the Groundwater Directive and the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, for example.
European Union
International protocols
These include global treaties, such as Kyoto and strategies for dealing with the in"uences and e#ects of climate change and for integrat-ing sustainable development into the EU's environmental policies as a result of major conferences, including the World Summit on Sustainable Development.
Urbanisation in the Randstad, 1950 Urbanisation in the Randstad, 2010
Multilevel governance in emerging city-regions
175 km
Photo
by S
ão P
aulo,
Braz
il, at
Nigh
t -
NASA
Earth
Obs
ervato
ry
Example of a city-region in the developing world where
issues of regional
governance can be identified:Sao Paulo
Main municipalities in the Expanded Metropolitan Complex
Other municipalities in the Expanded Metropolitan Complex
Other municipalities in the State of Sao Paulo
Main highway
Regional highway
Viracopos Airport
Sorocaba AirportCongonhas Airport
Campo de Marte Airport
Sao Paulo International Airport
Ernesto Stumpf Airpot
Port of Santos
11. Alto Paraiba
5. Paraiba Macro- Axis
13. Mantiqueira10. Bocaina
14. Litoral Norte
3. Santos
1. Core 2. MASP
4. Campinas
6. Sorocaba
7. Jundiai
8. Bragantina
9. Sao Roque
12. Water Sources Circuit
Santos
Sao Roque
Jundiai
Campinas
Sorocaba
Sao Jose dos Campos
Multilevel governance in emerging city-regions
Multilevel governance in emerging city-regions
0 15 30 45 km
1: 1 500 0001 CM = 15 KM
11. Alto Paraiba
5. Paraiba Macro- Axis
13. Mantiqueira10. Bocaina
14. Litoral Norte
3. Santos
1. Core 2. MASP
4. Campinas
6. Sorocaba
7. Jundiai
8. Bragantina
9. Sao Roque
12. Water Sources Circuit
Santos
Sao Roque
Jundiai
Campinas
Sorocaba
Sao Jose dos Campos
1. Core Municipality
2. Greater Sao Paulo (MASP)
3. Metropolitan Santos
4. Metropolitan Campinas
5. Paraiba Macro Axis Proto Metropolis
6. Sorocaba Proto Metropolis
7. Jundiai Peri-Metropolitan Regional Unit
8. Bragantina Peri-Metro Regional Unit
9. Sao Roque Peri-Metro Regional Unit
10. Bocaina Peri-Metro Regional Unit
12. The 'Water Circuit' Homogeneous Outer Metro Unit
13. Mantiqueira Homogeneous Outer Metro Unit
14. Litoral Norte Homogeneous Outer Metro Unit
11. Alto Paraiba Peri-Metro Regional Unit
Main unit urban node
Other important urban node
Airport
Core: 11.3 million (31 sub-municipalities)Metro: 19.9 million (39 municipalities)Macro-metro: 27.6 million (95 municipalities)
Areas where multi-level networked governance is
required
Water and waste management
Source: Google Earth
Informal development around one of Sao Paulo’s water reservoirs
+ 928 local bus lines on core municipality
Metropolitan mobilitySa
o Pau
lo Co
mpnh
ia M
etropo
litan
a de T
ranspo
rtes
Large Regional Infrastructure
Source: Google Earth
Congonhas: the busiest airport in South America and its integration in the city
Large Regional Infrastructure
Source: http://upgradesemanal.blogspot.nl/2011/04/trem-bala-no-brasil.html
The route of the proposed speed train between Rio de Janeiro and the city of Campinas
Environmental protection and management
Source: Google Earth
The new external ring road of Sao Paulo crossing the water reservoirs of the city and large parts of the
Atlantic Forest
Policy formulation and implementation
Networks involving:
• public actors (politicians and administrators) in different decision levels
• technocrats
• economic agents
• interest representatives (civil + corporate)
• other stakeholders
• experts (e.g. planners)
New forms of steering complex governance networks
Deliberation
Bargaining
Compromise-seeking
Instead of...
Pruitt-Igoe, Saint-Louis Missouri, 1950s. Source: http://pichaus.com/pruitt-igoe-public-housing-development/
blueprints
Why network governance?1. decisions with strong output
legitimacy
2. the content is more appropriate
3. better accepted by target groups
4. technically more adequate and politically more realistic decisions
Effects on the quality of our democracies ©
Ronald
Voge
l
Now we will explore issues of governance in
detail
©Ro
nald
Voge
l
1.Hollowing of the State2.Accountability deficiency3.Multilevel nature4.Representation and visibility5.Decoupling of the realm of politics6.Composition of networks of governance
Main issues
Detrimental characteristics of networked governance
1. weak presence of citizen representatives in networks
2. lack of visibility and distance from the democratic arena
3. multilevel nature
4. prevalence of ‘peer’ forms of accountability (‘old-boys’ groups)
Hollowing out of the State
The networked nature of governance structures have been triggered by ideologies that endorse the minimal state
But...
they are ultimately the result of the
complexity of our societies and of their spatial embeddedness
©Ro
nald
Voge
l
Accountability is at the core of
discussions on networked governance
©Ro
nald
Voge
l
Accountabilityrefers to the attribution of responsibility and mandate, and the possibility of check by other parties involved.
In network governance, it is difficult to attribute responsibility and mandates and ultimately difficult to hold anyone accountable (the problem of many hands)
AccountabilityFor agents to be held accountable, they must be identifiable as accountability holders and they must belong to arenas where there is a possibility of sanction
Politics
For elected officers, we might think that elections are the ultimate test of accountability: the hanging sanction is the non-reelection
Photo
sour
ce: R
euters
/Tob
y Melv
ille
But...In networked governance structures, the role of elected officials is often not central in the decision making process
Moreover...we
shouldn’t narrow the issue of
accountability to that of democratic
control
Grant & Keohane, 2004
©Ro
nald
Voge
l
Other forms of (necessary) accountability in policy making and implementation
FiscalLegal
Administrative
Weak visibilityDecisional procedures in policy networks are often informal and opaque (as this facilitates the achievement of compromise)
Networks dilute responsibility among a large number of actors (the problem of many hands)
Citizens as accountability holdeesCitizens should be the ultimate holdees of democratic accountability
but in reality the public is not the only judge of governmental performance and in many instances citizens can not sanction agents that are responsibly for policies that affect them directly (e.g. IMF, European Union, etc.)
TransparencyTransparency induces the accountability holdee to provide justifications for their actions, but there are no guarantees that accountability holders can apply sanctions
Publicity is a necessary condition for democracy but not a sufficient one
Multilevel aspects make competencies fuzzy
Complex structures cutting across decision levels (e.g. federal states, emerging city-regions, but also the EU, IMF, World Bank, etc)
Entails cooperative intergovernmental relations, but the formal division of competencies is often fuzzy (e.g. EU)
Transparency & coupling
Policy networks must be (re)coupled to public representative bodies that are able to regulate service provision or policy implementation and which provide the tools for identifying accountability holders and also tools for sanctioning them
Policy networks must be re-coupled with the public arena
It is not that simple!
©Ro
nald
Voge
l
Composition of policy networks
Policy networks are largely composed of bureaucrats, policy experts and interest representatives, who are often only indirectly accountable to citizens and sometimes only accountable to their peers (other experts)
Politics of problems X
politics of opinion
Politics of problems (problem solving politics) oriented towards a backstage network of knowledge and decision-making
Politics of opinion is the traditional politics in the media, party struggles and ideological assertions
©Sh
epard
Fair
ey
©Bl
oomb
erg B
usine
sswe
ek
Peer accountabilityIn governance networks, public accountability is often replaced by peer accountability
Durable cooperative interactions between actors are expected to generate self-limitation, empathy and mutual trust, but also mutual black mailing and excessive reliance on reputation and trust
Representation and visibilityIn order to have good governance, networks must be sufficiently representative and pluralist
Problem of ‘old boys club’ and the ‘incompetent subject’
often dwells in one single world view, denying that there are other kinds of knowledge that are relevant (white male Western capitalist technocrat )
President Kennedy visits NY World Fair, Photo source: http://ilongisland.com/Robert_Moses_Long_Island.htm
Peer accountability...
The problem of the ‘incompetent actor’ refers to the Foucaultian idea that knowledge is the property of certain groups, while other groups do not have their knowledge recognized as valid
All this means that spatial planners must adopt a different attitude towards plan-making and implementation. They need to perform new roles...
THENAll knowing
NOWMediator
http://www.newmuseum.org/blog/view/ideas-city-istanbul-or-how-to-obtain-a-building-permit-for-central-park
Robert Moses
V., a young woman planner
Challenge (for planners?)
to clarify and strengthen the democratic anchorage of network forms of governance
©Ro
nald
Voge
l
Participation makes governance more effective
• Strengthens democracy
• Improves legitimacy
• Builds support and understanding for actions
• Likely to deliver more effective results
• A strong argument for participation is that knowledge is constructed in communication. It would be therefore unethical and unintelligent to impose top-down solutions that do not take into account the knowledge of stakeholders.
Systems of governance
The Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index as published in December 2010. The palest blue countries get a score above 9 out of 10 (with Norway being the most democratic country at 9.80), while the black countries score below 3 (with North Korea being the least democratic at 1.08). Source: Economist Intelligent Unit, 2011. Available at http://www.eiu.com/public/
A map of the world, highlighted on a scale from light blue to black, based on the score each country received according to The Economist's Democracy Index survey for 2010, from a scale of 10 to 0, with 10 being the most democratic, and 0 being the least democratic. Hong Kong (score 5.85) and Palestine (score 5.44) were also included in the survey but are not visible on this map.
Electoral democracies
Countries highlighted in blue are designated "electoral democracies" in Freedom House's 2010 survey Freedom in the World. Available at http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fiw10/FIW_2010_Tables_and_Graphs.pdf
Democracy on the rise
This graph shows Freedom House's evaluation of the number of nations in the different categories given above for the period for which there are surveys, 1972–2005. Souce: Freedomhouse.org
New participatory tools?
“The Arab Spring”
Available at: http://thepersonalnavigator.blogspot.com/2011/06/arab-spring-and-what-came-before.html
Occupy Wall Street
http://www.infowars.com/obama-machine-prepares-to-hijack-occupy-wall-street/
The role of social networking
Facebook played an extremely important role in the uprisings throughout the Middle East. Source: theatlanticwire.com
Unequal access persists (but we are getting there)
ReferencesALBRECHTS, L., HEALEY, P. & KUNZMANN, K. R. 2003. Strategic Spatial
Planning and Regional Governance in Europe. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 69, 113-129.
EBERLEIN, B. & KERWER, D. 2004. New Governance in the European Union: A
Theoretical Perspective. Journal of Common Market Studies, 42, 128.
PAPADOPOULOS, Y. 2007. Problems of Democratic Accountability in Network
and Multilevel Governance. European Law Journal, 13, 469-486.
RHODES, R. A. W. 1996. The New Governance: Governing without Government.
Political Studies, XLIV, 652-667.
SALET, W., THORNLEY, A. & KREUKELS, A. 2003. Metropolitan Governance and
Spatial Planning, London, Spon Press.
SEHESTED, K. 2009. Urban Planners as Network Managers and Metagovernors.
Planning Theory and Practice, 10, 245-263.
Thanks for watching & listening!
Should you have any doubts, please contact [email protected]
And visit our BLOG
www.spatialplanningtudelft.eu
Challenge(the(future
SpatialPlanning&Strategy
With special thanks to Ronald DaedalusVogel from Bremen, Germany: Daedalus (V) In
Flickr.com or www.daedalus-v.de/english for the use of his pictures This is
Ronald