Summary
Summary Literature Urban Governance in Spatial Planning
- Course
- Institution
Summary of all the required readings in english. It is a concise, but comphrehensive summary.
[Show more]
1 review
By: raintanha5497 • 10 months ago
Seller
Follow
linn33
Reviews received
Content preview
Required readingL1: Origins of the governance concept
• Jessop, B. (1998), The rise of governance and the risk of failure: the case of economic development.
International Social Science Journal 50 (155), pp. 29-45 (17 pp.)
• Rhodes, R.A.W. (2007), Understanding Governance: Ten Years On. Organization Studies 28 (8), pp. 1243-
1264 (22 pp.)
L2: From governance to urban governance
• Kearns, A. & R. Paddison (2000), New Challenges for Urban Governance. Urban Studies 37 (5-6), pp. 845-
850 (6 pp.)
• Obeng-Odoom, F. (2012). On the Origin, Meaning, and Evaluation of Urban Governance. Norsk
Geografisk Tidsskrift - Norwegian Journal of Geography 66(4), pp. 204-212 (9 pp.)
L3: The object of planning: Complexity and multi-level governance
• van Straalen, F.M. & Witte, P.A. (2018), Entangled in scales: multi-level governance challenges for
regional planning strategies. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 5 (1), pp. 157-163 (7 pp.)
• Snel, K.A.W., Witte, P.A., Hartmann, T. & Geertman, S.C.M. (2020), The shifting position of homeowners
in flood resilience: From recipients to key-stakeholders. WIREs Water, e1451, pp. 1-11 (11 pp.)
L4: The process of planning (1): Actors and participation
• Legacy, C. (2017), Is there a Crisis of Participatory Planning? Planning Theory 16(4), pp. 425–442 (18 pp.)
• Monno, V. & A. Khakee (2012), Tokenism or Political Activism? Some Reflections on Participatory
Planning. International Planning Studies 17 (1), pp. 85-101 (17 pp.)
L5: The process of planning (2): Institutions, interests and power
• Lester, T.W. & S. Reckhow (2012), Network governance and regional equity: Shared agendas or
problematic partners? Planning Theory 12 (2), pp. 115-138 (24 pp.)
• Evers, D. & J. de Vries (2013), Explaining Governance in Five Mega-City Regions: Rethinking the Role of
Hierarchy and Government. European Planning Studies 21 (4), pp. 536-555 (20 pp.)
L6: The context of planning: Democracy, legitimacy and justice
• Swyngedouw, E. (2005), Governance Innovation and the Citizen: The Janus Face of Governance-beyond-
the-State. Urban Studies 42 (11), pp. 1991-2006 (16 pp.)
• Fung, A. (2015), Putting the Public Back into Governance: The Challenges of Citizen Participation and Its
Future. Public Administration Review 75 (4), pp. 513-522 (10 pp.)
L7: Integration: New solutions, or old wine in a new bottle?
• Nuissl, H. & D. Heinrichs (2011), Fresh Wind or Hot Air – Does the Governance Discourse Have Something
to Offer to Spatial Planning? Journal of Planning Education and Research 31 (1), pp. 47-59 (23 pp.)
• Schmitt, P. & T. Wiechmann (2018), Unpacking Spatial Planning as the Governance of Place. Extracting
Potentials for Future Advancements in Planning Research. disP – The Planning Review 54 (4), pp. 21-33
(13 pp.)
,Lecture 1: Origins of the governance concept
Article 1: The rise of governance and the risk of failure, Jessop
Two meanings of governance:
• Governance can refer to any mode of coordination of interdependent activities.
• Heterarchy (or self-organization), It is a system of organization where the elements of the organization
are unranked or non-hierarchical. This meaning began to attract renewed attention.
The rise of governance practices
“The rise of governance is partly due to secular shifts in political economy which have made heterarchy more
significant than markets or hierarchies for economic, political, and social coordination.”
• Evolutionary advantage: increasing interdependencies are no longer easily managed through markets
and hierarchies.
• Interpersonal trust can facilitate inter-organization negotiation. Inter-organizational dialogue can
facilitate inter-systemic communication and the resulting noise reduction can promote interpersonal
trust by enhancing mutual understanding and by stabilizing expectations.
• An increase in the unstructured complexity of the economy on world scale triggers attempts at different
scale to re-impose some structure and order by resorting to heterarchical coordination.
→ consequence: turn from the welfare national state to a more complex, negotiated, systems oriented to
international competitiveness, innovation, flexibility and enterprise culture.
Governance success and governance failure
Success: continued commitment to dialogue to exchange more information, encouraging solidarity, reducing
opportunism, mobilize consensus, build mutual understanding and resource synergy, which means the added
value of combing resources instead of acting alone.
However, the conditions for successful heterarchic governance depend on the modes of coordination adopted
(Interpersonal networking, the self-organization of inter-organizational relations and inter-systemic steering),
the constitution of the objects of governance and the environments in which objectives are achieved.
Attempt to build effective governance mechanisms should include:
1. Simplifying models and practices which reduce the complexity of the world but are congruent with real
world processes and relevant to governance objectives.
2. Developing the capacity for dynamic interactive learning about various causal processes and forms of
interdependence, attributions of responsibility and capacity for actions, and possibilities of coordination
in a complex, turbulent environment.
3. Building methods for coordinating actions across different social forces with different identities,
interests, and meaning systems, over different spatio-temporal horizons, and over different domains of
action.
4. Establishing both a common world view for individual action and a system of meta- governance to
stabilize key players’ orientations, expectations, and rules of conduct.
There are three main sets of factors which limit the success of governance in guiding economic development:
1. The very dynamic of capitalism affects all forms of economic and social coordination, including the
market mechanism itself.
2. The insertion of heterarchy into the broader political system: mode of coordination, access to
institutional support and material resources necessary to pursue reflexively agreed objectives.
3. The state typically monitors their effects on its own capacity to secure social cohesion in divided
societies.
Dilemmas of governance
• Cooperation vs Competition: you can gain more if you allow yourself to cooperate but you can also get
in a conflict. You want to compete with your concurrent but need them some time to earn more money
• Openness vs Closure: closure may lock in members whose exit would be beneficial or block recruitment
of new social partners, but openness may discourage partners from entering long-term commitments
and sharing long-term time horizons.
• Governability vs Flexibility: reducing policies and rules allows more flexibility to govern a complex
world, but on the other hand, rules need to be there to govern in the first place.
, • Accountability vs Efficiency: some public-private partnerships are expected to serve the public interest
as well as to deliver private benefits. This poses a dilemma in accountability versus efficiency.
From governance failure to meta-governance
Meta- governance: the ‘organization of self-organization’. It has institutional and strategic dimensions:
• Institutionally: it provides mechanisms for collective learning about the functional linkages and the
material interdependencies among different sites and spheres of action.
• Strategically: it promotes the development of shared visions which might encourage new institutional
arrangements and/or new activities to be pursued to supplement and/or complement existing patterns
of governance.
In both respects it involves the shaping of the context within which heterarchies can be forged rather than
developing specific strategies and initiatives for them.
Thus, on the one hand, market competition will be balanced by co-operation, the invisible hand will be combined
with a visible handshake. The state becomes but one participant among others in the pluralistic guidance system
and contributes its own distinctive resources to the negotiation process.
Conclusion
Given the growing structural complexity and opacity of the social world, indeed, failure becomes the most likely
outcome of most attempts to govern it with reference to multiple objectives over extended spatial and temporal
horizons. It is necessary to adopt a satisficing approach to these attempts:
• A self-reflexive orientation to what will prove satisfactory in case of failure
• A self-reflexive repertoire of responses so that strategies and tactics can be combined to reduce the
likelihood of failure
• A self-reflexive irony in the sense that participants must recognize the likelihood of failure but proceed
as if success was possible.
Article 2: Understanding Governance, Rhodes
The story so far
Core ideas of the British government:
• Policy networks are sets of formal and informal institutional linkages between governmental and other
actors structured around shared interests in public policymaking and implementation. They emerge
between the networks’ members and are therefore interdependent. Any organization is dependent on
others for resources. Shared values and norms are the glue which holds networks together: trust is
essential.
• Governance is a new process of governing, of governing with and through networks. Governance as
networks.
• Core executive is about the question who does what and who has what resources.
• Hollowing out of the state means that the growth of governance reduced the ability of the core
executive to act effectively
Key criticism on policy networks (Westminster-model) and the way forward
1. the context of policy networks: changes in networks and governance must be placed in a broader
context.
Where do we go from here: The history of governance during the 20 th century appears as a shifting
balance between government and governance. It is through such historical analysis of the shifting
boundaries between state and civil society that I would seek to explore the context of network
governance.
2. Explaining change: policy networks cannot explain change
Where do we go from here: make use of ethnographic analysis tools and adopt an unstructured
approach to explore beliefs and practices of people and the role of both in explaining how the practices
of network governance exchange.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller linn33. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $5.43. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
62890 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now