IP-ESDP,

KTH, Stockholm,
April 9th, 2010

Governance –
Conceptual Clarification and
research implications

Andreas Novy
WU, Vienna
Outline
 Governance?

 Can planning save the city?

 Can urban development projects

save the city?
Why is this lecture relevant for IP?
2.1. „Identifying stakeholders and
actors“
 Mapping
 Identifying
 Who pays and benefits?
 Interaction, negotiation, conflicts
=> Conceptualise interaction and
networks of planning and of all actors
(and norms, institutions and regulations)
who shape the Royal Seaport
neighbourhood
Governance: a first approximation
 To substitute government as
mechanical/bureaucratic/top-down
 Analytical: Governance introduced
as anti-concept to government and
state involvement
 Normative: Liberal utopia of „Good
Governance“: free societies based
on free markets and property,
democracy and human rights
Governance and its siblings
 Governance: one of different neologisms
which became widespread in the 1990s
 Sustainability stressing the Nature-
Society-Nexus
 Governance substituting „government“
 Competitiveness emphasising beggar
thy neighbour policies
 Common characteristic: Constant
intermingling of analytical-normative
elements!
 Wishful thinking (harmonizing, a-political)
 Lack of rigour
Keynesian Welfare National State
(1930s-1970s): „The Swedish model“
 Mass production for mass consumption within the
national power container
 Planning from above by “the government”
 Bureaucratic top-down approaches
 Territorial, area-based planning
 Inclusive welfare regime based on a gender
division of labour
 State-provisioning of public goods
 Diminishing social inequalities
 Universal social rights
 No concern for the environment
Governance and Royal Seaport 1
Sweden is well known and proud of
its inclusive welfare model, built
during Fordism (post World War II):
 Does the Swedish model of welfare
survive in the Royal Seaport Urban
Development Project?
 Social Inclusion?
 Full employment?
 Social and Economic Sustainability?
Neoliberalism
(from 1970s to 2008 and beyond)
 Liberalisation, Privatisation and Globalisation
 Shift of power to private investors
 Intermingling of finance and real estate capital (cf.
economic and fiscal crisis 2008 and beyond)
 Rising inequality and poverty
 Fragmentation of socioeconomic and
spatial development
 From comprehensive planning to projects
(project culture leads to achipelago-urban
development)
 Public-Private-Partnership
 Erosion of territories as power containers to
be regulated and „planned“ (city, nation, Europe)
Governance and Royal Seaport 2
Given neoliberal dominance in
Europe, and Stockholm as part of
Sweden:
Is the Royal Seaport a neoliberal
Urban development project?
In which sense?
In which aspect?
… or is it exceptionary? (Green City?,
Post-neoliberal?)
Understanding Governance
 Mode of coordination and negotiation,
relating to control, resistance and steering
 Network-based organising of (political)
activities
 State/Government no longer the sole agent
responsible for development
 Multi-stakeholder form of governing, regulating
and planning
 Interplay of state, firms and citizens solving socio-
economic problems or creating societal
opportunities
 Governance as Stakeholder-Dialogue
 Re-scaling of political space
Can planning save the city?
 Capitalist market societies:
 Economic power differs from political
power (private from public interest)
 Urban territories are nodes in world
economy
 Urgent concerns of urban
inhabitants cannot be solved
directly by political actors
 Employment, wage differentials, social
exclusion
Current Trends in Governance
 Partner State
 Blurring boundaries between public and private
actors and spaces
 Policy networks

 Private – public partnerships

 Consensual arrangements
 Dialogue fora, „educating investors“

 „Hegemonic consensus“

 Bypassing of (parliamentary and plebiscitary)

democracy (who governs in Stockholm?)
 Pro-business alliances
 Elitist governance model
 Restricted participation
Current Trends in Governance
 Participatory governance
 Active citizens participate in issues of public
concern
 Who is entitled to participate?
 What are the Decision-making rules?
 Emancipatory potential, if
 Linking participation to education (power and
knowledge)
 open to all affected inhabitants
 Clearly defined decision-making power (instead
of a mere consulting position; e.g. participatory
budget in Porto Alegre)
 Decisions within participatory settings also
concern socio-economic development (fiscal
issues, job creation, social services)
Current Trends in Governance
 Empowerment of Civil society and
Third Sector
 Provision of services and goods by citizen
associations, cooperatives, NGOs, Local
Employment Initiatives, Solidarity
Economy
 Problems
 Voluntary work in third sector instead of
paid state employment (especially
women)
 Bureaucratization of NGOs
 Accountability problems with third sector
provided services
Can neighbourhoods save the city?
 Capitalist market societies are based on
the dialectics of territory and space
(David Harvey):
 Area-based Planning as shaping an urban
territory
 Designing a perfect („sustainable“)
neighbourhood
 But: Most important issues for a good life are
not decided at the neighbourhood level (job,
social security, ecological sustainability) =>
 Politics of scale – Multi-scalar
analysis
Multi-level/ multi-scalar governance
 Interplay of actors & regulations
from different spatial levels
 Federalism: Actual governance before the word
existed!
 Glocalization: City and the world, no more (no
hinterland, no agglomeration, no mediations)
 EU as prototype for multi-level governance
(regional, national and European mediations
between city and the world)
 Governance of Royal Seaport:
Interplay of actors & regulations from
different spatial levels which influence
development in Royal Seaport
Governance and Royal Seaport 3
What happens at regional, national, European level
can be more important for a neighbourhood than
measures taken locally:
 What type of scale-sensitive coordination of
local, regional and national planning
institutions/instruments are needed?
 Which supra-local institutional-regulatory
changes are needed to achieve sustainable urban
development in Royal Seaport?
 Job creation
 Shift from services to industry? (cf. F. Martinelli)