Issues of governance in regional planning

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 r.c.rocco@tudelft.nl

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