Local Economy-2015-Christie-0269094215603953

Feature

A collaborative approach toevent-led regeneration: Thegovernance of legacy from the2014 Commonwealth Games

Linda Christie and Kenneth GibbUniversity of Glasgow, UK

Abstract

This paper stresses the role of collaborative working within the new urban governance literature.

The legacy approach for the 2014 Commonwealth Games has thus far been well received as an

example of successful partnership working. Glasgow’s approach to legacy is discussed within the

wider context of an increasing strategic focus on event-led regeneration. High-level political

support for legacy led to the early development of Glasgow’s Legacy Plan in 2009, followed by

the development of a legacy partnership: the Glasgow Legacy Board. The paper contributes to the

literature by exploring a conceptual understanding of inter-governmental working for regener-

ation, through close examination of Glasgow’s legacy approach, development, structure and gov-

ernance. To what extent does Glasgow’s collaborative approach to legacy represent a new

institutional form of network governance for the delivery of urban regeneration in Scotland?

The paper also reflects on the long-term transferability of this collaborative approach to legacy for

the delivery of urban regeneration in Scotland beyond 2014.

Keywords

event-led regeneration, legacy, network governance, 2014 Commonwealth Games

Introduction

Event-led regeneration with a focus onlegacy (Hiller, 2000; Matheson, 2010;Paddison and Miles, 2006) and governance(Leopkey and Parent, 2012) has assumedmore significance in recent years. Thenotion of legacy coincides with researchon collaborative working for regenerationwithin the new urban governance literature(see Davies, 2002; Mason, 2007; Matthews,

2012). This paper discusses the intercon-nected and overlapping nature of theseconcepts in the context of Glasgow’s 2014Commonwealth Games (CWG) collabora-tive legacy approach. The event-led regen-eration legacy debate is closely related to

Corresponding author:

Linda Christie, Business School, University of Glasgow,

UK.

Email: [email protected]

Local Economy

0(0) 1–17

! The Author(s) 2015

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0269094215603953

lec.sagepub.com

at Glasgow University Library on October 16, 2015lec.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://lec.sagepub.com/

research on understanding regenerationpartnerships, governance and how policynetworks can best achieve policy success(see for example Klijn and Koppenjan,2000; Provan and Milward, 2001). Rhodes(1988) first characterised collaborationbetween public and private actors in theUK in terms of policy communities, whichproliferated in the 1990s and 2000s throughthe promotion of the public–private, collab-orative partnership. Such partnerships arethought to provide governance solutionsto problems of public policy coordinationand to emphasise structural relationshipsbetween political institutions (Marsh, 1998).

Jessop (1998) and Stoker (1998a)contributed to the conceptualisation ofpolicy networks for public sector regulation,suggesting that networks can facilitateinteraction between public and private stake-holders by providing a new mode of govern-ance, distinct from hierarchies and markets(see also Kenis, 1991; Kenis and Schneider,1991; Scharpf, 1978, 1994; Schneider, 1992).The emphasis on collaborative workingoccurred at a time when hierarchical policy-making was also being questioned (Keastet al., 2013; Rhodes, 1997; Sørensen andTorfing, 2007; Weiss and Wilkinson, 2014).

In the UK, much of what is known asnetwork governance research views urbanregeneration partnerships as a policy-making mechanism based on the coordin-ation of trust relationships (see Harding,1998; Stoker, 1998b). Such relationshipsare shaped by ‘place-specific influences onpartnership working’ (Mason, 2007: 2367).However, regeneration partnerships arethought to be both challenging and difficultto achieve in practice and are known fortheir complex governance. Collaborativeworking is often uncritically supported inpolicy practice, albeit with various studieshighlighting the obstacles to collaborativeworking in local government (e.g. Baker,1992; Bradshaw, 2000; Cigler, 1999; Coxand Wood, 1994; Lackey et al., 2002).

Nevertheless, there exists a general consensusabout the significance of network govern-ance to understanding collaborative policyprocesses, albeit that many researchers (e.g.Agranoff and McGuire, 2003; O’Toole,1997) have argued that ‘the ability to harnessthe benefits of collaboration has been andcontinues to be limited due to the absenceof a coherent theoretical framework inform-ing their design, management, evaluationand governance’ (Keast et al., 2013: 18).

What is essential towards understandingregeneration partnerships is to identify whatfactors contribute to successful networkman-agement, although research in this arearemains relatively novel (Edelenbos et al.,2013: 132). Indeed, within the event-ledregeneration legacy context, there is littleunderstanding of the evolution of legacydevelopment as a strategy for social and eco-nomic regeneration in the UK, and, how sucha partnership should be governed (Leopkeyand Parent, 2012). Holman (2013) suggeststhat key tonetwork success is the interconnec-tivity of partnerships, and their embeddingwithin, rather than detachment from, broaderlocal governance decision-making structures.

In this paper, Glasgow’s 2014 CWGlegacy approach provides the basis bywhich we can explore the significance of thedevelopment and integration of new govern-ance mechanisms for delivering urban regen-eration. The paper is not an analysis of theunderlying value of event-led regeneration,nor the achievement of legacy objectives,instead, the aim here is to contribute towardsthe conceptual and knowledge base on net-work governance of regeneration partner-ships, by asking to what extent Glasgow’sgovernance of 2014 CWG legacy stacks-upas a strategy for collaborative approaches tourban regeneration? The rest of the paper isin three parts. First, an overview of UKevent-led regeneration strategies is discussedwithin the context of collaborative publicservice delivery. Second, Glasgow’s legacyapproach is described as a case study for

2 Local Economy 0(0)



analysing the growing emphasis on event-ledregeneration and collaborative working.Finally, the paper discusses to what extentGlasgow’s approach provides the basis fora new institutional form for delivering andgoverning urban regeneration followed byconcluding remarks.

Theoretical framework:Event-led regeneration and thenetwork governance of legacy

Regeneration in the UK has widened itsreach since the early 1990s. Not only is itassociated with economic and infrastructuraldevelopment, but it has become an umbrellaterm for the ‘promotion of the social, eco-nomic and environmental well-being of anarea’ (LGA, 1998). In this light, event-ledregeneration strategies are thought toincreasingly form part of wider urbangrowth strategies based largely on their per-ceived capacity to attract global tourism,stimulate public and private infrastructureinvestment and their capacity to reconstructurban space (Harvey, 1989, 2001).Moreover, continuing interest in the impactof major sporting and cultural events has ledto increasing research on how they contrib-ute towards wider economic and socialdevelopment objectives and wider regener-ation planning. Key to this has been therecognised contribution of communityinvolvement within the development anddelivery of physical legacies (see for example:Cashman and Hughes, 1999; Chalkley andEssex, 1999; Preuss, 2004).

At the same time, there is also growinginterest in the extent to which lastingevent legacies are actually achieved or areephemeral objectives stressed ex ante whilebidding – largely as a response to the risingeconomic costs of hosting major events.In particular, the ability of events to deliverwider health and physical activity impacts isquestionable, with suggestions that theCWG may even increase inequalities due

to the opportunity cost of reduced spendingon other policies and programmes(McCartney et al., 2010, 2013). A critical lit-erature argues that major events ‘have nosignificant long-term effect on growth’(Jones, 2001); do not achieve social benefits(especially, sports participation); and indeed,can lead to potential displacement effects forcommunities directly affected by the hostingof major events. As such, there exists both acontested sense and an apparent nebulous-ness. The concept of legacy has beendescribed as ‘an elusive, problematic andeven dangerous word’ (Cashman, 2003: 33).

There is also a growing scepticismamongst policy makers and many commen-tators reflecting a perceived over-commodifi-cation of places and the potential risks fromincreasing corporatisation of post-industrialurban development strategies (for instance,due to the branding and sponsorship require-ments for the delivery of major event poli-cies). There are therefore both conceptualand empirical disagreements about thenature and extent of legacy-led regenerationassociated with major events. However, botharea-based regeneration strategies and event-led legacy strategies are closely related by theneed to develop complementary governancearrangements.

Network governance of event legacy

Despite the emerging literature on majorevents as discrete regeneration projects,there remain unanswered questions con-cerning the governance and delivery ofpost-event related legacy aspirations as aneoliberal approach to regeneration.Legacy and its governance has become animportant aspect to hosting major eventsrequiring host cities to clearly demonstratea return on investment and long-termbenefits (Leopkey and Parent, 2012). Theliterature on delivery impacts of hostingmajor events provides critical insight onthe potential for wider economic and

Christie and Gibb 3



social legacies, although much of it is aboutthe impacts relating to event delivery itself(i.e. the additionality from the direct invest-ment related to the delivery of an event).Existing research pays little attention, how-ever, to the process governance of partner-ship activity of those not directly involvedin the delivery of non-event related projectsdesigned to help maximise additional socialand economic benefits from hosting a majorevent. The analysis of governance relatingto event-led regeneration legacy has alsotended to focus on the activities of agenciesand organisations directly responsible forthe delivery of the event itself or the govern-ance of specific projects and programmes(i.e. infrastructure and initiatives) directlyrelating to the event.

The distinction between delivering directversus indirect legacy associated with majorevents is key to understanding the role thatnetwork governance plays in achieving long-term regeneration effects. Indeed, Girginov’s(2011: 544) review of the Olympics Gameslegacy suggests that ‘most studies on mega-sporting events have failed to explicitly rec-ognize the legacy construction process as agovernance issue’, where the delivery oflegacy is thought to involve the design ofspecific systems of governance ‘to guideand steer collective actions towards a con-sensus amongst various parties concerned’.Therefore, there is a literature gap concern-ing the key factors explaining the successfuldelivery and governance of wider non-eventregeneration legacy impacts (i.e. the indirectsocial and economic impacts related to thehosting of an event).

Governance can be defined as a ‘complexset of institutions and actors that are drawnfrom, but also beyond, government’(Stoker, 1998a: 19). The network elementof governance relates to the establishmentof ‘mutual understanding and embedded-ness’ and shared vision of joint working(19), where self-governing networks arethought to provide the ‘ultimate partnership

activity’ (Stoker, 1998a: 23). The networkperspective of public policymaking, imple-mentation and management provides afocus on the joint actions of networkactors (Edelenbos et al., 2013), betweengovernment, business and civil society.

Regeneration partnerships in the form ofpolicy networks, typically involve collab-orative arrangements by presenting them-selves as:

a set of relatively stable relationships which

are of non-hierarchical and interdependentnature linking a variety of actors, whoshare common interests with regard to a

policy and who exchange resources topursue these shared interests acknowled-ging that co-operation is the best way to

achieve common goals. (Borzel, 1998: 254)

The management of social and economicchange can be seen as a more dynamic,more complex and more heterogeneous pro-cess, where the development of horizontal,governance networks is thought of as areflection of modern society and a signalof ‘real change in the structure of thepolity’ (Coleman and Perl, 1999: 693).

Bringing the above related conceptstogether, the network perspective can beused as a tool for ‘analyzing and managingcontemporary governance processes’(Edelenbos et al., 2013: 133), relevant to theissue at hand. The recent approach to deliver-ing event legacy strategies by involvingmultiple stakeholders is much in line withencouraging partnership strategies and struc-tures, through for example: area-based initia-tives, community economic developmentand community planning partnerships (seeCowell, 2004; Lawless, 2001, 2004). Bynature, such partnership approaches havebeen found to be temporary in nature(Davies, 2003;Holman, 2007), with the poten-tial risk of loss of knowledge once the partner-ship project ends (Carley, 2000). Given thatevent-legacy strategies tend to be structuredin linewith thekeydates relating to thehosting




of the event, this raises key questions aboutwhat happens to legacy partnerships post-games and how long-term impacts are sus-tained. Indeed, in line with growing researchwhich suggests locally focussed approaches toservice delivery, informed and guided by com-munities, may have more chance of successthan traditional top-down approaches to ser-vice delivery (see Hyman, 2002 for example),supports the opportunity for sustaining long-term community involvement in post-eventlegacy. Legacy is increasingly viewed as a keypart of games planning, giving rise to theopportunity to better understand how‘legacy strategies are delivered and the role ofnetwork governance’ (Leopkey and Parent,2012: 936) through the analysis of specificcase studies of legacy to help provide ‘adeeper analysis of the governance’ (Leopkeyand Parent, 2012: 939). There are even sugges-tions that a partnership legacy (Clark andKearns, 2014)may result frommainstreamingnew and improved partnership constellationsindirectly relating to the hosting of majorevents.

Glasgow case study:Collaborative approach to thesocial and economic legacy ofthe 2014 CWG

Below, we present a case study of Glasgow’sLegacy governance operated through theGlasgow Legacy Board (GLB) charac-terised by the typical complexity of a gov-ernance network, due to multi-actorinvolvement and multi-levels of governanceunderpinning its delivery. Full details of theGLB membership can be found in TheGlasgow 2014 Legacy Framework(Glasgow City Council, 2009: 2). Theempirical material reported is mainlyobtained through document analysis meth-odology (Wolf, 2004). Publicly availablereports, press statements and speecheswere used to document the legacy govern-ance processes for the period 2009–2013.

The analysis of document content alsoreflects the lead authors’ own observationswhilst employed as Legacy Manager withGlasgow City Council (GCC) from 2007to 2013.

Glasgow’s event-led regeneration context

The hosting of such major events in theform (in part) of expensive mass-marketingcampaigns is not new (2014 was led by thebrand: People Make Glasgow). Glasgow hasplaced increasing stress on event-led regen-eration schemes: from the Garden festival inthe 1980s, the 1990 City of Culture and thehosting of the Glasgow 2014 CWG throughto the ongoing strategy seeking to hostfuture major international events, includingthe world gymnastics in 2015 (see Table 1).Acknowledging the global scale and extentof investment inherently required by host-ing the 2014 CWG, Glasgow has undoubt-edly been provided with a rare opportunity

Table 1. Major events in Glasgow (1993–2014).

1983 Opening of the Burrell Collection

1985 Opening of the Scottish Exhibition and

Conference Centre

1988 Glasgow Garden Festival

1990 European City of Culture

1994 First ‘Celtic Connections’ winter music

festival

1996 Visual Arts Festival; Opening of GoMA

1997 Opening of Clyde Auditorium (the

‘Armadillo’)

1997 International Rotary Convention

1999 UK City of Architecture and Design

2002 Host of European Champions League Final

2005, 2007, 2012 Radiance Festival of Light

2007 Host of UEFA Cup Final

2009, 2011, 2012, 2013 MOBO Awards

2010 Renewables UK

2014 Opening of the Hydro venue

2014 Commonwealth Games

2014 MTV Awards

2015 International Gymnastics

Christie and Gibb 5



to showcase the city to a wider internationalaudience by capitalising on the infrastruc-ture and experience of hosting the CWG.

Despite the shift towards event-led regen-eration, there is limited evidence demonstrat-ing the regeneration impact and long-termbenefits to local communities of investmentcoinciding with event strategies (see Coalteret al., 2000; Gratton, 1999; Hall, 2004).There exists mixed evidence on the impactof event-based investment schemes, and typ-ically over-estimate the economic benefits(Barclay, 2009). The economic evidencefrom hosting major events is inconclusive(Martins and Serra, 2007; Veraros et al.,2004), with some evidence of limited long-term impacts on economic growth (Jones,2001). There also exists a body of criticalliterature about Glasgow’s embracing ofevent-led regeneration (see Damer, 1989;Gray and Mooney, 2011; Mooney, 2004;Paton et al., 2012; Porter, 2009) that seeksto challenge the efficacy of event-led regen-eration on various grounds such as value formoney, community impacts and lack of con-sultation, albeit on occasion equally open tochallenge for lacking robust evidence.

There is, however, some recent evidenceto suggest that major sporting events,aligned with existing economic developmentand regeneration strategies, are more likelyto demonstrate legacy success than thosewithout (Andersson et al., 2008). Researchhas shown that sporting event legacy canlead to a potential demonstration effectwhen specific strategies and initiatives havebeen put in place alongside games invest-ment, to help capture and harness thewider, long-term benefits (Weed, 2014).Glasgow’s 2014 CWG legacy strategyreflects this growing emphasis on the devel-opment of discrete legacy strategiesassociated with hosting major events.There were a number of key organisationsresponsible for the delivery of the 2014CWG: the Scottish Government (SG),Commonwealth Games Council for

Scotland, the Commonwealth GamesFederation (CGF) and GCC. Aside fromthe partners’ main functions for deliveringthe 2014 CWG infrastructure programme,GCC’s main aim was also to enhance itscapacity to achieve its core social and eco-nomic objectives in the form of legacy.Glasgow’s legacy approach was under-pinned by partnership working, bringingkey public and private sector agenciestogether, to pool resources, work inunison and share and deliver ideas.

GCC created a set of specific legacypolices to promote partnership working atan early stage in their 2014 CWG biddingprocess, including: the CommonwealthGames Apprenticeship Initiative andCommunity Benefits in Procurement Policy,thought a significant evolutional adaptationof legacy, given the focus on legacy planningpre- and post-Games (Leopkey and Patent,2012). Thereafter, post-2009 once Glasgowhad received 2014 CWG host city status,the delivery of Glasgow’s legacy prioritiesand economic and social initiatives wasaligned and embedded with the city’s existingsocial and economic regeneration strategies,steered and managed by a dedicated systemof governance, led by the GLB.

The 2014 CWG legacy approach mirrorsmany regeneration partnerships involvinghorizontal policy coordination acrossvarious levels of inter-governmental work-ing arrangements. Partnership working onlegacy in Glasgow required the coordin-ation of a range of complex political andstrategic priorities across a network ofmultiple stakeholders (i.e. between state,private, third sector and community).Glasgow’s 2014 CWG legacy partnershiphas, thus far, been credited as exemplifyingsuccessful partnership working (AuditScotland, 2012; Commonwealth GamesFederation (CGF), 2012). A characteristicof its distinctiveness has been the bringingtogether of a range of complex partnershipsinto one governance structure. This also




speaks to the extent to which new partner-ship structures have been successful or lim-ited by the Glasgow context, historical andother place-specific factors and is arguablyimportant to understanding the constraintsfacing regeneration partnerships moregenerally.

Glasgow’s Legacy Framework (GLF):Structure and governance arrangements

GCC as a major funder and host city partnerfor the delivery of the 2014 CWG had both astrategic and a delivery 2014 CWG remit,and a key role in overseeing the successfulcompletion of the CWG infrastructure pro-gramme. GCC’s main functions and internalgovernance structures and arrangementswere subject to scrutiny by Audit Scotland,who recently reported that GCC’s govern-ance structures had developed well (AuditScotland, 2009). As part of GCC’s strategicremit, a dedicated 2014 legacy strategy waslaunched in 2009: the Glasgow LegacyFramework (Glasgow City Council, 2009),with the same Audit Scotland report settingout the requirements for clear governancestructures for legacy delivery. The GLFcovers a 10-year period up to 2019 andensures that planning for a lasting legacy isfully embedded into all GCC’s core strategicactivity towards 2014. The GLF also com-mitted GCC to the establishment of legacygovernance structures to support the imple-mentation of the Legacy Framework, withthe rollout and implementation of the city’slegacy strategy across Glasgow followingthereafter.

Through the embedding of legacy withinGlasgow’s Community Planning structures,GCC’s approach can be seen to haveencouraged the development of new andexisting partnerships across the city,actively involving key public, private andthe third sector agencies in legacy delivery,‘in order to support and coordinate thedelivery of legacy activity’ (GCC Executive

Committee Report, February 2011). Theestablishment of legacy governance struc-tures aligned with existing CommunityPlanning structures also created new insti-tutional relationships by placing the city’skey delivery departments in a more trans-parent and coordinated structure.

The new legacy governance arrangementsfor Glasgow, therefore, generate new actorconstellations (between the community,GCC delivery departments and third sectorcommunity planning agencies). For example,the development of a new set of volunteeringsupport structures for the city, resulting inthird sector volunteering agencies beingbrought together with city officials to estab-lish new institutional relationships for deliver-ing volunteering support across Glasgow.As an endorsement of the city’s approach togoverning and aligning legacywithin commu-nity planning structures, Audit Scotland’sProgress Report 2 recommends that the‘Scottish Government follow GCC’s SingleOutcome Agreement (SOA) approach’ ofaligning existing initiatives and fundingmechanism to deliver legacy.

The GLF can be placed within thecontext of a complex urban governancepartnership for economic developmentthat ‘acknowledges the role that networkinteraction and the development of trust,norms, values, and institutional practiceshave within urban governing structures’(Holman, 2013: 84). The GLF is steeredby the GLB, established to help ‘champion,coordinate and encourage a legacy mindsetacross Glasgow and provide governance,independent challenge and scrutiny of thedelivery of the legacy programme’ (GCCExecutive Committee Report, February2011). The GLB is chaired by the politicalLeader of the city council and includes rep-resentation of the main 2014 CWG deliverypartners: the 2014 Organising Committee(OC) and The SG.

Importantly, previous to the 2014 CWG,OCs were not held to account for the

Christie and Gibb 7



delivery of legacy by CGF official require-ments. The membership of the 2014 GLBtherefore plays a key role in the develop-ment of further network constellations, byholding the 2014 OC to account for its com-mitment and involvement in the delivery oflegacy as a key member of the 2014 GLB.

One of the biggest challenges facing thedelivery of the GLB is arguably the coord-ination of a large number of public sectorrepresentatives, responsible for the deliveryof social and economic regeneration acrossthe city. To achieve this, the governancerequirements of the GLB involved the add-itional coordination of a performancemanagement and measurement framework,to measure and monitor legacy activity. Theprogress and performance against a set ofpre-identified legacy outcomes (i.e. as setout in the GLF) have been regularly reportedin an annual Legacy Progress Report to thecouncil’s Executive Committee and reflectsthe coordinated monitoring and reportingstructures delivered by a set of ‘six legacytheme sub-groups’ sitting under the GLB.

The legacy sub-groups are responsible fordelivering social and economic legacy initia-tives, reporting to theGLBon actions and per-formance four times a year, with each groupchaired by relevant senior responsible councilofficers (i.e. Theme Champions) and includingpartner agencies from across the city. Well-established internal governance structureswere already in place in GCC for the govern-ance of economic and social initiatives andcommunity planning structures, pre-CWG2014. However, the establishment of the GLFgovernance structures provided a new forumfor the coordination and alignment of thesestructures, to ensure they were tasked withdelivering the objectives of the GLF.

A significant contribution of the GLFgovernance structures has arguably beenthe closer alignment of key agencies andstrategies, within an already cluttered land-scape of social and economic developmentactivity across the city. The GLF structures

can therefore be argued to provide atransparent system of governance for thecoordination, measurement and evaluationof key economic and social initiatives acrossGlasgow.

Discussion: New insights on thegovernance of legacy

Glasgow’s legacy approach has beenacknowledged externally, supporting thenotion that such collaborative working isworth replicating. The 2014 CWG legacyapproach was described by theCommonwealth Games Federation Co-ordination Commission as ‘a blueprint forfuture games. . .the legacy programmes havebeen highly successful and will serve as abenchmark for all future CommonwealthGames’. In relation to the governance andmonitoring approach for achieving legacyoutcomes, Audit Scotland also made clearthe support of Glasgow’s governanceapproach to legacy: ‘The ScottishGovernment should encourage CommunityPlanning partners to adopt GlasgowCity’s Single Outcome Agreement (SOA)approach of aligning existing initiatives andfunding to ensure legacy benefits from theCommonwealth Games throughout Scotland’(Audit Scotland Progress Report 2: Planningfor the XXth Commonwealth Games: 6).

As a governance network, the GLBrepresented several dimensions. The firstinvolved public, private and communitystakeholders. This was to create a relativelystable character, in that it has existed for theduration of the pre- and post-legacy plan-ning process (i.e. established in 2009 and inplace until 2019), in line with the legacystrategy timeframe (i.e. a 10-year time-frame). The final dimension involvedwicked problems (Weber and Khademian,2008) ‘where policy solutions may be con-tested due to divergent perceptions andactions of actors key to the problems andsolutions’ (Edelenbos et al., 2013: 136).




Glasgow’s legacy partnership can bedescribed as a complex governance network(Klijn et al., 2010a, 2010b), characterised bycomplex interaction and decision-making bydifferent actors, and comprised of muchuncertainty due to the complex dynamicsresulting from the varying strategies of inter-dependent actors. To understand how gov-ernance complexity is managed, thediscussion below is an adaptation of the ana-lytical approach untaken byMason (2007), inrelation to the critical process-based charac-teristics central to successful collaborativeworking, including: resource sharing, politicalleadership, community involvement, mutuallearning and horizontal accountability(Mason, 2007: 2367). The framework is aug-mented by including the role of Trust, as aplace-specific characteristic influencing net-work governance success (Klijn et al., 2010a).

Resource pooling and shared agendas

The GLF is based on a model for a moreflexible financing of inter-governmental part-nerships, where the parties aligned resourcesaccording to the principles of Best Value. Inother words, legacy is not a stand-alone orseparately funded activity, where the fundingfor the main infrastructure projects forthe games was fully committed. However,the additional legacy outcomes set out in theGLF were put in place with a view to using‘the Games to help safeguard and refocusproject activity in line with the six core stra-tegic ambitions for delivering a Prosperous,Active, International, Greener, Accessible,and Inclusive Glasgow’. Prior to the launchof the GLF, the city council had already allo-cated funding to the delivery of key legacyprojects, such as the CommonwealthApprenticeship Initiative. In other words,the process of realigning existing budgets tothe delivery of key projects to meet legacyaspirations had already started.

The governance approach to deliveringthe GLF was used as an opportunity to

enhance and build on existing programmesof activity, to develop new ways of working,better partnerships across the city andencourage the pooling of resources to deli-ver more inspired ways of working. In a dif-ficult economic climate, and with no specificfunding identified to support the delivery of2014 CWG legacy strategy, GCC appointeda small dedicated 2014 legacy team to steerthe development and governance of thelegacy programme for Glasgow. GCC’sapproach was to align the legacy strategywith the city’s existing social and economicregeneration plans, including those of com-munity planning partners. The result was alegacy strategy that supported the delivery ofthe city’s single outcome agreement object-ives, premised on the idea that ‘CommunityPlanning partners are vital in delivering theaspirations of the Legacy Framework, andwill play a key role in the identification ofnew and improved mechanisms for deliver-ing legacy activity’ (Glasgow City Council,2009: 70).

By realigning budgets, this meant existingprojects’ funding arrangements came underfurther scrutiny to ensure theywere deliveringon the legacy objectives, and if not, howmightthey.The creationof a ‘legacybrand’wasusedmainly to help local community stakeholdersgeneratematch funding for legacy aspirationsfrom other key funding agencies across thecity. As at June 2014, some 300 projects hadbeen granted approval to use the legacy logo.In this sense, the legacy process can be seen tohave encouraged stakeholders to lobby andactively seek out funding opportunities forthe delivery of new (including community)projects across the city. Although the GLFmakes clear that legacy is not a separatelyfundedprocess, the newgovernance processesand mechanisms arguably helped to providean improved process for identifying matchfunding opportunities.

Legacy governance structures created animproved system for lobbying for govern-ment funding, by providing a more

Christie and Gibb 9



coordinated and transparent platform forraising funding needs with key agencies.The process also created an environmentto promote the use of more innovative fund-ing techniques for public service, includingsponsorship opportunities for projects. Forexample, as part of the legacy governanceprocesses, GCC’s 2014 team established acentral coordination group for identifyingkey projects across the city that would besuitable for sponsorship opportunities.

Leadership

One of the key strengths of the original 2014CWG bid was the collaborative approachbetween the main political leaders ofScotland and Glasgow (representing differ-ent political parties), who submitted a jointbid and coordinated approach to hosting the2014 CWG. Although notable differenceswere apparent between the two administra-tions, the emphasis at the bidding stage wason a coordinated and ‘on message’ ‘teamGlasgow, Team Scotland’ approach.

Thereafter, the successful bid requiredthat clear political responsibilities wereallocated to ensure the proper coordinationof the programme. Elected members’responsibilities were established at thelocal authority level at an early stage inthe legacy planning process. GCC allocatedclear political responsibilities to steer thedelivery of the CWG responsibilities in anExecutive Committee Report (September2008a): Commonwealth Games PoliticalResponsibilities, agreeing that the politicalleader of GCC was responsible for the‘Social Renewal’ aspects of the CWG,whereas the Lord Provost of Glasgowwas responsible for developing formallinks with key countries from across theCommonwealth. Additional politicalresponsibilities were given to the DeputeLeader of the Council, by extending respon-sibilities for the development of culture andsport and investment in young people in the

context of the 2014 CWG, including acoordinating role for the CWG regardingthe practical tasks associated with prepar-ation and all the Games’ associated activ-ities (Glasgow City Council, 2008a).

The GLF benefited from high-level polit-ical support across all the main tiers of localand central government, helping to promotethe partnership approach and commitment todelivering a legacy plan for the city. The GLBwas set up in 2011, tasked with encouraging alegacy mind-set across Glasgow and provid-ing governance, independent challenge andscrutiny on the delivery of the legacy pro-gramme. The establishment of the GLB and‘legacy Theme champions’ are a reflection ofthe high level of political support, with theLeader and Depute Leader of GCC chairingall meetings. It is also apparent from otherkey stakeholders and senior officials that thecommitment of the political Leader andDepute Leader of the council for legacy wasessential to the delivery of a coordinatedapproach and to help achieve ‘communitybuy-in’ for the realignment of existing plansand structures.

Community involvement

Crucial to the implementation of the GLFwas the early commitment to communityinvolvement and the role of local representa-tive organisations/departments across thecity. Some of the initial community engage-ment work undertaken in the GLF planningstages involved a series of local workshopsand public engagement meetings, to seekinput from local communities about theirlegacy aspirations. Initially, the city launcheda ‘2014 Commonwealth Games HealthImpact Assessment (HIA)’ (GCC, 2008b) fol-lowing the successful CWG bid. Glasgow’smain ‘legacy themes’ were significantly deve-loped by amajor consultation exercise to helpidentify citizen expectations and aspirations.

Whilst there is acknowledgement thatmuch of the focus of the CWG was in the




East End of Glasgow, the GLF sought toensure that the city’s communities all feltpart of the 2014 CWG legacy. The HIAcommunity engagement process made effortsto achieve this by utilising existing commu-nity engagement structures across Glasgow,ensuring the inclusion of equality groupsacross the city, by linking to appropriateforums and networks. For example, trainingevents and interactive workshops for theCommunity Engagement of the GLF pro-cess were held within a number of commu-nities across the city, including: invitingyoung people from Student Councils, work-ing closely the city’s already establishedCommunity Engagement CoordinatingGroups and Community Reference Groups.

The GLF also elicited the public’s viewson legacy via websites, including: the GlasgowCentre for Population Health, GlasgowCommunity Planning Limited, Glasgow Anti-Racist Alliance, Glasgow Disability Alliance,Culture and Sport Glasgow, GlasgowCouncil for the Voluntary Sector (GCVS),Glasgow School of Sport, CommunityHealth Exchange, Glasgow Community andSafety Services; Scottish Sports Associationand the Scottish Association of LocalSports Councils. A series of feedback eventson the development of GLF were also heldacross each of the Strategic Planning Areasfor the city (Glasgow City Council, June2013). Overall, the engagement of commu-nities and local organisations in Glasgowwas identified as a key priority to ensuringthe city’s citizens felt part of the legacy devel-opment process.

Furthermore, critical to the developmentof the community engagement structuressupporting the GLF was the creation of aJoint Games and Legacy CommunityEngagement Group in November 2012,with representation from: all of theCommunity Planning Partners, VolunteerGlasgow and representation from each ofthe Legacy Theme Groups set up in thecity. Three local area groups were also set

up in the North East, North West andSouth of the City, with the remit to ‘deliverand grow engagement at a grass roots level’,via a programme of events and activities.The development of these new communityengagement structures formed part of a‘partnership legacy’ for the city, with newand improved structures being put in placefor engagement across the city (GlasgowCity Council, June 2013).

Community Engagement activity resultingfrom new legacy governance structuresbetween 2009 and 2014 is thought to haveled to ‘the increase in partnership workingbetween the council, community planningpartners and local area stakeholders, such aslocal housing associations, educational estab-lishments and the third sector’ (Glasgow CityCouncil, August 2014).A recent evaluation ofthe HIA process undertaken by Ainsworthand Harkins (2014: 3) suggests the HIA pro-cess was ‘thorough by making best use ofexisting networks’. A key outcome of the pro-cess was the influence on the communityengagement approach of other key agenciesin the city, including the main UrbanRegeneration Agency in the East End ofGlasgow (i.e. Clyde Gateway) working onall 13 HIA themes. The 2014 OC also indi-cated that the vast majority of the HIA rec-ommendations that were relevant to theirorganisation were implemented.

Mutual learning

The GLF also involved the implementationof a new set of legacy theme sub-groups as asignificant change to the way in which ser-vice departments within the city councilwork. The legacy theme groups broughttogether a large number of partner agencies,to coordinate and contribute to the processof legacy development in a more joined upand transparent way. A key outcome there-fore from the legacy governance processwas arguably the sharing of knowledgeand importantly, the development of

Christie and Gibb 11



project ideas and funding opportunities.Specifically, agencies responsible for thedelivery of business support services (i.e.mainly Scottish Enterprise and GCC) werebrought together in a more coordinatedforum, leading to the development ofGlasgow’s Business Portal. The creation ofthese new joint working structures meant agen-cies discussing their key work areas and pro-grammes of activity in an open setting,enhancing an environment of shared learningand knowledge exchange, and contributingtowards the development of key legacyprojects.

Accountability

Previous games-related literature suggeststhat some legacy benefits attributed to thehosting of major events may not have beenadequately captured, due in part to a lack ofplanned coordination of such impacts.Following the launch of GLF in 2009, thecreation of supporting internal governancestructures followed with the GLB put inplace in 2011. This was a reflection of a chan-ging political context at the time, including achange in leadership from Steven Purcell toGordon Matheson. Once the main govern-ance structures were put in place, aGlasgow Legacy Evaluation Frameworkwas developed to sit alongside the implemen-tation of the GLF. The process of evaluatinglegacy of the CWG is being progressed in asimilar way to that of the 2012 Olympics. Viaa joint working group between GCC and theSG, the 2014 CWG approach aligns with thestrategic approach set out inAnEvaluation ofCommonwealth Games 2014 Legacy forScotland, in October 2012, and aims to estab-lish the economic component of the legacyevaluation in terms of Games-related invest-ments and legacy programmes over theperiod 2007 (including bid period) and2019. Overall, the CWG evaluation frame-work provides a structured process fordemonstrating accountability, by establish-ing (indeed, testing) the contribution towards

the achievement of long-term regenerationand social outcomes through an analyticalapproach to organising and delivering therequired information to assess the relativeimpact of the CWG.

Trust

Successful urban regeneration partnershipswithin the network governance literatureare built upon trust-based relationships(Harding, 1998; Stoker, 1998a). Lowndesand Skelcher (1998: 314) suggest thatpartnerships are analytically distinct fromnetworks as a mode of governance because‘the creation of a partnership board doesnot imply that relations between actors areconducted on the basis of mutual benefitand trust’. Complex governance processesneed time to build trusting relationshipswhich are not always present (Edelenbosand Klijn, 2007), although within the lifecycle of governance, the pre-partnershipcollaboration stage is typically characterisedby trust (Lowndes and Skelcher, 1998).Trust is a ‘key characteristic of the networkmode of governance’ (Lowndes andSkelcher, 1998: 314) and is beneficial tooverall network performance (Provanet al., 2007) through enhancing informationexchange, strengthening partner relation-ships and reducing transaction costs (Laneand Bachman, 1998). Strengthening trust-based relationships helps ‘enable collabora-tive activity to be developed andmaintained’ (Lowndes and Skelcher, 1998:318), although they are often difficult toinitially establish due to the mix of differentindividual interests within the network.Trust is therefore thought to ‘create a favor-able condition for actors to accept decisions(i.e. legitimacy)’ (Klijn et al., 2013: 20). Thedelivery of the GLF was based on an envir-onment of trust that was initiated at anearly stage in the planning process for the2014 CWG, where key political leaders hadtime to develop working relationships




during the bid process. However, key to theeffectiveness of these trusting relationshipswas arguably a successful GLB and the trans-parent governance structures supporting theimplementation of plans, arguably facilitat-ing the process of trust between the stake-holders to deliver of the GLF objectives.

Conclusions

This paper is concerned with drawinglessons from the collaborative workingpractices that characterised the Glasgow2014 CWG approach to generating lastingmultiple legacies. Glasgow’s CWGapproach has involved embedding partner-ships and closely aligning to pre-existingregeneration strategies. The paper focuseson key aspects of the governance of thedelivery of legacy mechanisms and drawsfrom the urban governance literature, par-ticularly that of policy networks. The mainmessages emerging from the case study arethat, first, event-led regeneration projectscan shed light on what works and doesnot and this may have wider currencyboth for event-led urban strategies and,arguably, also for partnership approachesto regeneration more generally. Second,comprehensive planning, good governancearrangements, an exacting approach toevaluation, commitment and embedding oflegacy over a long regeneration post gamesperiod are essential. Third, complementar-ity with existing regeneration strategies isvaluable, as is learning from partnershipworking in order to mainstream the keybenefits and increase value for money.Fourth, there are six important dimensionsfor making these collaborative networkgovernance arrangements effective: thepooling of resources and shared agendas,leadership, community engagement,mutual learning, accountability and trust.

To be clear, this is not an analysis of theunderlying value of events-led regeneration,nor whether these legacy objectives are or

can be achieved. The evidence ‘will out’ interms of the legacy evaluation and we rec-ognise that the concept of legacy and themeasurement of it is contestable to say theleast (for instance, isolating the independenteffect of the CWG is elusive given othercontemporaneous investments such as adja-cent motorway development and the ClydeGateway urban regeneration company).Our focus instead is on governance andthe wider utility different approaches mayyield. These are, nonetheless, essential to aclearer understanding of city regenerationin a context of post-industrial appetite forevent-led development.

We also conclude that developinglong-term partnership working throughwell-established collaborative policy net-works ought to offer governance modelsthat should be valid or at least worthy ofdetailed investigation for other spatial regen-eration projects, especially, ironically, wherethis is a degree of complexity and multiplestakeholders. At an events-legacy level, wewould also contend that other cities aroundthe world havemuch to learn fromGlasgow’sapproach – as is evidenced by external com-mentary and not just a reading of its fit withthe academic literature.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of

interest with respect to the research, authorship,

and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for

the research, authorship, and/or publication of

this article.

References

Agranoff R and McGuire M (2003) Collaborative

Public Management: New Strategies forGovernance. London: Routledge.




Ainsworth S and Harkins J (2014) Evaluating

the effectiveness of the HIA for the Glasgow2014 Commonwealth Games, Edinburgh:Report, Duddleston Harkins Social

Research Ltd.Andersson T, Armbrecht JD and Lundberg E

(2008) Impact of mega-events on the economy.Asian Business and Management 7(2): 163–179.

Audit Scotland (2009) Commonwealth Games2014, Report, November 2009.

Audit Scotland (2012) Commonwealth Games

2014, Report, March 2012.Baker HR (1992) Important factors concerning

the discussion of multicommunity collabor-

ation. In: Korsching P, Borich T and StewartJ (eds) Multicommunity Collaboration anEvolving Rural Revitalization Strategy. Ames:Iowa State University Press, pp. 143–148.

Barclay J (2009) Predicting the costs and benefitsof mega-sporting events: misjudgement ofOlympic proportions? Economic Affairs

29(2): 62–66.Borzel TA (1998) Organizing Babylon – On the

different conceptions of policy networks.

Public Administration 76(2): 253–274.Bradshaw TK (2000) Complex community devel-

opment projects: Collaboration, comprehen-

sive programs, and community coalitions incomplex society. Community EconomicDevelopment Journal 35(2): 135–145.

Carley M (2000) Urban partnerships, govern-

ance and the regeneration of Britain’s cities.International Planning Studies 5(3): 273–297.

Cashman R (2003) What is ‘‘Olympic legacy’’?

In: De Moragas M, Kennett C and Puig N(eds) The Legacy of the Olympic Games 1984–2000. Lausanne: International Olympic

Committee, pp. 31–42.Cashman R and Hughes A (1999) Staging the

Olympics: The Event and Its Impact. Sydney:

UNSW Press.Chalkley B and Stephen E (1999) Urban devel-

opment through hosting international events:a history of the Olympic Games. Planning

perspectives 14(4): 369–394.Cigler BA (1999) Pre-conditions for the emergence

of multi-community collaborative organiza-

tions. Policy Studies Review 16: 86–102.Clark J and Kearns A (2014) People, place and

prosperity in the East End of Glasgow: An

assessment of the potential economic impacts

of the 2014 commonwealth games and asso-

ciated regeneration activities on local commu-nities. Report, University of Glasgow, UK.

Coalter F, Allison M and Taylor J (2000) The

role of sport in regenerating deprived urbanareas. Report, Edinburgh Centre for LeisureResearch, University of Edinburgh.

ColemanWDand Perl A (1999) Internationalized

policy environments and policy network ana-lysis. Political Studies 47: 691–709.

Cowell R (2004) Community planning: Fostering

participation in the congested state? LocalGovernment Studies 30: 497–518.

Cox KR and Wood A (1994) Local government

and local economic development inthe United States. Regional Studies 28:640–646.

Damer S (1989) Glasgow Going for a Song (City

Cultures). Glasgow: Lawrence and Wishart.Davies JS (2002) Urban regime theory: A nor-

mative-empirical critique. Journal of Urban

Affairs 24(1): 1–17.Davies JS (2003) Partnerships versus regimes:

Why regime theory cannot explain urban

coalitions in the UK. Journal of UrbanAffairs 25: 253–270.

Edelenbos J and Klijn EH (2007) Trust in com-

plex decision-making networks; a theoreticaland empirical exploration. Administration andSociety 39(1): 25–50.

Edelenbos J, Van Buuren A and Klijn EH (2013)

Connective capacities of network managers.Public Management Review 15(1): 131–159.

GirginovV (2011)Governanceof theLondon2012

Olympic Games legacy. International Reviewfor the Sociology of Sport 47(5): 543–558.

Glasgow City Council (2008a) Commonwealth

Games political responsibilities. Report for,Glasgow’s Executive Committee, September.

Glasgow City Council (2008b) 2014

Commonwealth Games Health ImpactAssessment (HIA): planning for legacy.

GlasgowCity Council (GCC) (2009) The Glasgow2014 Legacy Framework. Report, Glasgow.

Glasgow City Council (GCC) (2011) ProposedGlasgow 2014 legacy framework governancestructure. Report for Glasgow’s Executive

committee, February.Glasgow City Council (GCC) (2013) Progress

report and action plan. Report for

Glasgow’s Executive Committee, June.




Glasgow City Council (GCC) (2014) The 2014

legacy story: Beyond 2014. Report, Glasgow.Gratton C (1999) Sports-related industry study:

Final report. Manchester: Manchester City

Council and Northwest DevelopmentAgency.

Gray N and Mooney G (2011) Glasgow’s newurban frontier: ‘Civilising’ the population of

‘Glasgow East’. City 15(1): 4–24.Hall CM (2004) Sports tourism and urban

regeneration. In: Ritchie B and Adair D

(eds) Sports Tourism: Interrelationships,Impacts and Issues. Clevedon: ChannelviewPublications, pp. 192–206.

Harding A (1998) Public-private partnerships inthe UK. In: Pierre J (ed.) Partnerships inUrban Governance. Basingstoke: Macmillan,pp. 71–92.

Harvey D (1989) From managerialism to entre-preneurialism: The transformation of urbangovernance in late capitalism. Geografiska

Annaler 71B: 3–17.Harvey D (2001) Spaces of Capital: Towards a

Critical Geography. London and New York,

NY: Routledge.Hiller H (2000) Toward an urban sociology of

mega-events. Research in Urban Sociology 5:

181–205.Holman N (2007) Following the signs: Applying

urban regime analysis to a UK case study.Journal of Urban Affairs 29: 435–453.

Holman N (2013) Effective strategy implementa-tion: Why partnership interconnectivity mat-ters. Environment and Planning C:

Government and Policy 31(1): 82–101.Hyman J (2002) Exploring social capital and

civic engagement to create a framework for

community building. Applied DevelopmentalScience 6(4): 196–202.

Jones C (2001) Mega events and host-region

impacts: Determining the true worth ofthe1999 Rugby World Cup. InternationalJournal of Tourism Research 3: 241–251.

Jessop B (198) The rise of governance and the

risks of failure: The case of economic devel-opment. International Social Science Journal50(155): 29–45.

Keast R, Mandell MP and Agranoff R (2013)Network Theory in the Public Sector:Building New Theoretical Frameworks. Vol.

17. New York: Routledge.

Kenis P (1991) The preconditions for policy net-

works: Some findings from a three-countrystudy on industrial restructuring. In: MarinB and Mayntz R (eds) Policy Networks.

Empirical Evidence and TheoreticalConsiderations. Frankfurt am Main:Campus Verlag, pp. 297–330.

Kenis P and Schneider V (1991) Policy networks

and policy analysis: Scrutinizing a new ana-lytical toolbox. In: Marin B and Mayntz R(eds) Policy Networks. Empirical Evidence

and Theoretical Considerations. Frankfurt:Campus Verlag, pp. 25–59.

Klijn E and Koppenjan J (2000) Public manage-

ment and policy networks: Foundations to anetwork approach to governance. PublicManagement 2: 135–158.

Klijn EH, Edelenbos J and Steijn AJ (2010a)

Trust in governance networks: Its impactand outcomes. Administration and Society42(2): 193–221.

Klijn EH, Steijn AJ and Edelenbos J (2010b)The impact of network management strate-gies on the outcomes in governance networks.

Public Administration 88(4): 1063–1082.Klijn E, Ysa T and Sierra V (2013) Governance

networks and trust: Exploring the relation

between trust and network performance inTaiwan, Spain and The Netherlands. In:Eleventh Public Management ResearchConference, Madison, Wisconsin, 20–22

June 2013.Lackey S, Freshwater D and Rupasingha A (2002)

Factors influencing local government cooper-

ation in rural areas: Evidence from theTennessee valley. Economic DevelopmentQuarterly 16(2): 138–154.

Lane C and Bachman R (1998) Trust Within andBetween Organizations: Conceptual Issues andEmpirical Application. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.Lawless P (2001) Community economic develop-

ment in urban and regional regeneration:Unfolding potential or justifiable scepticism?

Environment and Planning C: Government andPolicy 19: 135–155.

Lawless P (2004) Locating and explaining

area-based urban initiatives: New deal forcommunities in England. Environment andPlanning C: Government and Policy 22:

383–399.




Leopkey B and Parent M (2012) Olympic Games

legacy: From general benefits to sustainablelong-term legacy. The International Journalof History and sport 29(6): 924–943.

LGA (1998) The new commitment to regener-ation. Local Government Association circu-lar, April.

Lowndes V and Skelcher C (1998) The dynamics

of multi-organizational partnerships: An ana-lysis of changing modes of governance. PublicAdministration 76(2): 313–333.

Marsh D (1998) Comparing Policy Networks inBritish Government. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Martins MA and Serra AP (2007) Market impact

of international sporting and cultural events.Journal of Economic Finance 35(4): 382–416.

Mason M (2007) Collaborative partnerships forurban development: A study of the

Vancouver Agreement. Environment andPlanning A 39(10): 2366–2382.

Matheson C (2010) Legacy planning, regener-

ation and events: The Glasgow 2014Commonwealth Games. Local Economy25(1): 10–23.

McCartney GS, Hanlon P and Bond L (2013)How will the 2014 Commonwealth Gamesimpact on Glasgow’s health, and how will

we know? Evaluation 19(1): 24–39.McCartney GS, Thomas H and Thomson J (2010)

The health and socioeconomic impacts ofmajor multi-sport events: Systematic review

(1978–2008).BritishMedical Journal 340: 2369.Matthews P (2012) From area-based initiatives

to strategic partnerships: Have we lost the

meaning of regeneration? Environment andPlanning C: Government and Policy 30(1):147–161.

Mooney G (2004) Cultural policy as urban trans-formation? Critical reflections on Glasgow,European City of Culture 1990. Local

Economy 19(4): 327–340.O’Toole LJ (1997) Treating networks seriously:

Practical and research based agendas inpublic administration. Public Administration

Review 57: 45–52.Paddison R and Miles S (2006) Culture-Led

Urban Regeneration. London: Routledge.

Paton K, Mooney G and McKee K (2012) Class,citizenship and regeneration: Glasgow andthe Commonwealth Games 2014. Antipode

44: 1470–1489.

Porter L (2009) Planning displacement: The real

legacy of major sporting events. PlanningTheory and Practice 10(3): 395–418.

Preuss H (2004) The Economics of Staging the

Olympics: A Comparison of the Games 1972–2008. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Provan K and Milward HB (2001) Do networksreally work? A framework for evaluating

public sector organizational networks. PublicAdministration Review 61: 414–423.

Provan KG, Amy F and Joerg S (2007)

Interorganizational networks at the networklevel: A review of the empirical literature onwhole networks. Journal of Management

33(3): 479–516.Rhodes RAW (1988) Beyond Westminister and

Whitehall. The Sub-Central Governments ofBritain. London: Unwin Hyman Ltd.

Rhodes RAW (1997) Understanding Governance:Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity, andAccountability. Buckingham: Open

University Press.Scharpf FW (1978) Interorganizational policy

studies: Issues, concepts and perspectives.

In: Hanf KI and Scharpf FW (eds)Interorganizational Policy Making. London:Sage, pp. 345–370.

Scharpf FW (1994) Games real actors couldplay. Positive and negative coordination inembedded negotiations. Journal ofTheoretical Politics 6(1): 27–53.

Schneider V (1992) The structure of policy net-works. a comparison of the ‘chemicals con-trol’ and ‘Telecommunications’ Policy

Domains in Germany. European Journal ofPolitical Research 21: 109–129.

Sørensen E and Torfing J (2007) Introduction:

Governance network research: Towardsa second generation. In: Sørensen E andTorfing J (eds) Theories of Democratic

Network Governance. New York, NY:Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–20.

Stoker G (1998a) Governance as theory: Fivepropositions. International Social Science

Journal 155: 17–28.Stoker CN (1998b) Public-private partnerships

and urban governance. In: Pierre J (ed.)

Partnerships in Urban Governance.Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp. 34–51.

Veraros N, Kasimati E and Dawson P (2004)

The 2004 Olympic Games announcement




and its effect on the Athens and Milan stock

exchanges. Applied Economic Letters 11(12):749–753.

Weber EP and Khademian AM (2008) Wicked

problems, knowledge challenges, and collab-orative capacity builders in network settings.Public Administration Review 68: 334–349.

Weed M (2014) Mass participation in sports

events. In: Grix J (ed) Leveraging Legaciesfrom Sports Mega-Events: Concepts andCases. Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan.

Weiss TG and Wilkinson R (2014) Rethinking

global governance? Complexity, authority,power, change. International StudiesQuarterly 58(1): 207–215.

Wolf FS (2004) Analysis of documents andrecords. In: von Flick U, Kardoff E andSteinke I (eds) A Companion to QualitativeResearch. London: Sage, pp. 284–288.




Documents

Local Economy-2015-Christie-0269094215603953