This article was downloaded by: [Columbia University]On: 26 November 2014, At: 18:38Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Planning StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceps20

Urban Change and Urban DevelopmentStrategies in Central East Europe: ASelective Assessment of Events Since1989James Wesley Scott a & Manfred Kühn ba Karelian Institute, University of Eastern Finland , Yliopistokatu2, FIN-80101 , Joensuu , Finlandb Leibniz-Institute for Regional Development and StructuralPlanning , Erkner , GermanyPublished online: 17 May 2012.

To cite this article: James Wesley Scott & Manfred Kühn (2012) Urban Change and UrbanDevelopment Strategies in Central East Europe: A Selective Assessment of Events Since 1989,European Planning Studies, 20:7, 1093-1109, DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2012.674345

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2012.674345

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

38 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Urban Change and Urban DevelopmentStrategies in Central East Europe: ASelective Assessment of Events Since1989

JAMES WESLEY SCOTT∗ & MANFRED KUHN∗∗

∗Karelian Institute, University of Eastern Finland, Yliopistokatu 2, FIN-80101 Joensuu, Finland,∗∗Leibniz-Institute for Regional Development and Structural Planning, Erkner, Germany

(Received October 2010; accepted September 2011)

ABSTRACT This introductory article to the present collection outlines a comparative researchperspective that focuses on processes of post-socialist urban transformation and strategies ofurban regeneration in different cities of Central Eastern Europe. In particular, urban regenerationwill be discussed within the context of post-socialist urban governance and processes ofinstitutional change. This paper consists of three sections. The first deals with trends of socio-spatial change, including “shrinkage”, socio-economic polarization, industrial restructuring andsimultaneous tends of gentrification and “downgrading” within inner city neighbourhoods.Discussion then follows with an overview of urban development challenges associated with thesesocio-spatial changes. We will also describe at length conceptual approaches of strategic planningas a form of governance that addresses processes of urban decline. Critical sources of debate thatstem for the experiences of West European cities will be summarized and their relevance to EastGerman and Central European contexts discussed. The last part of the essay provides briefoverviews of the six essays featured in this special issue of European Planning Studies, indicatinghow they address questions of urban regeneration and the strategic management of urbandevelopment processes.

Introduction

The transformation from socialist to market-oriented societies has brought far-reaching

changes to cities in Central East Europe (CEE). These cities have re-emerged from the

centralist legacy of state socialism and more than 20 years after the fall of the Berlin

Wall are attempting to redefine their roles as political actors. With the re-establishment

of local autonomy, political institutions and planning strategies have been rapidly evolving

Correspondence Address: James Wesley Scott, Karelian Institute, University of Eastern Finland, Yliopistokatu 2,

FIN-80101 Joensuu, Finland. Email: james.scott@uef.fi

European Planning Studies Vol. 20, No. 7, July 2012

ISSN 0965-4313 Print/ISSN 1469-5944 Online/12/071093–17 # 2012 Taylor & Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2012.674345

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

38 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

in order to manage urban change. Furthermore, after decades of less than benign neglect,

wide-scale investment in urban infrastructure, the rehabilitation and improvement of resi-

dential neighbourhoods, the development of new commercial zones as well as the redeve-

lopment of vast brownfield sites have become a vital necessity. Understandably, urban

planners and public agencies in CEE cities have been busy developing new paradigms

and practices in order to manage these tasks. To a certain degree, “Western” notions of

strategic planning and urban regeneration (see Roberts & Sykes, 2000; Albrechts,

2004), with their holistic and integrative approach to development have begun to take

hold in the evolving policy and governance practices of post-socialist cities. This is

partly a result of the European integration process and the formal as well as informal diffu-

sion of governance principles and practices that it has elicited. On the other hand, under-

standings of urban development that are not merely physical or “technical” but also social,

environment and economic in nature respond to a demand for planning mechanism

capable of managing the challenges facing post-socialist cities.

With this collection, we will take stock of the urban development policies in CEE that

have emerged during the last 20 years. Our selection of case studies is not meant to be

representative in any quantitative or structural sense. The cities under scrutiny are, with

the exception of Budapest, mid-size centres dealing with a number of structural problems,

including varying degrees of depopulation and social exclusion. However, these case

studies indicate that the practice of urban regeneration in CEE cities is tied to a number

of critical and conditioning factors typical of post-socialist transformation. These

include: specific forms of structural-economic change, the question of local capacities

for action and issues of efficient and transparent urban governance given weak traditions

of democratic local government. All three factors highlight the nexus between governance,

shifts from industrial to service economies, “shrinkage” and new planning practices that

include strategic planning and regeneration.

This special issue provides insights from research on urban development trends and

urban development practices in Eastern Germany undertaken by the Leibniz-Institute

for Regional Development and Structural Planning. It also reflects the work of Polish,

Hungarian and other East German scholars on similarly focused CEE case studies. The

authors will outline a comparative research perspective that focuses on the following:

(1) consequences of socio-spatial change, (2) urban development challenges associated

with them and (3) attempts at urban regeneration within the context of post-socialist gov-

ernance and institutional change. In this contribution, we will describe at length concep-

tual approaches of strategic planning as a form of governance that addresses processes of

urban decline. We will also summarize main lessons of urban regeneration politics in West

Europe and discuss to what extent Western approaches and experiences can be transferred

to CEE contexts. Finally, we will provide brief overviews of the six essays featured in this

special issue of European Planning Studies, indicating how they address the three the-

matic foci enumerated above.

Urban Transformations and Urban Policy Challenges in CEE

Cities in Eastern Germany and elsewhere in CEE face a number of urban development

challenges associated with rapid structural, social and political change. Since the collapse

of State Socialism 20 years ago, processes of liberalization, privatization and globalization

have submitted entire national societies to the economic imperatives of an open market

1094 J. W. Scott and M. Kuhn

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

38 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

economy, often with dramatic polarizing effects on urban populations (see Hamilton et al.,

2005). In political terms, post-socialist transformation has been aptly characterized by

Enyedi (1998, p. 6) as a situation of rapid institutional change within an environment of

insecurity, political instability and social fragmentation. The notion of “post-socialist”

transformation is therefore more complex than just a shift in political systems or

gradual transitions to a market economy—it basically describes the confluence of

several socio-spatial processes that structure conditions for societal action in rather

specific ways. At the same time, post-socialist transformation is not a hegemonic

concept. As this special issue clearly demonstrates, there are important differences that

characterize both the political and economic development trajectories of CEE countries

and the consequences these have had, for example, for urban planning.

The authors do not suggest that hard and fast distinctions can be made between

“Eastern” and “Western” cities—indeed, such categories often conceal and more than

they clarify. We also eschew the notion that an East–West convergence is taking place

in terms of urban governance or regeneration strategies. While the “domestication” of

neo-liberal policies (Stenning et al., 2010) and the “Europeanization” of structural devel-

opment policies (Brusis, 2005) is certainly informing regeneration strategies in CEE cities,

the paths these strategies are taking vary considerably—involving both “Western” experi-

ence and local experimentation. Nevertheless, we pose a very general question in relation

to the planning and development of post-socialist cities. Given more or less ubiquitous

processes of rapid de-industrialization, demographic decline, spatial polarization and pol-

itical–institutional flux, what kinds of regeneration policies might be feasible to manage

complex urban change in CEE cities? Western Europe provides a wealth of experience in

different strategic approaches to regeneration but to what extent are Western approaches

transferable to Central and Eastern Europe? The transferability question takes on even

more salience when we consider the contested nature of many planning (and governance)

paradigms and the uneven results they have generated in stabilizing old industrial cities of

Western Europe.

The Impacts of Structural Transformation

As Stanilov (2007), Sykora (1999, 2007) and others have demonstrated, the development

trajectories and planning problems of post-socialist cities do vary considerably, but there

appear nonetheless to be several general patterns common to most CEE countries. For one

thing, polarization between regions and between cities in particular is extremely wide-

spread and much more pronounced than in Western Europe: this can be explained by

the “metropolization” of development, that is, concentration of the fastest developing

sectors of the economy (specialized financial services, management functions, R&D

and academic activity, entertainment and culture) in the largest cities—metropolises

with a global or continental significance (Gorzelak, 2009; Gorzelak & Smetkowski,

2010). Similarly, development is characterized by the relative growth of capital cities

and a few major centres while many other urban areas have experienced pronounced

decline in terms of population and employment. This division into large cities and non-

metropolitan areas—and the danger of a petrification of centre–periphery relation-

ships—is a direct result of post-socialist transformation, accelerated restructuring and

shifting development paradigms. Under the resource-intensive model of State Socialism,

rates of industrialization and industrial production determined both the level and pace of

Urban Change and Urban Development Strategies in Central East Europe 1095

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

38 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

development. Since 1989, it is services, knowledge-intensive industries and interactions

with the global economy that increasingly dictate development contexts in CEE. Post-

socialist transformation is, in fact, largely a process of de-industrialization, coupled

with rapid growth in services, particularly market services and “quaternary” activities.

Hence, the fastest growth rates are achieved by regions that excel in the newer and expand-

ing sectors of the economy. While there is also a number of re-industrialized cities which

have been able to improve or defend their position in the global division of labour, a rather

large number of stagnating industrial cities and peripheral towns belong to the group of

declining cities (Sykora, 2007).

In addition, new disparities have arisen between cities as a result of negative population

trends at the national level but also as a result of outmigration. As national populations

have begun to decline in absolute terms and migration balances have remained negative,

urban growth has only been possible through population increases at the expense of other

cities or regions (Mykhnenko & Turok, 2007). This is particularly the case in Eastern

Germany, Hungary and Poland (Oswalt, 2004, 2006; European Commission, 2007). The

majority of post-socialist cities have experienced an absolute shrinkage of population in

the period between 1995 and 2005. Within the 150 CEE cities with a population over

200,000, 72% have been in decline and just 18% have experienced growth (Mykhnenko

& Turok, 2007, p. 15).

Urban Shrinkage and Its Consequences

Although the fall of State Socialism in 1989 was not the beginning of urban shrinkage pro-

cesses in CEE, the process of population decline has been clearly more pronounced here

than in Western Europe (Mykhnenko & Turok, 2007, p. 18). At least three different causes

of urban shrinkage can be identified. The most important causes of urban population

decline are deindustrialization, followed by suburbanization tendencies and lower birth

rates, coupled with a lack of compensating flows of immigration from abroad. If shrinkage

can be understood as a multi-dimensional process of economic, social and demographic

forces, then its physical effects include dereliction, the proliferation of obsolete areas

and vacant housing. Shrinkage has also cumulative impacts on the financial well-being

and the image of cities. As populations decrease, the costs of maintaining infrastructure

and physical structures increase disproportionately. At the same time, weak local econom-

ies and a poor quality of life make it difficult to attract newcomers—on the contrary,

outmigration tendencies are reinforced.

Consequently, approaches that focus on urban regeneration must consider demographic,

socio-economic and physical processes of renewal. The attraction of younger and well-

trained professionals puts cities in competition with each other as they attempt to profit

from “urban renaissance” trends (including deliberate attempts to promote inner-city

gentrification). Image politics (e.g. competing for the Cultural Capital of Europe or inter-

national events) also figure as important responses to shrinkage as these often help

improve environmental quality and cultural amenities while providing a promotional plat-

form that reaches a wider audience. The successful transformation of obsolete industrial

areas and modernization of vast, primarily socialist-era housing estates is, furthermore,

essential to the redefinition of urban “place” and functional adaptation. Finally, regener-

ation strategies will not succeed in countering the more negative impacts of shrinkage

without new and well-paying jobs.

1096 J. W. Scott and M. Kuhn

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

38 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Political Transformation Dilemmas in Post-Socialist Cities

Given these structural realities, what can be said about the capacities of cities to develop

regeneration strategies and agendas of social inclusion and/or integration in deprived

neighbourhoods? Systemic change has indeed created new contexts for democratic gov-

ernance by discrediting the control and command style of central planning and opening

up discursive spaces where urban politics can be negotiated between different sectors of

the population. Having re-emerged as political actors, cities in CEE have again become a

locus (albeit a contested one) of citizenship and participation. At yet another level,

accession to and membership in the European Union has opened up new perspectives

for urban policy, including participation in initiatives targeted at the urban environment,

strategic planning and social issues. Emerging urban governance forms in CEE thus

reflect changing values, new political cultures, multilevel complexity as well as con-

siderable institutional instability.1 At the same time, this has also made urban govern-

ance much more challenging. Local abilities to manage change and mediate between

different interests are limited by problems of transparency, democracy and efficiency

(Sagan, 2009). There is also the problem of redefining planning as a democratic and

inclusive arena, counteracting aversions to “state-centred” action and restrictive

approaches to urban development. At the same time, the coordination of urban policies

in large cities such as Gdansk, Bratislava, Budapest and Prague, has been clearly

restricted by the re-establishment of local autonomy (with district councils pitted

against the city government as well as against each other) (see Sykora, 1999; Tocsis,

2005; Keresztely, 2008). Furthermore, civil society actors, while potentially central

players in urban development, are as yet weakly organized, underfunded and often

unable to coordinate their actions in order to influence urban policy (Lewis, 1997;

Tocsis, 2005).

Urban Regeneration Policies and Strategic Planning

In the UK in particular, the term “urban regeneration” describes a complex policy process

which subsumes many of the urban reform concepts that have emerged over the last

decades. In addition, strategies that deal specifically with inner-city areas are associated

with the idea of “urban renaissance” (Urban Task Force, 1999).2 In British research,

“urban regeneration” mostly includes comprehensive and integrative strategies. Roberts

and Sykes (2000, p.17) define regeneration as: “a comprehensive and integrated vision

and action which leads to the resolution of urban problems and which seeks to bring

about a lasting improvement in the economic, physical, social and environmental con-

dition of an area that has been subject to change”. Couch et al. (2003) define regeneration

more in terms of physical aspects and public policy attempts to rehabilitate vacant and/or

abandoned in order to create employment, improve the urban environment and deal with

urban social issues. For our purposes, urban regeneration can be understood as a set of

processes and policies that reverse urban decline by: (1) the attraction of new inhabitants

into the city (demographic regeneration), (2) the emergence of new employment in the

post-industrial economy (socio-economic regeneration) and (3) the renewal of vacant

cities areas and buildings (physical regeneration).

There have of course been deeply critical understandings of “urban regeneration”, both

as a more abstract concept and as a political instrument. Furbey (1999) in fact has

Urban Change and Urban Development Strategies in Central East Europe 1097

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

38 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

challenged the idea that regeneration, at least as practised in the UK, can be seen as a

progressive and innovative urban policy mechanism. Furbey (1999, p. 419) instead

argues that “more conservative meanings, deriving from individualistic spiritualities and

‘psychologisms’, sociological organicism and statist interventionism, remain dominant”.

Furbey’s criticism resonates with skeptical views of regeneration as a tool for achieving

social equity. Dabinett (2004), Hogan (2006) and others suspect that given the paradig-

matic nature of urban entrepreneurialism, regeneration as a political project is especially

susceptible to co-optation by powerful interests and developers. As will be discussed

below and in several contributions to this special issue, the successful implementation

of social agendas remains a central urban policy challenge and a nagging reminder of

the limits to local regeneration initiatives.

Strategic Planning

Closely connected to more received notions of urban regeneration is a strategic, i.e. a long-

term and goal oriented, approach to urban development. At the end of the 1990s, Western

European planning theory proclaimed a “revival of strategic planning” (Salet & Faludi,

2000). In recent years, the term strategic planning has been increasingly used but often

with rather different connotations. For some, the revival of strategic planning offers

new hope for a third way between comprehensive and incremental planning. For others,

strategic planning is actually a fuzzy concept and rather “old wine in new bottles”.

Strategic planning is therefore not a single concept but can be interpreted in many

ways. Although a uniform theoretical concept of strategic planning has yet to emerge,

in Anglo-Saxon discourses it is understood in a relatively broad way as a social process

to manage the change of cities and regions (Healey, 1997). Following the definition of

Albrechts (2004, p. 747): “Strategic spatial planning is a public-sector-led socio-spatial

process through which a vision, actions, and means for implementation are produced

that shape and frame what a place is and may become”. The theory and practice of

urban regeneration in the UK and other West European countries is based substantially

on the concept of strategic planning as an approach that integrates visions and action

(see Roberts & Sykes, 2000). In the literature, there is a certain consensus that strategic

urban planning is not a theory, but a normative model, which consists of three main

elements: visions, projects and partnerships.

Strategic visions are seen as important tools for building consensus and guiding action

in cities and regions. “Shared concerns about spatial changes” (Albrechts, 2004, p. 748)

are a necessary base for the coordination of diverse actors and institutions. Strategic

visions differ from staged image campaigns in that they are based on social negotiation

and participation processes involving different actors. Visions determine long-term

goals for the city as a whole. Visions require local political consensus regarding important

location factors or significant economic branches of the city (e.g. as a cultural city, a uni-

versity city or “steel city”). In cities which have experienced de-industrialization and

which must undergo a process of redefining their identity, local conflicts between old

industrial elites and innovators can potentially block the building of consensus on

vision. These conflicts are seen as obstacles to regeneration (Friedrichs, 1993). Using

the example of the former steel-town Pittsburgh, in the American Rustbelt, agreement

on a new vision was identified as an important factor of success for managing structural

change from an industrial city to a service-based city (Kunzmann, 1993). These findings

1098 J. W. Scott and M. Kuhn

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

38 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

are confirmed by other studies as well, such as in the case of Manchester (Robson, 2002)

and Glasgow and Bilbao (Gomez, 1998).

Strategic projects are meant to generate visible results which serve for the actors

involved, and thus avoid the implementation problems of comprehensive planning.

Projects can be positive symbols for the structural change of cities. They are designed to

be short term, are directed towards selected urban areas and, furthermore, actors,

methods and financing are all clearly defined. Strategic projects can thus also be understood

as “key projects”, if they are intended to provide an impulse for private investment. In the

case of the regeneration of shrinking cities, these effects are often expected to spread geo-

graphically or accelerate in time. According to Albrechts (2006, p. 1494): strategic urban

projects play an important role in the regeneration and transformation of urban areas.

One of the most famous key projects for urban regeneration in West Europe is the

Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain. Until the 1980s, Bilbao was an example of a

de-industrialized city in decline. The museum was built in 1997 by a star-architect as a

part of the city’s 20-year regeneration strategy. The new “flagship” has attracted several

millions visitors and transformed the image of the city to an international centre for

culture and arts. Today, the “Bilbao effect” or “Guggenheim effect” is a broadly used

term to describe the success of strategic projects for a culture-led regeneration. Neverthe-

less, critical studies indicate that the economic growth impacts of the museum for the city

as a whole are very limited. On the contrary, the project is seen to contribute to increasing

social and spatial inequalities within Bilbao (Vicario & Monje, 2006).

Strategic partnerships construct the institutional frame with which to connect strategic

visions and action. Partnerships are required in a double manner: first, a cross-

departmental approach within local public administration is devised in order to deal

with complex overlappings of physical, social and economic problems and to manage

spatial change. Second, co-operation between public and private actors is required as a

means to overcome the limits of traditional planning. Understood in this manner strategic

planning suggests a gradual shift from formal administrative “government” to a more net-

worked and multiactor form of coordination or “governance” (Albrechts et al., 2003). This

shift is expressed, at least in part, by the proliferation of public–private partnerships (PPP)

as instruments of urban development policy. The practical institutionalization of PPP is

especially noticeable in countries with strong market orientations, such as the US and

UK and is standard practice in CEE countries. In the UK, many urban regeneration part-

nerships have been established in different forms (Carley, 2000). Frequently, this is tied to

a hope that public funding will attract subsequent private investment.

Re-visiting West European Experience: Some Critical Perspectives

To what extent can the conceptual approaches and experiences of Western European cities

outlined above be transferred to CEE contexts? Urban growth, decline and regeneration

may be seen as a result of structural, long-term trends of economy and demography but

also of political action and local capacities. West European experience suggests even in

severe cases of economic and population decline that “there is room to influence develop-

ment trajectories” (European Commission, 2007, p. 14). The regeneration of old-industrial

cities in Western Europe seems to be influenced by strategic plans—famous examples are

Glasgow, Barcelona, Bilbao and Manchester (Gomez, 1998; Robson, 2002). A further

assumption of Turok and Mykhnenko’s (2006, p. 17) demographic study on European

Urban Change and Urban Development Strategies in Central East Europe 1099

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

38 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Cities is that national politics and local governance arrangement may play an important

role in explaining different city trajectories. This underscores the assumption that strategic

urban planning is an urban policy process that has emerged within the West European

context of multi-level governance.

The case studies presented in this issue, including Budapest (Hungary), Gdansk

(Poland), Leipzig (East Germany) and several mid-size East German cities, are different

examples of complex urban regeneration. They are also cities where transformation pro-

cesses make their mark on urban governance as institutional change and struggles over

urban development and planning policies are played out (Djordjevic, 2006; Sagan &

Lee, 2005; Cook, 2008). Is the multilevel approach to strategic planning (long-term

visions and short-term projects) feasible in the case of post-socialist transformation?

The city in CEE countries has re-emerged as a vital locus of citizenship and governance

and urban politics is an important arena of civil society participation. (Keresztely &

Enyedi, 2003). However, there exists a considerable research deficit on the multilevel

urban governance role of civil society within transformation contexts (Stanilov, 2007).

Evidence generated sporadically rather than systematically gives us reason to assume

that the political, socio-economic and ideological cleavages of the post-socialist metropo-

lis deeply affect participation patterns and generate urban redevelopment practices that

appear to differ significantly from those established in the West (Sagan, 2009).

Urban Regeneration Strategies: Lessons from Manchester

The City of Manchester (394,000 inhabitants, Greater Manchester Region, 2.5 Mio.

inhabitants), often called the cradle of the industrial revolution, is an archetypal European

industrial city. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Manchester was an impor-

tant centre for British cotton and textile industries. Through the completion of the port in

1894, Manchester became an important city for international trade. At its peak in the

1930s, Manchester had over 750,000 inhabitants. Since then, Manchester has experienced

over six decades of decline. In the 1990s, the population of Manchester was only half of

what it had been in the 1930s. Since the 1980s, Manchester has been undergoing emble-

matic transformation from an industrial to a service-based city. Drivers of regeneration in

Manchester have been culture (music and club scene), sports, tourism, universities and the

city airport. Since 1991, the population of the inner city has begun to rise again, while at

the same time other urban quarters continue to experience population decline and sus-

tained poverty (Peck & Ward, 2002). The regeneration process in the inner city of

Manchester was partially intended, partially unintended by local government. Population

growth in the central city during the 1990s, on the other hand, has been completely

unplanned (Kidd, 2004). The music and club scene began to find new uses for abandoned

warehouses and industrial buildings. Simultaneously, city government developed different

regenerations strategies, answering to incentives of the national government and the IRA

bombing in 1996, which forced the reconstruction of large parts of the inner city. Main

elements of these strategies have been clear visions for the future of the city and a large

number of strategic projects. Strategic planning in Manchester is anchored to four specific

visions: reviving the city centre using “high” and “low” culture, attracting international

sporting events in “Sportcity”, encouraging high-tech and scientific industry in the city

and expanding the city airport (Robson, 2002). Major strategic projects have been the

1100 J. W. Scott and M. Kuhn

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

38 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Commonwealth Games in 2002, the Millennium Stadium, Bridgewater Hall, the Imperial

War Museum and Urbis Centre Museum.

According to Robson (2002) and Jessen and Walther (2008), some of the main lessons

concerning strategic planning approaches in Manchester can be summarized as follows.

. Urban regeneration processes and strategies need several decades to come to fruition.

“Successful” regeneration is less a matter of quantitative growth of inhabitants and

jobs, but more of qualitative improvements on the base of social and spatial selective

processes.. Planning strategies have been established, which combine long-term visions and aims on

the level of the whole city with short-term and area-based interventions on the level of

quarters; an area-based concentration on the inner city has been a first phase of urban

regeneration in Manchester, followed by a second phase for the Eastern parts of the city.. The regeneration processes in the inner city of Manchester have been partially unin-

tended and market-led, partially intended and steered by state-led government.. Cities shrinking as a result of de-industrialization (such as Manchester) have to redefine

their identity in a double manner: inwards for the inhabitants and outwards for visitors,

enterprises and investors. Image creation and city marketing are important factors of

urban regeneration.. The integration of planning, financing and implementation within the operations of

regeneration agencies is a key approach. The strengths of strategic planning in Manche-

ster lies above all in regeneration partnerships (and other forms of public–private

co-operation) and in the ability of responsible agencies to bring together national

funding programmes across departments and to implement them in strategic projects.. However, strategic projects in Manchester have generated limited development effects

as they often remain “islands” of new wealth within the city and thus contribute to

spatial inequalities.

In the long-term perspective, most post-industrial cities in West Europe have not been able

to reach the former industrial level of inhabitants and jobs. These accounts would seem to

indicate that, in many cases, “successful” regeneration is less a matter of quantitative

growth than of qualitative improvements on the basis of a new equilibrium of less

people and fewer jobs. In general, the growth of the service sector has not compensated

for jobs lost through deindustrialization. According to Gomez (1998), the cases of

Glasgow and Bilbao show that urban regeneration can improve the physical environment,

redefine city images and attract tourists. But these cities continue to have difficulties in

alleviating unemployment. Regarding population, similar lessons can be drawn. The popu-

lation of Liverpool is still shrinking, while Manchester and Sheffield again experience low

levels of growth. According to Turok and Mykhnenko (2006), only a small minority of

European cities experienced population growth in the period between 1960 and 2005.

Furthermore, the outcomes of urban regeneration processes seem to be highly selective

in a social and spatial sense; urban regeneration processes in old-industrial areas are often

seen to contribute to uneven development (for Sheffield, see Dabinett, 2004). The example

of Bilbao shows that a successful regenerated inner city is contrasted by outlying areas

which are characterized by ongoing urban decline and social impoverishment (Vicario

& Monje, 2006). This raises the question as to the social sustainability of urban regener-

ation and its role in promoting social equity goals (Mangen, 2004). Local regeneration

Urban Change and Urban Development Strategies in Central East Europe 1101

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

38 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

trajectories are very much dependent on political opportunity structures operating at

different levels as well as on the power relations between local actors. In the case of

Central European cities, national urban policies are sketchy at best while local govern-

ments have considerably fewer resources than their West European counterparts. As

Timar (2007) indicates, this helps explain why urban regeneration “strategies” in the

post-socialist context are frequently oriented towards solutions seen to be expedient and

efficient within more general entrepreneurial logics of urban development but detrimental

to social equity objectives. Furthermore, short-termism has undermined the bargaining

positions of cities, themselves politically fragmented, against powerful economic interests

(see Csanadi et al., 2010).

Regeneration and the Complex Issue of Governance

Regeneration and strategic planning are, above all, about the management of urban change

and about capacities to implement strategies that effectively address the specific problems

of urban places. At one level, theories of urban decline postulate a relationship between the

macro-level of economic and demographic change and local level of interest-group poli-

tics. As a result, conservative strategies of political and economical elites seeking support

for old-industrial enterprises are seen to play a crucial role in prolonging urban decline. As

Friedrichs (1993, p. 913): “the higher the dominance of a local industrial elite, the longer

the process of decline and the lower the prospects for recovery”. Governance is, of course,

more complex than this and elite constellations shift with time. With the concept of urban

governance, the analysis of urban politics is enriched through policy networks that bring

together local governments, state agencies, economic actors, citizens’ groups and other

stakeholders. Among others, Pierre (2011) has provided valuable insights into processes

of urban governance and on the importance of local values as well as national institutional

contexts for urban policy outcomes. One of the principal challenges of strategic planning is

the ability to define and impose a central vision of a city’s future. Are cities in fact capable

of defining a “leading idea” for their future in term of regeneration? The reading of the

innovative regeneration strategies discussed here is not one of a mere, if sophisticated,

extension of marketing philosophy into the realm of urban and regional governance but

of something much more substantial. Consensus and/or political coalitions supporting a

long-term vision must be strong and durable enough to influence the thinking and

actions of a great number of actors involved in urban development.

With a focus on governance issues, it becomes clear that many intervening variables

affect local capacities to effectively carry out a process of strategic planning. EU struc-

tural funds and programmes, national urban policies, relations between political and

economic elites, civil society and citizen participation as well as local economic con-

ditions are just some of the factors involved here. Furthermore, the concept of multilevel

governance has helped uncover links between socio-spatial processes taking place at

different scales (Bache & Flinders, 2004). In terms of governance, regeneration is

affected by the actions of many layers of government and the decisions of different

levels of actors.

In West European debates, “governance” is a normative principle that gives expression

to the expectations of European citizens of more direct participation in debates on Europe’s

future and the collective choices it entails (Mokre & Riemann, 2006). Importantly, this also

involves the exercise of citizenship in contemporary political contexts and systems of

1102 J. W. Scott and M. Kuhn

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

38 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

government. In a more critical vein, shifts from managerial governance practices to entre-

preneurial ones have been explained by some to represent an inevitable consequence of glo-

balization and neo-liberal economic principles (Harvey, 1989; Jessop, 2002). What is

unclear, however, are the modes by which state/non-state as well as private, public and

civil society actors participate in local political arenas and the impacts they have on

local development policies.

Perhaps more seriously – specially when considering the potential transferability of

“good practices” of urban regeneration, discrepancies between paradigmatic assumptions

about governance and the realities of regeneration practices are all too evident. Experi-

ences of West European cities clearly indicate that transforming traditions of administra-

tive and bureaucratic behaviour into cultures of “strategic management” is anything but

straightforward. One main lesson of institutionalist analyses of local regeneration partner-

ships in the UK is that these partnerships are not new governance patterns characterized by

networks, but depend mainly on the hierarchical support of the national government

(Davies, 2004). Davies argues that, state intervention rather than “networks” is the

primary mode of governance in the politics of urban regeneration and that state influence

is actually increasing in the UK. Similarly, in comparing regeneration schemes carried out

in Bristol and Naples, Bull and Jones (2006) have argued that more autonomous local gov-

ernment and greater civil society participation may still be needed to meet local expec-

tations of new governance forms. Furthermore, creating an EU–European spatial

context for multilevel governance in which cities play an important role might seem

reasonable from an organizational and administrative point of view. But scalar transform-

ations demanded by the European Union often appear to take place in isolation of local

meanings, understandings and practices that might provide a true basis for urban govern-

ance capacity (Sagan & Lee, 2005, pp. 165–168).

Some Examples of Urban Regeneration in CEE

Based on the above discussion, we will delineate a framework for the comparative discus-

sion of regeneration strategies in several Central European cities. In terms of policies that

aim at promoting urban regeneration, a number of questions are taken up by the contribu-

tors to this special issue. These involve the governance challenges related to regeneration

strategies and as well as explanations for the different regeneration trajectories that have

been taken. Generally speaking, regeneration in many CEE cities is conditioned by

struggles to develop more decisive planning and policy frameworks with which to coordi-

nate development processes. In addition, it is important to understand why, how and where

local actors see potentials for long-term strategies of social, economic and environmental

regeneration. In the case of post-socialist transformation, contexts for inclusive urban

governance (and civil society participation) are being negotiated within situations of insti-

tutional change subject to a considerable degree of flux. At the same time, local attempts at

regeneration in Hungary, Poland and Slovakia are challenged by neo-liberal policies of

urban development as well a a lack of national policy frameworks that specifically

target urban development problems.

The following case study cities are heterogeneous and, as stated above, no attempt is

made to portray them as representative of a “post-socialist urban condition”. The

common thread that ties these case studies together is rather the assessment of local

capacities for strategic action in the area of comprehensive (i.e. economic, physical and

Urban Change and Urban Development Strategies in Central East Europe 1103

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

38 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

social) urban regeneration. The essays thus focus on regeneration processes in terms of

different policy and governance perspectives, such as tensions between strategic interests

by urban elites and “bottom-up” processes of neighbourhood improvement (Gdansk),

project-based and thus ad-hoc strategies implemented at the neighbourhood level (Brati-

slava), the competition between different development strategies (Gotha, Wittenberg,

Riesa and other mid-size East German cities), the negotiation of social agendas through

strategies of social integration (Budapest and Pecs) as well as mutually reinforcing

trends and policies of “re-urbanization” (Leipzig). In most of the cases discussed here,

European Union support has played a major role in co-funding local projects and facili-

tation the exchange of knowledge. The individual papers will, in general, be structured

around the following issues:

. describing principal redevelopment challenges facing the individual cities;

. tracing the emergence of regeneration trends and area-based regeneration strategies,

including social agendas in specific cases;. outlining governance challenges that affect the emergence and development of regener-

ation strategies;. to the extent possible, elaborating on the outcomes of regeneration in terms of physical

and social improvements and institutional change.

The Budapest Experience with Urban Regeneration

Budapest is to an extent an exceptional case among this collection as it is not only a capital

city and large metropolis, but also a primate city within a highly centralized country.

However, the processes of urban change it has experienced, accelerated by large

foreign investments and rapid growth in financial services, are very much characteristic

of post-socialist transformation. As Keresztely and Scott indicate, the most obvious

effect of transformation has been the exacerbation of socio-economic disparities,

tendencies of social exclusion and the degradation of many inner-city neighbourhoods.

Furthermore, regeneration strategies that have been implemented in Budapest highlight

many of the contradictions involved in realizing regeneration strategies in post-socialist

countries. Weak levels of state intervention, institutional fragmentation and powerful

market incentives to promote speculative redevelopment have resulted in a focus on

demolition, new construction and quantitative growth. Gentrification has been a deliberate

redevelopment strategy in the hope that “upgrading” will have spill-over effects on disad-

vantaged areas of the city. Contestation of the growth orientation of Budapest’s political

elites has come in the guise of social agendas that clamour for holistic, integrated and sus-

tainable strategies of neighbourhood renewal. The social dimension of redevelopment,

which has found expression in pilot projects of economic, environmental and social regen-

eration is some of Budapest’s most deprived neighbourhoods, has received considerable

impetus from EU structural initiatives and West European experience. While political

pressure for a greater social sensitivity in Budapest’s urban development policies is

mounting, many of the institutional and political conditions necessary for implementation

of an “urban social dimension” are only now emerging. One further and vital precondition

for this is the political realization that social regeneration is vital to the overall economic

health of cities and of the country as a whole.

1104 J. W. Scott and M. Kuhn

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

38 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Gdansk: “Grassroots” Versus “Hegemonic” Projects of Regeneration

For the case of Gdansk (Poland), Iwona Sagan and Maja Grabkowska show that there is

inward migration from rural areas to the city. But the context of housing shortages and

high flat prices directs these inflows into peripheral areas of the city. Unlike many inner

cities in West European cities which have experienced depopulation and social downgrad-

ing, the inner city of Gdansk is still socially mixed. Gdansk, furthermore, is a major locus

of inner-city revitalization programmes in Poland. It is also a city characterized by

struggles between locally oriented interests and powerful economic interests that are

trying to impose, neo-liberal promotional schemes and a top-down vision of the city’s

future. As Sagan and Grabkowska argue, Gdansk’s regeneration programmes reveal a ten-

dency to orient, and thus limit, action to approaches seen to represent “successful models”.

As such, regeneration focuses mainly on brownfields development, usually converting

industrial buildings into cultural or commercial centres. To an extent, these approaches

have been highly influenced by the EU, whose funds are a major source of financial

support. In the final result, the EU appears to focus more strongly on place-related

rather than on people-oriented initiatives and the social component of regeneration

remains “symbolic”. As Sagan and Grabkowska clearly show, the case of Dolny Wrzeszcz

is an excellent example of this situation; despite a high degree of civic mobilization and

motivation, the city government has decided to marginalize local community support in

developing regeneration strategies in this area of Gdansk.

East German Cities: Institutional Change and the Search for Successful Development

Paths

In the East German case, the focus is on urban development policies in mid-size cities such

as Gorlitz, Riesa, Gotha, “The University and Hanseatic” City of Greifswald and “Luther-

stadt” Wittenberg. Urban development policy is understood here to include planning

strategies as legitimated through the political system, as well as overall development

concepts and plans that incorporate future-oriented and comprehensive planning, urban

development strategies, land-use plans, visions, etc. Thomas Kuder and Heike Liebmann

argue that urban development polices are also shaped by a variety of formal and informal

institutional structures and processes. These institutions may include locally specific

decision-making logics; for example, in the sense of the urban habitus or local patterns

of problem-solving, moral ideologies or legal parameters. Over time, this collection of

interrelated strategies and plans that reflect urban development policy constitute a specific

self-reinforcing logic that can be captured by the concept of an institutional or urban devel-

opment path. Today, nearly two decades after the onset of transformation and German

re-unification, many East German cities continue to be involved in processes of selecting

and refining development paths. The authors therefore argue that is not yet possible to

deliver a final analysis of which particular circumstances have promoted successful regen-

eration strategies and development paths and/or what elements should be regarded as

necessary pre-requisites for the development of sustainable and feasible paths of regener-

ation. What the East German cases do demonstrate, however, is that path-dependency in

urban regeneration strategies may develop and go unnoticed in times of success and pros-

perity, but irrationally impede dynamic and necessary institutional change in times of

crisis and economic difficulty, preventing the successful negotiation of these crises.

Urban Change and Urban Development Strategies in Central East Europe 1105

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

38 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

At the same time, critical events and particular opportunity structures may provide pre-

conditions for overcoming development traps inherent to path-dependency.

Leipzig and Processes of “Re-urbanization”

In the last essay of this collection, Haase, Herfurt, Kabisch and Steinfuhrer take a some-

what different approach to the discussion of regeneration, namely not as a policy issue in

direct terms but as a process of “re-urbanization”. After many decades of inner-city decline

and massive suburbanization, especially since 1989, East German cities are now exhibit-

ing a new and rather specific phenomenon: the simultaneousness of shrinkage, decreasing

suburbanization and rising trend of migration back to city centres (reurbanization).

Focusing on the city of Leipzig, the authors discuss several dimensions of the reurbaniza-

tion process. Starting from a critical debate of conceptual approaches, this paper scruti-

nizes whether reurbanization can serve as an appropriate explanatory framework for the

currently changing patterns of spatial development in Eastern Germany. Reurbanization

is applied to both processes on the urban macro-scale and the meso-scale of inner-city

districts. By using regional, local and small-scale data from municipal statistics and ques-

tionnaire surveys, reurbanization processes are analysed primarily for the city of Leipzig.

In their contribution, the authors argue that there is evidence for reurbanization in the sense

of the model proposed by Van den Berg et al. (1982) and mainly with regard to the devel-

opment of some larger cities since 2000. It occurs as an increasing in-migration as well as

diminishing out-migration from the inner city.

As the authors indicate, undirected processes of reurbanization have, unintentionally,

coincided with the strategy of Leipzig to strengthen family oriented environments

within the inner city. Since 2000, reurbanization strategies in Leipzig have aimed at main-

taining the social mix of inner-city areas that has endured despite dramatic demographic

change and outmigration. Given the suburbanization trends of the 1990s and high levels of

vacancies, renovation of the city’s building stock became the primary objective of the

Leipzig municipal government. Taken together, these reurbanization processes have

lead to a stabilization of the housing functions of core city.

Concluding Observations

Attempts at addressing decades of urban neglect come at a time when the cities of CEE

face unprecedented challenges of a social, fiscal, economic and political nature. Few of

these cities have been able to structure a new sense of coherence within the shifting econ-

omic and political contexts of European integration and global competition. This is made

more difficult by an extreme politicization of policy issues, social fragmentation as well as

ideological polarization. Instead, there is a lack of synchronicity between changes in

formal institutions at the level of policy-making and the persistence of older informal insti-

tutions (rules of actions, beliefs, etc.) at the level of everyday local governance. In addition

to the more ideological aspects of post-socialist transformation, this gap between formal

and informal rules has allowed market-oriented forms of urban regeneration to prevail,

with private developers either altogether taking the policy “initiative” or dominating part-

nerships with the public sector. The experiences of CEE cities related by the contributors

to this volume indicate a rather low level of convergence between “Eastern” and

“Western” forms of strategic urban planning and regeneration. Furthermore, the local

1106 J. W. Scott and M. Kuhn

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

38 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

experiments in neighbourhood improvement, economic development and social inte-

gration documented by the authors reflect place-specific logics of institutional learning.

Even though the results of these local experiments have been patchy, they do set pre-

cedents for more comprehensive and forceful urban agendas.

Nevertheless, the consensus view is that in the long run a genuine form of multilevel

governance is needed in order to create a policy environment conducive to sustainable

and socially equitable urban development. In the case of Hungary and Poland, EU pro-

grammes partly compensate for the lack of true urban policies at the national level. To

an extent, the cities of the former East Germany are privileged in that they operate

within a more or less effective division of labour between European, national, regional

and local policy frameworks. However, here again local bargaining power and influence

is limited by weak economies and a precarious fiscal situation. What is needed is a

more forceful political commitment to the urban dimension within European Cohesion

policies and at the national level. Housing policies, urban infrastructure, community

development and economic regeneration are multilevel tasks that cannot be addressed

by a paradigm shift in “governance” or by neo-liberal approaches to urban growth.

Notes

1. See Jon Pierre’s (2005) comparative characterization of governance models.

2. Urban regeneration processes are reverse developments within urban shrinkage. In urban research we are

frequently confronted by a plethora of “re”-words that include, among others: revival, renewal, renais-

sance, reurbanization, revitalization, re-development and resurgence. It can be rather difficult to separate

different understandings of these terms as they are generally appropriated locally under specific contextual

circumstances. For the sake of this particular discussion, we want to distinguish “regeneration” from three

other main terms: reurbanization, restructuring and revitalization. The classic theory of “reurbanization”

focus on potential trends of back-migration into cities after a period of suburbanization (Van den Berg,

1982). In this demographic theory, cities are seen exclusively as locations for housing. The socio-

economic factor of employment growth or decline is not considered. In contrast, many economic or geo-

graphical theories use the term restructuring to describe the structural change of cities and the shift from

industrial to post-industrial, service- and knowledge-based economy (Peck & Ward, 2002). From the more

physical view of urban planning, the terms revitalization and, alternatively, “renewal” are used to describe

the emergence of new uses of derelict land and vacant buildings (Couch, 1990). The resurgence of cities is

defined in a recent demographic report as a period of population decline followed by a period of absolute

population growth (Turok & Mykhnenko, 2006, p. 15).

References

Albrechts, L. (2004) Strategic (spatial) planning re-examined, Environment and Planning B: Planning and

Design, 31(5), pp. 743–758.

Albrechts, L. (2006) Bridge the gap: From spatial planning to strategic projects, European Planning Studies,

14(10), pp. 1487–1500.

Albrechts, L., Healey, P. & Kunzmann, K. R. (2003) Strategic spatial planning and regional governance in

Europe, Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(2), pp. 113–129.

Bache, I. & Flinders, M. (Eds) (2004) Multi-level Governance (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Brusis, M. (2005) The instrumental use of EU conditionality: Regionalization in the Czech Republic and Slova-

kia, East European Politics and Societies, 19(2), pp. 291–316.

Bull, A. & Jones, B. (2006) Governance and social capital in urban regeneration: A comparison between Bristol

and Naples. Urban Studies, 43(4), pp. 767–786.

Carley, M. (2000) Urban partnerships, governance and the regeneration of Britain’s cities, International Planning

Studies, 5(3), pp. 273–297.

Urban Change and Urban Development Strategies in Central East Europe 1107

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

38 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Cook, I. R. (2008) Mobilising urban policies: The policy transfer of US business improvement districts to

England and Wales, Urban Studies, 45(4), pp. 773–795.

Couch, C. (1990) Urban Renewal Theory and Practice (Basingstoke: Macmillan).

Couch, Ch., Fraser, Ch. & Percy, S. (Eds) (2003) Urban Regeneration in Europe (Oxford: Oxford University

Press).

Csanadi, G., Czismady, A. & Olt, G. (2010) Recent trends in urban renewal in Budapest, Urbani izziv, 21(1),

pp. 117–125.

Dabinett, G. (2004) Uneven spatial development and regeneration outcomes in the UK: Reversing decline in the

northern city of Sheffield? Stadte im Umbruch—Online–Magazin fur Stadtentwicklung, Stadtschrumpfung,

Stadtumbau und Regenerierung, 2, pp. 18–22.

Davies, J. S. (2004) Conjuncture or disjuncture? An institutionalist analysis of local regeneration partnerships in

the UK, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28(3), pp. 570–585.

Djordjevic, M. (2006) Politics of Urban Development Planning: Building Urban Governance in Post-Socialist

Warsaw? Report, First Annual Doctoral Conference of the Department of Political Science of Central Euro-

pean University (Budapest).

Enyedi, Gy. (1998) Transformation in Central European Postsocialist Cities, Discussion Papers, no. 21 (Pecs:

Centre for Regional Studies of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences).

European Commission (2007) State of European Cities Report (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of

the European Communities).

Friedrichs, J. (1993) A theory of urban decline: Economy, demography and political elites, Urban Studies, 30(6),

pp. 907–917.

Furbey, R. (1999) Urban “regeneration”: Reflections on a metaphor, Critical Social Policy, 19(4), pp. 419–445.

Gomez, M. V. (1998) Reflective images: The case of urban regeneration in Glasgow and Bilbao, International

Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 22(1), pp. 106–121.

Gorzelak, G. (2009) Regional development and “New” regionalism in Poland, in: J. W. Scott (Ed.) De-Coding

New Regionalism. Shifting Socio-political Contexts in Central Europe and Latin America, pp. 177–189

(Farnham: Ashgate).

Gorzelak, G. & Smetkowski, M. (2010) Regional dynamics in Central and Eastern Europe, in: G. Gorzelak, J.

Bachtler & M. Smetkowski (Eds) Regional Development in Central and Eastern Europe: Development Pro-

cesses and Policy Challenges, pp. 34–58 (London: Routledge).

Hamilton, F. E. I., Dimitrovska, K. & Pichler-Milanovic, N. (Eds) (2005) Transformation of Cities in Central and

Eastern Europe. Towards Globalization (Tokyo: United Nations University Press).

Harvey, D. (1989) From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: The transformation in urban governance in late

capitalism, Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography, 71(1), pp. 3–17.

Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning. Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies (London: Routledge).

Hogan, J. P. (2006) The politics of urban regeneration, Progress in Irish Urban Studies, 2, pp. 27–37.

Jessen, J. & Walther, U. J. (2008) Großstadtpolitik in England—das Beispiel Manchester, Raumforschung und

Raumordnung, 66(2), pp. 152–167.

Jessop, B. (2002) Liberalism, neo-liberalism and urban governance: A state theoretical perspective, Antipode,

34(3), pp. 452–472.

Keresztely, K. (2008) L’inaccessibilite croissante des quartiers historiques de Budapest: gentryfication et poli-

tiques urbaines liberales, in: L. L. Hurard (Ed.) Europe: Pas sans toit!, pp. 30–34 (Paris: AITEC).

Keresztely, K. & Enyedi, Gy. (2003) Love and hatred: Changing relations between the city governments of Buda-

pest and the national governments, Ekistics, 70(420/421), pp. 218–227.

Kidd, A. (2004) Aufstieg und Niedergang Manchesters, in: P. Oswalt (Ed.) Schrumpfende Stadte, Band 1: Inter-

nationale Untersuchung, pp. 407–415 (Ostfildern-Ruit: Verlag Hatje Cantz).

Kunzmann, K. (1993) Pittsburgh—eine Erfolgsgeschichte? Dortmunder Beitrage zur Raumplanung, 65, pp. 10–21.

Lewis, P. (1997) Political participation in post-communist democracies, in: D. Potter et al. (Eds) Democratiza-

tion, pp. 393–420 (Cambridge: Polity Press).

Mangen, S. A. (2004) Social Exclusion and Inner City Europe: Regulating Urban Regeneration (Basingstoke:

Palgrave Macmillan).

Mokre, M. & Riemann, S. P. (2006) From Good Governance to Democratic Governance. A Policy Review of the

First Wave of European Governance Research, EU Research in Social Sciences and Humanities, Policy

Review Series No. 2 (EUR 22094 EN) (Brussels: European Commission).

Mykhnenko, V. & Turok, I. (2007) Cities in Transition: East European Urban Trajectories 1960–2005, Working

Paper No. 4 Centre for Public Policy for Regions, Glasgow.

1108 J. W. Scott and M. Kuhn

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

38 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Oswalt, P. (Ed.) (2004) Shrinking Cities, Volume 1: International Research (Ostfildern-Ruit: Verlag Hatje Cantz).

Oswalt, P. (Ed.) (2006) Shrinking Cities, Volume 2: Interventions (Ostfildern-Ruit: Verlag Hatje Cantz).

Peck, J. & Ward, K. (Eds) (2002) City of Revolution. Restructuring Manchester (Manchester: Manchester

University Press).

Pierre, J. (2005) Comparative urban governance—uncovering complex causalities, Urban Affairs Review, 40(4),

pp. 446–462.

Pierre, J. (2011) The Politics of Urban Governance (Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan).

Roberts, P. & Sykes, H. (Eds) (2000) Urban Regeneration. A Handbook (London: Sage).

Robson, B. (2002) Mancunian ways: The politics of regeneration, in: J. Peck & K. Ward (Eds) City of Revolution.

Restructuring Manchester, pp. 34–49 (Manchester: Manchester University Press).

Sagan, I. (2009) Regions, new regionalism and regime theory: Deciphering post-socialist institutional change, in:

J. W. Scott (Ed.) De-Coding New Regionalism: Shifting Socio-political Contexts in Central Europe and

Latin America, pp. 93–109 (Aldershot: Ashgate).

Sagan, I. & Lee, R. (2005) Spatialities of regional transformation in Central Europe and the administrative spaces

of the EU, in: I. Sagan & H. Halkier (Eds) Regionalism Contested. Institution, Society and Governance,

pp. 163–176 (Aldershot: Ashgate).

Salet, W. & Faludi, A. (Eds) (2000) The Revival of Strategic Spatial Planning (Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands

Academy of Arts and Sciences).

Stanilov, K. (Ed.) (2007) The Post-Socialist City. Urban Form and Space Transformations in Central and Eastern

Europe after Socialism (Berlin: Springer).

Stenning, A., Smith, A., Rochovska, A. & Swiatek, D. (Eds) (2010) Domesticating Neo-Liberalism: Spaces of

Economic Practice and Social Reproduction in Post-Socialist Cities (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell).

Sykora, L. (1999) Changes in the internal spatial structure of post-communist Prague, GeoJournal, 49(1), pp. 79–89.

Sykora, L. (2007) Urban Regeneration in Post-Socialist Europe, Presentation at the International conference

“Urban Regeneration. Strategies for Postsocialist Cities” of the Institute for Regional Development and

Structural Planning, 16 November 2007 in Potsdam (Germany). Available at www.irs-net.de

Timar, J. (2007) Different scales of uneven development—in a (no longer) post-socialist Hungary, Treballs de la

Societat Catalana de Geografia, 64, pp. 103–128.

Tocsis, I. (2005) Post-socialist Budapest. The invasion of market forces and the response of public leadership, in:

F. E. I. Hamilton, K. Dimitrovska & N. Pichler-Milanovic (Eds) Transformation of Cities in Central and

Eastern Europe. Towards Globalization, pp. 248–280 (Tokyo: United Nations University Press).

Turok, I. & Mykhnenko, V. (2006) Resurgent European Cities? Working paper No. 2 Centre for Public Policy for

Regions, Glasgow.

Urban Task Force. (1999) Towards an Urban Renaissance. Final Report of the Urban Task Force, Chaired by

Lord Rogers of Riverside, London. London: Urban Policy Directorate, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

Available at http://www.urbantaskforce.org/UTF_final_report.pdf (accessed 19 April 2012).

Van den Berg, L. (1982) Urban Europe. A Study of Growth and Decline (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Vicario, L. & Monje, P. (2006) The Guggenheim effect, in: P. Oswalt (Ed.) Shrinking Cities, Volume 2: Inter-

ventions, pp. 744–752 (Ostfildern-Ruit: Verlag Hatje Cantz).

Urban Change and Urban Development Strategies in Central East Europe 1109

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

38 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014