Governance being defined as “actions and institutions within an urban region that regulate or impose conditions for its political economy” (Sellers 2002, p. 9).
Louis Wirth (1942), called for formal institutional consolidation:
“We live in an era which dissolves boundaries, but the inertia of antiquarian lawyers and lawmakers, the predatory interests of local politicians, real estate men, and industrialists, the parochialism of suburbanites, and the myopic vision of planners have prevented us from a full recognition of the inescapable need for a new planning unit in the metropolitan region.”
Two arguments were essential to the case against fragmentation. First, the essential tasks and responsibilities of governance – from infrastructure to social equity – spilled over fragmented jurisdictional boundaries in ways that demanded consolidated institutions. The second, opposing, concept posits that larger governmental units could take advantage of economies of scale, providing public services at lower cost than smaller governments. Applied to vastly different regional, national and socio-political contexts, a decades-old argument has coalesced around two general strategies: supra-community reformation and territorial polycentrism.
Resources needed by the separate metropolitan towns can be shared through agreements about specific functional sectors, such as transportation, education and health (Marks and Hooghe 2003).
polycentric form of governance, described in North America as new regionalism
Within this framework governance is a process of coordinating political decision-making implicating different actors, social groups and institutions in a particular institutional context to attain appropriate goals that have been discussed and collectively defined in fragmented, uncertain environments.
Le Gales, P. (1998), Regulations and Governance in European Cities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 22, pp. 482-506.
Louis Wirth (1942), called for formal institutional consolidation:
“We live in an era which dissolves boundaries, but the inertia of antiquarian lawyers and lawmakers, the predatory interests of local politicians, real estate men, and industrialists, the parochialism of suburbanites, and the myopic vision of planners have prevented us from a full recognition of the inescapable need for a new planning unit in the metropolitan region.”
Two arguments were essential to the case against fragmentation. First, the essential tasks and responsibilities of governance – from infrastructure to social equity – spilled over fragmented jurisdictional boundaries in ways that demanded consolidated institutions. The second, opposing, concept posits that larger governmental units could take advantage of economies of scale, providing public services at lower cost than smaller governments. Applied to vastly different regional, national and socio-political contexts, a decades-old argument has coalesced around two general strategies: supra-community reformation and territorial polycentrism.
Resources needed by the separate metropolitan towns can be shared through agreements about specific functional sectors, such as transportation, education and health (Marks and Hooghe 2003).
polycentric form of governance, described in North America as new regionalism
V.2. Institutional thickness
The governance of metropolitan areas can be more or less institutionally concentrated and integrated, both territorially and functionally. The degree of institutional thickness depends on a metropolitan structure’s financial autonomy.
New town or metropolitan town
b) Co-existence of local governments with metropolitan structures
c) Intercommunity co-operation
Devas (2005) calls a tradeoff between “scale” and “voice” in governance. The larger the scale of governance, the more difficult it is to provide effectively for the participation of local units, neighborhoods, civil societies or individual citizens.
The governance of metropolitan areas can be more or less institutionally concentrated and integrated, both territorially and functionally. The degree of institutional thickness depends on a metropolitan structure’s financial autonomy.
New town or metropolitan town
b) Co-existence of local governments with metropolitan structures
c) Intercommunity co-operation
Devas (2005) calls a tradeoff between “scale” and “voice” in governance. The larger the scale of governance, the more difficult it is to provide effectively for the participation of local units, neighborhoods, civil societies or individual citizens.
Source:
JEFFEREY SELLERS, VINCENT HOFFMANN-MARTINOT
(http://www.cities-localgovernments.org/gold/Upload/gold_report/09_metropolis_en.pdf)
JEFFEREY SELLERS, VINCENT HOFFMANN-MARTINOT
(http://www.cities-localgovernments.org/gold/Upload/gold_report/09_metropolis_en.pdf)
Within this framework governance is a process of coordinating political decision-making implicating different actors, social groups and institutions in a particular institutional context to attain appropriate goals that have been discussed and collectively defined in fragmented, uncertain environments.
Le Gales, P. (1998), Regulations and Governance in European Cities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 22, pp. 482-506.
No comments:
Post a Comment