minnery - urban governance

8/3/2019 MINNERY - Urban Governance

1/22

Stars and their Supporting Cast: State,Market and Community as Actors in UrbanGovernance

JOHN MINNERY

School of Geography, Planning and Architecture, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

(Received 7 June 2006; accepted 5 June 2007)

ABSTRACT In the search for better ways to govern cities there has been a shift from an emphasis onthe role of urban government to an emphasis on urban governance. Governance is now widelyunderstood as incorporating the role of the state in policy making and implementation but extendingbeyond that single actor to include the roles of the private sector (market) and community (civilsociety). The relationships amongst the three are both complex and changing. This article proposes aconceptual framework that structures our understanding of how the actors in urban governanceinteract, based on relationships where one of the actors has far greater influence than the other two,in other words where one is the star or central actor. The framework then addresses the questionof the roles of the supporting cast, or the other two actors. The governance orthodoxy is thatrelationships are collaborative and consensual, expressed through ideas about partnerships and

networks. The framework, however, draws attention to the possibility of conflict. The articleexplores some of the implications for urban governance theory and practice of these complexrelationships.

KEY WORDS: Urban governance, government, hierarchy, market, civil society, community

0811-1146 Print/1476-7244 Online/07/030325-21 q 2007 Editorial Board, Urban Policy and Research

DOI: 10.1080/08111140701540745

Correspondence Address: John Minnery, School of Geography, Planning and Architecture, University of

Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia. Fax: 61 (07) 3365 6899; Tel.: 61 (07) 3365 3880;

Email: [email protected]

Urban Policy and Research,

Vol. 25, No. 3, 325345, September 2007


2/22

Introduction

In the 14th century, the Italian artist Ambrogio Lorensetti painted an apocryphal vision of

a badly governed city. The contrast with his paired city of good governance is stark. Yet

despite Lorensettis (admittedly allegorical) guidance there is still considerable debate

about the way cities should be governed. The substantial lineage of this search for a better

understanding, stretching from at least the 14th into the 21st century, is neatly captured by

Kjr (2004, p. 1), who opens her recent exploration with a direct reference to Lorensettis

frescoes.

It may not be true to say that the search for better city governance is worldwide; but

it certainly is now widespread (McCarney, 1990), for all over the world cities are

searching for appropriate ways of governance in the context of far-reaching economic,

social and institutional transformations affecting all levels of scale (Hohn & Neuer,

2006, p. 291).

Good urban governance, as conceptualised by organisations such as the United NationsCentre for Human Settlements (Habitat) (Taylor, 2000), has many of the characteristics

expected of good urban planning. Questions of sustainability, social justice, engagement

and efficiency are central to both. Some writers, such as Gleeson and Low (2000, pp. 45),

point to a very intimate connection between urban planning and urban governance when

they say that:

[o]ur view of planning is that it is both a domain of urban governancethat part of

governance concerned with the provision of services to a cityand an approach to

urban governance which seeks effective, equitable and democratic steering of the

state apparatus for the benefit of citizens (emphasis in original).

As would be expected organisations such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation

and Development take a narrower view of urban governance, giving greater emphasis toeconomic effectiveness, competition and development (McFarlane, 2001).

But it is clear that the nature of both governance as a whole and the part of governance

concerned with urban areas has seen major shifts in recent years. Fundamentally,

something that was once seen as a role reserved for formal governments has broadened

considerably. The urban planning, urban studies and urban geography literatures are now

replete with references to this change from urban government to urban governance.

The literature is either native to these disciplines or it borrows concepts from public

policy or public administration (see, for example, UNDP, 1997b; Pierre, 1999, 2005;

UNCHS, 2000; Hambleton, 2002; Gissendanner, 2003; Minnery, 2004; TUGI, 2004). The

discussion has now even moved as far as identifying a new urban governance (Hohn &

Neuer, 2006; Keil, 2006). Urban governance is now seen to incorporate the role of formal

urban government (at the local, regional or national scales) but to extend beyond

government to embrace the roles of the private sector and the community sector in urban

development and change. This article tries to clarify the nature of that expanded

relationship.

The relationships are far from simple. So too are descriptions of them. Some

descriptions are couched in language that obfuscates rather than clarifies. For example,

Coaffee and Healey (2003), building on earlier work (Cars et al., 2002), use the term

326 J. Minnery


3/22

governance . . . in its wider meaning, to refer to the modes and practices of the

mobilisation and organisation of collective action. Just as the spheres of political lifeand social life overlap in the activities and mentalities of particular people and

groups, so the organisation of collective action moves between and across these

spheres. (p. 1979)

Or they describe the extension beyond formal government in ways that seem to rob their

concept of governance of much of its meaning. Healey (2006, p. 302), for example, uses

the term to

encompass all forms of collective action focused on the public realm (sphere) in one

way or another, from those orchestrated by formal government agencies, to lobby

groups, self-regulating groups, and social campaigns and movements targeted at

resistance or challenge to dominant governance relations.

There is a clear need to clarify the nature and form of governance and how it applies to

urban areas.

This article accepts the need to question a governance orthodoxy (Davies, 2005,

p. 312) of urban governance analysesthe view that the relationships amongst the major

stakeholders are mainly cooperative and consensual, captured in the common use of the

terms partnerships or collaborative networks when describing urban governance

relationships. The article asks how both conflict and cooperation in the relationships

amongst the major stakeholders in urban governance can best be understood. In order to do

this it first clarifies the nature of the major stakeholders themselves, working through an

exploration of governance itself to an exploration of urban governance, and proposes a

framework through which their potential relationships can be understood. This framework

is based on an assumption of differential degrees of influence amongst the players. Theanalogy used is identified in the title of the article: when one of the players in governance

is the star what are the roles of the other two players who make up the supporting cast.

The framework is both derived through and illustrated by a number of empirical case

studies drawn from the relevant literature, mainly from the UK and from Australia. But in

order to understand urban governance it is necessary first to explore something of the

meaning of governance itself.

The Nature of Governance

Although the idea of governance originated in political science, authors such as Brugue

and Valles (2005) argue that even there the idea . . . is highly controversial and has

been located in different settings . . . (p. 197). Kjrs (2004) discussion of its different

forms is also located within political science, although she takes this as a broaddiscipline that includes public administration, public policy, international relations and

comparative politics. In another example, Hooghe and Marks (2003) identify different

approaches to governance in the political science literatures of European Union studies,

international relations, federalism studies, local government studies and public policy.

Despite these various uncertainties about its home the idea of governance has been

absorbed into the discourses of a number of disciplines, including urban planning and

urban policy.

Stars and their Supporting Cast 327


4/22

In some ways the discourse on governance is like that on sustainability. Both have

assumed a central iconic position in a number of literatures without any commonagreement on what they actually mean. In fact, talk about governance is sometimes

criticized for being vague, incoherent, based on false assumptions, just words, or simply

commonsense asserts Larmour (1998, p. 3). In Pratorius (2003, p. 237) review of the

collection edited by Pierre (2000) it is suggested that the term governance may suffer the

same fate as the term democracy if the words continue to be used in such an expansive

and fluid way: if it means everything, perhaps it means nothing. For planners and policy

analysts, the historical resonances with Wildavskys (1973, p. 127) much earlier concern

that, [i]f planning is everything, maybe its nothing are obvious.

It is, however, now widely accepted that governance incorporates but transcends the

notion of government or of the state (Kooiman, 1993; Rhodes, 1997; UNDP, 1997a;

Cavallier, 1998; Larmour, 1998; Stoker, 1998; Reddel, 2002, 2004; Gissendanner, 2003;

Phares, 2004; Brugue & Valles, 2005; Lodge & Wegrich, 2005). It is also widely accepted

that the way governance transcends government is by incorporating the private sector

and civil society into policy making and implementation (Colebatch & Larmour, 1993;

Larmour, 1996; Jessop, 1998; Carroll & Carroll, 1999; Pierre, 1999, 2000, 2005; Burns,

2000; Harding et al., 2000; Nye & Donahue, 2000; Rhodes, 2000; Sbragia, 2000;

Kooiman, 2003; Kjr, 2004). These three components of governance are described by

Thynne (2000, p. 228) as the state . . . viewed, very generally, as an organized political

community that both features in, and has interdependent relationships with, the market as

an organized economic community and civil society as an organized social community.

Just how the two non-government sectors are incorporated, and the nature of the

resulting relationships amongst the three actors, is the starting point for the many debates

about governance. The very act of incorporating non-government actors into public policy

making and implementation raises serious questions about how important features that are

part of the very nature of the state are to be considered. If we move beyond the traditionalformal structure of government do we also move beyond the traditional mechanisms of

authority, legitimacy and accountability that are part of the very nature of government?

And perhaps more importantly, what happens to the role of government as the only

legitimate user of coercive power? Can these issues be properly addressed in the new and

fluid arrangements? As Durose and Rummery (2006) note, these new arrangements also

raise questions about such broad issues as citizenship, welfare rights and responsibilities.

It is also important to note here that the terms actor and stakeholder do not imply that

government, the private sector or civil society are to be seen as single coherent players in a

public policy game. Allison (1971; Allison & Zelikow, 1999) demonstrated decades ago

that even the US federal government cannot be seen as a single policy actor. In fact,

government, the private sector and civil society are each made up of numerous agencies,

components and individuals, every one of them with their own potentially competing

agendas. The complexity is especially important when dealing with the governmentcontext of governance. In the federal system of Australia there are three tiers of

government involved, as well as numerous quasi-government entities. In the UK the

formerly unitary government is devolving some powers to sub-national Parliaments. And

the UK exists within the European community where aspects of national sovereignty are

being negotiated at a multi-national level. These contexts both define and shape the role

of government in governance. But for the purposes of this discussion it is necessary,

somewhat artificially it is accepted, to treat each of the players (state, market and

328 J. Minnery


5/22

community) as a single entity so that their relationships with the other entities can be

explored. Thus, the use of the four terms players, actors, sectors and stakeholders.All four are used interchangeably in reference to government (the state), the private sector

(the market) and the community (civil society) as entities.

The boundaries amongst the three actors are not always clear in practice. Stone (2005,

p. 230) notes that:

state, market and civil society are conceptual distinctions and . . . actual practice

blurs the boundaries among them. Markets are heavily intertwined with the state

through subsidies, contract law, patent and copyright regulations, bankruptcy laws,

property rights, and much more. The level of voluntary effort and the scope of social

capital may be very much a function of governmental action.

Despite these fuzzy boundaries the central character of the three actors differs enough for

each of them to be identified separately.

Hambleton (2002, p. 150) explains the difference between government and governance

well, linking his discussion to both the practitioner and academic debates:

Government refers to the formal institutions of the state. Government makes

decisions within specific administrative and legal frameworks and uses public

resources in a financially accountable way. Most important, government decisions

are backed up by the legitimate hierarchical power of the state. Governance, on the

other hand, involves government plus the looser processes of influencing and

negotiating with a range of public and private sector agencies to achieve desired

outcomes. A governance perspective encourages collaboration between public,

private and non-profit sectors to achieve mutual goals . . . There is recognition here

that government cannot go it alone. (emphasis in original)

Both the substantive shift from government to governance, as well as the shift in analytical

frameworks used to explain that substantive shift, have occurred for a number of reasons.

One identified by Stoker (1998) is that governance is specific to particular times and places.

Different arrangements and trajectories would be expected in different periods and in

different locations. One particularly good illustration of this is the focus in the UK on the

plethora of initiatives of former Prime Minister Blairs New Labour with its emphasis on

joined up government and partnerships. Durose and Rummery (2006), following Clarence

and Painter (1998), note a move in governance over time in the UK from hierarchies to

market to networksfrom centralised formal government and bureaucratic control to

market-dominated neo-liberal policy to community-based and partnership approaches.

Whether these changes are as apparent in the reality on the ground rather than in the policy

rhetoric is questioned by researchers such as Wright et al. (2006). Keil (2006, pp. 336 337)in Germany on the other hand identifies two new development paths that can be

followed in parallel: the first path that of deregulation, privatisation, neo-liberalism and

entrepreneurial urban development policy; the second path that of cooperative, partnership

planning and the control processes of the state and civil society. Keil (2006, p. 337) citing

Wood (2003), identifies these as leading to a dual city or two-speed city. This idea of a

dual city or two speed city normally refers to the growing socio-spatial polarisation in

the Western city. But it is clear that different forms of governance can coexist in the one



6/22

location, can overlap with one another and can exist within different policy sectors (for

example, planning, health and economic development).1 A number of analysts, includingPierre (1999), show how different forms of governance can exist side by side, in Pierres

example even in different sections of the single local authority.

There thus appears to be no single cause for the substantive shift from government

to governance. Hambleton (2002) manifestly sees it as something that arises from the

recognition of constraints on government capacities. In the Australian context some

writers, especially those who are critical of the recent turn in public affairs such as Gleeson

and Low (2000), link it mainly to the growth of neo-liberalism. Gleeson et al. (2004,

p. 350), in their discussion of Australian metropolitan planning, link the shift to the need

for greater integration within government (which perhaps focuses on a rather narrow view

of governance), the need for relationships outside government to capitalise on non-

government energy and expertise and the need to find more innovative ways of delivering

services in a climate of financial cutbacks. What is particularly interesting, however, is that

some Australian authors see the change from government to governance as reflecting a

convergence of neo-liberal and communitarian ideologies that form the basis of a new

relationship between the state, the market and civil society (OToole & Burdess, 2005,

p. 239, referring to Mackinnon, 2002) rather than the replacement of one by the other. That

such a convergence is possible flies in the face of those who see neo-liberalism solely as

something of a malign influence actively undermining any communitarian sentiments in

society. OToole and Burdesss (2005) analysis focuses on the relationships in 35 small

towns in rural Victoria. Yet this is not the only context in which such a convergence of

interests occurs. Initiatives by organisations such as the United Nations Development

Programme (UNDP, 1997a, b), when they extol the need for good governance, make

it clear that this cannot be achieved without the active involvement and support of all

non-government actorscivil society and the market must both play their roles.

In summary, then, governance is an approach to public policy making andimplementation that specifically incorporates the roles of formal government, the market

and civil society. The change from government to governance illustrates a change from

an expectation that public policy making is the sole responsibility of formal governments

to an expectation that public policy making also incorporates a role for the private sector

and the community sector. By analogy it is a shift from a solo acting performance (albeit

supported by a behind the scenes stage crew) to a play with a cast of three. This approach

to governance incorporates elements of both neo-liberal and communitarian ideologies.

This is the overwhelming reality of much current public policy making, but although it has

attracted growing academic interest, there is as yet only partial agreement on the structure

and boundaries of governance.

Urban Governance

Urban governance nestles within this wider governance discourse. There is a special

urgency in better understanding what urban governance is about, however, because of the

growing role of cities and city regions in the globalising world. The urban dimension is

clearly identified by Le Gales (2002, p. 75) when he draws attention to the loosening grip

of the state and the redistribution of authority within the European Union. He argues that

now, European cities are not organised solely by the state but, increasingly, in relation

to cities and regions in other countriesthe horizontal dimensions of European

330 J. Minnery


7/22

institutionalisationand in relation to Brusselsthe vertical, multi-level dimension.

A similar level of importance, but for a different reason and with a somewhat more narrowfocus, is identified by Lawson and Gleeson (2005) when they argue that the rescaling of

urban governance in Australia is closely associated with the growing recognition of the

need for joined-up whole-of-government policy approaches focused on urban places rather

than poorly integrated policies based on functional agency divisions.

This conceptualisation of urban governance builds on earlier analyses of urban policy

making that also moved beyond a concern with only formal government. Gissendanner

(2003), for example, identifies the urban regime theory associated with Stone (1989)

and urban growth machine approaches associated with Logan and Molotch (1987) as

the principal theories of urban governance. Gissendanner (2003) also draws on the earlier

community power debates (Hunter, 1953; Dahl, 1961) for inspiration. Davies (2002)

claims that the characteristics of governing networks are close in kind to those described

in regime theory (p. 304). Pierres (1999) four models of urban governancecorporatist,

pro-growth, welfare and mangerialistoverlap with these approaches but extend beyond

them; he also identifies them as being capable of applying to different parts of the single

local authority, such as for the different departments concerned with social services,

economic development and the like. Pierres approach also builds a bridge to the more

recent theoretical structure of institutional analysis, as do researchers such as Healey

(1997, 1999, 2006). Others, including Le Gales (1998), use a different approach, that of

regulation theory, to approach local regulation and include market regulation and

reciprocity (p. 489) in addition to the state in understanding governance in European

cities.

The key aspect of these approaches is that they recognise urban policy making and

implementation are not single-actor stage performances. Formal government is not the

sole performer in the play of governance. Governance is a play with three roles. The actors

playing the other two parts are the market and civil society (or at least components ofthem).

Because urban governance nestles within the wider context of governance many of the

elements that make it up are similar to those in governance but the spatial and thus the

policy scales are different. In Australia, to move the focus from national governance to a

more localised urban scale means a shift from the roles defined for the Commonwealth

government in the constitution (and interpreted by the High Court) to the State level and to

the level of State-defined local government. The government and public policy contexts in

different sovereign jurisdictions will clearly shape the form of governance. Although this

context is important it is not dealt with here. The parallel is with developing an

understanding of the ways actors function without exploring in detail the kind of play they

specialise in.

The impact of the different spatial scales is important and direct, however. In moving

from national to urban scales it is necessary to re-scale the formal government players. Theother actors also need to be re-scaled from national and international levels to the urban.

Coxs (1998) discussion provides some useful insights here. In discussing scale divisions

of politics he notes how some branches of the state (or of capital) work within discrete,

enclosed jurisdictional spaces (p. 1). Yet he argues that a more appropriate metaphor for

the spatiality of scale . . . is that of the network (p. 2, emphasis in original), a much less

rigorously delimitated space, particularly when two kinds of spaces are identified: spaces

of dependence (defined by those more-or-less localized social relations upon which we



8/22

depend for the realization of essential interests, p. 2) and spaces of engagement (the

space in which the politics of securing a space of dependence unfolds, p. 2). Building onthe work of Harvey (1985) and others, Cox also identifies the phenomenon of jumping

scales (pp. 1 2), in which the politics of space and the relationships of the actors

involved jump from one spatial level to another. For example, in Harveys (1985) example

quoted by Cox (p. 2) 19th-century class struggles saw the bourgeoisie asserting a more

dominant role at the level of the nation-state as it lost control over urban centres.

So, who, specifically, are the re-scaled actors in urban governance? Urban areas become

what they are through the combined values and actions of local and other governments,

private interests and the community. The nature of these actors in urban governance must

differ from those in wider governance because of what Le Gales (1998) identifies as the

external and the internal dimensions of territorialised governance (p. 498). Nation-states

are territorially defined but their definitions are legally, politically and socially different to

the definitions of urban areas. As already noted by Cox (1998), both scale and political

structures are important. Thus, the major players in urban governance will be those

with connections to the urban territory, including city and regional governments,

neighbourhood community organisations and local entrepreneurs. They will be connected

to the urban place or locality.

There will also be players who are external to the locally territorialised players. This

will include the higher levels of government already mentioned, but also globalised

private interests and national and international community sector networks. The objectives

of urban governance will differ from those of wider governance, even if described under

the same general rubric. For example, economic development and social cohesion take

on different meanings at national and local levels.

Local government is normally seen as one of the major substantive players in urban

governance; but in an urban governance discourse local government interacts with a wide

network of non-government but local scale actors. This is well captured by Bassett et al.(2002, p. 1757), when they describe urban governance as something that encompasses the

view that local authorities today have to co-exist andcollaborate with a much wider network

of agencies and interest-groups than in the past, amongst them more organised and active

business elites, but clearly elites with a stake in the urban area. There are also many locally

significant components of the community or civil society: non-government organisations,

community-based organisations, lobby groups, individuals and religious and professional

groups. There is conceptual parallel between the change from urban government to urban

governance and that from local government to local governance. But there are several

interpretations of this change. Some are relatively narrow, focusing mainly on the

connectionsbetween local government and local community. For example, Geddes(2005a)

describes the shift as moving to concepts and practices of local partnerships and to policy

objectives and programs adopting a discourse of social inclusion (p. 13). The idea can be

far wider, though, as McGuirk notes (2000, p. 668). She says that the capacity for localgovernment to harness the empowering potentialities of governance is dependent upon the

place-specific and dynamic confluence of political, institutional, socio-cultural, economic

and discursive settings within which the opportunities are embedded. This is far beyond

ideas of social inclusion. But it is not just the capacity to harness potentialities that depends

on these factors; the very shape of urban governance itself depends on them, with the caveat

already referred to by Stone (2005) of the overlap amongst the players and the blurred

boundaries between them. In this discussion, though, we must notlose sight of the particular

332 J. Minnery


9/22

structures of local government (as well as other levels of government) that are designed to

ensure accountability and legitimacy. These include processes such as elections,freedom ofinformation legislation and due process, features that are not built in to private sector or

community sector structures.

Thus, for this article, the concept of urban governance, following Bassett et al. (2002),

refers to the processes of direction-setting, policy making and implementation that

incorporate the roles and responsibilities of government, the private sector and civil

society in urban settings, as well as the partnerships and conflicts amongst them.

Do the actors in urban governance interact in the same way as the equivalent actors do for

governance as a whole? Healey (2006, pp. 305ff.) develops a framework utilising levels of

activity involved in governance (from episodes to processes and cultures) linked to the

institutional concepts of rules, resources and ideas. She discusses these in relation to

governance as a whole, but then applies them to a series of urban case studies in Newcastle,

UK. The implication is that at least some of the intellectual capital developed in the general

framework applied to governance can also be applied to urban governance. However, she

makes the important connection, in her examples of governance initiatives in the Newcastle

City Council area, with territoriality in identifying that whilst local government boundaries

mean very little in terms of the economic and social life of the resident population their

impact can be very considerable in terms of the connections between economic and social

networks and political powers and resource distribution mechanisms. Access to many of the

resources allocated by the public sector and negotiation over regulatory approvals require

some relationship with one or more parts of the city council (p. 309). Being inside or outside

a political boundary can have considerable impact, as it does for governance as a whole. In

Coxs (1998) terms the networks extend beyond the jurisdictional boundaries, but

nonetheless the boundaries still have political significance.

Forms of Interaction

Despite the complexity and rate of change of both governance and urban governance there

appears to be one consistent feature of the analyses of the different players roles: they

either assume or predicate that one of the three players is central to the relationship.

Analysts take a state-centric, a market-centric or a community-centric approach. This

centrality can take a number of forms; it does not necessarily imply a dominant power

relationship. Following the metaphor used in the title of this article one actor can be the

star while other two actors play supporting roles. Yet as any number of examples from

the flood of gossipy articles in magazines indicate, star status can be a lever for the

exercise of power or influence even when there is no formal power relationship in place.

Centrality, or star status, may imply nothing more than being the centre of attention; but

on the other hand it may imply some form of dominance. And in any three-person play the

role played by the star normally needs the full participation of the supporting cast. Inurban governance, centrality and non-centrality can take on a similar range of meanings.

The analysis by Geddes (2005a, pp. 14ff.) of welfare regimes in the European Union

uses a similar set of relationships in a different context. His triangular structure identifies

forms of local partnership where the strongest role is played by the state (for example,

public sector partnerships in the Netherlands and Scandinavia), or where the market

is stronger (such as local corporatist partnerships in Austria) or where civil society is

stronger (such as public/voluntary community partnerships in Portugal).



10/22

In urban governance, if one of the triad of players is central then the other two must play

some role in relation to that central player.2 This is the focus of the second major issue tobe addressed in this article. When one player is assumed to play, or is defined as playing,

a central role what exactly are the roles of the other two players? How do they support

(or not support) the central player?

State-Centrality

Many of the analysts of both governance and urban governance identify or imply that

the state is the central of the three actors. Pierres (1999, p. 374; Pierre & Peters, 2000)

approach, for example, is unashamedly state-centric, with the local state as the central

player: governance refers to the process through which local authorities, in concert with

private interests, seek to enhance collective goals. Marshall (2000), in exploring whether

there is a Barcelona Model of urban governance, focuses on the Barcelona city council in

its relations with other agencies. The model has local government at the centre. Pierre and

Stoker (2002, p. 32) accept that the role of government in governance is contingent but still

give formal governmentas political elites, rather than the state as a wholea central role:

[l]ocal, regional and national political elites alike seek to forge coalitions with

private businesses, voluntary associations and other social actors to mobilize

resources across the publicprivate border in order to enhance their chances of

guiding society towards politically defined goals.

Even when analysts seem to argue that governance occurs without governmentfor

example, in Rhodes (1996) analysis, or Peters and Pierre (1998)effectively they are

identifying governance where there are many centres of power but where the state, while

no longer supreme, is still the key player. It is really a case of governance-beyond-the-state (Swyngedouw, 2005, p. 1991) rather than governance-without-the-state. In fact,

most of Rhodes writings on governance focus on the shift from line bureaucracies to

fragmented service delivery (Rhodes, 2000, p. 348) in relation to the Whitehall model of

administration in the UK, where the central government has swapped direct for indirect

controls (p. 348). To Rhodes it is clear that the control still rests with the central

government even if it is now indirect rather than direct and its indirect control relies on

working with the private sector and community sector players. In the Australian context,

OToole and Burdess (2005, p. 241), whilst recognising the complexity of the sets of

relationships involved in governance, make it clear that governance has been utilized to

promote the ideological repositioning of the state in the broader context of the market and

civil society. They recognise that it is still state centred in that the networking,

negotiation and coordination still take place in the shadow of hierarchy. Similarly,

Gleeson et al. (2004) review the changing approaches to Australian metropolitan planningand governance but focus on the role of formal state and local governments in this. This

state-centric model usually places considerable emphasis on the accountability and

electoral legitimacy of the state.

In this state-centric context it is also important to recognise the two faces of the state as

identified by Sbragia (2000). One face, that as the provider of the benefits of the welfare

state, has been declining in influence in most Western industrial democracies. Many

students of public policy focus on this change and identify it with a reduction in the total

334 J. Minnery


11/22

role of the state. However the second face, that as the builder of markets through the

provision of public laws, regulatory regimes and enforcement, grows with the growth ofmarket influence. It could be argued that there is even a third face, that of government

as the facilitator of local civil society. Local government may become an enabler or

facilitator of both local enterprises and local communities (Smith, 2000). In these

circumstances some parts of the state lose power and influence, but simultaneously other

parts of the state gain powerperhaps even more power than formerly (Sbragia, 2000).

Both Sbragia (2000) and Smith (2000) connect this facilitation role to interactions with the

market and civil society. It can incorporate both communitarian and neo-liberal views of

governance.

So in this state-centred view the central state can manipulate or facilitate the roles of the

other players. A number of case studies that focus on the governance initiatives stemming

from, or supported by, the New Labour programs in the UK emphasise the centrality,

power and influence of the national state even though the touted objectives are to give

local people greater say in centrally funded projects (e.g. Wright et al., 2006). These

analyses illustrate both the strength of the power of the state in urban governance and the

hierarchical power of the central government over local governments in the unitary

government system of England. Baches (2000) analysis of the Yorkshire and Humber

region of the UK illustrates how the local implementation of the national governments

Single Regeneration Budget led to some decentralisation of policy delivery but how this

was accompanied by centralisation of financial control. Central government maintained

strong control through allocation of participation rights; the central government also set

the boundaries within which local networks could operate. Wright et al. (2006) came to

similar conclusions in their analysis of the New Deal for Communities program. In some

of the analyses, however, it was the local government itself that remained central to urban

governance relationships. Coaffe and Healeys (2003) analysis focused on the city of

Newcastle. Their analysis of the Area Committee structure of the Newcastle City Councilshowed the asymmetry of relationships between the (local) state and both the market and

local civil society, where, first, the council generally kept a central role even in committees

designed to provide greater community input into council policies and second where the

private sector appeared not to be involved at all. There was both collaboration and tensions

in the relationships between the players. This contrasts with the case study described by

Minnery (2004) of the work of the Urban Renewal Task Force in Brisbane where the

(local) state was the main player (although supported by the State and Commonwealth

governments) and developed strong connections with the private sector in implementing

an urban renewal program, but where the community was almost invisible.

Market-Centrality

There are, of course, many market-driven approaches that play down the role of the stateand community in favour of market mechanisms in governance and urban governance

(Geddes, 2005b). These are sometimes criticised as mere emblems of the neo-liberalist

project. The shift from government to governance is equated by some with a shift from a

state-centric to a market-centric model (what Gleeson et al. (2004, p. 347) call the

emergence of governance as a response . . . to the neo-liberal reconstruction of modern

public institutions); but in fact examples range widely. For example, Cashore (2002,

p. 503) refers to non-state market-driven governance, and Harding et al. (2000) address



12/22

what they see as a move from municipalism to a business-dominated local agenda

at the local level in the UK. Donahue and Nyes collection (2002) specifically focuses ona range of forms of market-based governance. Pattberg (2006), although not dealing

specifically with urban governance, identifies three functional pathways to global private

forestry management: governance through regulation, governance through learning and

discourse, and governance through integration, thus identifying three forms of market-

centric governance. The World Bank is sometimes credited with introducing the term

governance into the development literature, with its report on the development crisis in

sub-Saharan Africa in 1989 (World Bank, 1989; Kjr, 2004), but the Banks focus is on

improving governance as a pathway to supporting a largely free market economy. In other

words, the efficient working of a free market is the critical goal and the kind of governance

structure the Bank originally supported is there to sustain and buttress a free market.

In more recent times the Bank has softened this stance and now recognises more strongly

the development role of civil society.

One reason for the necessity to incorporate the private sector in governance is the

tension between the territorial boundedness of local governments and the lack of territorial

restriction shown by the problems with which local government has to deal. Bock (2006)

goes as far as to claim that the municipality in its territorial boundaries and as a political

institution based exclusively on a representative mandate will no longer be a sufficiently

viable entity (p. 327). The local municipality needs to move towards new local and

regional alliances and forms of cooperation, including those with the private sector.

A good example of the potential success of market-centred governance is the

development of master planned communities in places such as South East Queensland. In

the existing examples, private interests propose large-scale development on greenfield

sites that are normally outside the strategic trajectory of residential development of the

relevant local authority. The initiative comes from the private developer, who then

negotiates with State and local governments over priorities, infrastructure requirements,phasing, layout and design and possibly over the eventual transfer of responsibility to the

local authority. The local community may or not be involved in such negotiations,

although participation by the new residents as the estates fill out is often a strong selling

point (Minnery & Bajracharya, 1999).

Market-driven governance may not necessarily achieve public planning goals. In Bull

and Jones (2006) discussion of a regeneration project in Naples, Italy, the master plan

developed by the municipality was undermined when private players utilised their own

social and political networks to build facilities on an abandoned steel works site that were

contrary to the municipalitys own plans. Davies (2002) analysis of a number of urban

regeneration projects in the UK claims that regeneration partnerships involving the public

and private sectors show that some at least have not been instrumental in achieving their

visionary ambitions for regeneration (p. 311).

Community-Centrality

There are also approaches to governance and urban governance that focus on civil society

as the central player (for example, Adams & Hess, 2001; Smyth et al., 2005). The terms

community or third sector or civil society are preferred here to the common

alternative of networks, as the term networks can potentially include the state and

market as well as the community sector. Many authors use the term networks when

336 J. Minnery


13/22

referring to the ways the community sector works because this implies it relies on informal

relationships built on trust and mutual obligation. Le Gales (1998) refers to reciprocity asthe mechanism relevant to civil society.

Some approaches that extol community centrality in governance are versions of the

continuing discourses on civil society and social capital that Hyden (1997) has identified

as contemporary extensions of long-standing philosophies, approaches that people such as

Putnam (1993) and Cox (1995) have given a more modern meaning to. For example, Beall

(2001, p. 359), using the term social resources rather than social capital, argues that

public action as a social process embraces the ways in which social resources feed into

political processes. When these processes become more formalized and feed sustained

forms of civic engagement with the state and other development institutions, the concept

of governance can also be used. Some authors use the term community governance

to refer to the need for power to be exercised as close as possible to citizens and local

communities (McKinlay, 1999, p. 1). This is often within a context of increasing distrust

of or indifference to government at various levels.

OToole and Burdess (2005) identify from their study of small towns in rural Victoria a

wider context for the shift towards a greater recognition of civil societya convergence

between neo-liberal ideologies and communitarianism: neo-liberals see it as a way of

providing a solution to market failures by using community voluntary action to replace

many state and market services while communitarians embrace the focus on community

as a reinvigoration of collective approaches to public policy . . . (and) emphasise the place

of civil society in economic development and social cohesion, and the use of bottom up

approaches in social and economic development (p. 241).

There is also a dark side to a focus on community in urban governance. First, the

retreat by governments from many formerly public responsibilities has often relied on

community organisations and the wider society picking up these responsibilities. As Beall

(2001) notes, the concept of social capital that underpins many of these changes appeals tostate policy makers because the social capital framework is underpinned by an implicit

rationale that allows for the unburdening of fiscal responsibility onto lower-order

institutions and citizens themselves (p. 359). Second, there are the continuing problems

of the them and us division inherent in the development of strong community identities.

Community-based NIMBYism can block policy initiatives with wider public implications

and support. As shown by Bull and Jones (2006), and as many practising planners are fully

aware, there can be considerable divergence in views amongst community interests. And

recent developments such as gated communities (Low, 2003; Glasze et al., 2005) give

concrete form to a kind of community-centric governance that relies on exclusion for its

effectiveness.

Some of the examples used by Healey (2006) illustrate both the positive community

contributions and the difficulties that can arise when community is seen as central to

governance. In her examples, which focus on different areas within Newcastle, UK,community trusts were the initiating factors for urban renewal and regeneration. The

rhetoric of the New Labour central government in the UK since 1997 has been to support

local democracy through community involvement in partnership arrangements focusing

on regeneration of run-down urban localities. But community initiatives, such as the

Grainger Town Partnership in Newcastle, can be under continued pressure from local

government which might feel its autonomy to be under threat. In addition, because local

and central government in the UK has a very strong presence, governance initiatives



14/22

outside the state have had difficulties growing and surviving without finding a way to link

to formal government in some way (p. 313). Similar difficulties were reported in otherareas in the UK participating in the governments New Deal for Communities by Wright

et al. (2006). The changes in local governance in rural towns in Victoria discussed by

OToole and Burdess (2005) saw several roles for local citizens, one of which was as

active governors or enablers in local communities through their participation in local

community associations. In fact, the different groups participate in governance through

their leadership roles in the local towns and their partnerships with outside agencies

(p. 250). The examples related to the structure of the Australian welfare state explored by

McDonald and Marston (2002), although not connected directly to urban governance,

show that the non-profit community sector (as opposed to the state) has been actively

privileged as a key institutional site for responding to future welfare demands (p. 384).

The relevant discourse has enthusiastically endorsed some of these changes seeing them as

leading to the re-emergence of community, the strengthening of social capital, to social

entrepreneurship, to the enabling state, to the Third Way and to active citizenship. Clearly

in a community-centred approach to governance the two main players are seen to be the

community and the state; the private sector may play a role through entrepreneurship or

building partnerships in local economic development but unless there is a clear economic

focus its potential role is largely overlooked.

The Governance Orthodoxy

The central actor in both governance and urban governance can clearly be any one of the

triad of government, the community sector or the private sector. Any one of them can

potentially be the star of the performance. The potential roles of the other two players in

relation to that central actor can vary enormously, as do roles of the supporting cast in any

number of plays.It is important to emphasise, as does Davies (2005), that the web of interactions amongst

the state, the market and civil society may not produce consensus but can lead to conflict.

Sbragia (2000, p. 245) goes as far as to identify state and market as adversaries.

Community antagonism over both private sector and state initiatives is common. The

relationships may be both conflicted and dialectical. This idea sits uneasily in analyses

of state market community relationships that focus on networks or partnerships or

with what Davies (2005, p. 312) calls the governance orthodoxy, the orthodoxy that

governance relationships are consensual and cooperative. The orthodoxy can be illustrated

by Garcias (2006, p. 745) definition of governance as a negotiation mechanism for

formulating and implementing policy that actively seeks the involvement of stakeholders

and civil society organisations beside government bodies and experts. It is a model of

decision-making that emphasises consensus and output . . . . Conflict has been a relatively

neglected component of models of governance, as once it was in urban planning (see, forexample, Minnery, 1985). The orthodox approaches to urban governance tend to identify

networks of interactions based on trust and value consensus, so that governance is seen to

mobilise resources towards the achievement of politically defined and mutually agreed

goals. If there is not a recourse to the authority and sanctions of government (Pierre &

Stoker, 2002, p. 32) then it is assumed there are collaborative, cooperative, consensual

mechanisms that can allow the partners jointly to reach mutually desired outcomes. Keil

(2006, p. 337) specifically identifies governance as a form of control that contains more

338 J. Minnery


15/22

communicative and cooperative elements . . . . But desired outcomes sometimes are not

all agreed upon and collaboration is only one of the paths by which players can reach theirown goals. Yet, as Davies (2005, p. 314) notes, the orthodoxy is that the interpretation of

governance places a strong analytical and normative emphasis on consensus. It has tended

. . . to downplay antagonistic tendencies and social cleavages in favour of an aggregative

or generative model of political interaction.

Analyses of the structures and processes of urban governance will be effective only to the

extent that they recognise the roles of both cooperation and conflict. Whenever each of the

triad of state, market and community is constituted as the central actor, the other two

components of the triad will either support or conflict with that central actor to some degree.

By recognising this, it is possible to work towards identifying areas of support and

consensus amongst the participants in governance, and so urban governance, as well as

areas of conflict. A simplification of these potential relationships is shown in Table 1. The

table gives examples of some of the ways there can be either conflict or cooperation

amongst the three actors. It shows that there are several different ways in which the tensions

and collaboration amongst the three actors can be played out. The table represents the kind

of situation that could occur at a specific time. As this discussion has already emphasised,

the relationships are changing over time. Relationships could move from collaboration to

conflict, or conflict to collaboration. But at least the structure set out in the table provides a

starting point for the analysis of urban governance at a particular location and at one time.

A more detailed understanding of the relationships outlined in Table 1 can be gained

through a more nuanced modelling of the elements that make up the relationships. One

such attempt to do this used five components of urban governance, namely, participants,

objectives, instruments and outcomes (following Pierre (1999)) but adding resources

(following Rhodes (1997)), to provide a more detailed framework by which the

relationships amongst the state, the market and the community could be analysed

(Minnery, 2004). The case study used in that analysis (the inner north eastern suburbanTable 1. Actors and roles in urban governance

Central actor Support from other actors . . . Conflict with other actors . . .

Local State Market: Market: e.g. public private partnerships,

funds through taxes, incorporationof business skills

e.g. concern for overregulation,suppression of externalities,profit-only goals

Community: Community: e.g. community partnerships, source

of legitimacy e.g. crisis of legitimacy, distrust

of governmentMarket Community: Community:

e.g. clients, purchasers of services e.g. concern for non-economicexternalities

State: State: e.g. state as builder of markets,

provider of rule of law e.g. enforcement of minimum

standardsCommunity Market: Market:

e.g. philanthropy e.g. threatening communityactivists through the courts

State: State: e.g. funding, including grants e.g. accountability, overloading

with devolved tasks



16/22

urban renewal project in Brisbane) showed that although all three actors were involved

in this urban governance initiative, the role played by one of them (in this case thecommunity) was relatively minor. There should be no assumption about symmetrical

power or influence between the two non-central actors in this approach to urban

governance. This five-component approach is too detailed to be utilised fully here, but the

components it identifies would allow for greater depth of analysis of governance

relationships and interactions.

It is also important to re-emphasise that each of the three players in governance is not

monolithic. Bache (2000) clearly identified a split in government in the UK between

central and local levels and noted that . . . local authorities were often reluctant partners

within the new institutional arrangements for urban regeneration (p. 581; emphasis in

original). Similarly Bull and Jones (2006) comparison between Bristol and Naples

identified tensions amongst community participants in Bristol and between local and

regional and local and national governments in both places. Again, a more nuanced

analysis of the structures implied in Table 1 would incorporate more adequately the roles,

conflicts and collaborations of the different components that make up each of the three

sectors. Such an analysis is beyond the scope of this article.

Conclusions

What can we learn about urban governance from this analysis? Clearly it is an analytical

and conceptual framework that involves all three actorsthe state, the market and the

community. Urban governance incorporates but transcends urban government. It must

be understood as an urban dimension of governance-beyond-the-state rather than as

governance-without-the-state; but extending policy making and implementation beyond

the state raises questions about accountability, legitimacy and the proper exercise ofauthority. A critical aspect of better understanding urban governance is an appreciation of

what happens when any one of the three actors is given a central or starring role in the

relationship. It then becomes an empirical question to identify the roles of the other two

actors as supporting cast. These relationships can be ones of cooperation, trust and

collaboration, as identified in the classic governance orthodoxy. They can also involve

conflict and antagonism, or even an attenuated asymmetrical role for one player that

amounts to it being ignored.

In insisting on the identification of the place of all three actors, this analysis extends

beyond both the neo-liberal approach (which would see the basic partnership as that

between the state and the market, as urban policy becomes more market dominated) and

the communitarian approach (which would see the basic partnership as that between

the state and the community, as urban policy moves towards greater participation and

engagement). There are state-centric, market-centric and community-centric approachesto urban governance. Each can exist in parallel. Different forms of governance may

overlay one another in the same location, or as Pierre (1999) asserts they can even coexist

in different parts of the one organisation.

Yet it is also important to recognise that none of the players in urban governance is

monolithic. Each is multi-level and potentially fragmented. The agencies of the state can

change over time as can the kind and level of state involvement in urban governance;

there are numerous factions of capital and competing business interests; and community

340 J. Minnery


17/22

involvement can be through a range of formalised or informal channels, each pursuing

different agendas.The central issue pursued in the analysis was recognition of the need to move beyond

the governance orthodoxy focusing on collaborative and cooperative networks to

incorporate the possibilities of tensions and conflict in urban governance. Healeys (2006)

three examples demonstrate that conflict may be expressed as resistance to change rather

than as active disputation. Her examples demonstrated the continuing capacity of a local

council to resist change and to undermine the innovative potential of experiments in new

government forms (p. 314). Clearly the potential for conflict amongst the players in urban

governance is real. In general terms the landscape of urban governance is on the move but

the direction of the trajectory is uncertain.

Current studies of urban governance in Australia appear to be moving only slowly

towards the full recognition of the roles of all three major players. There is a growing

Australian literature that explores aspects of the changing governance landscape in cities

and metropolitan areas but it tends to emphasise either a state-centric model or a

community-centric model; it rarely if ever considers the roles of all three governance

actors. Many analyses seem also to be caught up in the governance orthodoxy. Yet

analyses of wider Australian urban policy have long recognised the tensions inherent in the

complex federal system of government within which urban policy operates. Similar

tensions will be apparent for urban governance that incorporates but transcends urban

government.

The potential for both cooperation and conflict captured in a somewhat simplified way

in Table 1 can be seen as a pointer to future research opportunities in Australian urban

governance. Using this analytical framework extends the idea of urban governance beyond

the common governance orthodoxy and being based on the relationships amongst the three

actors in urban governance has the potential to help analysts reach a deeper understanding

of the making and implementation of urban policy. It can also help identify criticalelements of context that shape the form and nature of Australian urban governance.

Many of the case studies used here are derived from the literature from the UK and

Europe. They stem from an interest by analysts of urban governance in two factors that

should resonate with Australian researchers. The first is the changing circumstances in

Europe as the various countries in the European Union grapple with the implications of a

pseudo-federal government system. The second is the interest in urban regeneration or

urban renewal in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. Australian urban governance has both a

lot to learn and a lot to contribute to European analyses of the relationships involved in

urban governance across a range of government scales. Similarly, the concern in the UK

with the roles of government, the private sector and the community in urban regeneration

initiatives resonates with similar concerns across Australian urban areas. Certainly the

growing recognition of the inadequacy of relying on a governance orthodoxy that assumes

collaborative and cooperative partnerships in urban renewal will enhance the richness andeffectiveness of Australian urban governance analyses.

Notes

1. My thanks to one of the anonymous referees for this insight.



18/22


19/22

Geddes, M. (2005b) Neoliberalism and local governancecross-national perspectives and speculations, Policy

Studies, 25(3/4), pp. 359 377.Gissendanner, S. (2003) Methodology problems in urban governance studies, Environment and Planning C:

Government and Policy, 21, pp. 663685.

Glasze, G., Webster, C. & Frantz, K. (Eds) (2005) Private Cities (London: Routledge).

Gleeson, B. & Low, N. (2000) Australian Urban Planning: New Challenges, New Agendas (St Leonards, NSW:

Allen & Unwin).

Gleeson, B., Darbas, T. & Lawson, S. (2004) Governance, sustainability and recent Australian metropolitan

strategies: a socio-theoretic analysis, Urban Policy and Research, 22(4), pp. 345366.

Hambleton, R. (2002) The new city management, in: R. Hambleton, H. V. Savitch & M. Stewart (Eds)

Globalisation and Local Democracy: Challenge and Change in Europe and North America (Houndmills:

Palgrave Macmillan).

Harding, A., Wilks-Heeg, S. & Hutchins, M. (2000) Business, government and the business of urban governance,

Urban Studies, 37(5/6), pp. 975 995.

Harvey, D. (1985) The Urbanization of Capital (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press).

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

Healey, P. (1999) Institutionalist analysis, communicative planning and shaping places, Journal of PlanningEducation and Research, 19(2), pp. 111122.

Healey, P. (2006) Transforming governance: challenges of institutional adaptation and the new politics of space,

European Planning Studies, 14(3), pp. 299320.

Hohn, U. & Neuer, B. (2006) New urban governance: institutional change and consequences for urban

development, European Planning Studies, 14(3), pp. 291298.

Hooghe, L. & Marks, G. (2003) Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance,

American Political Science Review, 97(2), pp. 233243.

Hunter, F. (1953) Community Power Structure: A Study of Decision Makers (Chapel Hill: University of North

Carolina Press).

Hyden, G. (1997) Civil society, social capital, and development: dissection of a complex discourse, Studies in

Contemporary International Development, 32(1), pp. 331.

Jessop, B. (1998) The rise of governance and the risks of failure: the case of economic development, International

Social Science Journal, 155, pp. 2945.

Keil, A. (2006) New urban governance processes on the level of neighbourhoods, European Planning Studies,

14(3), pp. 335363.

Kjr, A. M. (2004) Governance (Cambridge: Polity Press).

Kooiman, J. (1993) Governance and governability: using complexity, dynamics and diversity, in: J. Kooiman

(Ed.) Modern Governance: New GovernmentSociety Interactions, pp. 35 48 (London: Sage).

Kooiman, J. (2003) Governing as Governance (London: Sage).

Larmour, P. (1996) Models of Governance and Development Administration State, Society and Governance in

Melanesia Program (Canberra: Australian National University).

Larmour, P. (1998) Making Sense of Good Governance State, Society and Governance in Melanesia Program

(Canberra: Australian National University).

Lawson, S. & Gleeson, B. (2005) Shifting urban governance in Australia, in: P. Smyth, T. Reddel & A. Jones

(Eds) Community and Local Governance in Australia, pp. 7593 (Sydney: University of New South Wales

Press).

Le Gales, P. (1998) Regulations and governance in European cities, International Journal of Urban and Regional

Research, 22(3), pp. 482506.

Le Gales, P. (2002) European Cities: Social Conflicts and Governance (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Lodge, M. & Wegrich, K. (2005) Governing multi-level governance: comparing domain dynamics in German

Landlocal relationships and prisons, Public Administration, 83(2), pp. 417442.Logan, J. & Molotch, H. (1987) Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place (Berkeley: University of

California Press).

Low, S. M. (2003) Behind the Gates: Life, Security and the Pursuit of Happiness in Fortress America (New York:

Routledge).

Mackinnon, D. (2002) Rural governance and local involvement: assessing state community relations in the

Scottish Highlands, Journal of Rural Studies, 18, pp. 307324.

Marshall, T. (2000) Urban planning and governance: is there a Barcelona model?, International Planning Studies,

5(3), pp. 299 319.



20/22

McCarney, P. L. (1990) Considerations of the notion of governancenew directions for cities in the developing

world, in: P. L. McCarney (Ed.) Cities and Governance: New Directions in Latin America, Asia and Africa,pp. 320 (Toronto: Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto).

McDonald, C. & Marston, G. (2002) Patterns of governance: the curious case of non-profit community services in

Australia, Social Policy and Administration, 36(4), pp. 376391.

McFarlane, L. (2001) Cities for Citizens: Improving Metropolitan Governance (Paris: Organisation for Economic

Co-operation and Development).

McGuirk, P. M. (2000) Power and policy networks in urban governance: local government and property-led

regeneration in Dublin, Urban Studies, 37(4), pp. 651673.

McKinlay, P. (1999) Understanding community governance. Paper presented at the Local Government New

Zealand Conference. Available at http://www.mdl.co.nz/library/librarydocs/local_governance/

Understanding_community_governance_1999.pdf (accessed August 2006).

Minnery, J. (2004) Modelling the elements of urban governance. Paper presented at the Association of European

Schools of Planning Conference, Grenoble, July.

Minnery, J. & Bajracharya, B. (1999) Visions, planning processes and outcomes: master planned communities in

South East Queensland, Australian Planner, 36(1), pp. 3341.

Minnery, J. R. (1985) Conflict Management in Urban Planning (Aldershot: Gower).Nye, S. J. & Donahue, J. D. (Eds) (2000) Governance in a Globalizing World(Cambridge, MA and Washington,

DC: Visions of Governance for the 21st Century and Brookings Institute Press).

OToole, K. & Burdess, N. (2005) Governance at community level: small towns in rural Victoria, Australian

Journal of Political Science, 40(2), pp. 239254.

Pattberg, P. (2006) Private governance and the South: lessons from global forest policies, Third World Quarterly,

27(4), pp. 579 593.

Peters, B. G. & Pierre, J. (1998) Governance without government? Rethinking public administration, Journal of

Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), pp. 223243.

Phares, D. (2004) Governance or government in metropolitan areas?, in: D. Phares (Ed.) Metropolitan

Governance without Metropolitan Government?, pp. 16 (Aldershot: Ashgate).

Pierre, J. (1999) Models of urban governance: the institutional dimensions of urban politics, Urban Affairs

Review, 34(3), pp. 372396.

Pierre, J. (Ed.) (2000) Debating Governance: Authority, Steering and Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University

Press).

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

pp. 446462.

Pierre, J. & Peters, B. G. (2000) Governance, Politics and the State (Houndmills: Macmillan).

Pierre, J. & Stoker, G. (2002) Towards multi-level governance, in: P. Dunleavy, A. Gamble, R. Heffernan, I.

Holliday & G. Peele (Eds) Developments in British Politics 6 (Basingstoke: Palgrave).

Pratorius, R. (2003) Debating governance: whatever that means, Journal of Public Administration Research and

Theory, 13(2), pp. 235235, (Review of J. Pierre (Ed.) (2000) Debating Governance: Authority, Steering,

and Governance (New York: Oxford University Press).

Putnam, R. D. (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press).

Reddel, T. (2002) Beyond participation, hierarchies, management and markets: new governance and place

policies, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 61(1), pp. 5063.

Reddel, T. (2004) Exploring the Institutional Dimensions of Local Governance and Community Strengthening:

Linking Empirical and Theoretical Debates Urban Policy Program Research Paper No. 2 (Brisbane: Griffith

University).

Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996) The new governance: governing without government, Political Studies, XLIV,

pp. 652667.Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997) Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and

Accountability (Milton Keynes: Open University Press).

Rhodes, R. A. W. (2000) The governance narrative: key findings and lessons from the ESRCs Whitehall

Programme, Public Administration, 78(2), pp. 345363.

Sbragia, A. M. (2000) Governance, the state, and the market: what is going on?, Governance, 13(2), pp. 243250.

Smith, B. (2000) The concept of an enabling local authority, Environment and Planning C: Government and

Politics, 18, pp. 7994.

344 J. Minnery


21/22

Smyth, P., Reddel, T. & Jones, A. (Eds) (2005) Community and Local Governance in Australia (Sydney:

University of New South Wales Press).Stoker, G. (1998) Governance and theory: five propositions, International Social Science Journal, 50(155),

pp. 1728.

Stone, C. N. (1989) Regime Politics: Governing Atlanta 19461988 (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas).

Stone, C. N. (2005) Rethinking the policypolitics connection, Policy Studies, 26(3/4), pp. 241 260.

Swyngedouw, E. (2005) Governance innovation and the citizen: the Janus face of governance-beyond-the-State,

Urban Studies, 42(11), pp. 1991 2006.

Taylor, I. (2000) UNCHS (Habitat): the global campaign for good urban governance, Environment and

Urbanization, 12(1), pp. 197202.

Thynne, I. (2000) The state and governance: issues and challenges in perspective, International Review of

Administrative Sciences, 66(2), pp. 227240.

TUGI (The Urban Governance Initiative), (2004) Available at http://www.tugi.org (accessed January 2004).

UNCHS (United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat)) (2000) The Global Campaign for Good Urban

Governance, Draft 4A May 2000 (Nairobi: UNCHS (Habitat)).

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) (1997a) Governance for Sustainable Human Development

(New York: UNDP).UNDP (1997b) Reconceptualising Governance (New York: Management Development and Governance

Division, Bureau for Policy and Programme Support, UNDP).

Wildavsky, A. (1973) If planning is everything, maybe its nothing, Policy Sciences, 4(2), pp. 127153.

Wood, G. (2006) Die postmoderne Stadt: Neue Formen der Urbanita t im Ubergang vom zweiten ins dritte

Jahrtausend, in: H. Gebhardt, P. Reuber & G. Wolkersdorfer (Eds) KulturgeographieAkteulle Ansatze und

Entwicklungen, pp. 131147 (Heidelberg and Berlin: Spektrum), (cited and translated in Keil, 2006).

World Bank (1989) Sub-Saharan Africa: From Crisis to Sustainable Growth (Washington, DC: World Bank).

Wright, J. S. F., Parry, J., Mathers, J., Jones, S. & Orford, J. (2006) Assessing the participatory potential of

Britains New Deal for Communities: opportunities for and constraints to bottomup community

participation, Policy Studies, 27(4), pp. 347361.



22/22

minnery - urban governance

Documents