Partership Diversity and Governance Evidence From Urban Regeneration Policies in Portugal

Urban Studies
http://usj.sagepub.com Partnership Diversity and Governance Culture: Evidence from Urban Regeneration Policies in Portugal
Isabel Breda-Vzquez, Paulo Conceio and Ruben Fernandes Urban Stud 2009; 46; 2213 DOI: 10.1177/0042098009339433 The online version of this article can be found at: http://usj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/46/10/2213
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Urban Studies Journal Limited
Additional services and information for Urban Studies can be found at: Email Alerts: http://usj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://usj.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav Citations http://usj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/46/10/2213
Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 18, 2010
46(10) 22132238, September 2009
Partnership Diversity and Governance Culture: Evidence from Urban Regeneration Policies in Portugal
Isabel Breda-Vzquez, Paulo Conceio and Ruben Fernandes
[Paper first received, February 2007; in final form, July 2008]
Abstract Debates on urban regeneration highlight the processes of mobilisation of public and private agents and the diversity of models of partnership. This paper focuses on the relationship between the diversity of partnerships and the processes of institutional change, and discusses the role played by governance culture. By looking at the case of Portugal, it explores a plurality of episodes of policy experimentation and actornetwork practices. The results show that it is difcult to build general transformative processes when using specic innovative experiences as a basis. Sectoral institutional agendas and practices make it difcult to establish enduring processes of cross-fertilisation for institutional and policy learning and innovation. Governance culture has a constraining inuence. In such a context, the issue of the fragmentation of urban policy becomes crucial and the role of an urban policy that establishes the conditions in which innovation can occur seems to be particularly relevant.
1. Introduction
In current debates on urban regeneration in Europe, considerable attention is paid to partnership issues.1 In such debates, not only the processes of mobilisation of public and private agents in urban regeneration, but also
the diversity of structures and models are highlighted. The literature suggests that this diversity is related strongly to the spread of new governance arrangements following the shifts away from traditional forms of government and the development of new tools for forming and implementing urban policy.
Isabel Breda-Vzquez and Paulo Conceio are in the Division of Environmental and Territorial Planning, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Rua Dr Roberto Frias, Porto, 4200-465, Portugal. E-mail: ivazquez@fe.up.pt and psc@fe.up.pt. Ruben Fernandes is in CITTAResearch Centre for Territory, Transport and Environment, Division of Environmental and Territorial Planning, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Rua Dr Roberto Frias, Porto, 4200-465, Portugal. E-mail: rubenf@fe.up.pt.
0042-0980 Print/1360-063X Online 2009 Urban Studies Journal Limited Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 2010 DOI: 18, 10.1177/0042098009339433
2214
ISABEL BREDA-VZQUEZ ET AL.
In the extensive debate over partnerships in urban regeneration and their diversity, attention has recently begun to focus on the relationship between structures of partnership and the political and institutional contexts in which such partnerships are established. The debate focuses on the national conditions in which urban policies are regulated, as well as on the role that is played by partnerships with respect to new modes of urban governance (Le Gals, 2002). This discussion, which is frequently built upon the differences between national contexts, highlights the ways in which the relationships between central and local governments, as well as between them and other agents, are shaped by specic features of the public administration system. At the same time, a normative (and less analytical) discussion on how partnerships are capable of bringing about transformations in such political and institutional contexts has been conducted. In such discussion, there is a clear focus on the ability of learning processes (which are based on consecutive episodes of urban strategy) to give rise to more exible and collective forms of compromise and agreementi.e. more institutionalised practices (Gonzlez and Healey, 2005; Healey, 2007). Given the foregoing, the diversity in partnerships for urban regeneration can itself be regarded as a challenge for the analysis of the processes by which institutional and policy innovation can occur. This paper contributes to these debates. It builds on the assumption that the institutional context is important in the sense that it places different constraints on, and offers different opportunities to, actors; the same goes for the emergence of more institutionalised practices (DiGaetano and Strom, 2003). These differences in constraints imposed and opportunities offered can have diverging effects on the design and implementation of urban policy. This implies that the relationship that urban policies maintain with existing institutional settings is crucial for
understanding partnership dynamics and change. We believe that an examination of the case of Portugal can increase our understanding of the distinctiveness of different institutional settings and the way in which they provide specic contexts for actors. First, the case of Portugal, of course, has a south European context. Comparative studies in which different public policies are confronted and the dissimilarities of their institutional models are highlighted have been paying increased attention to the possible specicities of this context (see, for example, Chorianopoulos, 2002, on urban policies; and Kriinen and Lehtonen, 2006, on the processes of development of social capital). Secondly, some studies have drawn particular attention to the constraints faced by the Portuguese context with respect to the mobilisation of local agents and their relational networks (Ruivo, 2000). Thirdly, with respect to governance, a kind of network governance is being introduced in some key policy areas. As a result, the case of Portugal provides a context in which change and continuity coexist and interact in a signicant fashion (as argued by Silva and Syrett, 2006). Given this situation, it is important that attention be paid to whether partnerships for urban regeneration in Portugal deal with actors interaction in urban policy in a different manner than in other contexts and, therefore, to whether or not it is possible to generalise to the Portuguese case the ndings and schemas of analyses of partnerships that operate in other contexts. At present, it is not possible to determine this because, in Portugal, the processes by which public and private agents are mobilised for urban regeneration have not been analysed in as much detail as they have for other European contexts, even though many partnerships already exist whose practices could provide data for such analysis. This paper stresses the growing interest in the transformative potential of urban policies with respect to the promotion of new
URBAN REGENERATION IN PORTUGAL
2215
rationales of governance, mechanisms and structures, and in learning through successive episodes as a means of overcoming the conservativeness of resilience (Kazepov, 2005, p. 32). An important corollary of this perspective is that a constructionist approach is essential
to see how locally, and nationally, the problem [in urban public policy] is constructed by different actors, how adjustment processes are taking place to dene a cognitive frame which is adopted by the actors, what the relations of power are (Le Gals, 2005, p. 241).
It is often suggested that initiatives for urban policy are now encompassing an increasing variety of issues or agendas, with different interests and actors. This phenomenon is usually called urban policy fragmentation (Le Gals, 2005; Cochrane, 2003; Imrie and Raco, 2003). We think that this fragmentation provides an interesting eld in which a constructionist approach may be applied to the analysis of diverse processes of institutional and policy innovation. This approach is capable of giving a wider picture of the effects of such fragmentation on the dynamics of changes in governance and also of showing the complex connections between institutional change and more or less integrative policy frames and visions. However, neither the literature nor the policy debate on urban regeneration partnerships has examined this line of analysis thoroughly. In fact, researchers have a strong tendency to approach the debate by citing particular policy initiatives or the development of types of governance as means of understanding how actors are mobilised. This paper intends to explore the lines of enquiry just described, considering that the case of Portugal can provide some insights into the ways in which processes of institutional and policy innovation come about. Portugal is a context that has been frequently characterised by the fragmented nature of its
urban policies, by the absence of an explicit national urban policy and, simultaneously, by an increasing focus on urban problems and their related initiatives (van den Berg et al., 2004; Domingues et al., 2004). The varieties of urban agendas, as well as the distinctive forms of compromise and agreement between actors that occur in each of them, are a result of different processes of policy-making at local and national levels, guided by different institutions and their own values. This implies the existence of a eld of experimentation in which different opportunities for the development of new forms of governance and partnerships are opened up. This eld of experimentation is itself an interesting situation in which to analyse the relationship between partnerships, urban policy framing and enduring processes of institutional and policy learning and innovation, and in which to discuss the role of governance culture in explaining such relationships. Thus the aim of this paper is to address the following two questions. First, does the variety of partnership practices in Portugal, in which different actors have different rationales in different arenas, break with traditional forms of institutional practices? Secondly, can a governance culture that is based on sectoral logics, and in which different policy agendas are separated and strongly fragmented, provide an environment in which enduring transformative processes can take place? The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. In section 2, the ways in which the diversity of partnerships has been addressed in the theoretical debate are presented and discussed. Such discussion allows us to identify three major issues through which the Portuguese case study is henceforth organised: the relationship between structures of partnership and the agendas of policies for urban regeneration; the relationship between structures of partnership and cultural models of public action; and, the transformative
2216
capacities of practices of partnership, and the relationship between such partnerships and processes institutional change. In section 3, a number of partnerships for urban regeneration in Portugal are compared. The analysis is supported mainly by institutional documents. In some cases, it is also based on a number of interviews with actors who were involved in these initiatives for urban regeneration. The analysis examines the main programmes that have been created by either the Portuguese central administration or the European Union (EU) and whose content clearly addresses issues of urban regeneration. It also includes programmes for urban regeneration that have been promoted by a number of Portuguese local administrationsnamely, those of the cities of Lisbon and Porto, wherein a larger variety of initiatives can be found than in other areas. Section 4 discusses the culture of partnerships in Portugal. The main features of such partnerships reveal not only the fragmented nature of urban policies in Portugal, but also the lack of enduring processes of institutional change and innovation. A number of issues regarding the reorganisation of such policies are also raised. In the last section, some conclusions are drawn about the specicity of the Portuguese case and the extent to which the case provides deeper insights into the governance culture in initiatives for urban regeneration. The key message is twofold. First, it is argued that the capacity to act strategically to stimulate more institutionalised practices in urban regeneration is inhibited by the prevailing governance culture. Secondly, it is stressed that, in such a context, the issue of the fragmentation of urban policy becomes crucial and the role of an urban policy that establishes the conditions in which innovation can occur seems to be particularly relevant. This expands the current institutional debate on the importance of contextual explanatory perspectives.
2. Diversity in Urban Regeneration Partnerships and Institutional Change: Mapping the Debate
The concept of partnership occupies a relevant role in current initiatives and policies of urban regeneration. In the UK context, a number of authors have analysed the increasing use and inuence of partnerships in interventions for urban regeneration (see, for example, Carley, 2000; Carter, 2000; and Geddes, 2000). In the European context, a number of comparative studies (Couch et al., 2003; Mangen, 2004; Moulaert et al., 2003) stress the importance of partnerships in the strategies for urban regeneration of several European cities. The European studies demonstrate that the use of partnerships is visible in initiatives of a very different nature, such as initiatives for urban regeneration in deprived neighbourhoods, programmes for revitalising inner cities, or business- and propertyled agship projects. These studies also reveal that the types of agent that are involved in partnerships (public, private and the socalled semi-public agencies), the types of interaction between them (cross-sectoral and multilevel collaboration, statesociety interaction), the nature of contracts (which may be formal or informal), as well as the balances of power within partnerships, are just as diverse. Moreover, the multiple designations commonly used in the vast literature on this topic, of which publicprivate partnerships, coalition-building, networks of actors or collaborative capacity are just a few examples, can also provide some insights into the diversity of partnerships for urban regeneration. In recent years, there have been a number of debates regarding the diversity of structures of partnership. On the one hand, this diversity has led many researchers to focus on categorising types of partnership. On the other, some attention is paid to the ways in which the agendas of policies for urban
2217
regeneration encourage specific types of partnership. More recently, the literature has considered the role that is played by the institutional cultures of each national context. Questions are also raised about how institutional experimentation and innovation have fostered a plurality of partnership congurations. The diverse nature of partnerships for urban regeneration has led many authors to propose a number of categorisations of, and models for, partnerships. In each of the models, an attempt is made to describe the specic objectives, types of intervening agent and working methods of various partnerships.2 Mackintosh (1992, in Hastings, 1996) categorised partnerships according to processes of synergy, transformation and budget enlargement. Carter (2000) categorised partnerships into systematic, programmatic and technical in an attempt to highlight their instrumental nature. Carter acknowledges the difculty of categorising partnerships in the context of the UK, due to the variety of partnership congurations and the complexity of the institutional and political landscape. Stewart and Snape (1995, in Carter, 2000) and Stewart (2002) advance three models of partnerships (facilitating, co-ordinating and implementing) in which their role as an organisational structure that overcomes political fragmentation is emphasised. The recent literature also suggests that the specic features of partnerships are strongly related to the agendas of policies for urban regeneration. Stewart (2005) refers explicitly to the fact that
Partnerships for inclusion are often neighbourhood based and aim to draw in all those from communities who have hitherto been excluded. Partnerships which address competitiveness by contrast, are most often built at city-wide or sub-regional level and draw in the stakeholders concerned with infrastructure, inward investment, place marketing and labour market skills (Stewart, 2005, p. 163).
Thus, a distinction is made between what has come to be referred to as the governance of urban competitiveness and the governance of urban social cohesion (Harding, 2005; Hohn and Neuer, 2006). This distinction is itself an additional element for understanding the diversity of partnerships. Note that the strategic choices that are available to local agents when they interact with each other are deeply related to the policy agendas and to the way in which these agendas conceive governance and issues of institutional capacity (see, for example, Moulaert et al., 2003, and Kearns and Forrest, 2000). Of greater importance, the diversity of partnerships has been viewed in light of the cultural and political issues that underlie the organisation of the public administration system. Therefore, the issue of how partnerships emerge and what forms they take is at the core of the wider debate on the emergence of new forms of urban governance (see Le Gals, 1995; Rhodes, 1996; Kearns and Paddison, 2000; and Swyngedouw, 2005).3 Furthermore, the generalisation across a variety of national contexts of partnerships and other similar forms of governance has prompted many explanations for the processes of institutional transformations. Some have viewed such transformations as a result of the broader processes of political and economic reconguration. As argued by DiGaetano and Strom (2003, p. 367), globalization and state devolution establish the contemporary context of urban governance cross nationally. Yet a number of comparative studies in which differences in partnerships are identied note that such differences may also be related to the specic features of the contexts in which such partnerships emerge.4 An interpretation taking into account structural context, political culture, and political actors5 (DiGaetano and Strom, 2003, p. 363) is therefore needed. The debate on the application of the concepts of coalitions and urban regimes to
2218
the European context 6 clearly shows the importance of appealing to cultural factors when explaining the forms of urban governance (see, for example, Harding, 1991; Le Gals, 1995, 2002; and Davies, 2003). The comparison of experiences in the US and European countries (the latter themselves heterogeneous (Mangen, 2004)) reveals differences in the horizontal relationships that are established between the different types of local agent. The case of the US is characterised by a greater importance and stability of the relationships between local authorities and companies than in Europe. The role played by the local taxes that are charged to companies, as well as the close relationships that exist between companies and localities, seems to explain these differences. In contrast, in the European context, there is a greater centralisation of economic agents and a more marked presence of public agents (or publicled regimes, as mentioned by Mangen, 2004) than in the US. Differences are also found in the relationships that are established between the different levels of the government hierarchy. The European context is characterised by complex institutional settings. Although central administration is frequently fragmented, because different channels and institutional strategies are often used in its interventions (see John and Coles 2001 study of the role of institutions, sectors and cities; see also Le Gals, 2005), its presence remains strong and essential. Thus, the manner in which central and local administrations are articulated is particularly relevant in an explanation of the contrasts that can be found among several countries. For example, in the context of the UK, Kearns and Turok (2000) argue that Urban governance arrangements are not solely about the emergence of coalitions with power to achieve certain ends. They also reect the power that central government continues to exercise over local arrangements (Kearns and Turok, 2000, p. 178).
In fact, as concluded by DiGaetano and Strom in a comparative study of the US, the UK, France and Germany, different combinations of intergovernamental and cultural settings furnish different environments for the development of local political institutions and modes of governance (DiGaetano and Strom, 2003, p. 375). Similarly, the analysis of the EU URBAN initiative in a number of European cities (in Spain, Portugal, Greece, the UK, the Netherlands and Ireland) leads Chorianopoulos (2002) to report differences in the cities governance capacity. These differences are related not only to the degree of involvement at a national level, but also to the role of interest-groups in the organisation of projects at a local level. Finally, in an analysis of the recent change in governance in Lisbon (in Portugal), Silva and Syrett (2006, p. 116) demonstrate the historically and geographically specic nature of governance. Pierre (1999) supports the importance of taking the national context into account when explaining local policies
National politics and state traditions remain the most powerful factors in explaining various aspects of urban politics, including urban political economy, urban political conict, and strategies of local resource mobilization (Pierre, 1999, p. 375).
Conversely, the importance given to national policies raises the issue of endogenous (local) and exogenous (associated with central state policies) factors that might inuence partnerships and their stability. For instance, the case of the UK shows how national-level urban policies aim to induce changes in the organisation of local power by establishing partnerships for urban regeneration. It has been argued that these initiatives are designed to encourage, and where necessary coerce, local authorities into co-operative arrangements (Davies, 2003, p. 253); that urban policy has also been instrumental in structuring local authority attitudes to partnership
2219
(Davies, 2004, p. 577; also see Atkinson, 1999); and that much of the formal practice of joining up is the product of a myriad range of centrally inspired, funded and monitoring schemes (Stoker, 2004, pp. 159160; also see Hastings, 1996; and Diamond, 2001). The coercive role of national policies is thus emphasised. In addition, changes in partnerships seem to be related to changes in urban policy. Questions are also raised about the capability of this centralised model to bring about lasting changes in the practices of urban governance (see, for example, Davies, 2004). Stokers thesis is that lesson learning in a centralised system is deeply problematic (Stoker, 2004, p. 220). Such emphasis on the learning processes is equally present in the discussion of the role played by urban policies and practices in the transformation of governance cultures. In such normative (and less analytical) approaches, processes of social networking are linked to those of policy experimentation. In fact, the transformative potential of urban policies in the promotion of new rationales for, and mechanisms and structures of, governance has been the focus of considerable attention in the literature on new institutionalism (see, for example, Gualini, 2006; and Healey, 2007). This strand of the literature calls for the importance of cognitive frames of reference when explaining actors practices: routines, habits, values and norms (John and Cole, 2000),values, symbols, and beliefs (DiGaetano and Strom, 2003), perception, discourses and frames of reference (Gonzlez and Healey, 2005). These cultural factors, sedimented over time, are used to explain patterns of divergence among partnerships in different contexts, as well as when discussing the conditions under which transformation occurs. In particular, Coaffee and Healey (2003), Gonzlez and Healey (2005) and Healey (2006, 2007) discuss how consecutive episodes of urban strategy, in which networks of actors
acting as creative transformers are mobilised, may induce cracks in the existing institutional structures and thereby may bring about progressive changes in processes and cultures of governance. Moreover, Gualini (2006) stresses that
Innovation in institutional relationships, instead of being introduced by institutional design, by the creation of new institutional structures, is increasingly channelled through the creation of new policy instruments capable of matching the need for exible, open and ad hoc forms of compromise and agreement in experimental and weakly institutionalized arenas (Gualini, 2006, p. 894).
The governance culture is taken to be both a condition for and object of change. As argued by Gonzlez and Healey, the
socially innovative governance initiatives are likely to have the greatest potential to expand and accumulate the power to transform established governance discourses and practices where they have resonance with shifts in dynamics of underlying governance cultures (Gonzlez and Healey, 2005, p. 2067).
At the same time, the governance culture is taken as a constraining factor that makes it difcult for these processes of change to develop. Underlying this strand of research, which adopts a normative perspective concerning the identication and promotion of the conditions of change, are a number of narratives that describe the direction of such change: from non-traditional actors to mainstream/ dominant actors, from local to national levels or practices and from civil society to state. At the same time, the framing role of the older decision-makers (John and Cole, 2000), as well as the generative power of the internal learning capacity of dominant governance actors (Gonzlez and Healey, 2005, p. 2066) are acknowledged. This diversity of narratives calls for a more detailed and contextualised examination of
2220
the conditions and processes that lead to changes in governance culture (or cultures). A variety of episodes of policy experimentation offers an appealing context for such examination. We believe that the diversity of partnerships and initiatives for urban regeneration presents a challenge for the analysis of the processes by which institutional and policy innovation is generated, and practices may become more institutionalised. In summary, the ndings in the literature highlight the need to understand the relationship between the diversity of partnerships and the policy and institutional context in which they were formulated. Attention is also drawn to their ability to promote learning and transformative processes. A number of issues emerge (1) The importance of the agendas of urban policies: how do specic agendas of policies for urban regeneration promote the adoption of specic partnership models? (2) The importance of institutional and cultural models of public action: how do contextual characteristics (associated, for example, with the public administration system and, more generally, state society relations) promote the adoption of specic partnership models? (3) The importance of institutional learning and change: under what conditions do partnerships promote enduring processes of institutional and policy change in urban regeneration? The concept of governance culture may provide the background against which these issues may be addressed in an interrelated way.
with respect to policies for urban regeneration and the cultures within which collaboration takes place. A number of programmes for urban regeneration are presented. Tables 1 and 2 describe the programmes that have been created by either the Portuguese central government or the European Union. The main public funds devoted to urban regeneration are drawn from these programmes. Table 3 describes the programmes of urban regeneration that have been developed locally by a number of Portuguese municipalities. Both the networks of agents that create and manage the programmes (henceforth referred to as management partnerships) and those who are responsible for the operational tasks (henceforth referred to as operational partnerships) are presented in Table 4. We shall see later the differences between these programmes with respect to their scope, objectives, model of action, territorial context and level of articulation (local, national and European). In this section, we discuss the manner in which this diversity reects the fragmentation of urban policies in Portugal, as reported in, for example, the study by van den Berg et al. (2004).
3.1 Main Characteristics of Initiatives for Urban Regeneration
3. Institutional Arrangements in Urban Regeneration Initiatives: the Case of Portugal

We now turn to the case of Portugal, in order to analyse issues of interagency collaboration
Table 1 presents the initiatives for urban regeneration that have been proposed by either the Portuguese central government or the European Union. Such initiatives are characterised by the diversity of the spheres of action among programmes for urban regeneration. Some of these programmes merely address the recovery of rented housing units (RECRIA) or commercial units (URBCOM), whereas others are aimed at redeveloping particular areas in the city (POLIS, EXPO98, SRU, URBAN and IBC). Apart from the URBAN EU initiative and the recently created Iniciativa Bairros Crticos (IBC), none of these programmes
Table 1. National and EU initiatives for urban regeneration Managing entity IHRU The Institute for Housing and Urban Rehabilitation (a central government agency under MAOTDR) The rehabilitation of deprived rented housing where the rentals are dated prior to 1980 Objective Types of incentive The concession of scal incentives: the reduction of the VAT applied to the total expenditures of the project and the exemption of payment of the IMI (a local property tax) for a period of 2 years The concession of nancial incentives: a rent subsidy for the tenants; the updating of the rent; a subsidy for part of the total cost of renovation; and the possibility of obtaining a loan with a low interest rate
Initiative
Promoting entity
RECRIA (1988)
MAOTDR
Programme for the rehabilitation of rented housing
The Ministry for Environment, Spatial Planning and Regional Development
URBCOM (200006) MEI Institute for Support to Small and Mediumsized Enterprises and to Investment (a central government agency under MEI) DGAE The Directorate General for Economic Activities (a central government agency under MEI)
IAPMEI
Support scheme for commercial urbanism projects
The Ministry of Economy and Innovation
The modernisation of small and medium-sized business units integrated in delimited urban areas; the revitalisation of the surrounding public spaces; and the support of initiatives for cultural promotion and liveliness
Financial incentives take the form of subsidies and are granted to each of the eligible local partners: small and medium-sized companies, local business associations and the town council
(Continued )
2221
2222
(Table 1 Continued ) Managing entity CCDR Objective Types of incentive
Initiative
Promoting entity
URBAN The European (URBAN I: 199499) Union (URBAN II: 200006) The improvement of social The Regional Co-ordination and urban conditions; the qualication of human resources; and Development the promotion of social, cultural Commissions (a central and sportive liveliness; and government agency the revitalisation of the built operating at a regional environment level) The design and implementation of innovative models of development for the economic and social regeneration of deprived urban areas IHRU (MAOTDR) The National Institute for Housing (The Ministry for Environment, Spatial Planning and Regional Development)
EU Community initiative
The incentives are aimed at supporting the activities of the area-based partnerships. Funding is drawn from the ERDF. There is also the possibility of obtaining loans from the European Investment Bank
IBC (2005)
Initiative for highly deprived neighbourhoods
The central administration
The housing, urban and environmental regeneration of highly deprived neighbourhoods; the improvement of the quality of life; the creation of new job opportunities; the integration of socially excluded population; etc. The development of innovative solutions for the conception, implementation and evaluation of public action in highly deprived urban areas
Articulation of the budget resources of each of the partners and programmes, and national and EU funding Additional funding may be drawn from the Financial Mechanisms of the European Economic Area (EEA)
EXPO98 (1998)
Urban project EXPO98
The central government
Parque EXPO, S.A. (a semi-public agency for urban development)
Redevelopment of the eastern zone of Lisbon
Self-nancing strategy: the development costs were intended to be covered by commercialising land for redevelopment in the intervention area and raising revenues during the cultural event of EXPO98. Additional funding was drawn from the EU, the European Investment Bank and a number of other private banks Special powers (of compulsory purchase, licensing and management of the intervention areas) were granted to the Parque EXPO, S.A.
POLIS (200006)
MAOTDR
Initiative for the Improvement of the Urban Environment
The Ministry for Environment, Spatial Planning and Regional Development
Sociedades Polis (local semi-public agencies for urban development)
Urban- and environmentalbased interventions in a number of delimited urban areas for strengthening the competitiveness and improving the quality of life The interventions are aimed at being a reference for future interventions by the local administrations
Funding is drawn from EU funds (ERDF, integrated actions for the qualication of cities and for the metropolitan requalication, and INTERREG). Additional funding is drawn from the local and central administrations, and public and private agents Special powers (of compulsory purchase, licensing and management of the intervention areas) are granted to the Sociedades Polis Special powers (of compulsory purchase, licensing and management of the intervention areas) are granted to urban regeneration companies. These companies only have a facilitating role
SRU (2005) The urban regeneration companies
Initiative for the establishment of urban regeneration companies
The central administration
Building rehabilitation, economic revitalisation, sociodemographic change, infrastructural modernisation and the management of the urban area
2223
2224
focuses on the social dimension of urban regeneration. On the contrary, its physical dimension is often emphasised. Many of these programmes are oriented towards specic zones of the city. Note that policies for urban regeneration in Portugal still lack programmes for addressing entire cities or groups of cities. Yet even in small-scale programmes, one can nd different visions of the territorialisation of public action. In some cases, the programmes are oriented towards urban competitiveness; in others, towards urban social cohesion. As a result of there being such differences in purpose, different criteria are used when dening urban priority areas: in some cases, these criteria pertain to positive urban amenities to attract private investment (such as in the case of downtown areas and waterfronts); in other cases, they pertain to the concentration of social problems. National and EU initiatives for urban regeneration are also characterised by the diversity of entities that are responsible for the creation and promotion of these programmes. A sectoral vision prevails in Portuguese national policies, which reects the priorities of different departments that are involved in public administration. Note, for example, that URBCOM is promoted by the Ministry of the Economy and Innovation, whereas the RECRIA and POLIS programmes are promoted by the Ministry for Environment, Spatial Planning and Regional Development, and the IBC, EXPO98 and the SRU are promoted by the central government as a whole. Thus, one can argue that each central government department has an inclination to produce its own tools for intervention as far as urban issues are concerned. The title chosen in van den Berg et al.s (2004) study for the presentation of the Portuguese case Portugal: urban policies or policies with an urban incidence? (Domingues et al., 2004) illustrates this situation quite well. These programmes for urban regeneration are also characterised by a diversity of methods
for solving problems of urban deprivation, consisting of different conceptions of the ways in which actors should be involved in urban regeneration. The URBAN and IBC programmes are based explicitly on concepts of partnership (and, particularly, on different forms of publicprivate partnership) in which civil society is involved, while the POLIS, EXPO98 and SRU programmes promote special structures that have facilitating powers as far as the licensing of building repairs, the expropriation of properties and the right to use and administer the public domain are concerned (Sociedade POLIS, Parque EXPO, Sociedades de Reabilitao UrbanaSRU). The programmes also conceive state intervention, as well as its role as a nancial entity or facilitator or supporter of policy innovation, in a variety of ways. Most of the programmes offer subsidies that are derived from the Portuguese national budget or EU structural funds. The POLIS, EXPO98 and SRU programmes seek not only forms of agreement between local and central administrations, but also ways of enabling the private sector to become involved. Finally, the POLIS and, to a large extent, the URBAN and IBC programmes are characterised by their experimental nature (due to which the number of areas in which they intervene is relatively small). Table 2 presents a categorisation of national and EU initiatives for urban regeneration: the processes of budget enlargement, the denition of the areas of intervention, the nature of problems of urban deprivation, the requirement of formal planning tools and the granting of special powers to established partnerships. This table shows that, in national policies, there is a lack of integration of the various domains of urban regeneration. In fact, only the URBAN and IBC programmes have sought to articulate the physical, economic and social dimensions of urban regeneration. Furthermore, even though many national
Table 2. General characteristics of the national and EU initiatives for urban regeneration URBCOM Local and national No Mostly European Yes National and local Yes Mostly national Yes Mostly European Yes URBAN IBC EXPO98 POLIS SRU Mostly local No
General characteristics
RECRIA
Local and national No
Sectoral (housing)
Sectoral (commerce)
Integrated
Integrated
Sectoral Sectoral Sectoral (physical and (physical and (physical and environmental) environmental) economical)
The main levels of funding The pre-denition of the areas of intervention by the central administration The nature of the problems which are addressed by the initiative for urban regeneration The requirement of formal planning tools Strategic plan Strategic plan Strategic plan Spatial plan Spatial plan (land use plan) (detailed local plan) Yes Yes
The granting of special powers (compulsory purchase, licensing and the management of the intervention areas) to the partnership
No plan required (individual initiative) No No No No
Strategic plan
Yes
2225
2226
initiatives for urban regeneration are increasingly embracing integrated approaches to regeneration (such as the implementation of area-based strategies and strategic plans), sectoral agendas are still prevalent (for further details, see Silva and Syrett, 2006, for the case of EXPO98; and Breda-Vzquez et al., 2001, for the case of the POLIS programme). As already mentioned, the experimental nature of some programmes, as well as their associated restrictions on budget, places some limits on those areas and cities that are eligible for funding. As we shall see in section 4, such a situation generates two major concerns: it is difcult for the different agents that are mobilised by these initiatives to be integrated permanently and effectively; and, it is difcult to generalise the most innovative practices to other contexts. In Portugal, programmes for urban regeneration are not initiated only at the national level. In recent years, issues of urban deprivation have also been addressed by a number of Portuguese municipalities. As a result, a number of programmes for urban regeneration have been initiated at the local level. Table 3 describes the different programmes that have been developed by the Porto, Coimbra and Lisbon municipalities. Some of these programmes are promoted by the municipalities themselves. This is the case with the LP5 and LP6 programmes. The remaining programmes are promoted by private and municipal companies, such as APOR in Porto and EPUL in Lisbon. Municipalities are the main shareholders of such companies. These entrepreneurial structures are the result of changes in municipal organisation to a more entrepreneurial style of organisation and working. (In fact, these companies were not originally created for the management of these programmes and their activities are not focused exclusively on issues of urban regeneration.) In general, these programmes support the implementation of individual projects of housing rehabilitation. Some of them are
designed to address the renovation of the faades of buildings (such as the LP1 and LP2 programmes) or the renovation of municipal or private buildings (as is the case with the remaining programmes). Sometimes, they are also intended to address the demographic regeneration of a number of urban areas (such as the LP4 and LP5 programmes). Thus, like many of their national counterparts, local initiatives for urban regeneration are mainly of a sectoral nature. In addition, such initiatives try to overcome the limits of the national policies; in particular, the fragmented nature of the nancial frameworks for housing rehabilitation, each of which caters to a specic type of real estate. Due to nancial difculties arising from the application of national initiatives for housing rehabilitation, local programmes are mainly characterised by the development of creative ways of nancing interventions for urban regeneration. Financial resources are generally limited. Most of these programmes mobilise nancial resources from private companies and developers and, eventually, from the landlords (whose investment equals the total value of their property). The incentives given to such private agents may take the form of indirect benets that accrue from advertising their activities (LP1 and LP2), or of direct returns that are drawn from the partial commercialisation of the rehabilitated buildings (as is the case with the remaining programmes). Thus, unlike their national counterparts, in local initiatives of urban regeneration, public agents act as mediators of the private agents operations.
3.2 Institutional Arrangements
Table 4 presents the networks of agents that are involved in the initiatives under study. In this table, the different partners are identied and light is shed on a number of features that distinguish clearly between the different partnerships. The variety of partners involved, their public or private nature, and the degree of involvement of the partnerships in the
Table 3. Local programmes (LP) for urban regeneration Objective Types of incentive Funding is drawn from private companies; these companies are then allowed to advertise their products on the faade of the building for six months
Initiative
Managing entity
Porto Com Pinta
LP1
(2002)
Programme for the rehabilitation of faades Rehabilitation of the faades of buildings located in historical neighbourhoods in Lisbon
Rehabilitation of the faades of APOR, S.A. buildings located in the downtown (a local public of Porto private agency for urban development)
Quem Cuida Ama
LP2
(2003)
Programme for the rehabilitation of faades
EPUL, E.M. (a municipal agency for urban development)
Funding is drawn from private and public entities in the form of donations or sponsorships
Lisboa a Cores
LP3
(2003)
Program for the rehabilitation of housing
EPUL, E.M (a municipal agency for urban development)
Private developers are asked to rehabilitate Rehabilitation of municipalityowned or privately-owned buildings a municipality-owned or privately-owned building; the payback for their investment located in Lisbon is later obtained by commercialising the rehabilitated building; whenever a building is privately-owned, the payback to the private owner equals the value of the vacant building Revitalisation and repopulation of historic and deprived areas in Lisbon through the commercialisation of rehabilitated dwellings
Repovoar Lisboa
LP4
(2003)
Program for the rehabilitation of housing for young people
EPUL, E.M. (a municipal agency for urban development)
EPUL acquires and renovates the building using funds from the local administration of Lisbon. The payback for this investment is later obtained by commercialising the rehabilitated dwellings; the main targets are young people (Continued )
2227
2228
overall management of initiatives for urban regeneration or the implementation of specic interventions are just a few examples of such features. Some differences stand out between the networks of agents that are involved in the management of initiatives for urban regeneration and those that are responsible for operational tasks. Operational partnerships are mostly of a publicprivate nature. The number of agents involved in such partnerships is relatively small. Landlords and real estate agents are frequently involved; in some cases, retailers and commercial associations are also involved. Furthermore, operational partnerships are set up to implement individual projects or for other specic purposes. There are similarities between such partnerships and Carters (2000) technical partnerships or Stewart and Snapes (1995, in Carter, 2000) implementing partnerships. The URBAN and IBC programmes are exceptions in that they cater to a greater variety of local interests and institutions. In contrast, most operational partnerships have considerable difculty in actively integrating the local residents in the process of urban regeneration. While operational partnerships are likely to be of a publicprivate nature, most of their management counterparts (if they exist) are of a public or semi-public nature. It is possible for management partnerships to be semipublic because they are set up as companies according to private law, but their capital is held exclusively by public entities. This is the case with the municipal company EPUL, the urban regeneration companies (whether they be the municipal companies Baixa Pombalina, Lisboa Oriental and Lisboa Ocidental, or limited liability companies operating under public funding, such as Porto Vivo) and the Sociedade Polis. In some cases, such management partnerships may evolve into new organisational
Lisbon Municipality Demographic and physical rehabilitation of Lisbon through the attraction of young people who wish to rehabilitate deprived or vacant municipality-owned properties
Managing entity
Reabilitao de Imveis em Mau LP5 Estado de Conservao e Devolutos por parte de Jovens
Programme for the rehabilitation of housing for young people
LP6
Coimbra Municipality Programme for the rehabilitation of housing Permuta de Bens Presentes por Bens Futuros (2005)
(Table 3 Continued )
Initiative
(2004)
Rehabilitation of deprived buildings in Coimbra through the commercialisation of rehabilitated dwellings
Objective
The private owners are asked by the local administration of Coimbra to exchange their buildings for an equivalent rehabilitated fraction of the building; the rehabilitation is carried out by the local administration of Coimbra, whose investment is later paid back by commercialising the remaining fractions of the building
The Lisbon Municipality transfers the leasehold of deprived or vacant municipality-owned properties to young people for a 30-year period; these people are then expected to rehabilitate the properties
Types of incentive
2229
Table 4. Partners involved Initiative RECRIA Management actor/partnership IHRU Central administration Parpblica (a public company) Caixa Geral de Depsitos (a public bank) IAPMEI DGE Operational partnership Central administration through the IHRU Local administration Landlords and tenants Micro, small and medium-sized companies Local business associations Local administration Supervision and co-ordination board Departments of the central administration Local administration/association of local administrations Local communities Other local agents
URBCOM
URBAN
CCDR Representatives of: European Commission The various ministries involved DGDR (General Directorate for Regional Developmenta central government agency under MAOTDR) The various local administrations involved Association of local administrations A number of local agents Representatives of the various ministries involved Local administration Parish council Other local agents Representatives of the local communities Parque EXPO, S.A. Central administration Local administration of Lisbon Local administration of Loures Sociedade POLIS The central administration through companies such as Parque EXPO, S.A. or the Porto 2001, S.A. Local administration Porto Vivo, S.A. Central administration through INH Local administration of Porto Baixa Pombalina, E.M./Lisboa Oriental, E.M. Central administration through EPUL Local administration of Lisbon Lisboa Ocidental, E.M. Local Administration of Lisbon
IBC
Representatives of the ministries involved Local administration Parish council Other local agents Representatives of the local communities Parque EXPO, S.A. Central administration Local administration of Lisbon Local administration of Loures Sociedade POLIS The central administration through companies such as Parque EXPO, S.A. or the Porto 2001, S.A. Local administration Local administration Building owners Private developers Other public and private agents
EXPO98
POLIS
SRU
or
or
(Continued )
2230
(Table 4 Continued ) Initiative LP1 Management actor/partnership APOR, S.A.: Local administration of Porto A number of public and private agents EPUL, E.M. Local administration of Lisbon EPUL, E.M. Local administration of Lisbon EPUL, E.M. Local administration of Lisbon Local administration of Lisbon Local administration of Coimbra Operational partnership APOR, S.A. Building owners Private companies EPUL, E.M. Local administration of Lisbon Other public and private agents EPUL, E.M. Owners of vacant buildings Private developers EPUL, E.M. Building owners Local administration of Lisbon Young people Local administration of Coimbra Building owners
LP2
LP3
LP4 LP5 LP6
congurations that are responsible for managing areas of intervention. For example, under the URBAN I programme, a new organisation was created in Porto (whose name and scope later changed due to local polity issues); the SRU initiative enables the creation of urban managers, who co-ordinate public action; and, although the establishment of the company Parque EXPO was originally associated with the redevelopment of the Lisbon waterfront, nowadays its scope of action has been extended to other redevelopment contexts under the umbrella of the POLIS programme. Finally, note how different these organisational structures are with respect to their legal nature and scope of intervention, and how such a plurality of models for intervention co-exists in the Portuguese context. Even though these organisational structures may embody innovative processes for urban regeneration, their stability beyond the context of the initiatives under which they were originally created has yet to be shown.
3.3 Summary
From the analysis carried out so far, in which the main features of the induced networks of
agents have been unravelled, four different situations may be identied. First, most of the initiatives that have been proposed by local authorities are characterised by the small size of their networks of agents. A management partnership does not exist in all cases. When this is so, the initiative is managed by a public or a semi-public agent. However, when a management partnership does exist, it is embedded in the operational partnership. In this latter case, the management partners are responsible for co-ordinating the relationship between the operational partners, as well as creating the conditions for their intervention. Secondly, in the RECRIA and URBCOM programmes, there is a division between the strategic management of the programme and the implementation of specic interventions. In this case, the management partners, who belong to the national level, are essentially responsible for allocating nancial resources and co-ordinating the implementation of the interventions. Thirdly, the establishment of semi-public entities is the core feature of the POLIS, EXPO and SRU initiatives. The denition,
2231
co-ordination and implementation of plans and projects specically oriented towards the areas of intervention are carried out by such semi-public actors. Fourthly, the URBAN and IBC programmes seek to integrate a greater variety of agents (as well as residents) belonging to a number of institutional layers. In particular, they include a greater number of social and local agents (such as local schools, associations, etc.). Mechanisms through which agents may participate in the strategic denition and accompaniment of the interventions are also put forward. The IBC programme may be regarded as an outcome of the experience and knowledge that were gained previouslyfor example, in the URBAN initiative. However, due to its experimental nature, as well as the limited number of areas in which the IBC programme is being developed, it may not yet be possible to generalise its principles to policies for urban regeneration. Finally, note how the plurality of institutional arrangements that are induced by initiatives for urban regeneration and the variety of promoting entities and agendas of such initiatives (as described in Table 2) are related. Programmes that contain different agendas and that have been put forward by different entities seem to generate different institutional arrangements. From this perspective, what matters is not so much the acknowledgement of the diversity of partnerships, but rather the inspection of the relationship between such diversity and the processes of institutional organisation and, perhaps, of institutional transformation.
and the processes of institutional transformation. The practices of partnerships are then related to the following: the restructuration of intergovernmental relations (inside the public sector); new practices of governance involving different organisations (whether they are from the voluntary or the private sector); different procedures and regulations; and an empowerment approach based on the involvement of civil society. Comparative studies cite several factors when explaining contextual differences in partnerships (1) Power relations and specifically state structure and relations between local and central administrative bodies. Accordingly, partnerships are viewed as an expression and as an instrument of changes in those power relations (see, for example, Davies, 2004). (2) Governance cultures (in the sense previously defined; see, for example, DiGaetano and Strom, 2003). The characteristics and differences of partnerships are viewed as an expression of deeply embedded cultural values. (3) Agendas and structure of urban policies. Tosics and Dukes, for example, stress that
both the model of public administration and the presence (or lack) of a national policy framework determine the extent to which UDPs [urban development partnerships] can be planned, approved and implemented at local level (Tosics and Dukes, 2005, p. 390).
4. The Culture of Partnerships in Policies for Urban Regeneration in Portugal

As already noted, the debate on the role of partnerships in urban regeneration acknowledges the relationship between both the emergence and the diversity of partnerships,
According to these authors, strong national urban policies, and sufficient decentralisation of public administration to the municipal level are the most favourable conditions for the development of successful partnerships at local level. In Portugal, none of Tosics and Dukes conditions is clearly met. Centralisation of government and the
2232
absence of a strong national framework for urban and urban regeneration policies are usually referred as features of the Portuguese case (see, for example, Ruivo, 2000; Syrett, 1997; Breda-Vzquez and Oliveira, 2008; and van den Berg et al., 2004). Can these factors explain the main characteristics of the Portuguese situation, as it is described in the preceding section?
4.1 The Importance of the Formats of Programmes
In section 3, we described the case of Portugal in terms of diversity and fragmentation. It is now interesting to note how different programmes correspond to different agendas and establish different modes of relationships between their main agents. Different entities, at different territorial levels, help to structure different networks of agents. Our description of the Portuguese case identified the following: programmes of local origin, whose creation departs from the perceived limits of the existing national programmes; programmes of national origin, which adopt a sectoral vision of administration practices or seek to overcome problems associated with intervention by creating new types of agency that are granted exceptional powers; and experimental programmes that seek to develop more integrated perspectives that are inuenced by a European experiment through the URBAN initiative. These programmes are created at different administrative levels (local, national or European). They develop different agendas: to nd a pragmatic way of redressing the shortcomings of the national policies; to meet the needs identied in national sectoral agendas; to overcome constraints associated with traditional administrative practices; and to integrate social, economic and environmental dimensions of urban intervention.
Even when the different programmes that were analysed work in the same municipality (as in the cases of Lisbon and Porto), their respective networks of action tend to be organised autonomously (see, in the case of Porto, Breda-Vzquez and Conceio, 2002). Fragmentation, which characterises national policies, is also as a feature of local strategies. As noted earlier, in Portugal, there is no overall coherence in the formulation and elaboration of initiatives for urban regeneration. These initiatives are drawn from a system that: is composed of several policies; is characterised by the intricate set of institutions that are involved in the funding allocation for projects under each initiative; and, is characterised by different perspectives for resolving problems. Under these conditions, the different forms of partnership reect the variety of models for carrying out policies for urban regeneration. Each of these models species: either the strategies for, or the problems that are subject to, public and private intervention; the most suitable distribution of responsibilities and the conguration of the power relations; and, the types of public, semi-public or private agent that are involved. This variety of models implies the existence of signicant differences in each of the abovementioned aspects. Note, for example, that the initiatives that address building rehabilitation do not integrate explicit crosssectoral and social networking objectives, in contrast to the URBAN initiative. Note also that the distribution of the responsibilities and competences in both central and local levels of the public administration varies greatly. At one end of the scale, there are relatively unorganised approaches, such as those used in building rehabilitation programmes. At the other end, there are more organised institutional strategies that are usually implemented by organisations with clearly dened interests, such as the semi-public agencies
2233
(such as the Sociedade POLIS and the Parque EXPO). This latter approach is exemplied by initiatives that are oriented towards urban competitiveness.
4.2 Governance and Institutional Milieu
It is not possible to state that the diversity of partnerships resulting from the Portuguese urban regeneration initiatives embodies (and induces) important processes of institutional change and innovation. The dominance of public agents in the management of initiatives for urban regeneration and the existence of local and supralocal levels of nancing, as described in Table 2, seem to indicate that the establishment of management partnerships has two major concerns: the need to articulate central and local administrations, on the one hand, and the need to overcome the constraints associated with the traditional practices of the public administration, on the other. However, these partnerships do not reect an attempt to modify the governance of urban regeneration, especially as far as the strategic inclusion of other agents is concerned. They also do not constitute an instrument for imposing changes on local administration structures, as happens in other contexts. This latter issue explains why partnerships of a semi-public nature preserve the characteristics of this dominant institutional culture. They are institutions that have been created for facilitating purposesnamely, the nancing, management and co-ordination of specic initiatives in the context of urban regeneration. Therefore, they have been granted exceptional authorities that are at the core of the desired exibility and simplication of the typical bureaucratic processes of the Portuguese state. In this sense, semi-public partnerships embody the entrepreneurial aspect of the Portuguese state with respect to initiatives for urban regeneration. However, they lack the introduction of new balances of power in
the governance of urban policies and thus fail to express the active restructuring processes of intergovernmental relations. In fact, the different partnerships that have been presented and analysed in this paper combine the public actors with a restricted group of actors and rarely aim to help actors to participate effectively. The fact that only the partnerships associated with a European initiative (the URBAN programme) are based on broader processes of participation and empowerment demonstrates that the involvement of civil society in urban regeneration remains limited. The closed nature of these partnerships is not visible only in operational partnerships. It is also a common characteristic in the links established by the different management partnerships with the specic ministries or national regulating entities, thereby revealing the sectoral and centralising nature of the decision-making processes and, therefore, the nature of the power dynamics that are mobilised. In the Portuguese case, the diversity of the partnership models that are promoted by urban regeneration policies and the fragmented nature of those policies are thus associated with the different national contexts of organisation and decision-making. On the other hand, although some new initiatives are emerging from the local level, it cannot be argued that the local government presents itself as an emerging level for the structuring of groups, actors and institutions. This is due to both the characteristics of the partnerships that are promoted by local government and to the aspects described earlier. In fact, locally generated partnerships may be regarded as only a partially successful response to the limitations of the national policies for urban regeneration. There are a number of reasons for this. Locally generated partnerships address only the nancial dimension of those limitations. They also preserve the fundamental features of the national policies: a sectoral perspective for the resolution of
2234
problems and a closed process for involving actors and legitimating public action. As a whole, these elements of national and local initiatives for urban regeneration demonstrate the existence of an institutional landscape in which no tendency towards innovation can be observed. They also reveal the central role that is played by the specic characteristics of the institutional milieu (DiGaetano and Strom, 2003) in explaining the diversity and nature of partnerships. In this context, the case of the URBAN programme is of particular interest because it clearly presents itself as an innovative episode as far as the characteristics (mainly those referring to the promotion of more inclusive processes of networking and empowerment of agents) of the Portuguese partnerships of urban regeneration are concerned. Apparently, the recently created IBC seems to point in the same direction, thus demonstrating that the aforementioned episode may be causing some cracks (as dened by Gonzlez and Healey, 2005) to appear in the existing organisation arenas of urban policies and in the structural frailties of a public administration system that is characterised by its centralised and sectoral practices.
4.3 Learning and Institutionalisation Processes
inspiration for the design of POLIS. Finally, there are explicit links between the URBAN experiments and the new IBC. However, these learning processes tend to be limited and, for the moment, their generalisation is problematic, both at the national and the local scales of intervention. They are not institutionalised, in the sense of developing partnerships, coalitions, arenas and networks for the creation of new agendas and discourses that redraw the boundaries of public action and its patterns of legitimacy (as argued by Gualini, 2006; and Healey, 2005, 2007). So, it may be that the government of urban regeneration in Portugal constitutes an obstacle to its increasing institutionalisation.
5. Conclusions
We have focused on the diversity and dynamics of partnerships for urban regeneration in Portugal. The research was carried out along three main dimensions: the ways in which policies for urban regeneration are structured and the agendas of each different organisation; the model of public action and the way in which localcentral state relations, as well as the relations between them and other agents, are conceived; and, the manner in which the processes of learning and institutionalisation are shaped. Three main conclusions are drawn from each of these analytical foci. The rst conclusion concerns the importance of the agendas of urban regeneration policies: the plurality of structures of partnership and models in Portugal reects not only the fragmented nature of policies for urban regeneration, but also the diversity of (sectoral) agendas. This also means that there is no overall coherence in the values and visions that frame solutions to problems and objectives for the building of coalitions. The second conclusion relates to the importance of the institutional and cultural
Given this, it is important to analyse the ways in which processes of learning and innovation develop and how they interact with existing policy structures. In the Portuguese case, learning processes tend to be developed from relations that are established between similar interventions. Several agents acknowledge the importance of experiences from other contexts (namely, in Barcelona) in the design of the local initiatives described earlier. We can also note incremental adjustments, built upon past experiences, in the design of sector-based programmes (such as RECRIA or URBCOM). The urban project of Expo98 provided
2235
models of public action. Two contextual features can be identied by comparing the programmes that have been put forward by the central administration with those that have been promoted by their local counterparts: the prevalence of public agents in the management of the programmes; and the prevalence of non-inclusive partnerships (as shown in section 4). Most of the partnerships under study seek to answer to the need for articulation between different sectors of public administration, as well as to the traditional bureaucratic practices of such administration systems. However, the processes by which actors are allowed to participate and are empowered are seldom developed. Thus, such partnerships are mainly the expression of the amplication of the Portuguese states sphere of action and its administrative machine. In this sense, partnership practices in Portugal show an institutional landscape in which new balances of power are not being introduced and, thus, visible innovative tendencies are not identied. The third conclusion is that, in the case of Portugal, there is a limited capability for learning from the results of similar initiatives and it is difcult to generalise the transformations to new contexts. Even though some of the cases under study can be regarded as episodes of change that have the potential to open cracks in the practices of urban regeneration, in the short term such episodes do not seem to generate enduring and deep changes in the ways in which policies for urban regeneration are formulated at both local and national levels. This means that transformative processes built upon specic innovative practices remain very problematic. These findings show that the variety of partnerships in Portugal cannot be seen as manifestations of signicant changes in governance scalar relations and in actornetwork practices. The variety of partnerships has no signicant association with changes in relations between local and central levels of
administration. Further, the partnerships cannot be perceived as breaking down the mainstream governance culture and the deeper frames of networking practice in urban regeneration. The persistence of the features mentioned in the preceding paragraph is certainly the main issue that emerges from the Portuguese case. It seems that it is very difcult to transform the governance culture of urban regeneration in Portugal through innovative episodes that are designed to match the need for flexible and collective forms of compromise and agreement. The transfer of experiences remains very casuistic and is trapped in the centralised and sectoral organisation of administrative structures. In our view, the difculty of transforming the governance culture of urban regeneration emphasises the importance of looking at the ways in which policies for urban regeneration are conceived at both local and central levels. As has been shown, issues that pertain to partnerships for urban regeneration in Portugal remain very much informed by a strong fragmentation and separation between different policy agendas. However, diversity of urban regeneration agendas may not be itself a problem, but rather a potential requirement for strategy experimentation, changing and adaptation, as well as for a wider mobilisation of agents. Given this, what emerges from the Portuguese case is an absence of integrative capacities. That is, the lack of a strong national framework for policies for urban regeneration seems to support sectoral institutional logics and practices, and to make it difcult to establish enduring processes of cross-fertilisation for institutional and policy learning and innovation. This means, as argued by Tosics and Dukes (2005), that a national framework for urban policies can be an essential issue for the development of fundamental improvements in the values and visions that frame solutions to problems and practices for building coalitions.
2236
In a context of multiscalar governance, the national level may be crucial as far as the generalisation of the learning processes is concerned. As reported by van den Berg et al. (2004), many countries appear not to have an explicit urban policy. In a context in which the processes of institutional innovation and strategic coalition-building are at the core of the literature on urban policy, it may be important to consider the issue of whether or not a national policy is required in countries other than Portugal. However, the issue does not simply concern the existence of a national policy per se. It also concerns the capability of such a policy to establish conditions in which institutional and cultural change can occur. Future research may benefit from adopting a contextual approach, not only for analysing the specic features of the governance of urban regeneration, but also for specifying the particular conditions in which institutional and policy learning and innovation can occur.
4. Note that looking at policy-making in its broadest sense, one is struck by the co-existence in European cities, of more or less contradictory strategies (Elander and Blanc, 2001, p. 113) 5. Note that issues related to leadership are included here. 6. These concepts were rst developed in the US.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the valuable suggestions from four anonymous referees. Any remaining errors and omissions are the responsibility of the authors alone.
References
Atkinson, R. (1999) Discourse of partnership and empowerment in contemporary British urban regeneration, Urban Studies, 36(1), pp. 5972. Berg, M. van den, Braun, E. and Meer, J. van der (Eds) (2004) National Urban Policies in the European Union. Aldershot: Ashgate. Breda-Vzquez, I. and Conceio, P. (2002) A diversidade de programas de interveno na cidade do Porto: avaliar o passado para enquadrar novos desafios, Sociedade & Territrio, 33, pp. 6576. Breda-Vzquez, I. and Oliveira, C. (2008) Coalitionbuilding in Portuguese spatial planning: is there a southern European context?, European Planning Studies, 16(6), pp. 761784. Breda-Vzquez, I. et al. (2001) O III Quadro Comunitrio de Apoio e a promoo de polticas de regenerao urbana. Paper presented at VII Conferncia Nacional sobre a Qualidade do Ambiente, Universidade de Aveiro, April. Carley, M. (2000) Urban partnerships, governance and regeneration of Britains cities, International Planning Studies, 5(3), pp. 273297. Carter, A. (2000) Strategy and partnership in urban regeneration, in: P. Roberts and H. Sykes (Eds) Urban Regeneration: A Handbook, pp. 3758. London: Sage. Chorianopoulos, I. (2002) Urban restructuring and governance: northsouth differences in Europe and the EU URBAN Initiative, Urban Studies, 39(4), pp. 705726. Coaffee, J. and Healey, P. (2003) My voice: my place: tracking transformations in urban governance, Urban Studies, 40(10), pp. 19791999.
Notes
1. Generally speaking, partnerships represent the sharing of responsibilities in the resolution of complex problems through the articulation of interest-groups and the interaction and sharing of experiences or resources between the public and private spheres of society (Pierre, 1998; Peters, 1998). 2. An analysis of the different types of partnership can be found in Carter (2000). 3. In fact, partnerships are at the core of changes in urban governance. As Swyngedouw (2005, pp. 19921993) argues, the urban scale has been a pivotal terrain where these new arrangements of governance have materialised. Furthermore, looking more closely at the cases of the UK and France (see Stoker, 2004; and Jacquier, 2001), it is possible to observe that policies for urban regeneration were a dominant factor in bringing about transformations in the organisation of the local government.
2237
Cochrane, A. (2003) The new urban policy: to-wards empowerment or incorporation? The practice of urban policy, in: R. Imrie and M. Raco (Eds) Urban Renaissance? New Labour, Community and Urban Policy, pp. 223234. Bristol: The Policy Press. Couch, C., Fraser, C. and Percy, S. (2003) Urban Regeneration in Europe . Oxford: Blackwell Science. Davies, J. S. (2003) Partnerships versus regimes: why regime theory cannot explain urban coalitions in the UK, Journal of Urban Affairs, 25(3), pp. 253269. Davies, J. S. (2004) Conjuncture or disjuncture? An institutionalist analysis of regeneration partnerships in UK, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28(3), pp. 570585. Diamond, J. (2001) Managing change or coping with conict? Mapping the experience of a local regeneration partnership, Local Economy, 16(4), pp. 272285. DiGaetano, A. and Strom, E. (2003) Comparative urban governance, Urban Affairs Review, 38(3), pp. 356395. Domingues, A., Portas, N. and S Marques, T. (2004) Portugal: urban policies or policies with an urban incidence?, in: M. van den Berg, E. Braun and J. van der Meer (Eds) National Urban Policies in the European Union, pp. 8284. Aldershot: Ashgate. Elander, I. and Blanc, M. (2001) Partnerships and democracy: a happy couple in urban governance?, in: H. T. Andersen and R. van Kempen (Eds) Governing European Cities: Social Fragmentation, Social Exclusion and Urban Governance, pp. 93124. Aldershot: Ashgate. Geddes, M. (2000) Tackling social exclusion in the European Union? The limits to the new orthodoxy of local partnership, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24(4), pp. 782800. Gonzlez, S. and Healey, P. (2005) A sociological institutionalist approach to the study of innovation in governance capacity, Urban Studies, 42(11), pp. 20552069. Gualini, E. (2006) The rescaling of governance in Europe: new spatial and institutional rationales, European Planning Studies, 14(7), pp. 881904.
Harding, A. (1991) The rise of urban-growth coalitions, UK-style, Environment and Planning C, 9(3), pp. 295317. Harding, A. (2005) Governance and socioeconomic change in cities, in: N. Buck, I. Gordon, A. Harding and I. Turok (Eds) Changing Cities: Rethinking Competitiveness, Cohesion and Governance, pp. 6277. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Hastings, A. (1996) Unravelling the process of partnership in urban regeneration policy, Urban Studies, 33(2), pp. 253268. Healey, P. (2005) Network complexity and the imaginative power of strategic spatial planning, in: L. Albrechts and S. J. Mandelbaum (Eds) The Network Society: A New Context for Planning, pp. 146160. London: Routledge. Healey, P. (2006) Transforming governance: challenges of institutional adaptation and a new politics of space, European Planning Studies, 14(3), pp. 299320. Healey, P. (2007) Urban Complexity and Spatial Strategies: Towards a Relational Planning for Our Times. London: Routledge. Hohn, U. and Neuer, B. (2006) New urban governance: institutional change and consequences for urban development, European Planning Studies, 14(3), pp. 291298. Imrie, R. and Raco, M. (2003) Community and the changing nature of urban policy, in: R. Imrie and M. Raco (Eds) Urban Renaissance? New Labour, Community and Urban Policy, pp. 336. Bristol: The Policy Press. Jacquier, C. (2001) Urban fragmentation and revitalization policies in France: a new urban governance in the making, in: H. T. Andersen and R. van Kempen (Eds) Governing European Cities: Social Fragmentation, Social Exclusion and Urban Governance, pp. 321346. Aldershot: Ashgate. John, P. and Cole, A. (2000) When do institutions, policy sectors, and cities matter?, Comparative Political Studies, 33(2), pp. 248268. Kriinen, J. and Lehtonen, H. (2006) The variety of social capital in welfare state regimes: a comparative study of 21 countries, European Societies, 8(1), pp. 2757. Kazepov, Y. (2005) Cities of Europe: changing contexts, local arrangements, and the challenge
2238
to social cohesiosn, in: Y. Kazepov (Ed.) Cities of Europe, pp. 342. Oxford: Blackwell. Kearns, A. and Forrest, R. (2000) Social cohesion and multilevel urban governance, Urban Studies, 37(5/6), pp. 9951017. Kearns, A. and Paddison, R. (2000) New challenges for urban governance, Urban Studies, 37 (5/6), pp. 845850. Kearns, A. and Turok, I. (2000) Power, responsibility, and governance in Britains new urban policy, Journal of Urban Affairs, 22(2), pp. 175191. Le Gals, P. (1995) Du gouvernment des villes la gouvernance urbaine, Revue Franaise de Science Politique, 45(1), pp. 5795. Le Gals, P. (2002) European Cities: Social Conicts and Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Le Gals, P. (2005) Elusive urban policies in Europe, in: Y. Kazepov (Ed.) Cities of Europe: Changing Contexts, Local Arrangements, and the Challenge to Urban Cohesion, pp. 235254. Oxford: Blackwell. Mangen, S. P. (2004) Social Exclusion and Inner City Europe: Regulating Urban Regeneration. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Moulaert, F., Rodriguez, A. and Swyngedouw, E. (2003) The Globalized City: Economic Restructuring and Social Polarization in European Cities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Peters, B. G. (1998) With a little help from our friends: publicprivate partnerships as institutions and instruments, in: J. Pierre (Ed.) Partnerships in Urban Governance: Eueopean and American Experience, pp. 1113. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Pierre, J. (1998) Publicprivate partnerships and urban governance: introduction, in J. Pierre (Ed.) Partnerships in Urban Governance: European and American Experience, pp. 110. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Pierre, J. (1999) Models of urban governance: the institutional dimension of urban politics, Urban Affairs Review, 34(3), pp. 372396.
Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996) The new governance: governing without government, Political Studies, 44(3), pp. 652667. Ruivo, F. (2000) Um Estado Labirntico: O Poder Relacional nas Relaes entre Poderes Central e Local em Portugal. Porto: Afrontamento. Silva, C. and Syrett, S. (2006) Governing Lisbon: evolving forms of urban governance, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 30(1), pp. 98119. Stewart, M. (2002) Systems governance: towards effective partnership working. Paper presented at the Health Development Agency Seminar Series on Tackling Health Inequalities, London, September. Stewart, M. (2005) Collaboration in multi-sector governance, in: M. Haus, H. Heinelt and M. Stewart (Eds) Urban Governance and Democracy, Leadership and Community Involvement, pp. 149167. London: Routledge. Stewart, M. and Snape, D. (1995) Keeping up the momentum: partnership working in Bristol and the West. Unpublished report from the School for Policy Studies to the Bristol Chamber of Commerce and Initiative. Stoker, G. (2004) Transforming Local Governance: From Thatcherism to New Labour. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Swyngedouw, E. (2005) Governance innovation and the citizen: the Janus face of governancebeyond-the-state, Urban Studies , 42(11), pp. 19912006. Syrett, S. (1997) The politics of partnerships: the role of social patterns in local economic development in Portugal, European Urban and Regional Studies, 4(2), pp. 99114. Tosics, I. and Dukes, T. (2005) Urban development programs in the context of public administration and urban policy, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geograe, 96(4), pp. 390408.

Partership Diversity and Governance Evidence From Urban Regeneration Policies in Portugal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Partership Diversity and Governance Evidence From Urban Regeneration Policies in Portugal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Urban Studies

Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 18, 2010

46(10) 22132238, September 2009

ISABEL BREDA-VZQUEZ ET AL.

Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 18, 2010

URBAN REGENERATION IN PORTUGAL

Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 18, 2010

ISABEL BREDA-VZQUEZ ET AL.

Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 18, 2010

URBAN REGENERATION IN PORTUGAL

Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 18, 2010

ISABEL BREDA-VZQUEZ ET AL.

Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 18, 2010

URBAN REGENERATION IN PORTUGAL

Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 18, 2010

ISABEL BREDA-VZQUEZ ET AL.

3. Institutional Arrangements in Urban Regeneration Initiatives: the Case of Portugal

Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 18, 2010

Programme for the rehabilitation of rented housing

The Ministry for Environment, Spatial Planning and Regional Development

Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 18, 2010

URBAN REGENERATION IN PORTUGAL

Support scheme for commercial urbanism projects

The Ministry of Economy and Innovation

(Table 1 Continued ) Managing entity CCDR Objective Types of incentive

ISABEL BREDA-VZQUEZ ET AL.

Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 18, 2010

Initiative for highly deprived neighbourhoods

The central administration

Urban project EXPO98

The central government

Parque EXPO, S.A. (a semi-public agency for urban development)

Redevelopment of the eastern zone of Lisbon

Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 18, 2010

Initiative for the Improvement of the Urban Environment

The Ministry for Environment, Spatial Planning and Regional Development

Sociedades Polis (local semi-public agencies for urban development)

URBAN REGENERATION IN PORTUGAL

SRU (2005) The urban regeneration companies

Initiative for the establishment of urban regeneration companies

The central administration

ISABEL BREDA-VZQUEZ ET AL.

Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 18, 2010

Local and national No

Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 18, 2010

URBAN REGENERATION IN PORTUGAL

No plan required (individual initiative) No No No No

ISABEL BREDA-VZQUEZ ET AL.

Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 18, 2010

Porto Com Pinta

Quem Cuida Ama

Programme for the rehabilitation of faades

EPUL, E.M. (a municipal agency for urban development)

Program for the rehabilitation of housing

EPUL, E.M (a municipal agency for urban development)

Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 18, 2010

Program for the rehabilitation of housing for young people

EPUL, E.M. (a municipal agency for urban development)

URBAN REGENERATION IN PORTUGAL

ISABEL BREDA-VZQUEZ ET AL.

Programme for the rehabilitation of housing for young people

Downloaded from http://usj.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on February 18, 2010

Rehabilitation of deprived buildings in Coimbra through the commercialisation of rehabilitated dwellings

URBAN REGENERATION IN PORTUGAL