Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Table of Contents
Part 1: Theories
1 Urbanization and Urban governance
2
3
4
5
6
7
Part 2: Methodologies
8
9
10
11
12
13
Part 3: Applications
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Transportation
Land Use
Sanitary and Infrastructure
Building and Constructing
City Design and Landscape Architecture
Real Estate and Housing
City Renewal and Regeneration
Ecological Environment
City Disaster Management
Slums and Homelessness
City Finance
Crime
Social Welfare
Education
City Institutions
Governmental Organization and Administration
Information City and Technology
Globalization and City Competitiveness
Global Climate Change and Energy
Comparative Studies
Conclusions
Part 1: Theories
For any discipline to thrive, a sound theoretical foundation is a must.
This part of the introduction provides such a foundation for the
discipline of urban governance. A theory is an explanation of a
particular phenomenon. For example, a theory can be constructed
to depict a particular phenomenon using mathematical models,
verbal arguments, computer simulations, and psychological
experiments. Regardless of its format, it must convey a coherent
urban development.
A third theme of the introduction in developing the theoretical
foundation for urban governance is related to rationality. In
particular, we argue for a reconsideration of the meanings of
rationality and propose a new way of defining it: framed rationality.
Framed rationality does not refute the traditional standard of
rationality of maximization of subjective expected utility. It simply
recognizes the fact that the utility maximization principle can be
valid only in particular frames. With the conceptions of property
rights, complexity, and framed rationality, we argue that cities work
by agents interacting with each other to maximize their utilities in
particular frames, constrained by physical and institutional settings,
in order to acquire property rights left in the public domain.
4. Planning Cities
Urban planning has a long history at least for one hundred years.
Though the scope of planning education and research becomes
larger, the emphasis on physical design of cities remains as a
central topic in the discipline. Urban planning can mean many
things, from site planning to globalization, and the term is being
used with many connotations. Urban planning defined here is
simply making plans in order to influence or even guide urban
development. Plans are defined narrowly here as multiple, linked
decisions. Evidence shows that when faced with uncertainties, it is
to the decision makers benefits to consider more than one decision
in relation to others, rather than make these decisions
independently, as argued by the strategy of divide and conquer.
There are two fundamental reasons of why cities need plans. On the
one hand, making plans is particularly useful when the system
under consideration is complex, rather than simple. Complexity
means that the elements in the system are connected with each
other in a clustered, rather than random, way. Cities are complex
systems; therefore, making plans is useful in dealing with urban
issues. On the other hand, as argued by Hopkins (2001) depicted
earlier in this introduction, plans are most effective when decisions
are interdependent, irreversible, indivisible, and with imperfect
foresight.
Unlike governance and regulations that focus on actions and rights,
plans provide information only. Once publicized, they show the
intentions of the planner as to when and where to take what actions.
Plans can be formal documents and informal ideas residing in the
decision makers head. Owners of plans share the contents
strategically. In cities, many actors make plans, including
developers, public officials, voluntary groups, and local
governments. Plans for urban planning can be conceived as public,
but they could yield benefits to local governments if these plans are
secret, as exemplified in most cities in China. The traditional view
of a single plan for the development of the city under consideration
should be replaced by a web of plans that interact with each other
because evidence shows that the latter conception about plans is
closer to reality. The physical setting of cities and the web of plans
for urban development interact with each other, again in a complex
way.
Urban planning should be perceived in a broader context for city
managers. Not only is planning concerned with both physical and
institutional settings in cities, planning should also be explained and
prescribed in relation to governance and regulations. We must
make clear the distinction between plans, governance, and
regulations and understand how they complement each other and
make cities a better place to live. For example, we could plan for
collective actions and regulations, and we could also regulate how
to plans. Plans can be made both external and internal to
organizational settings, so administrative behavior is also closely
related to planning. In short, city managers must learn when to plan
for urban development and socio-spatial processes in order to take
appropriate actions accordingly, recognizing that plans are only one
limited way of improving human settlement.
5. Governing Cities
As argued earlier, agents in cities are motivated to acquire the
property rights left in the public domain. In particular, most of these
property rights are collective goods, or common pool resources.
Collective choices and actions must be made and taken regarding
how to make use of them, the essence of city governance. City
governance thus begs mechanism design through which collective
choices can be made regarding collective goods provisions and
common pool resources allocation. On the one hand, collective
goods provision requires commitment from the participating parties.
This can best be demonstrated by a two-person prisoners dilemma.
Each of the two players can either cooperate or defect without
knowing which strategy the other player would adopt. When one
player cooperates and the other defects, the former will lose a
significant amount of payoff, while the latter will gain. Both players
are motivated to defect, and the Nash equilibrium of the game is for
both players to defect. However, if both players cooperate, they
would be better off than if both of them defect, thus a dilemma.
One way to make sure that both would cooperate is through
commitment. Collective goods provision is like the prisoners
dilemma game in that each participant is likely to defect, that is,
adopt the free-riding strategy without contributing to the provision,
and thus the amount of collective goods is usually insufficient if no
coercive actions are taken.
are such new discoveries of how cities work. We have a long way to
go from these new theories to applications, but they shed useful
lights into how we can deal with complexity.
9. Decision Analysis
Decision analysis is an interdisciplinary field that focuses on how to
make appropriate decisions in face of uncertainties, drawing on
work in, among others, economics, operations research, system
analysis, and psychology. Decision analysis has become a
specialized field with its own institutions and journals. It aims at
helping decision makers to frame decision situations and select the
best actions according to solid, rational procedures. Traditionally,
there are three camps of decision theories: descriptive, normative,
and prescriptive. Descriptive decision theories purport to explain
how people actually do make decisions. Normative decision
theories aim at constructing the theoretical foundation for depicting
how people should make decisions. Prescriptive theories intend to
help people to make decisions conforming to normative the
normative standard of rationality. The standard of rationality that
makes the distinction between descriptive, normative, and
prescriptive decision theories is the subjective expected utility (SEU)
model. The SEU model stipulates that the rational decision maker
choose the best alternative in order to maximize his or her expected
utility. Though the SEU model provides a sound theoretical basis for
normative decision theories, it has been invalidated by numerous
psychological experiments, and thus others suggest variants of the
SEU model in describing how people do make decision, including
prospect theory and bounded rationality.
We argue that the traditional distinction between descriptive,
normative, and prescriptive decision theories enhances rather than
dispels the confusion about our understanding of rationality. In this
introduction, we propose an alternative view of rationality, called
framed rationality. Rather than refuting the SEU model, we argue
that that model is universally valid, but only subject to particular
frames. Put differently, people in making decisions are rational
depending on how the problems are framed. Therefore, the
distinction between descriptive and normative perspectives of
explaining behaviors is unnecessary because they interpret
observed behaviors from different frames. We cannot conclude that
if the decision makers choice violates the normative standard, he or
she is not rational. He or she may still be rational in his or her
frames of understanding the problems faced and act accordingly.
Experiments show that framed rationality is valid in that drawing on
the elicitation questions used in prospect theory, preference
reversals can be explained by the SEU model.
Decision making is a central task for city managers, so they must