Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Özlem Katısöz
INTRODUCTION
public policy and local politics agenda. Influence of the neoliberal agenda as well
what spatial unit the problems are supposed to be solved. Local governance, in
that context, is like a mirror reflecting the circumstances of the period stressing
out the need for a bottom-up approach, grassroots‘ awareness and inclusion
within a local spatial scale. Partnership is not the only but one of the most
important strategies of this new governing system called local governance. The
paper, here, aims to examine two issues in this regard, (1) to analyse how the
what cities need. In the first section, background and theoretical framework
which concepts like governance, local governance emerged in and what it means
why it matters. In the third part the paper analyses what matters to
1 / 22
EMERGENCE OF NEW URBAN POLITICS
Over the past several decades, the contexts and dynamics of socio-urban space
have undergone a dramatic change and new ways of city management has been
and constellations of urban order in literature (Harvey 1989, Hall & Hubbard
1998, MacLeod 2002, Smart & Smart 2003, Fischer et al. 2004).
Corry and Stoker (cited in Geddes 2006) call neoliberalization of urban space. As
profit motivation,
new form of urban politics emerged which has been mostly shaped by
public monopoly local services are eliminated and they are replaced by
2 / 22
the old bureaucratic „silos‟ and the local politicians associated with them, are
accelerated
fragmentation stimulated the need for a new form of governance namely joint
up governance
(Darlow et al 2007, Jessop, Painter & Goodwin, Brenner & Theodore cited in
therefore it is necessary to see local governance from both the new institutional
authorities working with partners from every sector. Together they will develop
better public services built around the communities, families and individuals who
use them. We want people to take an active part in the democratic life of their
3 / 22
Why is it so important? Lebel et al (2006) and Rhodes (1996) argues that ‗good‘
governance facilitates the multi actor social formation where ―activities are
backed by shared goals‖ not by ―any formal authority‖; creates self organised
and self responsible societies which is fuelled by the autonomy given implying
not only freedom but also responsibility; creates effective climate for
produces trust & cooperation among actors stemming from this interdependency
condition. Governance steers the system not rows it; increases effectiveness
accountability; increase the adaptive capacity of public against risks and benefits
point where the national economies have been transforming and welfare state
has been shrinking. Osborne and Gaebler (cited in Yamamoto 2007) explain this
need of strategic action as ―Steering requires people who see the entire universe
of issues and possibilities and can balance competing demands for resources.
Rowing requires people who focus intently on one mission and perform it well.
Steering organizations need to find the best methods to achieve their goals.
Rowing organizations tend to defend „their‟ methods at all costs … This leaves
Drawing on these debates, ‗local governance‘ has been popularly is badged with
the local partnership and community discourse of Third Way politics. Multi-
4 / 22
regeneration and more ‗joined-up‘ strategies to address cross-cutting
Lowndes and Skelcher (cited in Reddel 2004) argue that ‗partnership‘ should be
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
structures. The local governance discussions, in that context, varying from new
the key issues which have been observed, analysed and emphasized in
theoretical course.
DiGaetano & Lawless (1999) diversify the regime theory according to different
has different modes of state-society relations and governing logic. Partners are
5 / 22
in a reciprocally benefiting relationship in a clientelistic, favouritistic mode while
civic leaders are the core of the negotiations in the corporatist mode (DiGaetano
& Lawless 1999). In managerial mode, state is the key decision maker having
the urban space (DiGaetano & Lawless 1999). New institutionalism recognizes
as formal structures and rules, the role of values and power relations or
strength of weak ties‟ is critical in understanding the nature and form of new
and individuals. These discursive flows are seen as opening up previously closed
management reform and public sector reform since the 80s coming through the
present in the late 2000s (Yamamoto 2007). It assumes that a system must be
managed and must manage for itself but also it must be let the management by
6 / 22
collaboration of the trilogy of governments, markets and citizens (Yamamoto
2007).
Network theorists such as Rhodes and Marsh and Smith argue for a
within and between networks. Five ideal types of policy network have been
al 2007)
The ‗partnership‘ discourse has become the key governance principle in the
the state‟ (Geddes 2006). Painter and Goodwin (cited in Geddes 2006)
deprivation, the idea that problems that are connected to social exclusion
(Ashtana et al 2002). Geddes (2006) argues that partnership at local levels will
create more efficient, inclusive and pluralist local governance, bringing together
key organizations and actors (from the three spheres of state, market and civil
society) to identify communities‘ top priorities and needs, and work with local
boundaries.
7 / 22
All local partnership strategies almost have the similar aims and characteristics:
Provision of extra resources; narrowing the gap between the most deprived
areas and the rest of the country putting community as the most important
stakeholder; working in partnerships which best reflect the local needs and
Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) and New Deal for Communities (NDCs) are
and that the values and interests of different stakeholders are represented in a
statutory decision making processes. (Ashtana et al 2002). Here below are some
of those partnership models that are operating in the existing local governance
covering clusters of certain number of schools with low success levels in socially
8 / 22
neighbourhoods with inequalities in terms of health issues such as rate of illness
Actions zones are, significantly, mostly concentrated in urban areas and based
responses to public policy problems (Painter & Clarence 2001). The ethos of
multi-agency working central to the action zone initiatives provides a direct link
„modernisation‟ programme of which this forms part (Painter & Clarence 2001).
Painter and Clarence (2001) argue that top-nature of the initiatives effect the
nature of the partnership and constraints the localities‘ ability to move. Central
government is far from being flexible and, enabling as well as oriented to short
LAAs are described as follows on Communities link: “LAAs set out the priorities
for a local area agreed between central government and a local area (the local
authority and Local Strategic Partnership) and other key partners at the local
level. LAAs simplify some central funding, help join up public services more
making, move away from a 'Whitehall knows best' philosophy and reduce
bureaucracy”.
LAAs require form of joined up governance and collective delivery which all
public service providers of this particular locality cooperates (IDEA 2006). LAAs‘
main objective is to present the tools for the key partners in a locality for
9 / 22
sharing priorities, planning the businesses, and making decisions of resources
(IDEA 2006). However there are some issues which should be taken up and that
the local partnership system needs new organisational transformation such as;
are formed due to central government requirements and serving the need of
2004).
LSP is a body which brings together at a local level the different parts of the
public sector as well as the private, business, community and voluntary sectors
so that different initiatives and services support each other and work together.
LSPs are non- statutory, and largely non-executive organizations, and the
in Geddes 2006)
10 / 22
Improvement of the economic, environmental, and social well-being of each
country
Narrowing of the gap between the most deprived neighbourhoods and the rest
working together which local people, business and the voluntary sector all
Local Public Service Agreements (LPSAs) and Local Area Agreements (LAAs)
are being instituted between central and local government to tackle key
national and local priorities (on health, education, employment, crime, and
LSPs.
partnership, plans and initiatives at the local level, and of duplication and
unnecessary bureaucracy. In short they aim to simplify the action for partners
In areas with district and county LSPs, there is the additional challenge of
ensuring that local needs and views are adequately represented in the
Although LSPs aim to enable strategic decisions to be taken yet is close enough
there is the unease among local authorities and councillors about the potential
11 / 22
Geddes (2006) argues relying on the findings on the researches on the
funding of about £50 million over a 10-year period. Each local NDC project is
plan, based around the five key outcome areas of the NSNR which are crime,
A key feature of NDC is that the emphasis is placed on utilizing the resources
and powers of the NDC to influence mainstream service provision, rather than
regarding the £50 million funding as the main means by which the
be ‗community led‘ in a stronger sense than has been the case in previous
NDC was of ‗communities in control‘. Even though this has since been somewhat
weakened in a way, a recent report by the National Audit Office found that the
deprivation and highlighting the political tensions at both national and local
levels which can disrupt local projects of this nature. Through NDCs are
12 / 22
particularly interesting in the extent to which they function robustly as
How effective and how legitimate? Is ‗partnership working‘ delivering what cities
need? For a clear discussion it is better to begin the analysis by very briefly
Decline of Fordist production systems transformed the urban space into a space
government over applicator one; systems caring diversity and local value over
13 / 22
Moving from the fact stated above, the points that are associated to the
strategy are perceived and analysed relying on the conclusion which a diverse
participation is not always true. Reddel (2004) argues that regional, national,
14 / 22
activists have to struggle is hard to achieve (Wainwright cited in Geddes
2006).
Business decisions are one of the most important factors which will determine
local engagement and networking. In general, this has meant so far that
reporting about partnership such as the NAO audit found that partnerships are
(Geddes 2006).
15 / 22
effectiveness of local partnerships. The effectiveness partnerships at the local
interventions, to control and regulate the new local institutions they have set
up (Geddes 2006) This is not only a question of the dominance of national over
local priorities in a period when achieving public service delivery outcomes are
norms, incentives and sanctions has been led from the centre not from the
local level. Thus LSPs operate within a centrally driven regime, especially in
those areas eligible for NRF funding, where they must be assessed annually by
bids do reflect local issues, local priorities are tested against the priorities of
governance to a wider range of local interests and better reflect local priorities
and needs; but on the other hand they are both subject to central government
16 / 22
their ability to match targets and objectives imposed from above‟ (Geddes
2006).
to accountability and
governmentality requirements
performance-managed public
inspection and audit. Thus LSPs operate within a centrally driven regime,
mode of checklist rather than targeting more practical issues which soft project
as such require.
17 / 22
Local authorities have a leading role which both a facilitator and a barrier
aspect. They are supposed to be facilitator because the process needs a single
actor to lead and may likely to turn into a function of barrier because
(Darlow et al 2007)
Local politics has bad reputation of the limited and even declining local political
making, and a framework within which trust can be developed and the
the platform for negotiation of different ideas, views which Geddes (2006) calls
strategy process. Data sharing and joint target settings are the steps that
Moving from the experience of LSPs, it is argued that authorities have found
that there is a need for a central body which is responsible for practical
spending decisions the allocation and/or alignment of funds (IDEA 2006). This
accountable body comprises senior members and elected officials of the key
18 / 22
agencies in a locality. Constituent LSPs remain in place under the revised
(IDEA 2006)
CONCLUSION
The paper firstly analysed the current public administration realm and
been examined, and factors of success and failure have been analysed.
In conclusion, the paper argues that inputs and processes which define success
of partnership working in the urban space have very relative and intangible
partnerships via various structures such as LAAs, LSPs, NDCs. Top-down nature
performance criteria may seem as the most practical and just way. A
19 / 22
partnership approach shaped around joint strategy setting and service provision
should be completed with the joint action of indicator setting as well. Individuals
and communities who are given the right and initiative to dream about their
20 / 22
REFERENCE
Fischer, B, Turnbull, S, Poland, B, & Haydon, E 2004, ‗Drug Use, Risk And
Urban Order: Examining Supervised Injection Sites (SIS) As
‗Governmentality‘‘, International Journal of Drug Policy, Vol. 15, pp. 357–365.
Retrieved December 13, 2007, from Birmingham University E-Resource
21 / 22
Development, Sabanci University Istanbul Policy Center (24 January 2004),
Istanbul, Turkey. Retrieved December 28, 2007, from
http://ipc.sabanciuniv.edu/tr/?ArastirmaAlanlari/Yonetisim.html
Hall, T & Hubbard, P 1998, The Entrepreneurial City, John Wiley & Sons,
Chichester
IDEA 2006, ‗Local Governance – the changing role of LSPs‘, Retrieved on April
17, 2008, from http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/aio/4083715
Painter C & Clarence E 2001, ‗UK Local Action Zones and Changing Urban
Governance‘, Urban Studies, Vol. 38, No. 8, 1215–1232 Retrieved April 27,
2008, from Birmingham University E-Resource
Smart, A & Smart, J 2003, ‗Urbanization and The Global Perspective‘, Annual
Review of Anthropology, Vol. 32, pp. 263–285. Retrieved May 15, 2008, from
Middle East Technical University E-Resource
22 / 22