Suchergebnisse

Chapter 1: Reflecting on the housing lens and urban governance -- Section A: STATE AND COUNTER-STATE: DOMINANCE AND CONTESTATION -- Chapter 2: The quest to develop affordable housing: How Good Urban Governance depoliticizes the debate on housing affordability in Kigali, Rwanda -- Chapter 3: Interests and Contestation in Nairobi City Redevelopment and Housing Schemes -- Chapter 4: Are Social Movements achieving the Right to Adequate Housing in Lagos, Nigeria? -- Chapter 5: Becoming 'Unlawful': Homeownership, housing bureaucracy, and the production of precarity in Eastridge, Cape Town -- Chapter 6: Forced Evictions and the creation of the Lagos Mega-city -- SECTION B: STAKEHOLDER INTERFACES AND HYBRID ARRANGEMENTS -- Chapter 7: Navigating the ideological nexus between political and private interests: experiences on Inclusionary Housing from Cape Town -- Chapter 8: From Resistance to Reclamation: Insurgency in Khartoum's housing governance post the Sudanese revolution -- Chapter 9: Urban governance, authority and citizenship: the dynamics of local formal and informal governance of housing in Delft and Alexandra -- Chapter 10: Intermediation by necessity: The case of uMastand -- Section C: UNRESOLVED RESPONSIBILITIES -- Chapter 11: Housing delivery, local governance and co-operative government in Mangaung -- Chapter 12: Housing Governance in the Gauteng City-Region -- Chapter 13: 'Complicit or collusion' – Politics of Access to Land and Space in the Urban Housing sector in Harare City, Zimbabwe -- Chapter 14: Urban governance: balancing strong institutions and powerful actors in the provision of affordable housing in Lagos, Nigeria -- Chapter 15: A state of inconsistency: SA's urban housing policy and practice -- Section D: OUTSIDE THE STATE: PRIVATE SECTOR AND NON-STATE ACTIONS AND THEIR OUTCOMES -- Chapter 16: Afterlives of Housing Cooperatives -- Chapter 17: What lies in between: self-built housing and the struggle to remain in place in Dar es Salaam -- Chapter 18: Emergence of Large-Scale Private Housing Estates and their Impact on Urban Governance and Morphology in Windhoek, Namibia -- Chapter 19: Social integration in the private sector driven housing developments in South Africa -- Chapter 20: Housing settlements in selected rural towns and townships in KwaZulu-Natal and their capacity to enhance the production activity of the economy -- Chapter 21: Turning Land into Stand: negotiating land transformations in developer-driven 'affordable' suburbs, Gauteng, South Africa.

AbstractProgress in analysing the instrumental view of governance as an engine for growth, poverty reduction, and inclusive development has been held back by the difficulty in framing governance. This essay seeks to address this problem by 1) reframing urban governance 2) evaluating its aims, processes, and outcomes, and 3) explaining those outcomes on the basis of which some lessons are teased out. Using examples from Africa and an institutional political economy approach (based on institutional economics, Marxist political economics, Georgist political economics, and Polanyian political economy), I show that, overall, while urban economies are growing; both urban poverty and inequality levels have risen substantially. Urban governance has paved the way for new forms of urban development that only benefit the few. Not only are there differences in how urban services and resources are experienced, accessed, and controlled but the varieties are also socially differentiated. I argue that the underlying reasons for this disjuncture between "urban governance" in theory and "actually existing urban governance" are 1) difficulties in implementing urban governance theory consistently in practice, 2) problems arising because urban governance theory has been implemented in practice, 3) tensions that would entangle most policies which do not address historical and structural economic issues, 4) restrictive assumptions, and 5) incoherence among the different dimensions of urban governance. To resolve these contradictions, I put the case for major structural and institutional change involving: 1) the re‐ordering of the roles of the state, market, and society as institutions of change; 2) re‐working the relationships that bind together land, labour, capital, and the state, and 3) re‐organising the channels for keeping the attainment of the ends of urban governance in check.

Produced with the support of EUROCITIES as part of the CREATE (Congestion Reduction in Europe, Advancing Transport Efficiency) project, WP4 "Qualitative analysis of historical transport policy developments across 5 EU capital-cities". ; International audience ; Why have some cities in Europe been able to achieve a shift from the car-oriented city towards more sustainable modes of transport? How can other parts of Europe and the EuroMed draw lessons from CREATE?In order to answer these fundamental questions, the CREATE (Congestion Reduction in Europe, Advancing Transport Efficiency) project's main objective is to reduce road congestion in European cities by encouraging a switch from cars to more sustainable modes of transport. Among other valuable lessons, the CREATE project shows how strong urban governance contributes to the shift towards the liveable city.

Produced with the support of EUROCITIES as part of the CREATE (Congestion Reduction in Europe, Advancing Transport Efficiency) project, WP4 "Qualitative analysis of historical transport policy developments across 5 EU capital-cities". ; International audience ; Why have some cities in Europe been able to achieve a shift from the car-oriented city towards more sustainable modes of transport? How can other parts of Europe and the EuroMed draw lessons from CREATE?In order to answer these fundamental questions, the CREATE (Congestion Reduction in Europe, Advancing Transport Efficiency) project's main objective is to reduce road congestion in European cities by encouraging a switch from cars to more sustainable modes of transport. Among other valuable lessons, the CREATE project shows how strong urban governance contributes to the shift towards the liveable city.

Cities across the globe face unprecedented challenges as a result of ever-increasing pressure from climate change, migration, ageing populations and resource shortages. In order to guarantee a sustainable global future, these issues demand radical new approaches to how we govern our cities. Providing new research and thinking about cities, their governance and innovative models of planning reform, this timely and important book compares the UK with an array of international examples to examine cutting-edge experimentation and innovation in new models of governance and urban policy. The flagship text of the Urban Policy, Planning and Built Environment series, this broad but accessible volume is ideal for students and provides an authoritative single point of reference for teaching.

Co-creation is one of the mayor buzzwords lately in urban governance and participation both in theory and practice. The research question in this paper is to establish what exactly we mean by the concept and what its practical application entails for democracy in urban governance. The papaer reviews the scholarly literature on co-creation in order to establich how co-creation has been and can be conceptualized in urban governance. The rise of the concept of co-creation signifies a shift in how public participation is understood. Where participation following Arnstein in the 70s and forward was about rights and power, participation conceptualized as co-creation is rather about including relevant and sufficiently diverse knowledge in urban processes to create innovative solutions to complex problems. Consequently, democratic legitimacy to a much larger extent relies on output rather than input legitimacy. It is the ability to solve complex problems that becomes the evaluation criteria of co-creation rather than the provision of inclusive spaces of democratic debate and the empowerment of the deprived, which has been the goal of many urban participatory efforts in the past. Furthermore, conceptualizing participation as co-creation has consequences for the roles available for both citizens and public administrators in public processes. The papaer discusses the implications of this for urban governance and concludes that an explicit debate both in academia and in practice of the normative content of conceptualizing participation as co-creation is both salient and necessary

The city of Yangon is home to over 5 million people, hosts Myanmar's largest port and produces a disproportionate share of national output. But a mobility crisis is undermining the city's economic potential and contributing to a deteriorating quality of life for its residents. The most obvious symptom of this crisis is acute traffic congestion. The proximate causes are clear: growing demand for journeys, a surge in vehicle numbers, a modal shift away from buses, and myriad 'flow disruptions'. However, solving this mobility crisis requires recognizing the underlying causes, including a 'congestion incentive spiral' fuelled by rapid liberalisation of vehicle imports in a context where there are few viable alternatives to buses and private automobiles. This situation is a direct consequence of systematic failures in urban planning, investment and regulation linked to active neglect from successive military regimes and dysfunctional institutional arrangements. To preserve its rich urban heritage, Yangon will need to embrace 21st century integrated planning practices that seek to maximise accessibility and mobility for all people rather than minimise traffic congestion for those who use cars.

This article sets out to establish what we mean by the recent buzzword 'co-creation' and what practical application this concept entails for democracy in urban governance, both in theory and practice. The rise of the concept points to a shift in how public participation is understood. Whereas from the 1970s onwards the discussions surrounding participation centred on rights and power, following Sherry Arnstein, participation conceptualised as co-creation instead focuses on including diverse forms of knowledge in urban processes in order to create innovative solutions to complex problems. Consequently, democratic legitimacy now relies to a much greater extent on output, rather than input legitimacy. Rather than provision of inclusive spaces for democratic debate and empowerment of the deprived, which have been the goals of numerous urban participatory efforts in the past, it is the ability to solve complex problems that has become the main criterion for the eval- uation of co-creation. Furthermore, conceptualising participation as co-creation has con- sequences for the roles available to both citizens and public administrators in urban pro- cesses, which has implications for urban governance. An explicit debate, both in academ- ia and in practice, about the normative content and implications of conceptualising partic- ipation as co-creation is therefore salient and necessary.

International audience ; The 2015 Paris Agreement and the recent Quito New Urban Agenda both emphasised the need to empower cities in climate change policies, including energy policies that aim at energy transitions towards more energy efficiency and the use of renewable energies. Being both factors in and potential victims of climate change, cities have many reasons to act. Therefore, there is a need to examine how changes in urban governance could indeed address this necessity and the challenge cities have to face.This issue has been addressed in many studies and plans for cities in the Western and advanced industrial world. These first studies have highlighted several results. Firstly, instead of considering only climate change issues, they stressed the need to understand ecological pressures more widely, particularly the way global energy pressures, like peak oil threats or price increases have created energy stress for cities. Secondly, they also underlined how privatisation trends and the ascent of transnational energy firms reconfigured energy regulation by sidelining public energy utilities and companies. Thirdly, metropolisation, the concentration of wealth and power in the big metropolises, transforms urban governance. The role of states in energy regulation is thus undermined and metropolitan coalitions are more diverse and open to private and as well as local urban interests. Green growth becomes a new market for private firms, and metropolitan governments compete for jobs and investments in the sector. At the same time, ensuring the continuity of energy supply or of other infrastructure is another goal for metropolitan firms and authorities. This leads to newagendas, including local policies of energy transition, which combine the promotion of renewable energies and energy efficiency with the shortening of energy circuits.However, several factors that are favouring these changes in energy governance seem to be specific to world cities and might not apply in other contexts. The increasing – albeit ...