Collectively, cities take up a relatively tiny amount of land on the earth, yet emit 72 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. Clearly, cities need to be at the center of any broad effort to reduce climate change. This text argues that too many cities are only implementing random acts of greenness that will do little to address the climate crisis. It instead calls for 'greenovation' - using the city as a test bed for adopting and perfecting green technologies for more energy-efficient buildings, transportation, and infrastructure more broadly. Further, the work contends that while many city mayors cite income inequality as a pressing problem, few cities are connecting climate action and social justice-another aspect of greenovation.
In: Political science quarterly: a nonpartisan journal devoted to the study and analysis of government, politics and international affairs ; PSQ, Band 120, Heft 3, S. 545-547
The article asks how political leadership and community involvement together can contribute to legitimate and effective policy making in the context of urban governance. Particularly, the question is discussed if the interplay between both increases capacities for governing localities. Conceptually, this is based on Jessop's assumption that every mode of coordination is failure prone and that there is a need for enduring "metagovernance." The concept of metagovernance is then linked with considerations on institutional contexts and a comparison of four case studies, situated in different contexts. Whereas the case studies can show different practices or failures of metagovernance in the interaction between political leaders and involved societal actors, the institutional contexts are shown to more or less facilitate these practices.
The authors reassess the recent history of U.K. urban politics. Following the local entrepreneurialism promoted by the Thatcher governments in the 1980s, they trace the gradual emergence of a more inclusive approach to urban policy. This shift, which began with the Major government in the early 1990s, marks a move toward a more community-orientated vision of social regeneration. Through a survey of the evolution of partnership styles and economic development in Leeds and informed by recent cross-national work on regime theory, the authors provide insights into the structural factors that have shaped the formation, composition, and actions of local coalitions in U.K. governance.
AbstractThis article reviews the changes that have taken place in local government leadership in France and Spain. It has been argued that political leadership in local government in Southern Europe is characterized by major political leaders who are able to obtain resources from central government through their political connections. However, both French and Spanish local governments have evolved while developing new forms of leadership that are more connected to territory, its people and local issues than to the respective administrative capitals. The article argues that the development of new policies at the local level, the opening of new avenues of citizen participation and the introduction of new methods of public management have changed the relationship between elected representatives and the people. Institutional innovations at the supra‐municipal level have also created a space between regions and municipalities for local leaders to develop their capacity as project leaders and network creators.Cet article examine les changements survenus au niveau de l'autorité gouvernementale locale en France et en Espagne. L'autorité politique dans un gouvernement local du sud de l'Europe se caractérise, assure‐t‐on, par de grands leaders politiques capables d'obtenir des ressources du gouvernement central grâce à leurs relations. Pourtant, les gouvernements locaux français et espagnols ont évolué tout en élaborant des formes originales de leadership, plus proches du territoire, de sa population et des affaires locales que les capitales administratives concernées. La conception de politiques publiques novatrices au plan local, l'ouverture d'autres accès à la participation des citadins et l'introduction de nouvelles méthodes de gestion publique ont modifié le rapport entre représentants élus et population. De plus, des innovations institutionnelles au niveau supra‐municipal ont généré un espace entre régions et municipalités permettant aux leaders locaux de développer leurs aptitudes en tant que chefs de projet et créateurs de réseaux.