Search results

This work explains what debates about local governance mean for local people. The book explores governance and citizenship in relation to multiculturalism, economic migration, housing markets, neighbourhoods, and e-democracy in order to establish a contemporary view of the ways that citizens are constituted at the local level.

AbstractThe puzzle of causal explanation is a core issue for social science. Searches for causal patterns can be overly mechanistic, seen for example in the desire for the magic bullet in policy, or the lionising of the celebrity policy interventions of the moment. Emphasis in policy interventions on transferable practice is often dismissed as naive for failing to recognise the importance of context, contingency, and complexity. However, a focus on highly context‐specific narratives, drawn from single cases, can be equally problematic and exacerbate rather than help the problem of reification of knowledge. This paper makes a reflective theoretical contribution to the debate on the need to tackle the dilemma of contingency versus certainty in causal explanation in the social sciences. It attempts to address this issue through the lens of a specific concrete puzzle of explanation; that of citizen participation in policy. Citizen participation is a salient policy topic, which demands a thorough understanding of causation. Using extended empirical examples of citizen participation in policy serves to highlight the intractability of different traditions of causal explanation and grounds the need for greater compatibility in approaches. The paper then offers two propositions centring on the notions of transdisciplinarity and hybridity in research practices and methodologies. It concludes with a discussion of more and less desirable forms of hybridity.

There are many critiques of existing forms of urban governance as not fit for purpose. However, what alternatives might look like is equally contested. Coproduction is proposed as a response to address complex wicked issues. Achieving coproduction is a highly complex and daunting task. Bottom up approaches to the initiation of coproduced governance are seen as fruitful, including exemplification of utopian alternatives though local practices. New ways of seeing the role of conflict in participation are needed, including ways to institutionalise agonistic participatory practices. Coproduction in governance drives demands for forms of knowledge production that are themselves coproductive. New urban governing spaces need to be coproduced through participative transformation requiring experimentation and innovation in re-designing urban knowledge architectures. Future research in this field is proposed which is nuanced, grounded in explicit weightings of different democratic values, and which mediates between recognition of contingency and the ability to undertake comparative analysis.

There are many critiques of existing forms of urban governance as not fit for purpose. However, what alternatives might look like is equally contested. Coproduction is proposed as a response to address complex wicked issues. Achieving coproduction is a highly complex and daunting task. Bottom up approaches to the initiation of coproduced governance are seen as fruitful, including exemplification of utopian alternatives though local practices. New ways of seeing the role of conflict in participation are needed, including ways to institutionalise agonistic participatory practices. Coproduction in governance drives demands for forms of knowledge production that are themselves coproductive. New urban governing spaces need to be coproduced through participative transformation requiring experimentation and innovation in re-designing urban knowledge architectures. Future research in this field is proposed which is nuanced, grounded in explicit weightings of different democratic values, and which mediates between recognition of contingency and the ability to undertake comparative analysis.

This review article debates the democratic consequences of arm's length governance challenging the prevailing view that its use is necessarily counter-democratic and a poor substitute for direct control by elected politicians. The article explores the roots of the dominant 'democratic deficit' perspective on arm's length bodies in the agency problems generated by political delegation, but also addresses the potential for democratic enhancement posed by the different theoretical lens of polycentrism. The article considers the conditions that are necessary to activate citizens to engage with arm's length governance. Our conclusion develops the normative implications for the design of public governance.

AbstractThis article addresses a critical gap in extant theorizing of urban transformations by focusing on the political and temporal dimensions of how innovations emerge, develop and become institutionalized into alternative systems of the everyday such as social centres, community gardens or urban commons. Going beyond current approaches, we offer a new understanding of innovations as sociopolitical practices: sets of resourced activities aiming to reshape urban spaces to achieve social and political ends locally. Developing an original theorization of such practices, we identify and differentiate between three sets of activities designed to meet local needs: assembling innovations—identifying and employing a wide variety of local resources within a neighbourhood; extending innovations—broadening the scope of initiatives and making them last; and, institutionalizing innovations, anchoring them in a more formalized structure. Sociopolitical innovations require sustained practices whereby situated agents pragmatically push for change over time. While the ongoing development of systems of the everyday may have limited immediate transformative impact, the reshaping of local resources prefigures an alternative which breaks from, yet is embedded in, everyday urban life. Our theorizing is underpinned by an international qualitative study of neighbourhoods in four European cities: Amsterdam, Birmingham, Copenhagen and Glasgow.

Decentralized decision making has created restructuring from larger to smaller administrative units, but in many places, strays little from existing arrangements. Moves toward decentralization from central government to city‐regions, and in some areas, below city‐region scale to neighborhoods, reflect a mandate for reform. What is the nature and extent of desired reforms? Using an institutionalist lens, homogeneity and heterogeneity in local narratives about possible future reform can be surfaced. This article emphasizes the importance of understanding the role of local actors' narratives in shaping decentralized institutions. This article uses the findings from a Q‐methodology study to identify and interrogate distinctive local viewpoints on attempts to decentralize decision making in England. In a systematic empirical analysis, local actors' narratives were largely in favor of relatively minor modifications to the status quo. The findings question a conflation of decentralization with participation in decision making.

Addressing contemporary public policy challenges requires new thinking and new practice. Therefore, there is a renewed sense of urgency to critically assess the potential of the emerging field of 'design for policy'. On the one hand, design approaches are seen as bringing new capacities for problem-solving to public policy development. On the other, the attendant risks posed to effective and democratic policy making are unclear, partly because of a limited evidence base. The paper synthesises recent contributions in design research, policy studies, political science and democratic theory which have examined the uses of design for public policy making. Mapping out areas of debate building on studies of design from policy studies and from within design research, we suggest promising directions for future cross-disciplinary research in a context of uncertainty.