Advertisement

From Here to There: Mapping the Metropolitan Politics of Policy Mobilities

  • Karsten ZimmermannEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter investigates the mechanisms and channels of movements of governance elements between metropolitan regions. It will do this by examining various professional networks, and policy and expert communities. The aim is to investigate to what extent cities and regions which are members of these policy networks and communities have actively facilitated the transfer of procedural and institutional elements of metropolitan planning and governance to/from metropolitan regions. Besides focusing on the mechanisms and channels, the rationale and interests of those policymakers and planning professionals involved are of primary importance. As such, this chapter explores the challenges, limits and opportunities of the mutation and transfer of such elements of metropolitan planning and governance. It will also reveal knowledge about which policies and ideas travel—or not—and why.

Keywords

Policy mobility Policy transfer City networks Expert communities Europe 

References

  1. Ahrend, R., & Schumann, A. (2014). Approaches to metropolitan area governance: A country overview. OECD Regional Development Working Papers, 2014/03.Google Scholar
  2. Ahrend, R., Gamper, C., & Schumann, A. (2014). The OECD metropolitan governance survey: A quantitative description of governance structures in large urban agglomerations. OECD Regional Development Working Papers, 2014/04.Google Scholar
  3. Atkinson, R., & Rossignolo, C. (2010). Cities and the ‘soft side’ of Europeanization: The role of urban networks. In A. Hamedinger, & A. Wolffhardt (Eds.), The Europeanization of cities, urban change and urban networks (pp. 193–206). Amsterdam: Techne Press.Google Scholar
  4. Béal, V., Renaud, E., & Pinson, G. (2018). Networked cities and steering states: Urban policy circulations and the reshaping of state-cities relationships in France. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 36(5), 796–815.Google Scholar
  5. Benson, D., & Jordan, A. (2012). Policy transfer research: Still evolving, not yet through? Political Studies Review, 10(3), 333–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benz, A., Kemmerzell, J., Knodt, M., & Tews, A. (2015). The trans-local dimension of local climate policy: Sustaining and transforming local knowledge orders through trans-local action in three German cities. Urban Research & Practice, 8(3), 319–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blatter, J. (2006). Geographic scale and functional scope in metropolitan governance reform: Theory and evidence from Germany. Journal of Urban Affairs, 28(1), 121–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bok, R., & Coe, N. (2017). Geographies of policy knowledge: The state and corporate dimensions of contemporary policy mobilities. Cities, 63(1), 51–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brenner, N. (2004). Urban governance and the production of new state spaces in western Europe, 1960–2000. Review of International Political Economy, 11(3), 447–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brenner, N. (2009). Open questions on state rescaling. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 2(1), 123–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caponio, T. (2018). Immigrant integration beyond national policies? Italian cities’ participation in European city networks. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(12), 2053–2069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Città Metropolitana di Firenze. (2016). Verso un sistema di governance metropolitano: il modello Lione [Towards a metropolitan governance system: The Lyon model]. Florence: Città Metropolitana di Firenze.Google Scholar
  13. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am Sociol Rev, 48(2), 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dolowitz, D. P., & Marsh, D. (2000). Learning from abroad: The role of policy transfer in contemporary policy making. Governance, 13(1), 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Evans, M. (2019). International policy transfer: Between the global and sovereign and between the global and local. In D. Stone, & K. Moloney (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of global policy and transnational administration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Fricke, C. (2020a). The European dimension of metropolitan policies: Policy learning and reframing of metropolitan regions. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Fricke, C. (2020b). Implications of metropolitan policy mobility: Tracing the relevance of travelling ideas for metropolitan regions. In K. Zimmermann, D. Galland, & J. Harrison (Eds.), Metropolitan regions, planning and governance (pp. 115–130). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Galland, D., & Harrison, J. (2020). Conceptualising metropolitan regions: How institutions, policies, spatial imaginaries and planning are influencing metropolitan development. In K. Zimmermann, D. Galland, & J. Harrison (Eds.), Metropolitan regions, planning and governance (pp. 1–21). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hakelberg, L. (2014). Governance by diffusion: Transnational municipal networks and the spread of local climate strategies in Europe. Global Environmental Politics, 14(1), 107–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hambleton, R. (2016). English devolution: Learning lessons from international models of subnational governance. Research report for Local Government Association. https://www.local.gov.uk/english-devolution-learning-lessons-international-models-sub-national-governance. Acceded March 13, 2019.
  22. Hartley, J., & Allison, M. (2002). Good, better, best? Inter-organizational learning in a network of local authorities. Public Management Review, 4(1), 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heinelt, H., & Niederhafner, S. (2005). Cities and organized interest intermediation in the EU multi-level system. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung.Google Scholar
  24. Heinelt, H., & Kübler, D. (Eds.). (2005). Metropolitan governance: Capacity, democracy and the dynamics of place. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. IPSP [International Panel on Social Progress]. (2018). Rethinking society for the 21st century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. James, O., & Lodge, M. (2003). The limitations of ‘policy transfer’ and ‘lesson drawing’ for public policy research. Policy Studies Review, 1(2), 179–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jessop, B. (2008). State power. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  28. Keiner, M., & Arley, K. (2007). Transnational city networks for sustainability. European Planning Studies, 15(10), 1369–1395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kern, K., & Bulkeley, H. (2009). Cities, Europeanization and multi-level governance: Governing climate change through transnational municipal networks. Journal of Common Market Studies, 47(2), 309–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Koppenjan, J. F. M., & Klijn, E.-H. (2004). Managing uncertainties in networks. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. KPMG. (2010). City typology as the basis for policy: Towards a tailor-made approach to the benchmarking and monitoring of the energy and climate policy of cities. Amstelveen: KPMG.Google Scholar
  32. Labaeye, A., & Sauer, T. (2013). City networks and the socio-ecological transition: A European inventory. WWWforEurope Working Paper 27. Jena.Google Scholar
  33. Lovering, J. (1999). Theory led by policy: The inadequacies of the ‘new regionalism’ (illustrated from the case of Wales). International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 23(2), 379–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lütz, S. (2007). Policy-transfer und policy-diffusion [Policy transfer and policy diffusion]. In A. Benz, & N. Dose (Eds.), Handbuch governance [Handbook of governance] (pp. 132–143). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marsh, D., & Sharman, J. C. (2009). Policy diffusion and policy transfer. Policy Studies, 30(3), 269–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McCann, E. (2011). Urban policy mobilities and global circuits of knowledge: toward a research agenda. Annals of Association of American Geographers, 101(1), 107–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McGuire, M., & Agranoff, R. (2011). The limitations of public management networks. Public Administration, 89(2), 265–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Norris, D. F. (2001). Prospects for regional governance under the new regionalism: Economic imperatives versus political impediments. Journal of Urban Affairs, 23(5), 557–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. OECD. (2015). Governing the city. Paris: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. OECD. (2016). OECD territorial reviews: The metropolitan region of Rotterdam-The Hague, Netherlands. Paris: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Payre, R. (2010). The importance of being connected: City networks and urban government—Lyon and Eurocities (1990–2005). International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 34(2), 260–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Peck, J. (2011). Geographies of policy: from transfer-diffusion to mobility mutation. Progress in Human Geography, 35(6), 773–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12(3), 295–363.Google Scholar
  44. PwC. (2016). Cities of opportunity. New York: PwC.Google Scholar
  45. Robin, E., & Brill, F. (2018). The global politics of an urban age: creating ‘cities for all’ in the age of financialisation. Palgrave Communications, 4(3).  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-017-0056-6.
  46. Schmitt, P. (2020). Learning from elsewhere? A critical account on the mobilisation of metropolitan policies. In K. Zimmermann, D. Galland, & J. Harrison (Eds.), Metropolitan regions, planning and governance (pp. 77–93). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  47. Siemens. (2009). Sustainable urban infrastructures. Munich: Siemens.Google Scholar
  48. Siemens. (2011). German green city index. Munich: Siemens.Google Scholar
  49. Siemens. (2018). Toolkit for resilient cities. Munich: Siemens.Google Scholar
  50. Stone, D. (2004). Transfer agents and global networks in the ‘transnationalization’ of policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(3), 545–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stone, D. (2008). Global public policy, transnational policy communities, and their networks. Policy Studies Journal, 36(1), 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stone, D. (2012). Transfer and translation of policy. Policy Studies, 33(4), 483–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Straßheim, H. (2011). Netzwerkpolitik: Governance und Wissen im Administrativen Austausch [Network policy: Governance and knowledge in administrative exchange]. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  54. Straßheim, H. (2013). Vernetzung als lokale Krisenstrategie? Perspektiven der interpretativen Governance- und Verwaltungsforschung [Networking as a local crisis strategy? Perspectives of interpretive governance and administration research]. In M. Haus, & S. Kuhlmann (Eds.), Lokale Politik und Verwaltung im Zeichen der Krise? [Local politics and administration in the sign of the crisis?] (pp. 121–138). Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
  55. Theodore, N., & Peck, J. (2011). Framing neoliberal urbanism: Translating ‘commonsense’ urban policy across the OECD zone. European Urban and Regional Studies, 19(1), 20–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Urban Institute. (2018). Institutionalizing urban resilience: A midterm monitoring and evaluation report of 100 Resilient Cities. Washington DC: Urban Institute.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dortmund Technical UniversityDortmundGermany

Personalised recommendations