Keywords

Place-Based Urban Policies as Complex Multi-level Policy Mixes: Policy Levels, Dimensions and Integration

Policy integration and place-based approaches are commonly proposed as strategies to cope with the complexity of urban problems, due to their multi-scalar and transversal character, cross-cutting different policy sectors and government levels. Integrated strategies mean policy agendas with multiple goals across policy sectors, combining their policy instruments and involving public and non-public actors in governance arrangements and processes (Candel, 2019; Rayner & Howlett, 2009). In addition, the place-based approach is applied to concentrate policy interventions in specific territories. This territorial focus is justified to reduce the socio-spatial inequalities between urban spaces by providing ‘extra aid’ to disadvantaged urban places; for example, the traditional area-based approach in vulnerable neighbourhoods in the 1970s and 1980s (Carmon, 1997; Powell et al., 2001). Currently, this territorial focus means a more general place-based approach, oriented to recognise and incorporate territories’ heterogeneity as a relevant factor in policy design and implementation, as well as the evaluation of its effects (Méndez, 2013; McCann & Rodríguez-Pose, 2011).

This combination of policy integration and a territorial focus means that urban policies adopt the form of complex multi-level policy mixes, which apply a policy integration strategy (Navarro & Rodríguez-García, 2020). The multi-level character implies nested policy design and implementation across three different policy levels (policy frame, programme and local action plan), to specify substantive and procedural policy dimensions (goals and instruments). Policy integration means complementarities between policy dimensions across different policy sectors (their goals, policy theories defining implementation tools and typical governance processes regarding policy-making and implementation). This cross-level and cross-policy sector character, and its simultaneous implementation in different territorial settings, implies that this kind of initiative supposes complex policies (Howlett, 2009; Rogers, 2008).

The policy frame level includes the policy rationales, general problems to solve, overall aims and general implementation preferences (instruments, structures and actors). The programme level sets more concrete policy objectives and a repertory of substantive and procedural policy instruments defining a more specific policy frame. The local action plan introduces ‘calibrations’ to define concrete policy objectives and implementation tools. In the substantive dimension, these calibrations mean specific content and targeting specifications regarding the physical settings and groups of beneficiaries. In the procedural dimension, the policy tools to be employed and actors to be involved in governance and implementation processes are specified. Policy frame and programme levels are in charge of supra-municipal agencies; local plans are usually in charge of local authorities to ensure the place-based focus.Footnote 1

This nested structure implies a continuum in the planning process, from the general policy frame to the policy measures included in local plans, to ensure coherent multi-level policy planning and subsequent implementation. At the same time, the progressive specification of goals and instruments to specific socio-spatial contexts could introduce differences among programmes (in the same policy frame) and local plans (in the same programme). Therefore, these nested linkages need a ‘flexible multi-level coherence principle’ to reconcile multi-level and territorially focused orientations, and to ensure the policy compliance of local plans as regards policy frames. This principle also means local authorities design a specific strategy as the implementing agents of the urban policy—its policy frame—in a local setting. This could promote policy design inconsistencies across policy levels, different policy compliance levels across local settings or implementation deficits, as the traditional debate between top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation points out (Hill & Hupe, 2014).

Similar to other policies, integrated urban multi-level policy mixes should also establish relationships between their policy dimensions to ensure policy coherence and integration (Howlett & Rayner, 2013). Previous research on urban policies and governance, especially the policy sector approach, highlights the strong relationship between substantive and processual dimensions. However, research on policy integration, particularly the processual perspective, suggests a more independent relationship between them.

In brief, policy sectors are policy sub-systems that include issues with similar functional content, understood as the objective of a policy (Weible, 2010). According to the policy sector approach, different policy content promotes different policy and implementation styles, in terms of the ways in which government and its sectoral agencies make and implement policy. These styles mean differences in how policy problems are defined, the problem-solving approach applied and how the relationships between government and societal actors are established (Richardson, 1982; Freeman, 1985).

Moreover, policy sub-systems mean specific belief systems about the problems to solve, their causes and consequences, and the appropriate methods to deal with them. Policy sector content shapes an implementation logic; a rationale concerning the causes of the problems under intervention, the outcomes that can be attained and the policy instruments that will promote the appropriate causal processes to achieve them. Thus, each policy sector develops a particular implementation mode or ‘style’ based on policy theories to conceptualise policy problems and the proper policy tools and resources that will produce the behaviours or situations necessary to achieve the proposed policy goals. Thus, policy integration means that local plans should combine and promote interdependences between different policy instruments across policy sectors while achieving their multiple-goal agenda. In addition to traditional criteria regarding coherence between policy objectives and actions, integration also implies complementary effects between the implementation modes of different policy sectors participating in the local strategy, their policy theories and their policy tools (Howlett & Rayner, 2013).

The policy sector perspective also suggests that policy content shapes different policy networks and communities of actors (Jordan, 2005). Research on local governance has identified different models of urban governance coalitions or ‘governing coalitions’, as alliances of public and private actors supporting specific policy issues (Ramírez et al., 2008). The participation and influence within these coalitions depend on actors’ interest in the policy issue under discussion and the possession of key resources to include the issue in the policy agenda or to ensure its implementation. According to the policy sector approach, the relevance of actors’ interests and resources differs depending on the policy issues. Therefore, each policy sector promotes specific local governance processes and coalitions, such as the growth machine and urban regime models in development policies, or the progressive or communitarian partnerships in welfare policies. However, specific issues can enhance interconnections between different policies, by mobilising actors from different policy sectors and promoting more ‘hybrid coalitions’ crossing different policy domains (Navarro & Rodríguez-García, 2015a). These integrated-plural collaborations have been found in cultural policies that combine developmental and redistributive issues, integrated urban regeneration initiatives and sustainable development plans (Navarro, 2012; Navarro & Clark, 2012; Southern, 2002; Steurer, 2007).

In sum, based on the policy sector approach, policy content shapes the implementation style, the implementation logic (a policy theory based on policy tools and their causal processes) and governance coalitions (actors with shared interests and the relevant resources to promote or implement policies). Specifically, multiple-goal policy mixes should promote complementarities between different sectoral policy tools, and hybrid coalitions across policy sectors and government levels. Based on this idea from local governance literature and revisions of urban policies resembling the multi-level policy mix model—such as Carmon (1999), Roberts and Sykes (2000), Andersen and van Kempe (2003) or Zheng et al. (2014)—four main ideal types of policy frames could be defined according to the affinity between goals, the policy actions implemented and the governing coalitions supporting them: first, rehabilitating the city (urban space rehabilitation supported by the traditional growth machine to promote economic recovery), second, revitalising the neighbourhood (through policy actions in physical space and social inclusion supported by community partnerships to reduce socio-spatial inequalities), third, creating competitive urban spaces (economic development enhancing entrepreneurship supported by urban regime coalitions) and fourth, generating sustainable communities (more integrated policy agendas including environment and community cohesion through plural and hybrid coalitions) (Navarro, 2016, 2020).

Research on policy integration nevertheless suggests a more independent relationship between substantive and procedural dimensions (goals, policy tools and governance integration). The relative complexity of policy sectors before integration processes, their closeness in terms of the conception of policy problems, the policy tools to be used and the actors involved (interests, resources, etc.) could promote a different degree of success—or different timing—of policy integration in each policy dimension (and policy level). Even actors in more powerful sectoral policy communities could prefer the previous status quo between different policy sectors to the change that policy integration requires (Candel & Biesbroek, 2016, 2018; Rayner & Howlett, 2009). Thus, the policy integration strategy could be different across policy dimensions without the previously specified relationship between multiple goals and a more integrated implementation style based on complementarity of tools and hybrid governing coalitions. Policy content could also be shaped by the previous integration of policy tools or actors’ collaborations across different policy sectors. Therefore, the integrated strategy supposes a more complex relation between policy dimensions and components that the policy sector approach suggests: more goals across policy sectors do not mean more integration in substantive and processual dimensions, the policy integration strategy could show different levels—timing—in different policy dimensions, or even, the causal relationship could be from instruments to goals, instead from policy content to implementation style (Fig. 1.1).

Fig. 1.1
A conceptual framework represents the relations between different policy levels, dimensions, and components. It also includes the role of governmental authorities at different levels.

(Source Author’s own elaboration based on Navarro and Rodríguez-García [2020] and Navarro [2021])

Urban policies as integrated multi-level policy mixes: policy levels, policy dimensions and their relationships

Full size image

EU Urban Initiatives as Integrated Multi-Level Policy Mixes: Policy Frames, Institutions and Comparative Analysis to Examine Local Integrated Strategies

Since the 1990s, the EU has promoted the integral policy strategy to address urban problems, as a central element of the so-called urban dimension of the EU cohesion policy (Atkinson, 2014; Cotella, 2018). These initiatives focus on specific urban spaces, concentrating policy actions through policy integration regarding goals, policy tools and actors in multi-level governance processes. Therefore, these initiatives adopt the form of urban integrated multi-level policy mixes, implemented through local plans nested in a more general policy frame—in this case, the ECP (Navarro, 2020, 2021).

As part of the EU Cohesion Policy (hereinafter referred to as ECP), this urban dimension shares the three main policy principles of this policy: place-based, adaptability and additionality (McCann, 2015). First, the place-based approach means policy actions are concentrated in territories, instead of being sectoral, and are thus designed and implemented according to the challenges and potentialities in each socio-spatial context. Second, the adaptability principle means bottom-up processes, so that policies are designed and implemented at the local level and by local authorities according to the general policy framework established by the ECP (policy priorities, rules and instruments for implementation). Third, the additionality principle means initiatives and strategies supported by the cohesion policy should show their added value. Has the support of the EU produced results that would not have been achieved without it? Therefore, initiatives supported by the ECP should be evaluated to show their added value based on policy evidence about their effects.

The ECP urban dimension has at least three main policy levels in which policy goals and instruments are progressively specified to ensure place-based and adaptability principles simultaneously. First, the EU defines the general policy frame for the ECP urban dimension for each programming period of seven years. Second, national and regional operational programmes select and set more specific goals and implementation instruments, establishing a more detailed policy frame. Lastly, specific calibrations for the substantive and procedural dimensions regarding the targeted urban spaces are incorporated in local plans that are normally designed and implemented by local authorities.

The adaptability principle means that each policy level should be coherent with the previous one to respond to ECP goals, although progressive specifications in each policy level are needed to satisfy the place-based principle. The so-called ‘meso-level’ method proposed by the ECP shows the combining of bottom-up and top-down processes in policy design, implementation and evaluation in order to ensure local plans respond to EU goals through different strategies adapted to the territorial heterogeneity of Europe (Crescenzi & Rodríguez-Pose, 2011). Thus, local strategies should respond to ECP aims with enough flexibility to also respond to local circumstances. These strategies are designed and implemented to have effects in local communities. However, above all, they suppose the implementation of the ECP and respond (or should respond) to ECP aims (Blom-Hansen, 2005). Thus, this meso-level method could promote different levels of policy compliance of local plans regarding the ECP, as previous research on this issue has shown at national or regional levels (Zhelyazkova et al., 2016).

The second central characteristic of the ECP urban dimension is the use of the integration policy strategy since its first initiatives in the 1990s. Based on the implementation and results of the ‘experimental’ URBAN I Initiative, as the first EU programme specifically focused on urban areas, a method to address urban problems was ‘codified’ and incorporated into the ECP as regards urban spaces—the so-called URBAN Acquis (Atkinson, 2014). This method tries to enhance the integrated strategy through policy actions across different sectoral goals (physical space, and economic, social and environmental protection) focused on a specific urban territory and involving residents and socio-economic actors in decision-making processes (Carpenter, 2013). The main traits of this intervention method for urban spaces have remained the same since the 1990s. From the URBAN programme to sustainable urban development strategies through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) framework during the 2014–2020 programming period, the combination of the place-based approach and the integrated strategy has become normal for the urban dimension of the ECP (Fioretti et al., 2020).

Previous traits show the urban dimension of the ECP represents a good example of an urban initiative proposing local strategies as integrated multi-level policy mixes. Local strategies are nested within different policy levels and define complex policy portfolios that combine different aspects of their two policy dimensions across policy sectors. Thus, this analytical approach and its multi-scalar comparative method could be used to study variations in the policy design, implementation and effects of local strategies, because these show the actual character of the ECP urban dimension and the potential added value. In this regard, based on previous research into urban policies and governance, and the three policy levels previously mentioned, local plans (in terms of their policy dimensions) could vary according to at least three aspects that configure the ‘starting conditions’—or structure of opportunities—shaping the design, implementation and potential effects of local strategies: (1) Changes in the general policy frame between ECP programming periods and its influence in national programmes. (2) The institutional context regarding local/urban authorities and policies in member states (or regions). (3) The characteristics of local communities (targeted urban places). Some brief insights about these elements are presented in the following section.

The ECP Policy Frame for Urban Initiatives and Over-Time Comparisons: From ‘Neighbourhood Revitalisation’ to ‘Sustainable Communities’

The integrated and multi-level character of local policy mixes has been the core element of EU urban initiatives since the 1990s. However, around this core, some changes have been included in different programming periods, shaping different policy frames for the ECP urban dimension. Based on an analysis of primary documents about this urban dimension, as well as previous research on the issue, the more significant changes in each policy dimension are summarised in the following paragraphs (and Table 1.1). The changes could explain over-time differences in national programmes and local strategies as policy mixes (policy dimensions and inter-relationships).

Table 1.1 The ECP urban dimension: main policy frames across programming periods (1994–2020)
Full size table

The main goal of the current EU urban initiatives is to promote territorial cohesion and sustainable urban development. This goal means improving physical space, as well as economic, social, environmental and governance aspects, to enable more intelligent, inclusive and sustainable cities (Medeiros, 2016; Medeiros & Van der Zwet, 2019). Nevertheless, it was during the 2007–2014 programming period that governance, and significantly environmental sustainability, increased in importance as essential objectives compared with previous URBAN programmes (focused on space, economic, social and environmental protection). Moreover, the most recent programming period ending in 2020 incorporated new goals into local strategies regarding digitalisation and innovation, as well as a greater emphasis on environmental sustainability concerning climate change. The policy frame has thus expanded its scope, shaping a more comprehensive policy agenda across different policy sectors. However, this could also be interpreted as a change towards a greater emphasis on economic development and competitiveness over other goals, or at least less emphasis on urban inequalities in the first initiatives in the 1990s in the framework of a more general shift away from the idea of convergence and towards competitiveness in ECP (McCann, 2015; Zimmerman & Atkinson, 2021).

Changes in the characteristics and scale of potential territorial targets could also inform about changes in the policy frame. The territorial target in former URBAN initiatives was disadvantaged neighbourhoods in major cities. Since 2007, this has also applied to infra-municipal areas with specific problems (thus, not necessarily those with a concentration of poverty and social exclusion); since 2014, municipalities or functional urban areas (the EU proxy for metropolitan areas) have also become eligible targets. The policy frame has thus changed its territorial focus on deprived neighbourhoods—a central aspect of the traditional area-based initiatives promoted to balance urban socio-spatial inequalities—to a more general place-based approach regarding the heterogeneity of urban places across Europe.Footnote 2

Integration among policy actions across policy sectors and multi-level and participative governance processes remain as the main implementation preferences. However, changes regarding goals and territorial targets could also promote changes in the implementation logic and coalitions in local strategies. First, new goals could mean the inclusion of new issues or even new policy sectors in the policy agenda of urban initiatives, and thus the inclusion of their typical belief systems, methods and policy tools previously not included in the EU policy frame and the policy mix of local strategies. New implementation strategies must accordingly enhance integration between more traditional and recent policy tools.

Second, the increasing scope of EU urban initiatives could promote more extensive ‘hybrid’ coalitions across new policy sectors, incorporating new criteria regarding mutual relevance, and participation and influence in governance coalitions. New and more actors with different resources and interests increase the collective actions dilemmas behind urban governance processes. This requires the adoption of new governance arrangements to promote collaboration and coordination among actors from the policy sectors involved (Navarro, 2010; Navarro & Rodríguez-García, 2015b).

Lastly, the change in the scale of territorial targets could also promote changes in implementation logic and coalitions, especially regarding strategies focused on functional urban areas. This territorial target also adds new elements to the collective action dilemma that urban governance supposes (such as more actors, the heterogeneity of their preferences and even implementation styles and organisational cultures). The need for coordination between neighbouring municipalities implies new and different collective action dilemmas to solve, and therefore new forms of institutional arrangement and governing coalitions, as indicated by the collective institutional action approach (Post, 2004). With regard to these new dilemmas, two new policy instruments have been proposed since 2014 in the EU policy frame for urban initiatives: the Integrated Territorial Investment (ITI) for strategies targeting functional urban areas, and the Community-Led Local Development (CLLD) targeting more localised strategies based on active community involvement (European Commission, 2015; Tosic, 2020).

Institutional Context and Local Conditions: On Cross-Sectional Comparisons

Between the ECP policy frame and local strategies, member states and regional socio-economic and institutional ‘filters’ could also explain differences between local strategies in terms of design implementation and effects, as research about ECP at the regional level has shown. Moreover, comparative studies on urban policies and governance indicate the importance of institutional contexts in explaining urban policy content, implementation processes and governance coalitions. Based on this research, three institutional filters between the ECP policy frame and local strategies could be briefly mentioned (Navarro & Guerrero-Mayo, 2022).

First is the local government system in each member state (and their regional variations in federal and quasi-federal systems). Traditional studies of local government systems have identified different models across Europe (and other world regions). These are specific institutional contexts that define the institutional capabilities of local governments (Sellers, 2002). Different proposals and empirical studies exist with regard to the influence of local government models—and their specific dimensions—on various aspects of local government and policies. These studies have shown their relevance in explaining the relationship between political and administrative leadership, the policy agenda (goals), the configuration of different governance networks and coalitions or their effects on socio-spatial inequalities (Bäck et al., 2006; Mouritzen & Svara, 2002; Sellers et al., 2017).

These institutional contexts also influence the relationship between the two policy dimensions of urban policies indicated by the policy sectors approach. Local government systems explain the differences in policy instruments to manage local administrative processes and provide public services, but similar policy content can rely on different means of service delivery in different local government systems (Mouritzen, 1992). This institutional context also moderates the relationship between policy goals and alliances with specific actors in governance processes posed by the policy sector perspective (Navarro et al., 2008). Local institutional capacities in specific policy sectors also explain the existence of ‘intergovernmental governance coalitions’, including supra-municipal public agencies with local government and socio-economic actors (Navarro & Rodríguez-García, 2015a).

With regard to EU urban initiatives, this institutional approach could therefore help to explain differences in goals, intervention logic and governance coalitions, as well as their relationships in local plans, as shown by previous research on local strategies in different member states (Chorianopoulus, 2002; Doria et al., 2016; Tofarides, 2003). In this regard, urban planning traditions are also a specific institutional factor affecting urban policies and their governance processes. Different planning traditions exist in the EU according to their scope across policy sectors and the role of local authorities. For instance, local authorities have an essential role in the ‘urban planning’ tradition, but the policy scope is narrow (mainly urban spatial planning). However, the ‘integrated’ tradition also includes economic and social issues in the framework of multi-level collaborative processes between local and supra-local authorities. These differences promote different policy agendas, tools and governance processes (Farinós, 2006; Nadín & Stead, 2008). Therefore, these traditions also shape different institutional opportunities to define and implement urban initiatives as integrated multi-level policy mixes (Nadin et al., 2021).

The contemporary concern about urban problems in the political agenda of national states and the spread of the UN Urban Agenda has promoted an increasing trend towards approving national urban policies (NUP). The EU also shows a heterogeneous situation concerning this issue. Some countries have had explicit and consolidated urban policies since the 1990s. More recently, some countries have approved explicit national urban policies or similar processes (the so-called ‘urban agendas’), whereas other countries only have initial processes regarding this policy. However, urban national policies or their proxies as ‘national urban agendas or strategies’ also vary in their sectoral scope (Armondi & DeGregorio, 2020; van der Burg et al., 1998; Zimmerman & Fedeli, 2021).Footnote 3 Thus, the institutionalisation, policy scope and implementation preferences set in national urban policies could shape the design, implementation and effects of integrated urban strategies promoted by the EU (Fedeli et al., 2021) (Table 1.2).

Table 1.2 A multi-scalar perspective to analyse EU integrated urban strategies as complex multi-level policy mixes
Full size table

These three ‘filters’ and their relationships accordingly suppose an institutional context that shapes different opportunity structures for the design, implementation and effects of local strategies. Nevertheless, the place-based approach means that local strategies should respond to challenges and opportunities in the local community in addition to previous institutional contextual factors (Kotzebue, 2016). These ‘local starting conditions’ include spatial, economic, social and environmental aspects, as well as collective capacities in society and public administrations (associative ecologies, social capital, policy capacities or previous experiences defining and implementing similar urban policies and initiatives). Some analyses concerning EU urban initiatives have also shown how these conditions shape the policy design, implementation and outcomes of local plans; for instance, the difference between historical districts and peripheral disadvantaged neighbourhoods or between large and medium-sized cities (Navarro, 2016; Navarro & Rodríguez-García, 2015b).

On EU Urban Integrated Initiatives Evaluation and Added Value: Better Urban Policies and Better Urban Places to Live

The ECP additionality principle means that evaluation processes are needed to demonstrate the specific outcomes and effects of the ECP urban dimension (McCann, 2015). The research agenda on ECP at the regional level has analysed its effects in terms of the improvement produced in two main areas or ‘added value aspects’: policy-making and quality of life (Mairate, 2006; van der Zwet & Ferry, 2016).

With regard to urban initiatives, two main added value aspects could be established: better urban policies and better urban places to live. ECP tries to promote new and better institutional arrangements and policy capacities to increase the quality of policy design and implementation of urban strategies, being one of the most important goals in the current design of the Urban Agenda for the European Union. Better urban policies could be understood as better design and implementation of urban policies, and specifically, the spread of the ‘EU urban integrated model’ across member states, regions and—above all—local authorities, as these usually design and implement urban initiatives in the framework of the ECP. This is, for instance, the goal of the research agenda on the ‘Europeanisation’ of urban policies (Hamedinger & Wolffhardt, 2010). Based on this idea, the added value could be understood as the ‘policy compliance’ of local strategies to the notion of good policy design and the main traits of the integrated strategy applied to multi-level policy mixes. Are goals, policy actions and governance processes well designed? Do the goals and implementation style in local plans show that the integrated approach is being applied? Is the integral approach adopted at the same level and simultaneously in these two policy dimensions of local plans? To answer these questions, a conceptual framework is needed to define a ‘good plan’ and ‘the integrated strategy’ at the local policy level. Then, a research strategy is required to provide answers in terms of policy evidence based on empirical findings at this scale.

The second added value implies that EU urban initiatives should improve the living conditions of residents in targeted territories and, as an aggregate effect, should help to reduce socio-spatial inequalities among urban spaces (at least in the more ‘neighbourhood revitalising’ policy frame before 2014). This has been an essential issue on the research agenda concerning ECP added value at the regional level. However, few proposals and little policy evidence exist with regard to the impact on targeted urban spaces, and therefore on the urban dimension of the ECP.

Moreover, in the study of the ECP urban dimension, ‘better urban policies’ (or added value I) have been paid more attention than the study of ‘better urban places’ (or added value II) in ex-post evaluations made about URBAN I, URBAN II and urban initiatives implemented in the 2007–2013 programming period, and the analysis of added value for the 2014–2020 programming period. These evaluations provide detailed information about aspects of the design and, above all, the implementation process and their added value. However, they do not include (or they include very little) policy evidence about the added value II. Networks promoted by URBACT have also focused on policy design and implementation, offering a detailed array of instruments with which to design and implement better integrated urban initiatives. Lastly, academic literature has also been more focused on added value I than on added value II. There are few analyses providing policy evidence about the impact of EU urban initiatives on the living conditions of residents in targeted territories, and the main results show moderate or no effects (Armstrong et al., 2002; Navarro et al., 2016).

These results are similar to evaluative exercises made on other similar place-based urban initiatives (Rae, 2011; Thomson, 2008). Some potential explanations for these results have already been discussed in ECP evaluations at the regional level (Batchtler & Wren, 2006), or other similar area-based initiatives These include the non-definition of policy theory for programmes linking policy actions and goals (expected results), the lack of an adequate comparison between intervened and non-intervened urban areas, or the failure to determine the exposure degree of different social groups or actors to different kinds of interventions (policy tools) included in these multi-objective initiatives. Lastly, the short time between the final implementation of local projects and their evaluation.

First, ECP establishes a general policy frame that member states and local authorities should adapt to their realities. However, this adaptation means a specific policy theory that should serve as a reference for implementation and evaluation; that is, the causal processes that link policy actions with their expected objectives (Rogers, 2008). Most of the case studies and assessments made or commissioned by the EU do not provide this policy theory. For instance, the ex-post evaluation of URBAN II indicates that a logical relationship between the problems and the action strategy only exists in around half of the 15 examined case studies (EC, 2010). Even in these cases, the relationships are not specified and used as a reference to evaluate the effects of projects. The ex-post evaluation of the 2007–2013 period indicates that despite the diversity of problems to be addressed and the sectoral policy actions included in projects, in most of them, the focus was sectoral and targets were broadly and not well-defined (mainly as ‘population in the target area’) (EC, 2016). Broadly, the analysis of the structural funds between 1995 and 2010 or the ex-post evaluation of Objective 2 (1994–1999) evidence that the logic linking proposed actions and their expected effects was never entirely clear, making it difficult to evaluate their effects (Armstrong & Wells, 2006; Baslé, 2006; Gaffey, 2013).

Second, ex-post evaluations show changes in the achievement levels of established objectives, measuring effectiveness, or in some cases, efficiency. However, these studies did not specify ‘controlled comparisons’ with similar urban areas to assess their effect through an appropriate research design, such as quasi-experimental, theory-driven comparative case studies or similar approaches (EC, 2003, 2010, 2016). These research strategies have been adopted to analyse the effect of the EUCP at the regional level (Batchtler & Wren, 2006; Bondonio & Greenbaum, 2006; EC, 2016; McCann, 2015). However, their use to evaluate the effect of urban strategies at the level of their territorial targets (neighbourhoods or specific urban areas) is uncommon.

Third, evaluative exercises usually analyse changes in the entire resident population or collective agents in neighbourhoods (for example, companies, institutions or civic associations). However, the exposure to local plans could differ for different residents or agents, depending on the policy actions implemented (Armstrong et al., 2002; Navarro, 2021). This issue relates to the non-definition of the policy theory. On the one hand, policy exposure depends on the targeting processes in policy measures. On the other, policy exposure also depends on neighbourhood exposure to the mechanisms explaining its effect as an opportunity structure for residents. However, different social groups have differing exposure to neighbourhoods in line with their socio-demographics, lifestyles or residential mobility. Therefore, evaluations should specify policy exposure to provide evidence about effects.

Lastly, in some cases, the effect of local strategies is only visible after a medium or long period from their implementation. This mainly applies to policy actions using policy tools that require changes in skills, capabilities or lifestyles. Unlike policy tools based on inducements or physical urban interventions, the effect of these ‘capacity building tools’ are more evident in the long term (McDonnel & Elmore, 1987).

In sum, policy evidence about the added value of the ECP urban dimensions is more focused on added value I (better urban policies) than on added value II (better urban places). However, in both cases, comparative evidence at the level of local strategies from a comparative perspective is lacking and—again, above all—with regard to their effect in terms of added value II shaping better urban places.

The Spanish Case: An Opportunity for the Comparative Analysis of EU Urban Integrated Strategies and Their Added Value

This book aims to provide policy evidence about these two aspects of added value at the local level based on the Spanish case. The urban initiatives promoted by the EU have been implemented in Spain ever since the first initiatives in the 1990s. First, four pilot URBAN projects between 1989 and 1993. Between 1993 and 2006, 42 projects in cities with up to 100,000 inhabitants and some provincial capitals were implemented in the framework of URBAN initiatives (32 in URBAN I and 10 in URBAN II). In the 2007–2013 programming period, 46 cities did so through the URBANA Initiative, a programme launched by the Spanish Government through operational programmes that continued the logic of the integrated urban strategy in urban neighbourhoods. Currently, 174 EDUSI (sustainable and integrated urban development strategy) projects (local strategies) are being implemented at different urban scales in the 2014–2020 period.

These figures, provided by the Urban Initiatives Network (Government of Spain)—an initiative launched to coordinate and promote the study, design, implementation and evaluation of EU-funded urban projects—show the importance and institutionalisation of the EU proposals in Spain.Footnote 4 This has also been illustrated by research based on legal and programme documentation and case studies (i.e. Carpenter et al., 2020; DeGregorio, 2017, 2018). It further offers an excellent opportunity to analyse and evaluate this strategy at the level of its territorial target, specifically with regard to the two main aforementioned expected aspects of added value.

There is information about the design, implementation and output of local strategies implemented in the framework of the URBAN I, URBAN II and URBANA programmes. However, only about local plans designed under the EDUSI programme. Therefore, it is possible to analyse the 1994–2013 period covering three programming periods and a relevant change in policy frames (Table 1.3). First, the URBAN I and URBAN II programmes apply integral urban regeneration processes focused on deprived neighbourhoods. Second, the URBANA programme uses the integrated urban development approach in declining urban areas, with slightly more emphasis on competitiveness and environmental issues. Lastly, the EDUSI programme increases the scope of policy agenda and territorial targets, in that there are new priorities concerning digitalisation and climate change, municipalities and functional urban areas in addition to specific urban spaces (neighbourhoods), not necessarily in a vulnerable situation. In sum, the transition from URBAN to URBANA programmes means a shift in policy frames from integrated urban regeneration resembling the traditional area-based initiatives focused on neighbourhood revitalisation, to integrated urban development initiatives closer to the ‘generation competitive urban spaces’ framework. The EDUSI programme introduces the sustainable urban development framework.

Table 1.3 The urban dimension of ECP in Spain (1993–2020): programmes and policy frames
Full size table

Analysing all the implemented local plans allows for comparative analysis beyond the documentation or data of policy programmes at the national level, or specific analyses of good practice and case studies. This extensive analysis provides other—and complementary—evidence about the nature and expected added value of the EU urban initiatives that are not common in the literature about such initiatives. Applying this approach, the chapters in Part I of the current book aim to provide policy evidence about added value I (better urban policies) by applying the comparative urban policy portfolios approach (CUPPA) (Navarro & Rodríguez-García, 2020). The analysis will focus on over-time comparisons between programmes under different policy frames to show the relevance of this contextual factor in local strategies and their change (Table 1.4). Do different policy frames promote different local strategies? Do more recent local plans have better policy design and compliance regarding the integrated strategy? The research strategy and questions are presented in Chapter 2 as an introduction to Part I.

Table 1.4 A plan to study the added value of ECP urban dimensions at the level of local strategies and territorial targets
Full size table

The second part of the book is devoted to analysing added value II, paying attention to the policy theory behind the programmes and other theoretical proposals based on previous research into urban change and policies. Policy evidence is provided by applying ‘controlled comparisons’ through quasi-experimental and comparative case studies. We compare trajectories of change between pre and post-intervention periods in ‘experimental’ and ‘control’ neighbourhoods with regard to different indexes measuring potential programme outcomes (Table 1.4). We intentionally use data sources than could exist across Europe (census data or surveys covering European countries), as this means that analyses are potentially replicable in other countries. Nevertheless, using these sources also implies certain limitations, such as their content and the level of territorial aggregation they can access, conditioning the methodological design and analysis that can be carried out. These limitations are indicated in each case. The research strategy and questions are detailed in Chapter 7 as an introduction to Part II.

The main results according to the specific research question proposed are summarised in the concluding chapter, as well as a discussion about more general issues introduced in the current chapter concerning the Spanish case and the multi-scalar comparative strategy needed to study local integrated strategies as multi-level policy mixes in the framework of ECP.