Keywords

Introduction

Changes in municipal reality due to the so-called Great Recession led, among other things, to renewed interest in innovation in urban policies. In the 1970s and 80s, also because of a severe urban crisis, innovation experiences were developed, focusing on new approaches to management and service delivery, with discussions focusing mainly on the proposals of the so-called New Public Management. However, the innovations that emerged during the most recent urban crisis present at least two common elements: on the one hand, a shift away from a sectoral perspective to an integrated approach to understand the complexity of urban problems; and on the other, the increasing attention to ‘bottom-up’ initiatives, which emerge through participative and social innovation processes (MacCallun et al., 2009; Navarro et al., 2019; Parés et al., 2017).

In response to the complexity of urban problems, new urban initiatives try to apply an integrated perspective. On the one hand, recognising that urban problems are interrelated and that their possible solutions must be based on the integration of action developed from different policy sectors (Candel & Biesbroek, 2016). On the other hand, considering the need to establish hybrid forms of governance, collaboration processes between institutional and non-institutional stakeholders at different scales, who are typically involved in governance processes of specific public policy sectoral domains (Navarro & Rodríguez, 2016), and including new kinds of stakeholders and more open participation to facilitate the inclusion of citizens initiatives through deliberative processes (Pastor, 2017).

These trends towards policy integration in urban policies are also guiding principles of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2015, particularly in the New Urban Agenda and the European Union’s Urban Agenda. In this case, however, this is not so much a recent innovation but rather the consolidation of the integrated urban development strategy with which, for instance, the European Union had ‘experimented’ through the URBAN Initiative and which has been incorporated as the urban mainstreaming of the European Union’s Cohesion Policy (Carpenter, 2006; Ferry et al., 2018; Fioretti et al., 2020).

To what extent did the URBAN projects developed in Spain incorporate this innovation? To what extent has this incorporation become broader in the subsequent URBANA Initiative? In this chapter, we will provide some evidence about these questions. After a brief definition of the integrated strategy promoted by the EU, a measurement proposal is made. Then, projects design are analysed to provide policy evidence about their integratedness, their level of policy integration, and changes between these two programmes.

Integrated Urban Development as Urban Policy Innovation in the European Union and Spain

The implementation of an integrated urban development strategy has been the common orientation of urban policies promoted by the European Union since the URBAN Initiative, whose legacy, the so-called ‘URBAN Acquis’, or ‘URBAN technology’, established the three broad features of this strategy that were, and even today would be considered innovations in urban policies: the formulation of a transversal agenda that interlinks different areas or sectors of public policy; the establishment of multi-level governance processes in terms of the role played by institutional stakeholders and local socio-economic agents in the governance of projects; as well as the participation of the latter in their formulation and subsequent development (De Gregorio, 2010; Gutiérrez, 2010; Urban-Future, 2005). This ‘technology’ was also applied in the URBANA Initiative (De Gregorio, 2017). Regardless of the incorporation of environmental sustainability, showing a policy frame closer to ‘sustainable communities’ complementing the more classic ‘neighbourhood revitalisation’ (see Chapter 4), the integration strategy is a central aspect of both programmes. URBAN and URBANA show the change from ‘integrated neighbourhood regeneration’ to ‘integrated urban development’ ideas (Navarro, 2021a, 2021b).

Do the projects in URBAN and URBANA Initiatives adopt this innovation included in their policy frames? In particular, has any learning process in this regard? The experience gained during the development of URBAN projects could have generated learning in the application of ‘URBAN technology’. Therefore, projects under the URBANA Initiative should have incorporated this innovative strategy further. The work carried out within the framework of exchange networks between agents involved in these projects through European initiatives (such as URBACT) or the Urban Network Initiatives promoted by the Spanish government might also have had a positive influence in this regard.

However, such technology can take place regardless of the degree of diversity of policy sectors included in the policy agenda of projects. Thus, incorporating environmental sustainability into the URBANA Initiative should increase their diversity compared with URBAN projects as a policy-frame effect derived from the sectoral contents of each programme. A policy-learning effect means a greater degree of policy integration between different policy sectors and stakeholders, not a higher degree of diversity in the policy agenda of local projects. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish between diversity and integration should be differentiated in order to differentiate between policy-frame and policy-learning effects.

Measuring the EU ‘Urban Acquis’: Policy Diversity, Integration, and Participation

As an element of the CUPPA approach, specific scales have been designed to study diversity, integration, and participation as central aspects of the integrated strategy proposed by the EU for urban initiatives. These measures have been applied to analyse the document of the design of projects. Therefore, results will show the level of diversity, integration, and participation planned.Footnote 1

Agenda diversity measures the presence of the main five public policy areas of the Reference Framework for Sustainable Cities defined by the EU in project diagnosis, objectives, and actions (territory, economy, welfare, environment, and governance/participation). Therefore, the maximum degree of diversity exists when all five areas appear in all three aspects. A scale is elaborated for each element (diagnosis, objectives, and actions), and then these scales have been aggregated into a summative scale. Therefore, agenda diversity measures comprehensiveness across the main dimensions proposed by the idea of sustainable urban development, similar to the suggestion made by Medeiros and Van Der Zwet (2020). Instead, agenda integration measures the interdependence between policy sectors in project diagnosis, objectives, and activities planned. Specifically, we establish a continuum between two poles: a policy sector plays a central role through which other areas are articulated (minimum value of integration among them), or there is an interdependence between all areas included in the project (maximum value of integration). Therefore, the agenda integration scale tries to measure if projects define a combination of coherent and congruent objectives and instruments consistent with one another (Briassoulis, 2004; Candel & Biesbroek, 2016; Cejudo & Michel, 2017; Rayner & Howlett, 2009). The integration scale is computed as the average of integration scales in project diagnosis, objectives, and policy actions planned.

Governance—or stakeholders—integration examines whether the mechanisms designed to ensure project governance pivot around the government and local administration or assign a similar role to other actors through collaborative processes with other administrative levels (vertical governance) or through a balanced articulation between institutional and local stakeholders (horizontal governance). More integration means multi-level governance processes that include vertical and horizontal governance processes (Farinós, 2008; Rogge & Reichardt, 2016). Stakeholder integration is the average of three items measuring governance integration during the project planning process, the implementation plan, and the constitution of its governing and management bodies. Therefore, the presence of different stakeholders is not measured but rather the ability of these stakeholders to influence projects. Instead, governance—or stakeholders—diversity considers the presence of different sectors of local political society in the project governing and management bodies. Based on the proposal made by Rodríguez-García and Navarro (2016) to analyse local governance processes from a comparative perspective, these sectors are municipal administration (departments, agencies, etc.), supra-municipal levels of government, political parties, trade unions, businesses, and civic associations. The highest level of diversity would be that in which all these sectors are present. Finally, the participation scale sum three items referring to the participation of local agents in different moments of the project planning process: diagnosis elaboration, discussion to propose project objectives, and decisions to define and design policy actions. The three items analyse whether project design documentation includes vague statements about local stakeholders’ participation (the minimum value for each item) or specifies the participatory mechanism used and which stakeholders have participated in them (the maximum degree of participation).

Levels of Policy Integration, Diversity, and Participation in Local Projects

Overall, levels of integration and diversity are low. However, the second is higher than the first one (Fig. 5.1). Only agenda diversity shows a value clearly above the mid-point on the scale (average equal to 0.77) and slightly higher than the mid-point in the case of agenda integratedness (average equal to 0.56). The values are even lower for the diversity of stakeholders present in governance bodies and processes and stakeholders’ integration as a shared influence on decisions about the project (averages equal to 0.38 and 0.48, respectively). Therefore, projects tend to show more diversity than integration, and both aspects are higher for agenda than governance processes. However, the indicator regarding the participation of local stakeholders yields the lowest values.

Fig. 5.1
A graph is plotted for different diversities and integration of agenda, governance, and governance diversity.

(Mean values on scales [0–1] and confidence intervals [CI90%]. Source Own elaboration based on Urban Impact Projects databases)

Policy integration, diversity, and participation in URBAN and URBANA projects

Full size image

But are there differences according to the programme? Integration and diversity are higher among projects in the URBANA Initiative than among those in the URBAN Initiative, except for stakeholders’ diversity (Fig. 5.2). However, the standardised differences between the two programmes (the effect size) show that significant effects only exist for the agenda integration index. Based on the effect size value, around 73% of URBANA Initiative projects present a level of agenda integration higher than the average of URBAN Initiative projects (g = 0.622). In addition, there is a moderate effect on agenda diversity and stakeholder integration. The 60–65% of URBANA projects are more diverse in their agenda and have more integrated governance processes than URBAN projects (g equal to 0.368 and 0.270, respectively). However, the difference is not statistically significant (for p < 0,10; see Fig. 5.2).

Fig. 5.2
A graph is plotted for different diversities and integration of agenda, governance, and governance diversity.

(Effect size [Hedges’g] and confidence intervals [CI90%]. Note Higher values mean a favourable difference for URBANA vs. URBAN. Source Own elaboration based on Urban Impact Projects databases)

Policy integration, diversity, and participation: differences between URBAN and URBANA projects

Full size image

These results could mean that some policy-learning effects exist, especially regarding policy sectors in the policy agenda of projects. Analyses could also show that diversity and integration are two different dimensions of the projects and that agenda integration and governance integration in the projects might not be related. The correlation between agenda integration and diversity indicates these aspects are related but different phenomena (r = 0.37), the same for governance integration and diversity (r = 0.32). This relationship is stronger among URBANA projects, although the difference is only statistically significant for the policy agenda of projects (Table 5.1).

Table 5.1 Association between diversity and integration in URBAN and URBANA projects (Correlations)
Full size table

To what extent do agenda and governance integration come together? The correlation between them is moderate (r = 0.40), although it is higher for URBAN than URBANA projects (r equal to 0.61 and 0.27, respectively). Therefore, although there has been some learning regarding agenda integration (Fig. 5.2), the URBANA Initiative projects show a lower level of coherence between these two integration dimensions (agenda and governance) than the projects developed under the URBAN Initiative.

Towards a Sustainable and Integrated Urban Strategy?: Something More Than Diversity or a Balance Between Different Sustainable Development Goals

Although so-called ‘URBAN technology’ implies the development of an innovative intervention strategy within the framework of urban policies, the results show that, in general, it does not seem to have been a widespread strategy among the projects developed within the framework of the URBAN and URBANA Initiatives in Spain. Their agendas and governance processes are diverse, but they show a low level of integration. Despite the diversity of projects policy agendas, it does not seem to be designed from an integrated perspective considering the interdependencies and complementarities among the different sectoral problems, objectives, and policy actions that projects include. As regards governance processes, although different types of stakeholders are involved, governance processes seem to remain largely in the hands of the municipal administration, implying a low capacity to promote integrated governance processes in both vertical and horizontal dimensions (a higher degree of integration about projects decisions).

The integrated strategy in public policies aims to ensure that its interactions and complementation (between policy issues and actors involved) enable the achievement of broader objectives that overcome the fragmentation of the traditional approach to urban policies based on sectoral interventions. To achieve this goal, policy design and implementation should stress complementarity and synergies between problems, objectives, and instruments; as well as multi-level and intersectoral collaborations (Bali et al., 2021; Cunill-Grau, 2014; Howlett & Rayner, 2011). The sustainable and integrated model proposed by the EU implies diversity to promote a balanced development across different policy sectors or dimensions defining sustainable development, but it also means some degree of policy integration as a crucial strategy to ensure this goal for cities.

Therefore, diversity and integration are different concepts and aspects of the EU proposal for urban policies, albeit related, and must be analysed separately and differently. Developing different measurement instruments for these two aspects within the same projects has made it clear that project diversity does not necessarily imply greater innovation in terms of a more integrated strategy. This has also enabled comparative policy evidence about differences between projects in different programmes; in our case, it provides policy evidence about the existence of learning processes between the URBAN and the URBANA Initiatives.

In this regard, the results show no significant differences between URBAN and URBANA projects concerning governance processes (in terms of their diversity or their integration). However, the second one shows more diversity and integration in their policy agendas. The slight difference in agenda diversity could be explained by the change in policy frames from ‘neighbourhood improvement’ to ‘sustainable communities’, because the URBANA Initiative more explicitly incorporates content related to environmental sustainability (as shown in Chapter 4). However, the difference in the levels of agenda integration could be related to a learning effect generated between the two initiatives. Despite this, although the implementation of the integrated strategy was less intense among URBAN projects, their projects seem to have incorporated it more coherently by doing so simultaneously in their content and governance processes.

Have there been changes between the URBAN and URBANA Initiatives? Have any lessons been learned in this regard? The answer should be yes, particularly as regards their agendas. However, the results show that the third element of the urban integrated strategy proposed by the EU, the mechanisms and processes to foster public participation in projects, presents low levels and shows no evidence of learning when comparing the two initiatives. Therefore, projects have adopted the sustainable framework proposed by the EU (a more diverse agenda). Still, the adoption of the integrated strategy and the impact of policy-learning effects on it is less clear.