Dealing with Risks: A Governance Perspective on Santiago de Chile

  • Corinna Hölzl
  • Henning Nuissl
  • Carolin Höhnke
  • Michael Lukas
  • Claudia Rodriguez Seeger
Chapter

Abstract

Governance is required to manage risks that occur in the course of urban development, but it can also become a source of risk. For this reason, sustainable urban development presupposes knowledge on governance-driven risks. In gathering such knowledge, this chapter combines empirical material, research results and conceptual considerations from different sources: firstly, the findings we obtained from an empirical study of stakeholders in Santiago; secondly, observations we made on how the governance matters of decentralization, privatization, participation and informality (outlined in Chap. 5) actually fall into place in Santiago; thirdly, our reflections on the key tasks in various urban policy fields (cf. Chaps. 6–13 ). In sum, as crucial sources of – governance-driven – risks, we can identify the extensive power of the private sector and clientelism, over-centralization and coordination deficits, the predominance of technocratic and neoliberal thinking, and low civil society engagement. Finally, we come up with recommendations on how to deal with these risks. They include an increase in private sector regulations, facilitation of multi-level governance strategies, empowerment of civil society and transformation of the political culture in Chile.

Keywords

Governance-driven risks Stakeholders Policy recommendations Multi-level governance Political culture 

References

  1. Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. AIP Journal, 35(4), 216–224.Google Scholar
  2. Borja, J., & Castells, M. (2003). Local and global. The management of cities in the information age (4th ed.). London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  3. Brenner, N. (2003). Metropolitan institutional reform and the rescaling of state space in contemporary Western Europe. European Urban and Regional Studies, 10(4), 297–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chuaqui, T., & Valdivieso, P. (2004). Una ciudad en busca de un gobierno: Una propuesta para Santiago. Revista de Ciencia Política, 24(1), 104–127.Google Scholar
  5. Cleuren, H. (2007). Local democracy and participation in post-authoritarian Chile. European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies, 83, 3–18.Google Scholar
  6. De Mattos, C. (2005). Santiago de Chile: Metamorfosis bajo un nuevo impulso de modernización capitalista. In C. De Mattos, M. E. Ducci, A. Rodríguez, & G. Yánez (Eds.), Santiago en la globalización: ¿una nueva ciudad? (pp. 17–46). Santiago: SUR-EURE libros.Google Scholar
  7. Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Ducci, M. E. (2000). Governance, urban environment, and the growing role of civil society. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars.Google Scholar
  9. Ducci, M. E. (2004). Las batallas urbanas de principios del tercer milenio. In C. De Mattos, M. E. Ducci, A. Rodríguez, & G. Yánez (Eds.), Santiago en la globalización: ¿una nueva ciudad? (pp. 137–166). Santiago: SUR-EURE libros.Google Scholar
  10. Greaves, E. (2004). Municipality and community in Chile: Building imagined civic communities and its impact on the political. Politics & Society, 32(2), 203–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Häder, M., & Häder, S. (Eds.). (2000). Die Delphi-Technik in den Sozialwissenschaften. Methodische Forschungen und innovative Anwendungen. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  12. Healey, P. (2007). Urban complexity and spatial strategies: Towards a relational planning for our times. The RTPI Library Series. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Heinelt, H., & Kübler, D. (2005a). Metropolitan governance: Capacity, democracy and the dynamics of place. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Heinelt, H., & Kübler, D. (2005b). Conclusion. In H. Heinelt & D. Kübler (Eds.), Metropolitan governance: Capacity, democracy and the dynamics of place (pp. 188–201). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Heinrichs, D., Lukas, M., & Nuissl, H. (2011). Privatisation of the fringes – a Latin American version of post-suburbia? The case of Santiago de Chile. In N. Phelps & F. Wu (Eds.), International perspectives on suburbanization: A post-suburban world? London: Palgrave-MacMillan (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  16. Hölzl, C., & Nuissl, H. (2010). Governance in Santiago de Chile – Stakeholder prospects for the future (UFZ discussion paper 3/2010) Leipzig. http://www.ufz.de/data/Disk_Papiere_2010_3_Nuissl12823.pdf. Accessed 17 Sept 2010.
  17. Irazábal, C. (2005). City making and urban governance in the Americas. Curitiba and Portland. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  18. Irazábal, C. (2009). Revisiting urban planning in Latin America and the Caribbean. http://www.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/GRHS2009RegionalLatinAmericaandtheCaribbean.pdf. Accessed 17 Sept 2010.
  19. Letelier, S. L. (2004). Alcances y Desafíos de la Descentralización Fiscal en Chile. http://www.fes.cl/documentos/descent/alcancesydesafios.pdf. Accessed 17 Sept 2010.
  20. Marks, G., & Hooghe, L. (2004). Contrasting visions of multi-level governance. In I. Bache & M. Flinders (Eds.), Multi-level governance (pp. 15–30). Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Massun, I. (2006). Clientelismo político. Moreno: Métodos.Google Scholar
  22. Miraftab, F. (2008). Decentralization and entrepreneurial planning. In V. Beard, F. Miraftab, & C. Silver (Eds.), Planning and decentralization: Contested space for public action in the global south (pp. 21–35). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Montecinos, E. (2006). Descentralización y democracia en Chile: Análisis sobre la participación en el presupuesto participativo y el plan de desarrollo comunal. Revista de Ciencia Política, 26(2), 191–208.Google Scholar
  24. Orellana, A. (2009). La gobernabilidad metropolitana de Santiago: La dispar relación de poder de los municipios. Revista EURE, 35(104), 101–120.Google Scholar
  25. Poduje, I. (2006). El globo y el acordeón: planificación urbana en Santiago. In A. Galetovic (Ed.), Santiago: ¿Dónde estamos? ¿Hacia dónde vamos? (pp. 231–276). Santiago de Chile: Centro de Estudios Públicos.Google Scholar
  26. Poduje, I. (2008) Participación ciudadana en proyectos de infraestructura y planes reguladores (Serie Temas de la Agenda Pública, No. 22) Santiago de Chile: Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile.Google Scholar
  27. Poduje, I., Yáñez, G. (2000). Planificando la ciudad virtual: megaproyectos urbanos estatales y privados. In: Seminario Internacional Las regiones metropolitanas del Mercosur y México: entre la competitividad y la complementariedad. Buenos Aires, Programa de Investigación Internacional Grandes Regiones Metropolitanas del Mercosur y México, Mexiko.Google Scholar
  28. Purcell, M. (2006). Urban democracy and the local trap. Urban Studies, 43(11), 1921–1941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Quiroga, Y. (2010). Politischer Wechsel in Chile: Nach einem halben Jahrhundert gewinnt die Rechte demokratische Wahlen. FES Kurzbericht. http://library.fes.de/pdf. Accessed 17 Sept 2010.
  30. Ramírez, P. (2009). Los errores del MOP en Vespucio Sur que costarán 25 millones de dólares. In Ciperchile, February 20, 2009, http://ciperchile.cl/2009/02/20/los-errores-del-mop-en-vespucio-sur-que-costaran-25-millones-de-dolares/. Accessed 4 Dec 2010.
  31. Rivera-Ottenberger, A. (2007). Decentralization and local democracy in Chile: Two active communities and two models of local governance. In V. Beard, F. Miraftab, & C. Silver (Eds.), Planning and decentralization: Contested space for public action in the global south (pp. 119–134). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Rodríguez, A., & Rodríguez, P. (2010). Santiago, a Neoliberal City (working paper). http://www.socialpolis.eu/index.php?option=com_docman&Itemid=199&task=doc_download&gid=272. Accessed 17 Sept 2010.
  33. Romero, H., & Vásquez, A. (2005). La Comodificación de los territorios urbanizables y la degradación ambiental en Santiago de Chile. Scripta Nova – Revista Electronica de Geografía y ciencias sociales, 9(194), 68.Google Scholar
  34. Roy, A. (2005). Urban informality. Towards an epistemology of planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(2), 147–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schiappacasse, P., & Müller, B. (2004). Desarrollo metropolitano integrado: El caso de Santiago de Chile. Urbano, 7(10), 68–74.Google Scholar
  36. Siavelis, P. M., Valenzuela Van Treek, E., & Martelli, G. (2002). Santiago: Municipal decentralization in a centralized political system. In D. Myers & H. Dietz (Eds.), Capital city politics in Latin America: Democratization and empowerment (pp. 265–295). London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  37. Siemens AG (2007). Megacity challenges. A stakeholder perspective. München: Siemens AG. http://w1.siemens.com/entry/cc/features/urbanization_development/all/en/pdf/study_megacities_en.pdf. Accessed 17 Sept 2010.
  38. Sierra, L. (2006). Urbanismo por decreto: centralismo y confusión institucional en la ciudad chilena. In A. Galetovic (Ed.), Santiago: ¿Dónde estamos? ¿Hacia dónde vamos? (pp. 299–328). Santiago de Chile: Centro de Estudios Públicos.Google Scholar
  39. Silva, E. (2008). In the name of reason: Technocrats and politics in Chile. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  40. SUR – Corporación de Estudios Sociales y Educación. (2009). Conflictos urbanos en Santiago de Chile. Mapa de conflictos urbanos. Notas Digitales, 1, 1–6. http://constructoresdeciudad.sitiosur.cl/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Nota1-final-conflictos-urbanos.pdf. Accessed 17 Sept 2010.
  41. Taylor, L. (1998). Citizenship, participation and democracy: Changing dynamics in Chile and Argentina. Basingstoke/Hampshire/London: Macmillan Press/St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  42. Uitermark, J. (2002). Re-scaling, ‘scale fragmentation’ and the regulation of antagonistic relationships. Progress in Human Geography, 26(6), 743–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. UN-Habitat. (2009). Planning sustainable cities: Global report on human settlements 2009. London: United Nations Human Settlements Programme. Earthscan.Google Scholar
  44. Ward, P. (1996). Contemporary issues in the government and administration of Latin American mega-cities. In A. Gilbert (Ed.), The mega-city in Latin-America. Tokyo/New York/Paris: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Zegras, C. & Gakenheimer, R. (2000). Urban growth management for mobility: The case of the Santiago, Chile Metropolitan Region (Report prepared for the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the MIT Cooperative Mobility Program). http://web.mit.edu/czegras/www/Zegras_Gakenheimer_Stgo_growth_mgmt.pdf. Accessed 17 Sept 2010
  46. Zenteno, J. (2007). Planificación urbana, planes reguladores comunales y reacción ciudadana (Report prepared for Sur Corporación de Estudios Sociales y Educación). http://www.sitiosur.cl/descargadocumentos.php?PID=71. Accessed 17 Sept 2010.
  47. Zunino, H. (2006). Power relations in urban decision-making: neo-liberalism, ‘techno-politicians’ and authoritarian redevelopment in Santiago, Chile. Urban Studies, 43(10), 1825–1846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Corinna Hölzl
    • 1
  • Henning Nuissl
    • 1
  • Carolin Höhnke
    • 1
  • Michael Lukas
    • 1
  • Claudia Rodriguez Seeger
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of GeographyHumboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations