This is a lecture prepared for the Randstad Research Group of the Department of Urbanism of the TU Delft. It presents basic notions of governance and circumscribes these notions by presenting some issues or challenges concerning networked and multilevel governance.

1. Issues of Governance
in Spatial Planning
Prepared by Roberto Rocco
Chair Spatial Planning and Strategy
TU Delft
SpatialPlanning
&Strategy

2. SpatialPlanning
&Strategy

3. Governance entails
an understanding of
how policy making
and implementation
happens in complex
societies

4. Consolidation of objectives in Spatial
Planning around the notion of sustainability:
• Deliver sustainable and fair
futures
• Increase public goods
• Redistribute gains
• Increase life chances and
prosperity

5. ‘Enhanced’ Sustainability
“For sustainability to occur, it must
occur simultaneously in each of its
three dimensions” (economic, social
and environmental)
Larsen, 2012

6. ©Ronald Vogel
The main goal
is to create conditions
for the full realization of
human potentials, through
healthy, sustainable and fair
environments
“Sustainable development” http://www.hrea.org/

7. ©Ronald Vogel
Planners and
designers are inserted
in and must understand
complex systems of
governance

8. What’s Governance Again?
Normative dimension
X
Descriptive dimension

9. The Normative Dimension:
Governance
The great sectors of
society (civil society,
public sector and
private sector)
ought to be in
Civil Private
positive tension,
where they Society Sector
simultaneously
apply and receive
pressure from other
sectors. In doing so,
they keep each
other in check and
avoid overrunning Public
each other. The
problem with this Sector
model is that not
everyone has an
equal voice or
power to express his
or her views.

10. Networks of coalitions
Civil Private
Society Sector
Civil
Public Spatial Planners and
Agents form
networks of Sector designers are inserted
coalitions in networks (and
between sectors and Public
within sectors bureaucracies).
towards objectives Sector

11. Diagram by Shuying Yu, 2010

12. What’s governance again?
Civil Private
Society Sector
Civil
Public
Sector
Public
Sector
State (the rule of law)

13. What’s governance again?
State (the rule of law)
Values and nomrs
(informal institutions)

14. Explains behaviours like
patronage, nepotism,
corruption, ingrained practices
and traditions as well as and
how networks are formed
Common values and norms (informal institutions)

15. The law is king in the nation State
and its bound to a territory!
Lex Rex
(the law is
king) We are
(Samuel
Rutherford, not amused!
1644)
versus
Rex Lex Source: Wikipedia Commons.
(The king is This work is in the public domain in the United
States, and those countries with a copyright term
of life of the author plus 100 years or less.
the law)

16. The rule of law
The rule of law provides
the framework for the
Public sector, the Private
sector and the Civil
society to exist in certain
forms and in certain
relationships with each
other.

17. Informal institutions
Are derived from common values
and norms, which result in rules-in-
use. Rules-in-use constitute both
formal and informal institutions.
(Suwanna Rongwiriyaphanich based on E. Ostrom)

18. Why is governance important for us?
These relationships are our object because
we need to know:
• How to operate with the relationships in
place in order to better achieve objectives
(significance for the way we do planning)
• How to propose new relationships and
tools to articulate different actors, to
FORMULATE, develop and implement
desirable spatial visions and guarantee
political/ economical and institutional
support and successful implementation.

19. Normative model
A network of agents that coexist in
positive tension in the societal
arena
State (the rule of law)

20. And the ‘governance of’
©Ronald Vogel
Governance refers to the
emergence of a policy
making style dominated by
cooperation among
government levels and
between public and non
public actors and the civil
society.
Papadopoulos, 2007

21. Changes in governing
(& planning)
Emergence of a particular style of
governing where there must be
sustained co-ordination and
coherence among a wide variety of
actors with different purposes and
objectives from all sectors of
society.
Papadopoulos, 2007

22. ©Ronald Vogel
Multilevel governance
‘Involves a large number
of decision-making
arenas, differentiated
along both functional and
territorial lines and
interlinked in a non-
hierarchical way’
Eberlein and Kerwer, 2004

23. Network governance
Policy making and implementation
is ‘shared’ by politicians,
technocrats, experts, dedicated
agencies, authorities, semi private
and private companies, the public,
NGOs, etc which constitute
NETWORKS of policy and decision
making across levels, territories,
mandates, etc.

24. Across Across Sectors Across
sectors levels of
of Across govern
society Adminis ment
trative
bounda
ries

25. Multilevel Governance
Ward (ellects the
members of the
Court of commons)
City of London
Corporation (borough)
Greater London Authority
English regions
England
United Kingdom
European Union

26. Meaning of ‘local authority’ in the Local
Government Act of 2000 (in England and Wales)
(a)
in relation to England—
(i)
a county council,
(ii)
a district council,
(iii)
a London borough council,
(iv)
the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority,
(v)
the Council of the Isles of Scilly,

27. Networked decision making
City of London Corporation
Primary decision making
Court
of
Lord Mayor +
2 Sheriffs
Elected by livery men
aldermen
(108 livery companies)
Court
of Elected councilors by residents,
121 committees in 2012
commons landowners, land leasers
(25 wards with different number
72 outside bodies of elected councilors)

28. Governance City of London
Elected
councilors
UK
Standing local
orders authority
legislation

29. Network
Great London Plan European Union
Directives and conventions
Greater London that have subsequently been
enacted into UK legislation
Authority Elected by residents
and influenced the develop-
Mayor of London of London
London Assembly (25) Elected by 14 constituencies
ment of the thinking behind
Governance
+
11 from a party list
the Government's policies, like
transport
the Groundwater Directive
police
fire
Primary decision making
and the Environmental Impact
Court Lord Mayor +
Elected by 108 Assessment Directive, for
livery companies
example.
of 2 Sheriffs
aldermen
Court
Elected in 25 wards
of
121 committees in 2012 by residents and
commons landowners
72 outside bodies
History, tradition, uses and customs UK Parliament
UK
House of Lords
(powers are limited)
Lords Temporal (Appointed)
Standing local Lords Spiritual (Appointed)
orders authority House of Commons
MPs (Elected)
legislation
Queen (advised by
Prime Minister)
These include global treaties, such as Kyoto
and strategies for dealing with the influences
and effects of climate change and for integrat-
ing sustainable development into the EU's
environmental policies as a result of major
conferences, including the World Summit on
Sustainable Development.
International protocols

30. Multilevel governance in emerging city-
regions
Urbanisation in the Randstad, 1950 Urbanisation in the Randstad, 2010

31. Photo by São Paulo, Brazil, at Nigh
Example of a
NASA Earth Observatory
city-region in
the developing
world where
issues of
regional
governance can
be identified:
Sao Paulo
175 km

32. Multilevel governance in emerging city-regions
12. Water Sources Circuit
13. Mantiqueira
Viracopos Airport
10. Bocaina
4. Campinas
Campinas 5. Paraiba Macro- Axis
8. Bragantina
Sao Jose dos Campos
Jundiai
7. Jundiai Ernesto Stumpf Airpot
Sao Paulo International Airport
11. Alto Paraiba
6. Sorocaba
Campo de Marte Airport
Sorocaba
Sao Roque 1. Core 2. MASP
Congonhas Airport
Sorocaba Airport
14. Litoral Norte
9. Sao Roque
3. Santos
Santos Port of Santos
Main municipalities in the Expanded Metropolitan Complex
Other municipalities in the Expanded Metropolitan Complex
Other municipalities in the State of Sao Paulo
Main highway
Regional highway

33. Multilevel governance in emerging city-regions
12. Water Sources Circuit
13. Mantiqueira
10. Bocaina
4. Campinas
Campinas 5. Paraiba Macro- Axis
8. Bragantina
Sao Jose dos Campos
Jundiai
7. Jundiai
11. Alto Paraiba
6. Sorocaba
Sorocaba
Sao Roque
1. Core 2. MASP
14. Litoral Norte
9. Sao Roque
3. Santos
Santos
1. Core Municipality 8. Bragantina Peri-Metro Regional Unit
2. Greater Sao Paulo (MASP) 9. Sao Roque Peri-Metro Regional Unit
3. Metropolitan Santos 10. Bocaina Peri-Metro Regional Unit
4. Metropolitan Campinas
Core: 11.3 million (31 sub-municipalities)
11. Alto Paraiba Peri-Metro Regional Unit
5. Paraiba Macro Axis Proto Metropolis 12. The 'Water Circuit' Homogeneous Outer Metro Unit
6. Sorocaba Proto Metropolis 13. Mantiqueira Homogeneous Outer Metro Unit
7. Jundiai Peri-Metropolitan Regional Unit 14. Litoral Norte Homogeneous Outer Metro Unit
Metro: 19.9 million (39 municipalities)
Main unit urban node
Other important urban node
Airport
Macro-metro: 27.6 million (95 municipalities)
0 15 30 45 km
1: 1 500 000
1 CM = 15 KM

34. Areas where multi-level
networked governance is
required

35. Water and waste
management
Informal development around one of Sao Paulo’s water
reservoirs
Source: Google Earth

36. Sao Paulo Compnhia Metropolitana de Transportes
Metropolitan mobility
+ 928 local bus lines on core municipality

37. Large Regional Infrastructure
Congonhas: the busiest airport in South America and
Source: Google Earth
its integration in the city

38. Large Regional Infrastructure
Source: http://upgradesemanal.blogspot.nl/2011/04/trem-bala-no-brasil.html
The route of the proposed speed train between Rio de
Janeiro and the city of Campinas

39. Environmental protection and
management
The new external ring road of Sao Paulo crossing the
water reservoirs of the city and large parts of the
Source: Google Earth
Atlantic Forest

40. Policy formulation and implementation
Networks involving:
• public actors (politicians and
administrators) in different decision levels
• technocrats
• economic agents
• interest representatives (civil + corporate)
• other stakeholders
• experts (e.g. planners)

41. New forms of steering complex governance
networks
Deliberation
Bargaining
Compromise-seeking

42. Instead of...
blueprints
Pruitt-Igoe, Saint-Louis Missouri, 1950s. Source: http://pichaus.com/pruitt-igoe-public-housing-
development/

43. Why network governance?
1. decisions with strong output
legitimacy
2. the content is more appropriate
3. better accepted by target groups
4. technically more adequate and
politically more realistic decisions

44. Effects on the quality of
©Ronald Vogel
our democracies

45. ©Ronald Vogel
Now we will explore
issues of governance in
detail

46. Main issues
1.Hollowing of the State
2.Accountability deficiency
3.Multilevel nature
4.Representation and visibility
5.Decoupling of the realm of politics
6.Composition of networks of governance

47. Detrimental characteristics of networked
governance
1. weak presence of citizen
representatives in networks
2. lack of visibility and distance from
the democratic arena
3. multilevel nature
4. prevalence of ‘peer’ forms of
accountability (‘old-boys’ groups)

48. Hollowing out of the State
The networked nature of
governance structures have been
triggered by ideologies that endorse
the minimal state

49. But...
©Ronald Vogel
they are ultimately
the result of the
complexity of our
societies and of their
spatial embeddedness

50. ©Ronald Vogel
Accountability is at
the core of
discussions on
networked governance

51. Accountability
refers to the attribution of
responsibility and mandate, and the
possibility of check by other parties
involved.
In network governance, it is difficult
to attribute responsibility and
mandates and ultimately difficult to
hold anyone accountable (the
problem of many hands)

52. Accountability
For agents to be held accountable,
they must be identifiable as
accountability holders and they
must belong to arenas where there
is a possibility of sanction

53. Photo source: Reuters/Toby Melville
Politics
For elected officers, we might think
that elections are the ultimate test
of accountability: the hanging
sanction is the non-reelection

54. But...
In networked governance
structures, the role of elected
officials is often not central in the
decision making process

55. Moreover...
©Ronald Vogel
we
shouldn’t
narrow the issue of
accountability to
that of democratic
control
Grant & Keohane, 2004

56. Other forms of (necessary) accountability
in policy making and implementation
Legal
Fiscal Administrative

57. Weak visibility
Decisional procedures in policy
networks are often informal and
opaque (as this facilitates the
achievement of compromise)
Networks dilute responsibility
among a large number of actors
(the problem of many hands)

58. Citizens as accountability holdees
Citizens should be the ultimate
holdees of democratic accountability
but in reality the public is not the
only judge of governmental
performance and in many instances
citizens can not sanction agents that
are responsibly for policies that
affect them directly (e.g. IMF,
European Union, etc.)

59. Transparency
Transparency induces the
accountability holdee to provide
justifications for their actions, but
there are no guarantees that
accountability holders can apply
sanctions
Publicity is a necessary condition for
democracy but not a sufficient one

60. Multilevel aspects make
competencies fuzzy
Complex structures cutting across
decision levels (e.g. federal states,
emerging city-regions, but also the
EU, IMF, World Bank, etc)
Entails cooperative
intergovernmental relations, but
the formal division of competencies
is often fuzzy (e.g. EU)

61. Transparency &
coupling
Policy networks must be (re)coupled to public
representative bodies that are able to regulate
service provision or policy implementation and
which provide the tools for identifying
accountability holders and also tools for
sanctioning them
Policy networks must be re-coupled with the
public arena

62. ©Ronald Vogel
It is not that
simple!

63. Composition of policy networks
Policy networks are largely
composed of bureaucrats, policy
experts and interest
representatives, who are often only
indirectly accountable to citizens
and sometimes only accountable to
their peers (other experts)

64. Politics of problems
©Bloomberg Businessweek
X
©Shepard Fairey
politics of opinion
Politics of problems (problem
solving politics) oriented towards a
backstage network of knowledge
and decision-making
Politics of opinion is the traditional
politics in the media, party
struggles and ideological assertions

65. Peer accountability
In governance networks, public
accountability is often replaced by
peer accountability
Durable cooperative interactions
between actors are expected to
generate self-limitation, empathy
and mutual trust, but also mutual
black mailing and excessive reliance
on reputation and trust

66. Representation and visibility
In order to have good governance,
networks must be sufficiently
representative and pluralist
Problem of ‘old boys club’ and the
‘incompetent subject’

67. Peer accountability...
often dwells in one single world view, denying that
there are other kinds of knowledge that are relevant
(white male Western capitalist technocrat )
President Kennedy visits NY World Fair, Photo source: http://ilongisland.com/Robert_Moses_Long_Island.htm

68. The problem of the ‘incompetent
actor’ refers to the Foucaultian idea
that knowledge is the property of
certain groups, while other groups do
not have their knowledge recognized
as valid

69. All this means that spatial planners
must adopt a different attitude
towards plan-making and
implementation. They need to perform
new roles...

70. THEN
All knowing V., a y
oung w
oman
planne
r
Robe rt Moses
http://www.newmuseum.org/blog/view/ideas-city-istanbul-or-how-to-obtain-
a-building-permit-for-central-park
NOW
Mediator

71. ©Ronald Vogel
Challenge (for planners?)
to clarify and
strengthen the
democratic
anchorage of
network forms of
governance

72. Participation makes governance more effective
• Strengthens democracy
• Improves legitimacy
• Builds support and understanding for actions
• Likely to deliver more effective results
• A strong argument for participation is that
knowledge is constructed in communication. It
would be therefore unethical and unintelligent
to impose top-down solutions that do not take
into account the knowledge of stakeholders.

73. Systems of governance A map of th
e world, hig
hlighted on
a scale from
light blue to
based on th black,
e score each
country
received acc
ording to Th
Economist's e
Democracy
survey for 2 Index
010, from a
scale of 10
to 0, with 10
being the m
democratic, ost
and 0 being
democratic. the least
Hong Kong
(score
5.85) and P
alestine (sco
re 5.44)
were also in
cluded in th
e survey
but are not
visible on th
is map.
The Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index as published in December 2010. The palest blue countries get a score above 9 out of 10
(with Norway being the most democratic country at 9.80), while the black countries score below 3 (with North Korea being the least
democratic at 1.08). Source: Economist Intelligent Unit, 2011. Available at http://www.eiu.com/public/

74. Electoral democracies
Countries highlighted in blue are designated "electoral democracies" in Freedom House's 2010 survey Freedom in the World.
Available at http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fiw10/FIW_2010_Tables_and_Graphs.pdf

75. Democracy on the rise
This graph shows Freedom House's evaluation of the number of nations in the different
categories given above for the period for which there are surveys, 1972–2005. Souce:
Freedomhouse.org

76. New participatory tools?

77. “The Arab Spring”
Available at: http://thepersonalnavigator.blogspot.com/2011/06/arab-spring-and-what-came-before.html

78. Occupy Wall Street
http://www.infowars.com/obama-machine-prepares-to-hijack-occupy-wall-street/

79. The role of social networking
Facebook played an extremely important role in the uprisings
throughout the Middle East. Source: theatlanticwire.com

80. Unequal access persists
(but we are getting there)

81. References
ALBRECHTS, L., HEALEY, P. & KUNZMANN, K. R. 2003. Strategic Spatial
Planning and Regional Governance in Europe. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 69, 113-129.
EBERLEIN, B. & KERWER, D. 2004. New Governance in the European Union: A
Theoretical Perspective. Journal of Common Market Studies, 42, 128.
PAPADOPOULOS, Y. 2007. Problems of Democratic Accountability in Network
and Multilevel Governance. European Law Journal, 13, 469-486.
RHODES, R. A. W. 1996. The New Governance: Governing without Government.
Political Studies, XLIV, 652-667.
SALET, W., THORNLEY, A. & KREUKELS, A. 2003. Metropolitan Governance and
Spatial Planning, London, Spon Press.
SEHESTED, K. 2009. Urban Planners as Network Managers and Metagovernors.
Planning Theory and Practice, 10, 245-263.

82. Thanks for watching & listening!
With special thanks to Ronald DaedalusVogel
from Bremen, Germany: Daedalus (V) In
Flickr.com or www.daedalus-v.de/english for
the use of his pictures
This is
Should you have any doubts, please contact
r.c.rocco@tudelft.nl Ronald
And visit our BLOG
www.spatialplanningtudelft.eu
SpatialPlanning
&Strategy
Challenge(the(future