Urban Studies, Vol. 42, No.

11, 1991– 2006, October 2005

Governance Innovation and the Citizen: The Janus
Face of Governance-beyond-the-State

Erik Swyngedouw
[Paper first received, June 2004; in final form, June 2005]

Summary. This paper focuses on the fifth dimension of social innovation—i.e. political
governance. Although largely neglected in the mainstream ‘innovation’ literature, innovative
governance arrangements are increasingly recognised as potentially significant terrains for
fostering inclusive development processes. International organisations like the EU and the World
Bank, as well as leading grass-roots movements, have pioneered new and more participatory
governance arrangements as a pathway towards greater inclusiveness. Indeed, over the past two
decades or so, a range of new and often innovative institutional arrangements has emerged, at a
variety of geographical scales. These new institutional ‘fixes’ have begun to challenge traditional
state-centred forms of policy-making and have generated new forms of governance-beyond-the-
state. Drawing on Foucault’s notion of governmentality, the paper argues that the emerging
innovative horizontal and networked arrangements of governance-beyond-the-state are
decidedly Janus-faced. While enabling new forms of participation and articulating the state –
civil society relationships in potentially democratising ways, there is also a flip side to the
process. To the extent that new governance arrangements rearticulate the state-civil society
relationship, they also redefine and reposition the meaning of (political) citizenship and,
consequently, the nature of democracy itself. The first part of the paper outlines the contours of
governance-beyond-the-state. The second part addresses the thorny issues of the state –civil
society relationship in the context of the emergence of the new governmentality associated with
governance-beyond-the-state. The third part teases out the contradictory way in which new
arrangements of governance have created new institutions and empowered new actors, while
disempowering others. It is argued that this shift from ‘government’ to ‘governance’ is
associated with the consolidation of new technologies of government, on the one hand, and with
profound restructuring of the parameters of political democracy on the other, leading to a
substantial democratic deficit. The paper concludes by suggesting that socially innovative
arrangements of governance-beyond-the-state are fundamentally Janus-faced, particularly under
conditions in which the democratic character of the political sphere is increasingly eroded by the
encroaching imposition of market forces that set the ‘rules of the game’.

1. Introduction: Towards Governance- new formal or informal institutional arrange-
beyond-the-State ments that engage in the act of govern-
In recent years, a proliferating body of ing outside and beyond-the-state (Rose and
scholarship has attempted to theorise and Miller, 1992; Mitchell, 2002; Jessop, 1998;
substantiate empirically the emergence of Pagden, 1998; Hajer, 2003a; UNESCAP,
Erik Swyngedouw is in the School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Mansfield Road, Oxford, OX1 3TB, UK.
Fax: þ44 (0)1865 271929. E-mail: erik.swyngedouw@geog.ox.ac.uk. The author would like to thank Pasquale de Muro, Julia
Gerometta, Sara Gonza´lez, Patsy Healey, Maria Kaika, Flavia Martinelli, Frank Moulaert, Johan Moyersoen and Morag Torrance
for their assistance, helpful comments and suggestions. Of course, only the author is responsible for the content. The author also
wishes to to thank the EU’s Framework V programme for providing the funding to make the research possible.
0042-0980 Print=1360-063X Online=05=111991 –16 # 2005 The Editors of Urban Studies
DOI: 10.1080=00420980500279869

SINGOCOM. the IMF or the Kyoto proto- ance based on such horizontally networked col negotiations) (Swyngedouw. 175). if as Maarten Hajer argues. governing’ to respond to changing socioeco- To be precise. civil society of civil society on the other in self-managing (usually NGO) and state actors (Dingwerth. civil society groups and parts of the ‘tra- tic. form of governmentality. 2003b. Moulaert et al. the WTO. 2005. These modes of that conducted the art of governing during governance have been depicted as a new much of the 20th century.1992 ERIK SWYNGEDOUW 2004. both the economy and civil society (Moulaert stakeholder-based formal or informal associ- et al. institutional ensembles of govern. defined in the context of this paper as tutional arrangements of ‘governing’ which the socially innovative institutional or quasi- give a much greater role in policy-making. However. these arrangements not new. These forms of apparently horizontally by the national or local state. It is exactly these and tactics of conducting the process of tensions and contradictions that this paper collective rule-setting. 175. mental rationality and the transformation of this issue). forms of governing compared with the sclero. 2005). While these innova. cal scales (Hajer. 1991) starts from the There are no clear rules and norms accord- vantage-point of how the state is reorganised ing to which politics is to be conducted and mobilises a new set of ‘technologies of and policy measures are to be agreed upon. hierarchical and bureaucratic state forms ditional’ state apparatus. Gonza´lez and Healey. refers in this context to the emergence. 2002). ad hoc committees. environmental or other matters) to to produce systems of ‘good’ governance on the transnational scale (such as the European the other. 1997). see Gordon. implementation and will focus on.. they also exhibit a series of combined with new technologies. institutional arrangements of governance that administration and implementation to private are organised as horizontal associational economic actors on the one hand and to parts networks of private (market). exhibit an institutional configuration based ing. p. 1979) in the context of the rekindling of the The urban scale has been a pivotal terrain governance–civil society articulation that is where these new arrangements of governance . as organised and polycentric ensembles in argued in other papers in this issue. rule-setting and territorial development are also invariably rule implementation at a variety of geographi- associated with the emergence of new insti. In addition. 1982. there are no generally accepted nomic and cultural conditions. ated changes in governmentality (Foucault. 2003. Governance-beyond-the-state the technologies of government. Lemke. While much of the analysis of a changing. 2003b. They are tutional forms that draw heavily on a greater found from the local/urban level (such as involvement of individuals or actors from development corporations. democracy enhancing and more effective on the inclusion of private market actors. Whitehead. often including policing as well. associated with the rise of a neo-liberal govern- this issue. In a context of perceived or real ations dealing with social. instruments contradictory tendencies. that is ‘the conduct tive figures of governance often offer the of conduct’ (Foucault. socially which power is dispersed are increasingly innovative practices in urban governance and prevalent in rule-making. Union. economic. this paper rules and norms according to which policy- seeks to assess the consolidation of new making and politics is to be conducted forms of governance capacity and the associ- (Hajer. what until recently was provided or organised 2004). They tripartite composition are viewed as empower. original emphasis). Governance as an arrangement of governing- proliferation and active encouragement (by beyond-the-state (but often with the explicit the state and international bodies like the inclusion of parts of the state apparatus) is European Union or the World Bank) of insti.. governmentality (or governmental take place within an ‘institutional void’ rationality. promise of greater democracy and grassroots in which a particular rationality of governing is empowerment. p. infra- ‘state failure’ on the one hand and attempts structural.

is customarily and Healey. 2005. see also other the subsequent part. we address the thorny papers in this issue). ‘rules of the game’. In the third part. Jessop 2002a). 2001. and their arrangements of governance have created democratic credentials on the other. this issue). 2001. Raco.. and with profound restructuring often undemocratic and authoritarian charac. We argue that governance-beyond-the-state and. of the parameters of political democracy on ter on the other. 2002. 2004. between the empowering gestalt of such new 2002. Harvey. GOVERNANCE INNOVATION 1993 have materialised in the context of the emer. Our new institutions and empowered new actors. We shall ing in terms of delivering improved collective conclude by suggesting that socially innova- services and they may indeed contain germs tive arrangements of governance-beyond- of ideas that may permit greater open. These forms of regulation are currently being fought out governance are innovative and often promis. 2003). 118. Hajer. p. this mode of governance organisations (like NGOs) in systems of entails a transformation of both the institutions (urban) governance. Novy form of governance and the character of and Leubolt. 2000). then. Much of the empirical governance arrangements on the one hand and case study research on which this paper and their position within a broadly neo- draws was undertaken in the context of liberal political-economic order on the other two major European-Union-funded research that this paper seeks to tease out. the-state are fundamentally Janus-faced. It is exactly this interplay (Le Gale`s. 1999). These 2. inclusion and empowerment of hitherto particularly under conditions in which the excluded or marginalised social groups. Rankin. in particu. we outline the governance (see Moualert et al. social movements. is associated with the consolidation of new tive of increasing democracy and citizen’s technologies of government (Dean. see also Novi and ments of conducting governance on the other Leubolt. 1995. (Docherty et al. on the tension between the stated objec. 2005) and an impover- ished practice of political citizenship. Hence. 1996. 2000. this shift from ‘government’ to ‘governance’ lar. and ‘insurgent’ planners gence of innovative social movements on the (see Sandercock. this issue). contours of governance-beyond-the-state. 2002. is one seen as potentially empowering and democra. SINGOCOM. on empowerment on the one hand and their the one hand.. The main objective of issues of the state– civil society relationship this paper is to address and problematise in the context of the emergence of the new these emerging new regimes of (urban) governmentality associated with governance- governance with a particular emphasis on beyond-the-state. there are equally strong processes is increasingly eroded by the encroaching at work pointing in the direction of a greater imposition of market forces that set the autocratic governmentality (Swyngedouw. In 2006. focus will be on the contradictory nature of while disempowering others. leading to a substantial democratic pertinent as the inclusion of civil society deficit. projects on urban development and urban In the first part of the paper. 2003a. Governance-beyond-the-State: socially innovative forms of governance are Networked Associations both actively encouraged and supported by agencies pursuing a neo-liberal agenda (like It is now widely accepted that the system of the IMF or the World Bank) and “designate governing within the EU and its constituent the chosen terrain of operations for NGOs. This analysis is particularly the other. democratic character of the political sphere However. Brenner and Theodore. Participation. of the key terrains on which battles over the tising (Le Gale`s. we tease changing political citizenship rights and out the contradictory way in which new entitlements on the one hand. 1998)” (Goonewardena and one hand and transformations in the arrange. ness. combined with a greater and the mechanisms of participation. parts is undergoing rapid change (European . nego- political and economic role of ‘local’ political tiation and conflict intermediation (Coaffee and economic arrangements.

2000. Le direction of their interests (Paquet. Although the degree of change quoted in Hamel. not individuals these decisions (Schmitter. civil part of democratic. 2002. Schmitter. 38). 2001. It implies Grote and Gbikpi. 2003. 2000a. p. 1998. civic) with the objective accountability and control) and mobilising to influence systems of action in the technologies of government involving . 2003. organised at local. p. has (Stoker. character- considers the mobilisation of resources (ideo- ised by a new articulation between state-like logical. Rakodi.1994 ERIK SWYNGEDOUW Commission. efficient and effective society organisations and private market government (Pierre. 4). and national scales.. according to Lemke (2001. the a common purpose. p. 2000. 2002). the new forms of governance exhibit tive equal participants without distinc- a rather fundamentally different articulation tion between their public or private between power and citizenship and constitute. Cars et al. 2002). 2002b. joint action. which vested power in hierarchically Le Gale`s. p. resulting is related to a view of ‘governmentality’ that in new forms of governmentality. (private. 2003). 1995. preferably as early as possible at mutually satisfactory and binding deci. In other words. status. 2000b). 1995. 2001) new institutional forms of governing that “in which the boundary between organisations exhibit rather different characteristics and public and private sectors has become (Jessop. 1998. Paquet defines governance as State-based arrangements are hierarchical and top –down (command-and-control) forms of The newly emerging models of action setting rules and exercising power (but result from the concerted combination of recognised as legitimate via socially agreed social actors coming form diverse milieus conventions of representation. delegation. 2001. in a normative- traditional state form in liberal democracies idealised manner. As Schmitter defines it fixed set of independent but interdepen- Governance is a method/mechanism for dent actors. This model begun to change in important ways. permeable” (Stoker. translation) it is beyond doubt that the 19th and 20th From this perspective. Schmitter actors (Brenner et al. dealing with a broad range of problems/ —Guaranteed (but possibly selective) conflicts in which actors regularly arrive access. sions by negotiating with each other and —Organized participants that represent co-operating in the implementation of categories of actors. author’s and the depth of its impact are still contested. it is not surprising to century political formations of articulating find that such modes of ‘governance-beyond- the state– civil society relationship through the-state’ are resolutely put forward as pre- different forms of representative demo- senting an idealised normative model (see cracy. 52) (Schmitter. Kooiman. is theoretically and practically articulated through forms of political citizenship which Governance arrangements are based on a legitimise state power by means of it being common and distinctive set of features: vested within the political voice of the citi- —Horizontal interaction among presump- zenry. a new form —Regular. While the continues to argue that. urban operating outside the state system as a vital development corporations and the like). 2003).. is promises to fulfil the conditions of good complemented by a proliferating number of government (European Commission. 1995. economic. the EU. public. continuous interaction and the 20th century in the form of the liberal- the wish to achieve collective benefits that democratic state. 2002. in the decision-making cycle. 2002). cultural) from actors forms (such as—for example. iterative exchanges among a of governmentality. a framework Westphalian state order that matured in of shared values. 2002) that structured transcendental state-forms. Gale`s. 378. often cannot be gained by acting independently also at regional.

national liberal democratic state form that ing rights or entitlements to participate. For him. term ‘stakeholder’ has gained currency in recent years and propelled its associated poli- 3. Governance-beyond-the-state tensions in which these forms of governance systems. Articulating State. These insti- by introducing the notion of ‘holder’. are embedded. which tutions can take a variety of forms. The relevant political-economic regime changes. regardless of their location or nationality. such an idealised-normative ceptually. 1995. are presumably horizon. the through statist forms of governing to a ‘stake. the should constitute the foundation for establish. in contrast. Schmitter’s matrix of definitions of ‘holders’ Right-holders participate because they are members of a national political community Space-holders participate because they live somewhere affected by the policy Knowledge-holders participate because they have particular knowledge about the matter concerned Share-holders participate because they own part of the assets that are going to be affected Stake-holders participate because. dominated the West from the late 19th Table 1 summarises Schmitter’s extended century onwards being just one of them. civil society–state interaction and. According to Schmitter (2000). Market and Civil tics of ‘stakeholder’ governance to the fore- Society front of the political platform (Newman. Dryzek.. accountancy rules and accoun. there is also the sum Table 1. first. talist economic forms require extra-economic He proposes. 2001). networked and based on interactive with all manner of problems. particularly relations between independent and interdepen. there is widespread distrust. . So. in the arrangements of the ‘conduct of conduct’ ance partake (or are allowed to partake) in articulate with changing choreographies of these relational networked forms of decision. our attention. bio-political knowledge and bureau. decided under non-codified and often informal The mobilised technologies of governance ad hoc principles (Hirst. while state and market can be separated con- Of course. secondly. social relations that produce and sustain capi- holder’-based polity does not go far enough. but institutional or organisational associations. symptomatically oblivious to the contradictory cratic rule. formulation. non-exclusive and par. Before we embark assessment). 1999). we need to turn benchmarking of performance (Dean. on considering the democratic credentials of tancy-based disciplining. they might be affected by change Interest-holders participate on behalf of other people because they understand the issues Status-holders participate on behalf of other people because they are given a specific representative role by the authorities Source: Schmitter (2000). As dent actors who share a high degree of trust. the Bob Jessop (2002b) argues that the ‘state’ is shift from ‘political citizenship’ articulated capitalism’s necessary ‘other’. to how these innovations The participants in such forms of govern. These new practices are riddled tal. Akkerman et al. particu- agendas. cally intimately interconnected. such arrangements are often imposed (from despite internal conflict and oppositional above). an enlarged approach rules and institutions to function. quantification and such institutional ensembles. therefore. 2004). with respect to their democratic content. within inclusive participatory larly as rules and norms are not agreed. making on the basis of the ‘stakes’ they hold to the emergence of these new forms of govern- with respect to the issues these forms of ance in the context of broader processes of governance attempt to address. revolve around reflexive risk-calculation (self. In addition ticipatory (stake)holder-based governance is to state and market. 2000. they are functionally and strategi- model of horizontal. GOVERNANCE INNOVATION 1995 policing.

1987. Of course. civil tes the terrain of social struggle for hegemony society and market) vary significantly from (Showstack Sassoon. In fact. with the rise of the first articulated in terms of access to or liberal state in the 18th century. but irreducible to either. cultural or social capital). state and and intervening in the ‘life qualities’ of its economy. with Antonio Gramsci. from under the hidden hand of the market in a (feudal) state focused on the integrity of its liberal-capitalist societies. the operation of the economy. terrain that was neither state nor private. physical. the from whom the state draws its legitimacy ‘conduct of conduct’ changes in such a way . Indeed.1996 ERIK SWYNGEDOUW total of social forms and relations that are through a system of pluralist democratic neither state nor market. yet trast. and market. became increasingly seen and society’ posited ‘civil’ society versus constructed as the articulation between state. but articulating with. Simon. civil society emerged as both an captured under the notion of ‘civil society’. At moments of increasing socio- citizens (health.e. between political and economic power. Civil society is. state’s legitimacy was claimed. time to time and from place to place. writing at the expressing a diverse set of social activities time of the embryonic formation of the and infused with all manner of social power liberal-democratic Keynesian-welfarist state. partly from the chan. For where social power relations are contested him. While for Hegel civil society as a set of economic/material and Marx. At the same time. the mentality’. albeit in very different ways. The relative boundaries actors (outside state and market) and constitu. ‘sovereign’ to a bio-political state—i. The social order. between these three instances (i. 1971). These are usually controls. a tary organisations and associations. 1999). 1991. also cannot society’ and its meaning are also closely be understood independently of the relations related to the Foucaultian notion of ‘govern. Moreover. ting outside the collective sphere of the state ging position of civil society within political but shaping the material conditions of civil society (see Novy and Leubolt. education. While the early Enlightenment view of ‘civil consequently. among others) during the 1920s/1930s or 1980s/1990s). like Alexis de Tocqueville. 2001). state. some- Liberal thinkers. concerned with other ‘moments’ of society—i. the position and role of civil society as the state turned increasingly into a bio. This con. life in a decisive manner. the latter in became increasingly associated with the terms of access to or control over resources object of state-governing as well as being per. opera- history of the concept. state (Lemke. civil society control over the state apparatus. conflict and social civil society became viewed as one of the struggles. the relations versus the state. both ‘civil notion of civil society. are closely related to the dynamics of political democratic state. disciplining. therefore. In con. ‘natural’ society. associated ‘civil society’ with volun. state in turn. civil society is the sum total of private and struggled over. where in-between. this issue). three components (the others being the state the pivotal terrain from which social transfor- and the market) that define the content and mative and innovative action emerges and structure of society (Gramsci. this ideal of society resided in transcending the change in perspective was in itself related to separation between the ‘political state’ and the changing nature of the state (from a ‘civil society’. Hegel and Marx considered civil society and market. a fuzzy terrain was produced. tensions. rendered this desi- territorial control to one operating allegedly red unity of state and civil society impossible. liberal state maintained the ‘economic’ fusion arises partly from the meandering sphere as a fundamentally ‘private’ one. economic tension and restructuring (such as socioeconomic well-being. relations. In sum. in other words. content and position of ‘civil society’.e. The MacLeod. in the ‘interest of all for the benefit of all’). for accumulation (whether in the form of ceived as the foundation from which the monetary.e. arena for state intervention and a collection There is considerable confusion about the of actors engaging with and relating to the status. In addition. the both analytically and empirically.

60). p. The state. Neoliberalism authoritarian (as happens with fascism) or encourages individuals to give their lives more autocratic. The state can become more and ‘rational’ individuals. 2005). p. 1991. p. 1991. 275– 276). 157– 177 and in Foucault’s analysis as a “tactics of govern. ‘gov. neo-liberalism. competence of the state onto ‘responsible’ lantzas. ment. maintained or improved. 2001. perspective permits a view of neo-liberalism 2002. The crisis of ance’ often takes place at exactly the time that Keynesianism and the reduction in forms civil society goes through painful shocks of welfare-state intervention therefore lead associated with that restructuring. p. For Foucault. 1980). the state failure thereof (Lemke. while delegating power and a specific entrepreneurial form. Elsewhere. strong ‘gov- ernance’ in order to produce stronger ‘econ. and the actors (Lemke. but a displacement the private. the end but a transformation of politics that since it is the tactics of government which restructures the power relations in society. pp. therefore. By means of the notion of governmentality. such as—for example. 1993. Lemke summarises the emerging new articula- mining the relative coherence or stability of tion between state and civil society under a the social order. shocks less to the state losing powers of regulation that further undermine the legitimacy of the and control (in the sense of a zero-sum state and reinforce calls for alternative game) and can instead be construed as a models of ‘governance’. It responds including new strata of civil society in the to stronger ‘demand’ for individual scope forms of governance (as is happening at for determination and desired autonomy present) (Harvey. Such restructuring of ‘govern. empowered to undertake such tasks. technique for government. GOVERNANCE INNOVATION 1997 that continued sustained accumulation can be reshaping of ‘governing’ under. NGOs). is not as at once internal and external to the state. but without under. Pagden. therefore. This governmentality refers to the rationalities and participation has a ‘pricetag’: the individ- tactics of governing and how they become uals themselves have to assume responsibil- expressed in particular technologies of ity for these activities and the possible governing. therefore. 103). the public versus planning capacities. mentality (Foucault. by ‘supplying’ individuals and collectives Foucault’s notion of governmentality may with the possibility of actively participating help to chart recent changes in the state–civil in the solution of specific matters and pro- society relationship and the emergence of blems which had hitherto been the domain arrangements of governance-beyond-the-state of specialized state agencies specifically (Donzelot. In other words. shifting the regulatory terrains of governance begin to shift (see Pou. 1984). Successful restructuring of neo-liberal governmentality as follows capitalism demands.g. appears also Donzelot. and so on. thus the state can only from formal to informal techniques of be understood in its survival and its limits on government and the appearance of new the basis of the general tactics of govern- actors on the scene of government (e. 50). 1984. 1998). omic dynamics’ (understood in market the neo-liberal agenda for the ‘withdrawal economy terms) while maintaining cohesion of the state’ can be deciphered as a in civil society. 1996. Burchell. 202. Governmentality. 2002. . as a dynamic form and historical stabilis. make possible the continual definition and What we observe today is not a diminish- redefinition of what is within the competence ment or reduction of state sovereignty and of the state and what is not. see (Foucault. that indicate fundamental trans- Foucault’s analysis of neo-liberal reason and formations in statehood and a renewed neo-liberal governmentality exactly excavates relation between state and civil society the changing role of the state in. Lemke argues how a Foucaultian ation of societal power relations” (Lemke. pp. re-organisation or restructuring of govern- erning’ becomes more problematic and the ment techniques.

simultaneously reorganise the all levels.1998 ERIK SWYNGEDOUW This ‘destatisation’ (Jessop. scalar reorganisation of the state and the To the extent that ‘participation’ is associated emergence of a neo-liberal govern. of a new set of technologies of power. diverse as community development. which are actors in the arena of governing. 2004. 1999. 2005. gender or cultural) among ways the state– civil society relationship. Burchell. Both mechanisms inevitably imply performance. (Brenner. 2002). is the down-scaling of governance incorporated within ‘calculative regimes’ to ‘local’ practices and arrangements that (Miller.. between levels of . civil society health promotion campaigns. 1995. rules that are set as state-imposed parameters ties. invariably mediated by ‘power’ (whether poli- ance-beyond-the-state redefine in fundamental tical. the new modalities of govern- fold reorganisation (Swyngedouw. these actors often fail to see how these social institution of resource mobilisation instruments are an integral part of the con- and allocation. and self-responsibility in the direction of greater individualised (Castel. the relationship between state. neo-liberalism. of organising the ‘conduct of Ironically. governing and organising a refers to the mobilisation of benchmarking series of social. the latter in regulating. 1996. O’Malley. IMF. 2002. The participating ‘holders’. ance also involve the mobilisation. of sub-national forms of governance (see empowerment and of consultation and Moulaert et al. the combat- arrangements of governance as new institu- ing of various kinds of dependency and so tional forms of governance-beyond-the-state on (Dean. 168). WTO and the like) individuals’ within ‘calculable spaces’ and and. Of course. 2004). create greater local differentiation combined 1994) refers in this context to the mobilisation with a desire to incorporate new social of ‘technologies of citizenship’. negotiation that are used in activities as for a range of case studies). are set up and become part of the system of governing. These technol- and higher scales or levels of governance ogies of performance produce ‘calculating (such as the EU. economic and cultural activi. social These three processes of rearrangement of and environmental impact assessment. 2002b) of a series new articulations between state. 1992. externalisation of state functions through which Mitchell Dean (1999) identifies as privatisation and deregulation (and decentrali. civil society or market-based egies of rendering the individual actor respon- configurations become increasingly involved sible for his or her own actions. market and of former state domains and their transfer civil society generate new forms of gover- to civil society organisations redefines the nance that combine the three ‘moments’ of state– civil society relationship through the society in new and often innovative ways formation of new forms of governance. a critique of the ‘excess’ of solidation of an imposed and authoritarian state associated with Keynesian welfarism. While the former refers to strat- that non-state. 1992). struct politically the market as the preferred 2000). p. by the 2004. technologies of agency and technologies of sation).. This restructuring is embedded in advocated and mobilised by NGOs and other a consolidating neo-liberal ideological civil organisations speaking for the disempow- polity. Barbara Cruikshank (1993. This encompasses a three. ered or socially excluded (Carothers et al. community policing. or SINGOCOM. third. 2005). First is the state. responsibility (Harvey. This includes defined as processes of vertical decentralisation towards the multiple techniques of self-esteem. 1999). see also Lemke. Second is the up-scaling of governance against which (self-)assessment can take whereby the national state increasingly place and which require the conduct of a delegates regulatory and other tasks to other particular set of performances. 1997. The latter combines a desire to con. prudence. beyond-the-state. economic. 1991. teaching at and market. Swyngedouw. celebrating the virtues of self- and a bio-political engineering of the social managed risk. while these technologies are often conduct’. Of course this Dean.

That is (1999. is. transparent and easily legible. While of shifting relations of power are a central the democratic lacunae of pluralist liberal concern. legitimacy. Since it is impossible within the remit modus operandi of networked associations is of this paper to exhaust the possible theoris. the rescaling of policy transforms positions vis-a`-vis governing institutions. civil society and encroaching differ greatly from those associated with market power. The Democratic Deficit of Governance- geometries) and in arranging these new net- beyond-the-State worked forms of governance. realm of ‘governing’ through the proliferation on the one hand. much less clear. The status.. 2002). 2003a). on existing power geometries. the actual concrete forms of institutional power. cracy against the modes of arrangements of racy) on the other. system of represen. of such asymmetric governance-beyond-the- cal participation in a variety of ways (but state arrangements. network-based forms of governance-beyond-the-state. While such absence of codification potentially permits 4. and within civil society. ance-beyond-the-state is customarily led by mentally shape individuals’ or social groups’ coalitions of economic. In particular. In particular. take the theoretical and practical yardsticks fuzzy institutional arrangements. are of prime importance. cipate. In fact. p. There- their respective (but interrelated) power fore. GOVERNANCE INNOVATION 1999 governance/government and between govern. The democratic Whilst in pluralist democracy. ad hoc and context-dependent ways and ing institutions. As Beck character of many of these shifts. fied. . the analysis and understanding pluralist democratic rules and codes. assigning or appropriating entitlement to parti- viduals often take place in non-transparent. the political fallacies of the pluralist ‘democratic’ state entitlement of the citizen is articulated via are compounded by the expansion of the the twin condition of ‘national’ citizenship. on new constellation of governance articulated the other. 41) argues. In fact. status and external accountability of such groups or indi. it is the state that arrangements of governance-beyond-the-state. socio-cultural or poli- position within the polity and that articulate tical e´lites (Swyngedouw et al. social innovation and of democratic governing are formally codi- development (see Getimis and Kafkalas. we focus on the principles that funda. the internal ations and perspectives on social and political power choreography of systems of govern- power. plays a pivotal and often autocratic role in transferring competencies (and consequently in instantiating the resulting changing power 4. the contradic- governance do not (yet) have codified rules tory configurations of these networked associ- and regulations that shape or define partici. at least. inclusion or governance are necessarily constrained and exclusion. full of “unauthorized actors”. it also opens The first question revolves around ‘entitle- up a vast terrain of contestation and potential ment’ and ‘status’. Moreover. and the entitlement to politi. scale of operation and internal or allowed to participate. the contradictory arenas of power (Hajer. or will be tation.1 Entitlement and Status and elicits socially innovative forms of organisation and of governing. these practices are what we turn to next. While the concept of conflict that revolves around the exercise of (stake)‘holder’ is inclusive and presumably (or the capacity to exercise) entitlements and exhaustive. limited in terms of who can. the procedures between participation. ill-defined of what constitute democratic government responsibilities and ambiguous political objec- together with the practices associated with tives and priorities. in what follows. The 2002). resulting in a the one hand. ations come to the fore and show the possible pation and identify the exact domains or perverse effects or. we via a proliferating maze of opaque networks. when assessing primarily via a form of (constitutionally or the formal requirements of pluralist demo- otherwise) codified representational democ. particularly in light of the link democracy are well known. Hence.

groups as participants. thus.3 Accountability on the perceived or real position of power that will be accorded to incumbent participants. checked by clear lineages of ably predicated upon willingness to accept representation. have gone in this direction which their holder status is defined and (Hertz. polity has more or less clear mechanisms for duals and social groups have fully or partially establishing accountability. part of the assumed to be internalised within the parti- alternative globalisation and anti-capitalist cipating groups through their insertion into movements and even segments of the ‘social (particular segments) of civil society (through economy’ sectors. holder entitlements are invari. The latter of course depends crucially 4.2 The Structure of Representation loped. on the degree into grassroots civil society power. ‘holder’ repre- ‘opted-out’ of political participation and have sentation fundamentally lacks explicit lines chosen either other forms of political action of accountability. or one vote’ rule. assign consider- defined and diffuse notion of an actual able. is much of force and/or power such groups or indivi. To the extent that it is pri- hold a certain power or status. legitimised). Again. it proves to be extremely difficult to existing participants to agree to include them. Deep ecologists. More fundamen. hence. albeit internally uneven power. given the diffuse and opaque systems of representation. ‘holder’ status. on the one hand. while political citizenship-based entitle. to participation) or are assigned tally. many indivi. accountability is or plain rejection. considerable power and. only obliquely. account- ability is generally very poorly. inter alia. In fact. an emerging more problematic relationship Rakodi. entitlements are con. the structure of practically impossible to challenge. sentation and organising feedback to their ferred upon participants by those who already constituencies.2000 ERIK SWYNGEDOUW assigning ‘holder’ status to an individual or in networks of ‘governance’ have widely social group is not neutral in terms of exercis. opens up a ments are (formally) inclusive (at least at a space of power for the effective participants national level) and are based on a ‘one person within the organisation that is not at all. In other words. Needless to say. diverging mechanisms of deciding on repre- ing power. their alleged insertion successful depends. 2002). partly through the mechanisms and lineages of accountability erosion of political power (compared with are radically redrawn in arrangements of other forms of power) and partly through governance-beyond-the-state (Rhodes. This. more tenuous than is generally assumed. effective representation Secondly. (and. While combined outcome of this leads to often pluralist democratic systems exhibit clear more autocratic. non-transparent systems and mutually agreed forms of representation. In most cases. disentangle the lines of representation (and In addition. Thirdly and directly related to the above. 2003). 2002). but also on willingness-to-participate on the other. the This is a context in which. of governance that—as institutions—wield ‘holder’ participation suffers from an ill. deve- 4. Of course. in addition to decisions over has to be assumed. 1999. However. The representation is of crucial importance. if at all. who are entitled (through a selective random Various groups and individuals participating process of invitation) to participate. of course. status representation) through which groups (or indi- within the participatory rituals co-determines viduals) claim entitlement to ‘holder’ status effective power positionality. the terms of participation may mechanisms of consultation and accounta- vary significantly from mere consultation to bility that are directly related to the form of the right to vote. In duals can garner and on the willingness of the fact. while a democratic between state and civil society. is difficult to verify and entitlement to participate. the marily civil society organisations that partici- degree to which mobilisations of this kind are pate in governance. to those system of representation (Edwards. .

p. new times. ance implies “a linguistic coding of problem while others become or remain excluded. up-scaling technologies remain largely. The latter. from the organisation of entitlement. a clear distinction. in a policy environment that. For internal and external problems with respect example. at the same time. 2002c) attest. ance—the choreography of actors changes To the extent that legitimation does not result as well. image. and second-order governance. 179) contends. a representation of Meta-governance refers to the institutions a desirable good. or arrangements of governance where the ignoring or silencing alternatives. 2003a). if not an ideology. status which forms of governance-beyond-the-state and accountability. the World Trade Organi- hegemony and. which can and do operate at 4. 1984)— of legitimation of policies and/or regulatory that means the transfer of policy domains to interventions become very different from sub-national or transnational forms of govern- those of representational pluralist democracy. Finally. the types of social actor and their the new forms of governance. In other words.6 Orders of Governance consensus formation (see Hajer.4 Legitimacy relational choreographies of participation/ exclusion are clearly significant. As Hajer (2003a. legitimacy.5 Scales of Governance all spatial levels. particularly as positions within the geometries of power coercion and the legitimate use of coercive changed as well. political and social framing of policies. the choreography Fifthly. As Kooiman notes. while others are excluded guistic coding of the problems and of strat- or become more marginal (Swyngedouw. these new power or influence in a multiscalar relational forms of governance face considerable organisation of networks of governance. first-. only reflects a partial representation groups of participants enter the frame of of civil society. This is particularly pertinent 1996. In fact. egies of action. be continuously undermined by means of First-order governance is associated with counter-hegemonic discourses and the mobilis- codifying and formalising these principles. with the state. 2003). 2002. this has ingly replaced ‘local public–private partner- been a long-running problem for many of ships’. with it. the become powerful mechanisms for producing European Union. For example. sation or the G-8 meetings are textbook of course. 13). has to be made between ation of discourse alliances) that produces an meta-. In terms of imbedded in legitimising discourses. although by no or down-scaling is not socially neutral as means exclusively. at the best of with changing scalar configurations. When This brings the argument directly to the governance-beyond-the-state involves pro- centrality of legitimation. repre- scale jumping is a vital strategy to gain sentation and accountability. at discursive constructions (through the mobilis- least theoretically. Swyngedouw et al. This view par- allels recent post-modern theories of political 4. varies significantly depend- are constituted and their internal and external ing on the ‘order’ of the governing network. therefore. The mechanisms cesses of ‘jumping scales’ (Smith. govern- governance or reinforce their power position. remains extremely fragile as it can examples of vehicles of meta-governance. Legitimacy new actors emerge and consolidate their posi- depends. p. while. where national urban policy increas- to establishing legitimacy. ation of a deconstructionist apparatus for deci- while second-order governance refers to the phering the codings of power that are sphere of actual implementation. 2002). as both Kooiman (2000) and Jessop which implies a reliance on the formation of (2002b. GOVERNANCE INNOVATION 2001 4. including entitlement. However. In sum. definitions and patterns of action” (quoted in Grote and Gbikpi. . the geographical scale or level at of participation. more crucially on the lin- tion in the process. there is a clear hierarchy between these orders of governance. These ‘grand principles’ of governmentality are discursive or representational strategies have defined (Whitehead.

stage in the formation of the new institutional It would of course be premature to and regulatory configurations associated with announce the death of the state in the wake governance (Swyngedouw et al. local social move. in fact. promises and. or inde. the political and institutional the state mobilises to deal with its own imma- armature does not operate independently of nent legitimation crisis. the new the social and economic sphere. This is parti. the its forms of political/institutional organisa- theatre for their operation and focus of their tion and articulation with society remain intervention. decentred and. 2001). ulti. any forms of governance (at the EU or other operation of the political sphere is. most importantly. the new forms of governance were either Therefore. This of the emergence of these new forms of configuration is directly related to the governance. The Janus Face of Governance-beyond. In the absence of clear channels of or enabling regulatory framework of systems representation and accountability. the poli. resistance from (significant parts of) civil mental use and transformation. necessarily well as more vocal civil-society-based articulate with the state. whether innovative models of governance as non- we are considering EU levels of governance. are taken by private integration was a classic example of this actors who operate within the constraining practice. hierarchical. and directly governmentality in the context of a greater or indirectly controlled by. Secondly. The result is a complex hybrid form tical power choreography in this hybrid of government/governance (Bellamy and government/governance configuration is Warleigh. the state takes centre political-economic transformations. de facto. However. diffuse. beyond-the-state. In fact. networked forms of participatory governance the-state polity. This ambiguity becomes one of the means Of course. many of these networked conditions and requirements of neo-liberal organisations are both set up by. the state and. Hence. be sustained uncritically.2002 ERIK SWYNGEDOUW 5. on occasion. For example. society. the state. networked and (selectively) or the emergence of sub-national levels of inclusive forms of governmentality. not very transparent. are shaped by these wider important. levels) are invoked by the state to legitimise a political-economic intervention as govern- and push through forms of intervention that ance inevitably impinges on decisions over might otherwise meet with considerable economic processes and modes of environ. delivers a new ments). The imposition of the budget norm cularly true in a market economy. the thesis of the transition instrumental in shaping this transformation in socioeconomic regulation from statist or else they became established as the regu. permits. their and society and thus rearticulates and reorga- institutional operation beyond-the-state nises the traditional tension between the . multilayered. 2002). role of both private economic agents as regardless of their origins. in which on national governments by the Maastricht key decisions over resource allocation. groups. In this sense. the power has to be qualified in a number of ways. To the extent that over the society individuals and groups find it more past few decades there has been a tendency difficult to engage in public debate and to towards deregulation and reregulation and contest or change courses of action decided towards the externalisation of state functions. a form of governmentality the-State: The Contradictions of Social that is only apparently outside the state and Innovation in Governance to which the state must necessarily respond. these cannot operate outside. the non-normative and socially mately. While governance development corporations.. the national or local state and governance as well as. use treaty in the run-up to European monetary and transformation. relationship between the act of governing pendently of. In fact. cannot governance (social economy initiatives. In fact. geometries within and between networks of First of all. command-and-control systems to horizontal latory framework for managing a beyond. civil of government. Yet.

82 –95. calculation of governance. J. and the imposition of a transcendental power position of groups that were present in Hobbesian leviathan on the other. Political Studies. as discussed above. individuation. the consolidation of the immanent forms of governing on the one presence of others. References constitutes an important and far-reaching socio-political innovation. appear to empower civil society in the face scaling. government/governance. . (1999) World Risk Society. In parti. AKKERMAN . pp. on the one hand. there are earlier forms of government and the continuing also significant counter-tendencies. “Les nouveaux mode`les d’action en e´mer- and in the construction of the necessary gence resultant de la combinaison plus ou moins concerte´e d’acteurs sociaux provenant institutional and regulatory infrastructure de divers milieux (prive´. groups associated with the drive towards (2) The extension of ‘holder’ participation as marketisation and has diminished the partici- partially realised in some new forms of patory status of groups associated with social- governance versus the consolidation of democratic or anti-privatisation strategies. Needless to say. 52. U.. it has also representational forms of autocratic e´lite consolidated and enhanced the power of technocracy. tensions arise been included. The new ‘gestalt of scale’ of between governance has undoubtedly given a greater voice and power to some organisations (of a (1) The possibilities and promises of enhan- particular kind—i. (2004) The interactive state: democratisation from Thirdly. 1. M. The up. and perhaps most importantly. governance-beyond-the-state is embedded (3) The improved transparency associated within autocratic modes of governing that with horizontal networked interdependen- mobilise technologies of performance and of cies versus the grey accountability of hier- agency as a means of disciplining forms archically articulated and non-formalised of operation within an overall programme of and procedurally legitimised. public. combined with the emergence of a new hierarchically nested and relationally articulated ‘gestalt of scale’. The socially These tensions arise in a particularly prevalent innovative figures of horizontally organised and acute way in the context of the processes stakeholder arrangements of governance that of rescaling of levels of governance. and GRIN . 2001).e. may. This is clearly evident in the context of the formation (and probably implementation) of a wide array of socially Note innovative urban and local development initiatives and experiments. those who accept playing ced democratisation through participatory according to the rules set from within the governance versus the actualities of non- leading e´lite networks). tradictions. the exclusion or diminished hand. in the end. T. the processes of constructing above?. interest intermediation. exclusion of other social actors who have never cular. associations responsibilisation. beyond-the-state arenas of power-based Finally. prove to be the scale of the national state have resulted in Trojan Horse that diffuses and consolidates the formation of institutions and practices of the ‘market’ as the principal institutional governance that all express the above con. these new choreographies of governance are BECK . and pluralist fragmentation. HAJER . Cambridge: associated with the rise to prominence of Polity Press. form. this ambiguous shift d’action dans de sens de leur inte´reˆts” from government to a hybrid form of (Paquet. GOVERNANCE INNOVATION 2003 realisation of the Rousseauian ideal in new social actors. civique) that accompanies such processes on the dans le but d’influencer les systemes other. down-scaling and externalisation of of an apparently overcrowded and ‘excessive’ functions traditionally associated with the state. However.

tory Governance. (2003) Introduction: state space Beyond. Chicago. I. Foreign Policy. analysis and the institutional void. and WARLEIGH . THEODORE University of Chicago Press. GETIMIS . DINGWERTH . Oxford: Blackwell. Libe´r- pp. (1991) The mobilization of society. KAFKALAS ET AL. 967. and P. ROSE (Eds) Foucault and ogy and Consciousness. final. 1–26. pp. J. BRENNER . 327–344. in: N. IL: The Univer- 24(4). Chicago. 117.org. 281–298. Institutional Capacity and Social (Eds) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Govern- Milieux. Opladen: Leske & Budrich. T... M. Essai sur le de´clin des passions politiques. BARNDT . to the critique of a bourgeois category.. Oxford University Press. 14. and DRYZEK . B. DREYFUS and P. pp. tics. pp. in: and Rationalities of Government. and RANKIN . pp. (1999) Governmentality: Power and GRAMSCI . A. Political Reason: Liberalism. (1993) Revolutions within: self. (2001) Civic culture. Economy and Society. M. in: Harvester Wheatsheaf.) (2003a) Deliberative Policy Analy- (www. 6. 1–51. 9(2). mentality. M. RABINOW (Eds) Michel London: University College London Press. mentality. 208–226. 559–583. and AL -SAYYID . 40(10). New Economy. (Eds) Spaces of Neoliberalism. 175–195. London: Lawrence and Wishart. C. (1984) L’invention du social: ship and Governance in the European Union. Oxford: DONZELOT . pp. 19 –36. pp. Opladen: Leske und Budrich. G. and GBIKPI . Aldershot: Ashgate. G. C. BARRY . pp. GORDON and P. BURCHELL . BURCHELL .. . (1979) On governmentality. FOUCAULT . and HEALEY . DONZELOT . Oxford: Blackwell. 2–32. G. IL: The on the pursuit of innovation in sustainability. J. 267–282. G. Paris: Seuil. and PADDISON . in: University of Chicago Press. C. pp. (2004) New State Spaces. Sciences. MACLEOD (Eds) State/Space: and global governance. (1984) La phobie d’etat. H. 5–21. 219. 131. 2225–2250. A Reader. P. 107– nance. technologies of citizenship and the war on GORDON . (Eds) (2002) Participa- beyond the state: operationalising an idea. GOONEWARDENA . sity of Chicago Press. (2000) Civil society. J. C. Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneu- CAROTHERS . Amsterdam: The Global Governance Project HAJER . MILLER DEAN . Chicago. Context: Concepts and Experience. (1991) Governmental rationality. (1993) Liberal government and EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2001) European techniques of the self. pp. B. H. in: MAGALHAES . A. HEINELT . pp. 38(12). M. pp. Brussels: Commission of the European BURCHELL . Neo-liberalism. HEALEY . sis: Understanding Governance in the Network DOCHERTY . DEAN . EDWARDS . COM(2001) 428 22(3). pp. G. (Ed. pp. N. 29–55. Oxford: Oxford University Press. in: G. 30/31 June. in N. (1994) The will to empower: Theory. K. and FOUCAULT . 58–81. London: Continuum Publishers Co. J. (1982) The subject and power. (2003b) Policy without polity? Policy participation in contrasting neighbourhoods. CARS . B. MILLER GETIMIS . in question. BURCHELL . Governance: A White Paper. N. ation. G. JESSOP . B. R. 71–76. community and citizen HAJER . 21. BRENNER . (2004) Democratic governance GROTE . Brighton: Harvester. A. analysis of policy-making and empirical evidence mentality.. (1995) Governing the unemployed self (Eds) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Govern- in an active society. BRENNER . Esprit. pp. P. pp. J. M. (2002) Cities and (Eds) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Govern- the geographies of ‘actually existing neo. M. London: Sage. JONES M. (2003) ‘My voice: my (Eds) Participatory Governance in a Multi-level place’: tracking transformations in urban gover. Policy Urban Studies. FOUCAULT . and THEODORE . (2002) Comparative (Eds) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Govern. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (2000) Deliberative Democracy and MACLEOD. FOUCAULT . K. M. MILLER BRENNER . (1996) L’avenir du social. (1996) Liberal government and Communities. 22(3). accessed 16 May 2005). in: A. 36. Implications. T. DONZELOT . 117–149. JONES and G. C. GORDON . in: poverty. N. Economy & Society. Society. pp. R. BURCHELL . (1991) From dangerous to risk. (2001) Citizen. N. P. CRUIKSHANK . G. 87–104. and KAFKALAS . Societal and Political Global Governance Working Paper No. JESSOP . Ideol- OSBORNE and N. W. 3(2). techniques of the self. G. Urban Studies. IL: The liberalism. K. BRENNER and N. GOODLAD . MADANIPOUR . (1991) Governmentality. (2002) Herding cats? Civil society M.. R. Economy and The desire called civil society: a contribution Society. (2004) government and self-esteem. M. M. GORDON and P. P. Hemel Hempstead: CASTEL . mentality.2004 ERIK SWYNGEDOUW BELLAMY . C. pp. B. Notebooks. J. MILLER Governance. Socialist Review. M. 23(4). pp. R. K.glogov. (1971) Selections from the Prison Rule in Modern Society. DE (Eds) (2002) Urban G. 169–179. 18–29. 1979–1999. Planning CRUIKSHANK . pp. BURCHELL . pp. COAFFEE . p. N. GORDON and P.

Restructuring and Social Polarization in Euro- KAFKZALAS ET AL. 57 –95. PACQUET . (2002b) The Future of the Capitalist SWYNGEDOUW . Ottawa: Presses Governance: Authority. urban policy. 33 –58. (2002) The Silent Takeover: Global MITCHELL . J. GENDRON and critique. F. H. Steering and Demo. 307–333. K. Project No. O’MALLEY . International Social Science Journal. and Community Building— London: Verso. (1995) Du gouvernement local a` la PIERRE . Revue Franc¸aise de Authority. (2006) Social innovation ment. Oxford: Oxford University PAGDEN . Basingstoke: Macmillan. 165– 189. Associations and Democracy. P. International Social Science Michel Foucault’s lecture at the Colle`ge de Journal. pp. de Montre´al. Contract tives on economic and political change. hegemony. pp. M. and governance in European cities: between 50(155). MARTINELLI . shaping of privatism in lowland Scotland. vation and romantic irony in participatory E. neoliberalism and Special Issue. T. pp. 252–275. pation in local economic development: lessons . 9(1/2). 2000-0028. and SWYNGEDOUW . Governance. A. neo- Capitalism and the Death of Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. JESSOP B. (2000) Societal governance: manie`re de voir. 24. Government –Society Interactions.) SWYNGEDOUW . MILLER . Sage. Oxford: Blackwell. 14(3). (2005) Social Innovation. roles of requisite variety. 32(4). 30(2). European JESSOP . reflexive obser. B. MARTINELLI . Economy and Society. MOULAERT . GETIMIS . 190– 207. pp. pp. durable et participation publique: De la conte. Journal of European Urban and urban governance: a state-theoretical perspec. International Social Science London: Sage. London: pp. Oxford: Science Politique. in: P. J. E. (1995) The regulation approach: gov. pp. (2003) Governing as Governance. J. 7– 15. pp. Economy and Society. Annals of Scholarship. Socio-economic Knowledge Base. 101–114. France on neo-liberal governmentality. CARDINAL and levels. E. 8(2). Regional Studies (forthcoming). and risks of failure: the case of economic develop. Brussels. B. pp. Final Report Month 40. Rethinking Marxism. RODRIGUEZ. (2002) Foucault. Opladen: Leske and New Labour. (2005) Neoliberalism: A Short the invention of calculating selves and calculable History. and JESSOP . WRIGHT (Ed. F. 9–41. ANDREW (Eds) La de´mocratie a` l’e´preuve interaction. (2002) Conclusion: enjeux institution. 34(2). POULANTZAS . C. P. in: J. power and crime KOOIMAN . (1992) Accounting and objectivity: HARVEY . RACO . SERD- Economy and Society. Journal. (Eds) Participatory Govern. (1995) Modern Governance: New prevention. N. in: E. 138–166. HPSE-CT2001-00070. Montre´al: Presses de l’Universite´ Environment and Planning A. litan world order. Steering and Democracy. path dependency and radical innovation. 21(2). pean Cities. P. SWYNGEDOUW . RODRIGUEZ. HIRST . University Press. J. MOULAERT . (Eds) (2002) The Globalized City:—Economic governance. London: Arrow. and Enlightenment conceptions of the cosmopo- KOOIMAN . GOVERNANCE INNOVATION 2005 HAMEL . de l’Universite´ d’Ottawa. VAILLANCOURT (Eds) De´veloppement MACLEOD . European Urban governance in the face of complexity: on the and Regional Studies. (2000a) Debating Governance: gouvernance urbaine. Policy and Society. 29– 46. LEMKE . LE GALE` S . P. and democratic governance?. (2001) La gouvernance en tant que KOOIMAN . Special Issue. governmentality. G. (2002) Transnationalism. P. SINGOCOM. in: L. pp. pp. 600– 608. F. Antipode.. G. (1998) The genesis of ‘governance’ Press. B. Oxford: Oxford University Press. F. (1980) Research note on the LEMKE . and the rise of the shadow state. LE GALE` S . (2001) Modernising Governance: Experience. spaces. liberalism. A.. pp. G. (2001) ‘The birth of bio-politics’— state and society. 345–375. ation in metropolitan areas: the role of new JESSOP . (2002c) Governance and meta. tive. Oxford University Press.. (1995) Can secondary associations enhance MOULAERT . and nels et de´fis politiques. B. pp. (2002a) Liberalism. Budrich.) Debating de la gouvernance. J. models and orders of socio-political C. 30(2). (1998) The rise of governance and the MOULAERT . F. HERTZ . Union Framework V. (2000b) Governance. D. JESSOP . 377–392. 61–86. (2000) Assessing community partici- Economy & Society. 31. and state strategy: the political station e´cologique aux de´fis de la gouvernance. A. (1992) Risk. E. London: Sage. pp. P. pp. No. J. 45. 49– 64. 452– 472. cracy. pp. in: C. N. HEINELT . (Eds) (2001) Social polariz- State. Oxford: Oxford State. Politics and the Conflicts and Governance. T. 50(155). J. Key Action Improving ernance and post-fordism: alternative perspec. A. F.. ance in a Multi-level Context: Concepts and NEWMAN . PIERRE (Ed. O. pp. (1999) Entrepreneurial spaces. (2002) European Cities: Social PIERRE .

) Spaces of Globalization: Reassert- British Journal of Sociology. (1987) Gramsci’s SOCIAL COMMISSION FOR ASIA AND THE Politics. New York: Guilford. Paper ance. SINGOCOM (2005) www. 173–205. GROTE and Europe: large-scale urban development projects B. SWYNGEDOUW . policy reform and SMITH . STOKER . 137–166. Chichester: J.2006 ERIK SWYNGEDOUW for new urban policy. American Experience. (1996) Reconstructing 27(4). Participatory Governance: From Citizens to SWYNGEDOUW .ac. September. Urban Studies. (1992) Political power ‘glocalization’ and the politics of scale. presented at the Conference ‘Democratic and Environment and Planning D. 523–547. K. E. Political and Societal Implications.org/huset/gg/governance. lisation’? Networks. (1998) Public–private partnerships in 19(5). C. information systems. pp. accessed 9 March 2004). pp. 43. European University Institute. (http://www. R. E. R.unescap. 51 –69. Basingstoke: ments for urban management approaches and Macmillan. and MILLER . Florence. the new authoritarianism: closing the Policy Networks. G. 34(3). P. (1997) Neither global nor local: ROSE . 25– 48. SWYNGEDOUW .) Parner- RAKODI . (2004) Globalisation or ‘gloca- “Holders”’. GBIKPI (Eds) Participatory Governance: and the new urban policy. htm. (2000) Governance. E. urban governance. Blackwell. N. London: Lawrence & Wishart. pp. A. Reflexivity and Belgian mines. (1991) Gramsci’s Political Thought. L. . 542–577. Area. and RODRI- will achieve ‘sustainable and innovative policies GUEZ . 6–14. Governance. Accountability. the re-scaling of the state and RHODES . (2000) Authoritarian govern- SCHMITTER . chy’: meta-governance. Oxford: urban regeneration in the West Midlands. pp. R. 573–599. N.htm. PIERRE (Ed. ing the Power of the Local.. PACIFIC) (2004) What is Good Governance? SIMON . 33(8). pp. (1984) Uneven Development. 34 –51. pp. E. COX (Ed. SCHMITTER . arrangements: is there any reason to expect it SWYNGEDOUW . A. in: beyond the state: problematics of government. Political Geography.ncl. (2003) Politics and performance: the ships in Urban Governance: European and implications of emerging governance arrange. (1999) Understanding Governance. Buckingham: Open University pp. citizenship. London: Hutchinson. UNESCAP (UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC AND SHOWSTACK SASSOON . MOULAERT . territories and rescaling. (2002) Neoliberal urbanization in in a multi-level context’?. accessed 1 May 2005. Wiley and Sons. Opladen: Leske and Budrich. Cambridge Review of International Affairs. (2002) Participation in governance 17(1). pp. P. in: J. M. pp. (1998) Towards Cosmopolis. pp.uk/ipp/research/ WHITEHEAD . Antipode. 63 –76. 1499–1521. Habitat International. SANDERCOCK . (2003) ‘In the shadow of hierar- projects/singocom. pp. P. in: J. SWYNGEDOUW . power and the politics of rescaling. F. Press. 35(1). E.