You are on page 1of 22

Urban Policy and Research, Vol. 25, No.

3, 325345, September 2007

Stars and their Supporting Cast: State, Market and Community as Actors in Urban Governance
JOHN MINNERY
School of Geography, Planning and Architecture, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

(Received 7 June 2006; accepted 5 June 2007) ABSTRACT In the search for better ways to govern cities there has been a shift from an emphasis on the role of urban government to an emphasis on urban governance. Governance is now widely understood as incorporating the role of the state in policy making and implementation but extending beyond that single actor to include the roles of the private sector (market) and community (civil society). The relationships amongst the three are both complex and changing. This article proposes a conceptual framework that structures our understanding of how the actors in urban governance interact, based on relationships where one of the actors has far greater inuence than the other two, in other words where one is the star or central actor. The framework then addresses the question of the roles of the supporting cast, or the other two actors. The governance orthodoxy is that relationships are collaborative and consensual, expressed through ideas about partnerships and networks. The framework, however, draws attention to the possibility of conict. The article explores some of the implications for urban governance theory and practice of these complex relationships. KEY WORDS: Urban governance, government, hierarchy, market, civil society, community

Correspondence Address: John Minnery, School of Geography, Planning and Architecture, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia. Fax: 61 (07) 3365 6899; Tel.: 61 (07) 3365 3880; Email: j.minnery@uq.edu.au
0811-1146 Print/1476-7244 Online/07/030325-21 q 2007 Editorial Board, Urban Policy and Research DOI: 10.1080/08111140701540745

326

J. Minnery

Introduction In the 14th century, the Italian artist Ambrogio Lorensetti painted an apocryphal vision of a badly governed city. The contrast with his paired city of good governance is stark. Yet despite Lorensettis (admittedly allegorical) guidance there is still considerable debate about the way cities should be governed. The substantial lineage of this search for a better understanding, stretching from at least the 14th into the 21st century, is neatly captured by Kjr (2004, p. 1), who opens her recent exploration with a direct reference to Lorensettis frescoes. It may not be true to say that the search for better city governance is worldwide; but it certainly is now widespread (McCarney, 1990), for all over the world cities are searching for appropriate ways of governance in the context of far-reaching economic, social and institutional transformations affecting all levels of scale (Hohn & Neuer, 2006, p. 291). Good urban governance, as conceptualised by organisations such as the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) (Taylor, 2000), has many of the characteristics expected of good urban planning. Questions of sustainability, social justice, engagement and efciency are central to both. Some writers, such as Gleeson and Low (2000, pp. 4 5), point to a very intimate connection between urban planning and urban governance when they say that: [o]ur view of planning is that it is both a domain of urban governancethat part of governance concerned with the provision of services to a cityand an approach to urban governance which seeks effective, equitable and democratic steering of the state apparatus for the benet of citizens (emphasis in original). As would be expected organisations such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development take a narrower view of urban governance, giving greater emphasis to economic effectiveness, competition and development (McFarlane, 2001). But it is clear that the nature of both governance as a whole and the part of governance concerned with urban areas has seen major shifts in recent years. Fundamentally, something that was once seen as a role reserved for formal governments has broadened considerably. The urban planning, urban studies and urban geography literatures are now replete with references to this change from urban government to urban governance. The literature is either native to these disciplines or it borrows concepts from public policy or public administration (see, for example, UNDP, 1997b; Pierre, 1999, 2005; UNCHS, 2000; Hambleton, 2002; Gissendanner, 2003; Minnery, 2004; TUGI, 2004). The discussion has now even moved as far as identifying a new urban governance (Hohn & Neuer, 2006; Keil, 2006). Urban governance is now seen to incorporate the role of formal urban government (at the local, regional or national scales) but to extend beyond government to embrace the roles of the private sector and the community sector in urban development and change. This article tries to clarify the nature of that expanded relationship. The relationships are far from simple. So too are descriptions of them. Some descriptions are couched in language that obfuscates rather than claries. For example, Coaffee and Healey (2003), building on earlier work (Cars et al., 2002), use the term

Stars and their Supporting Cast

327

governance . . . in its wider meaning, to refer to the modes and practices of the mobilisation and organisation of collective action. Just as the spheres of political life and social life overlap in the activities and mentalities of particular people and groups, so the organisation of collective action moves between and across these spheres. (p. 1979) Or they describe the extension beyond formal government in ways that seem to rob their concept of governance of much of its meaning. Healey (2006, p. 302), for example, uses the term to encompass all forms of collective action focused on the public realm (sphere) in one way or another, from those orchestrated by formal government agencies, to lobby groups, self-regulating groups, and social campaigns and movements targeted at resistance or challenge to dominant governance relations. There is a clear need to clarify the nature and form of governance and how it applies to urban areas. This article accepts the need to question a governance orthodoxy (Davies, 2005, p. 312) of urban governance analysesthe view that the relationships amongst the major stakeholders are mainly cooperative and consensual, captured in the common use of the terms partnerships or collaborative networks when describing urban governance relationships. The article asks how both conict and cooperation in the relationships amongst the major stakeholders in urban governance can best be understood. In order to do this it rst claries the nature of the major stakeholders themselves, working through an exploration of governance itself to an exploration of urban governance, and proposes a framework through which their potential relationships can be understood. This framework is based on an assumption of differential degrees of inuence amongst the players. The analogy used is identied in the title of the article: when one of the players in governance is the star what are the roles of the other two players who make up the supporting cast. The framework is both derived through and illustrated by a number of empirical case studies drawn from the relevant literature, mainly from the UK and from Australia. But in order to understand urban governance it is necessary rst to explore something of the meaning of governance itself. The Nature of Governance Although the idea of governance originated in political science, authors such as Brugue ` and Valles (2005) argue that even there the idea . . . is highly controversial and has been located in different settings . . . (p. 197). Kjrs (2004) discussion of its different forms is also located within political science, although she takes this as a broad discipline that includes public administration, public policy, international relations and comparative politics. In another example, Hooghe and Marks (2003) identify different approaches to governance in the political science literatures of European Union studies, international relations, federalism studies, local government studies and public policy. Despite these various uncertainties about its home the idea of governance has been absorbed into the discourses of a number of disciplines, including urban planning and urban policy.

328

J. Minnery

In some ways the discourse on governance is like that on sustainability. Both have assumed a central iconic position in a number of literatures without any common agreement on what they actually mean. In fact, talk about governance is sometimes criticized for being vague, incoherent, based on false assumptions, just words, or simply commonsense asserts Larmour (1998, p. 3). In Pratorius (2003, p. 237) review of the collection edited by Pierre (2000) it is suggested that the term governance may suffer the same fate as the term democracy if the words continue to be used in such an expansive and uid way: if it means everything, perhaps it means nothing. For planners and policy analysts, the historical resonances with Wildavskys (1973, p. 127) much earlier concern that, [i]f planning is everything, maybe its nothing are obvious. It is, however, now widely accepted that governance incorporates but transcends the notion of government or of the state (Kooiman, 1993; Rhodes, 1997; UNDP, 1997a; Cavallier, 1998; Larmour, 1998; Stoker, 1998; Reddel, 2002, 2004; Gissendanner, 2003; ` Phares, 2004; Brugue & Valles, 2005; Lodge & Wegrich, 2005). It is also widely accepted that the way governance transcends government is by incorporating the private sector and civil society into policy making and implementation (Colebatch & Larmour, 1993; Larmour, 1996; Jessop, 1998; Carroll & Carroll, 1999; Pierre, 1999, 2000, 2005; Burns, 2000; Harding et al., 2000; Nye & Donahue, 2000; Rhodes, 2000; Sbragia, 2000; Kooiman, 2003; Kjr, 2004). These three components of governance are described by Thynne (2000, p. 228) as the state . . . viewed, very generally, as an organized political community that both features in, and has interdependent relationships with, the market as an organized economic community and civil society as an organized social community. Just how the two non-government sectors are incorporated, and the nature of the resulting relationships amongst the three actors, is the starting point for the many debates about governance. The very act of incorporating non-government actors into public policy making and implementation raises serious questions about how important features that are part of the very nature of the state are to be considered. If we move beyond the traditional formal structure of government do we also move beyond the traditional mechanisms of authority, legitimacy and accountability that are part of the very nature of government? And perhaps more importantly, what happens to the role of government as the only legitimate user of coercive power? Can these issues be properly addressed in the new and uid arrangements? As Durose and Rummery (2006) note, these new arrangements also raise questions about such broad issues as citizenship, welfare rights and responsibilities. It is also important to note here that the terms actor and stakeholder do not imply that government, the private sector or civil society are to be seen as single coherent players in a public policy game. Allison (1971; Allison & Zelikow, 1999) demonstrated decades ago that even the US federal government cannot be seen as a single policy actor. In fact, government, the private sector and civil society are each made up of numerous agencies, components and individuals, every one of them with their own potentially competing agendas. The complexity is especially important when dealing with the government context of governance. In the federal system of Australia there are three tiers of government involved, as well as numerous quasi-government entities. In the UK the formerly unitary government is devolving some powers to sub-national Parliaments. And the UK exists within the European community where aspects of national sovereignty are being negotiated at a multi-national level. These contexts both dene and shape the role of government in governance. But for the purposes of this discussion it is necessary, somewhat articially it is accepted, to treat each of the players (state, market and

Stars and their Supporting Cast

329

community) as a single entity so that their relationships with the other entities can be explored. Thus, the use of the four terms players, actors, sectors and stakeholders. All four are used interchangeably in reference to government (the state), the private sector (the market) and the community (civil society) as entities. The boundaries amongst the three actors are not always clear in practice. Stone (2005, p. 230) notes that: state, market and civil society are conceptual distinctions and . . . actual practice blurs the boundaries among them. Markets are heavily intertwined with the state through subsidies, contract law, patent and copyright regulations, bankruptcy laws, property rights, and much more. The level of voluntary effort and the scope of social capital may be very much a function of governmental action. Despite these fuzzy boundaries the central character of the three actors differs enough for each of them to be identied separately. Hambleton (2002, p. 150) explains the difference between government and governance well, linking his discussion to both the practitioner and academic debates: Government refers to the formal institutions of the state. Government makes decisions within specic administrative and legal frameworks and uses public resources in a nancially accountable way. Most important, government decisions are backed up by the legitimate hierarchical power of the state. Governance, on the other hand, involves government plus the looser processes of inuencing and negotiating with a range of public and private sector agencies to achieve desired outcomes. A governance perspective encourages collaboration between public, private and non-prot sectors to achieve mutual goals . . . There is recognition here that government cannot go it alone. (emphasis in original) Both the substantive shift from government to governance, as well as the shift in analytical frameworks used to explain that substantive shift, have occurred for a number of reasons. One identied by Stoker (1998) is that governance is specic to particular times and places. Different arrangements and trajectories would be expected in different periods and in different locations. One particularly good illustration of this is the focus in the UK on the plethora of initiatives of former Prime Minister Blairs New Labour with its emphasis on joined up government and partnerships. Durose and Rummery (2006), following Clarence and Painter (1998), note a move in governance over time in the UK from hierarchies to market to networksfrom centralised formal government and bureaucratic control to market-dominated neo-liberal policy to community-based and partnership approaches. Whether these changes are as apparent in the reality on the ground rather than in the policy rhetoric is questioned by researchers such as Wright et al. (2006). Keil (2006, pp. 336 337) in Germany on the other hand identies two new development paths that can be followed in parallel: the rst path that of deregulation, privatisation, neo-liberalism and entrepreneurial urban development policy; the second path that of cooperative, partnership planning and the control processes of the state and civil society. Keil (2006, p. 337) citing Wood (2003), identies these as leading to a dual city or two-speed city. This idea of a dual city or two speed city normally refers to the growing socio-spatial polarisation in the Western city. But it is clear that different forms of governance can coexist in the one

330

J. Minnery

location, can overlap with one another and can exist within different policy sectors (for example, planning, health and economic development).1 A number of analysts, including Pierre (1999), show how different forms of governance can exist side by side, in Pierres example even in different sections of the single local authority. There thus appears to be no single cause for the substantive shift from government to governance. Hambleton (2002) manifestly sees it as something that arises from the recognition of constraints on government capacities. In the Australian context some writers, especially those who are critical of the recent turn in public affairs such as Gleeson and Low (2000), link it mainly to the growth of neo-liberalism. Gleeson et al. (2004, p. 350), in their discussion of Australian metropolitan planning, link the shift to the need for greater integration within government (which perhaps focuses on a rather narrow view of governance), the need for relationships outside government to capitalise on nongovernment energy and expertise and the need to nd more innovative ways of delivering services in a climate of nancial cutbacks. What is particularly interesting, however, is that some Australian authors see the change from government to governance as reecting a convergence of neo-liberal and communitarian ideologies that form the basis of a new relationship between the state, the market and civil society (OToole & Burdess, 2005, p. 239, referring to Mackinnon, 2002) rather than the replacement of one by the other. That such a convergence is possible ies in the face of those who see neo-liberalism solely as something of a malign inuence actively undermining any communitarian sentiments in society. OToole and Burdesss (2005) analysis focuses on the relationships in 35 small towns in rural Victoria. Yet this is not the only context in which such a convergence of interests occurs. Initiatives by organisations such as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP, 1997a, b), when they extol the need for good governance, make it clear that this cannot be achieved without the active involvement and support of all non-government actorscivil society and the market must both play their roles. In summary, then, governance is an approach to public policy making and implementation that specically incorporates the roles of formal government, the market and civil society. The change from government to governance illustrates a change from an expectation that public policy making is the sole responsibility of formal governments to an expectation that public policy making also incorporates a role for the private sector and the community sector. By analogy it is a shift from a solo acting performance (albeit supported by a behind the scenes stage crew) to a play with a cast of three. This approach to governance incorporates elements of both neo-liberal and communitarian ideologies. This is the overwhelming reality of much current public policy making, but although it has attracted growing academic interest, there is as yet only partial agreement on the structure and boundaries of governance. Urban Governance Urban governance nestles within this wider governance discourse. There is a special urgency in better understanding what urban governance is about, however, because of the growing role of cities and city regions in the globalising world. The urban dimension is ` clearly identied by Le Gales (2002, p. 75) when he draws attention to the loosening grip of the state and the redistribution of authority within the European Union. He argues that now, European cities are not organised solely by the state but, increasingly, in relation to cities and regions in other countriesthe horizontal dimensions of European

Stars and their Supporting Cast

331

institutionalisationand in relation to Brusselsthe vertical, multi-level dimension. A similar level of importance, but for a different reason and with a somewhat more narrow focus, is identied by Lawson and Gleeson (2005) when they argue that the rescaling of urban governance in Australia is closely associated with the growing recognition of the need for joined-up whole-of-government policy approaches focused on urban places rather than poorly integrated policies based on functional agency divisions. This conceptualisation of urban governance builds on earlier analyses of urban policy making that also moved beyond a concern with only formal government. Gissendanner (2003), for example, identies the urban regime theory associated with Stone (1989) and urban growth machine approaches associated with Logan and Molotch (1987) as the principal theories of urban governance. Gissendanner (2003) also draws on the earlier community power debates (Hunter, 1953; Dahl, 1961) for inspiration. Davies (2002) claims that the characteristics of governing networks are close in kind to those described in regime theory (p. 304). Pierres (1999) four models of urban governancecorporatist, pro-growth, welfare and mangerialistoverlap with these approaches but extend beyond them; he also identies them as being capable of applying to different parts of the single local authority, such as for the different departments concerned with social services, economic development and the like. Pierres approach also builds a bridge to the more recent theoretical structure of institutional analysis, as do researchers such as Healey ` (1997, 1999, 2006). Others, including Le Gales (1998), use a different approach, that of regulation theory, to approach local regulation and include market regulation and reciprocity (p. 489) in addition to the state in understanding governance in European cities. The key aspect of these approaches is that they recognise urban policy making and implementation are not single-actor stage performances. Formal government is not the sole performer in the play of governance. Governance is a play with three roles. The actors playing the other two parts are the market and civil society (or at least components of them). Because urban governance nestles within the wider context of governance many of the elements that make it up are similar to those in governance but the spatial and thus the policy scales are different. In Australia, to move the focus from national governance to a more localised urban scale means a shift from the roles dened for the Commonwealth government in the constitution (and interpreted by the High Court) to the State level and to the level of State-dened local government. The government and public policy contexts in different sovereign jurisdictions will clearly shape the form of governance. Although this context is important it is not dealt with here. The parallel is with developing an understanding of the ways actors function without exploring in detail the kind of play they specialise in. The impact of the different spatial scales is important and direct, however. In moving from national to urban scales it is necessary to re-scale the formal government players. The other actors also need to be re-scaled from national and international levels to the urban. Coxs (1998) discussion provides some useful insights here. In discussing scale divisions of politics he notes how some branches of the state (or of capital) work within discrete, enclosed jurisdictional spaces (p. 1). Yet he argues that a more appropriate metaphor for the spatiality of scale . . . is that of the network (p. 2, emphasis in original), a much less rigorously delimitated space, particularly when two kinds of spaces are identied: spaces of dependence (dened by those more-or-less localized social relations upon which we

332

J. Minnery

depend for the realization of essential interests, p. 2) and spaces of engagement (the space in which the politics of securing a space of dependence unfolds, p. 2). Building on the work of Harvey (1985) and others, Cox also identies the phenomenon of jumping scales (pp. 1 2), in which the politics of space and the relationships of the actors involved jump from one spatial level to another. For example, in Harveys (1985) example quoted by Cox (p. 2) 19th-century class struggles saw the bourgeoisie asserting a more dominant role at the level of the nation-state as it lost control over urban centres. So, who, specically, are the re-scaled actors in urban governance? Urban areas become what they are through the combined values and actions of local and other governments, private interests and the community. The nature of these actors in urban governance must ` differ from those in wider governance because of what Le Gales (1998) identies as the external and the internal dimensions of territorialised governance (p. 498). Nation-states are territorially dened but their denitions are legally, politically and socially different to the denitions of urban areas. As already noted by Cox (1998), both scale and political structures are important. Thus, the major players in urban governance will be those with connections to the urban territory, including city and regional governments, neighbourhood community organisations and local entrepreneurs. They will be connected to the urban place or locality. There will also be players who are external to the locally territorialised players. This will include the higher levels of government already mentioned, but also globalised private interests and national and international community sector networks. The objectives of urban governance will differ from those of wider governance, even if described under the same general rubric. For example, economic development and social cohesion take on different meanings at national and local levels. Local government is normally seen as one of the major substantive players in urban governance; but in an urban governance discourse local government interacts with a wide network of non-government but local scale actors. This is well captured by Bassett et al. (2002, p. 1757), when they describe urban governance as something that encompasses the view that local authorities today have to co-exist and collaborate with a much wider network of agencies and interest-groups than in the past, amongst them more organised and active business elites, but clearly elites with a stake in the urban area. There are also many locally signicant components of the community or civil society: non-government organisations, community-based organisations, lobby groups, individuals and religious and professional groups. There is conceptual parallel between the change from urban government to urban governance and that from local government to local governance. But there are several interpretations of this change. Some are relatively narrow, focusing mainly on the connections between local government and local community. For example, Geddes (2005a) describes the shift as moving to concepts and practices of local partnerships and to policy objectives and programs adopting a discourse of social inclusion (p. 13). The idea can be far wider, though, as McGuirk notes (2000, p. 668). She says that the capacity for local government to harness the empowering potentialities of governance is dependent upon the place-specic and dynamic conuence of political, institutional, socio-cultural, economic and discursive settings within which the opportunities are embedded. This is far beyond ideas of social inclusion. But it is not just the capacity to harness potentialities that depends on these factors; the very shape of urban governance itself depends on them, with the caveat already referred to by Stone (2005) of the overlap amongst the players and the blurred boundaries between them. In this discussion, though, we must not lose sight of the particular

Stars and their Supporting Cast

333

structures of local government (as well as other levels of government) that are designed to ensure accountability and legitimacy. These include processes such as elections, freedom of information legislation and due process, features that are not built in to private sector or community sector structures. Thus, for this article, the concept of urban governance, following Bassett et al. (2002), refers to the processes of direction-setting, policy making and implementation that incorporate the roles and responsibilities of government, the private sector and civil society in urban settings, as well as the partnerships and conicts amongst them. Do the actors in urban governance interact in the same way as the equivalent actors do for governance as a whole? Healey (2006, pp. 305ff.) develops a framework utilising levels of activity involved in governance (from episodes to processes and cultures) linked to the institutional concepts of rules, resources and ideas. She discusses these in relation to governance as a whole, but then applies them to a series of urban case studies in Newcastle, UK. The implication is that at least some of the intellectual capital developed in the general framework applied to governance can also be applied to urban governance. However, she makes the important connection, in her examples of governance initiatives in the Newcastle City Council area, with territoriality in identifying that whilst local government boundaries mean very little in terms of the economic and social life of the resident population their impact can be very considerable in terms of the connections between economic and social networks and political powers and resource distribution mechanisms. Access to many of the resources allocated by the public sector and negotiation over regulatory approvals require some relationship with one or more parts of the city council (p. 309). Being inside or outside a political boundary can have considerable impact, as it does for governance as a whole. In Coxs (1998) terms the networks extend beyond the jurisdictional boundaries, but nonetheless the boundaries still have political signicance. Forms of Interaction Despite the complexity and rate of change of both governance and urban governance there appears to be one consistent feature of the analyses of the different players roles: they either assume or predicate that one of the three players is central to the relationship. Analysts take a state-centric, a market-centric or a community-centric approach. This centrality can take a number of forms; it does not necessarily imply a dominant power relationship. Following the metaphor used in the title of this article one actor can be the star while other two actors play supporting roles. Yet as any number of examples from the ood of gossipy articles in magazines indicate, star status can be a lever for the exercise of power or inuence even when there is no formal power relationship in place. Centrality, or star status, may imply nothing more than being the centre of attention; but on the other hand it may imply some form of dominance. And in any three-person play the role played by the star normally needs the full participation of the supporting cast. In urban governance, centrality and non-centrality can take on a similar range of meanings. The analysis by Geddes (2005a, pp. 14ff.) of welfare regimes in the European Union uses a similar set of relationships in a different context. His triangular structure identies forms of local partnership where the strongest role is played by the state (for example, public sector partnerships in the Netherlands and Scandinavia), or where the market is stronger (such as local corporatist partnerships in Austria) or where civil society is stronger (such as public/voluntary community partnerships in Portugal).

334

J. Minnery

In urban governance, if one of the triad of players is central then the other two must play some role in relation to that central player.2 This is the focus of the second major issue to be addressed in this article. When one player is assumed to play, or is dened as playing, a central role what exactly are the roles of the other two players? How do they support (or not support) the central player? State-Centrality Many of the analysts of both governance and urban governance identify or imply that the state is the central of the three actors. Pierres (1999, p. 374; Pierre & Peters, 2000) approach, for example, is unashamedly state-centric, with the local state as the central player: governance refers to the process through which local authorities, in concert with private interests, seek to enhance collective goals. Marshall (2000), in exploring whether there is a Barcelona Model of urban governance, focuses on the Barcelona city council in its relations with other agencies. The model has local government at the centre. Pierre and Stoker (2002, p. 32) accept that the role of government in governance is contingent but still give formal governmentas political elites, rather than the state as a wholea central role: [l]ocal, regional and national political elites alike seek to forge coalitions with private businesses, voluntary associations and other social actors to mobilize resources across the public private border in order to enhance their chances of guiding society towards politically dened goals. Even when analysts seem to argue that governance occurs without governmentfor example, in Rhodes (1996) analysis, or Peters and Pierre (1998)effectively they are identifying governance where there are many centres of power but where the state, while no longer supreme, is still the key player. It is really a case of governance-beyond-thestate (Swyngedouw, 2005, p. 1991) rather than governance-without-the-state. In fact, most of Rhodes writings on governance focus on the shift from line bureaucracies to fragmented service delivery (Rhodes, 2000, p. 348) in relation to the Whitehall model of administration in the UK, where the central government has swapped direct for indirect controls (p. 348). To Rhodes it is clear that the control still rests with the central government even if it is now indirect rather than direct and its indirect control relies on working with the private sector and community sector players. In the Australian context, OToole and Burdess (2005, p. 241), whilst recognising the complexity of the sets of relationships involved in governance, make it clear that governance has been utilized to promote the ideological repositioning of the state in the broader context of the market and civil society. They recognise that it is still state centred in that the networking, negotiation and coordination still take place in the shadow of hierarchy. Similarly, Gleeson et al. (2004) review the changing approaches to Australian metropolitan planning and governance but focus on the role of formal state and local governments in this. This state-centric model usually places considerable emphasis on the accountability and electoral legitimacy of the state. In this state-centric context it is also important to recognise the two faces of the state as identied by Sbragia (2000). One face, that as the provider of the benets of the welfare state, has been declining in inuence in most Western industrial democracies. Many students of public policy focus on this change and identify it with a reduction in the total

Stars and their Supporting Cast

335

role of the state. However the second face, that as the builder of markets through the provision of public laws, regulatory regimes and enforcement, grows with the growth of market inuence. It could be argued that there is even a third face, that of government as the facilitator of local civil society. Local government may become an enabler or facilitator of both local enterprises and local communities (Smith, 2000). In these circumstances some parts of the state lose power and inuence, but simultaneously other parts of the state gain powerperhaps even more power than formerly (Sbragia, 2000). Both Sbragia (2000) and Smith (2000) connect this facilitation role to interactions with the market and civil society. It can incorporate both communitarian and neo-liberal views of governance. So in this state-centred view the central state can manipulate or facilitate the roles of the other players. A number of case studies that focus on the governance initiatives stemming from, or supported by, the New Labour programs in the UK emphasise the centrality, power and inuence of the national state even though the touted objectives are to give local people greater say in centrally funded projects (e.g. Wright et al., 2006). These analyses illustrate both the strength of the power of the state in urban governance and the hierarchical power of the central government over local governments in the unitary government system of England. Baches (2000) analysis of the Yorkshire and Humber region of the UK illustrates how the local implementation of the national governments Single Regeneration Budget led to some decentralisation of policy delivery but how this was accompanied by centralisation of nancial control. Central government maintained strong control through allocation of participation rights; the central government also set the boundaries within which local networks could operate. Wright et al. (2006) came to similar conclusions in their analysis of the New Deal for Communities program. In some of the analyses, however, it was the local government itself that remained central to urban governance relationships. Coaffe and Healeys (2003) analysis focused on the city of Newcastle. Their analysis of the Area Committee structure of the Newcastle City Council showed the asymmetry of relationships between the (local) state and both the market and local civil society, where, rst, the council generally kept a central role even in committees designed to provide greater community input into council policies and second where the private sector appeared not to be involved at all. There was both collaboration and tensions in the relationships between the players. This contrasts with the case study described by Minnery (2004) of the work of the Urban Renewal Task Force in Brisbane where the (local) state was the main player (although supported by the State and Commonwealth governments) and developed strong connections with the private sector in implementing an urban renewal program, but where the community was almost invisible. Market-Centrality There are, of course, many market-driven approaches that play down the role of the state and community in favour of market mechanisms in governance and urban governance (Geddes, 2005b). These are sometimes criticised as mere emblems of the neo-liberalist project. The shift from government to governance is equated by some with a shift from a state-centric to a market-centric model (what Gleeson et al. (2004, p. 347) call the emergence of governance as a response . . . to the neo-liberal reconstruction of modern public institutions); but in fact examples range widely. For example, Cashore (2002, p. 503) refers to non-state market-driven governance, and Harding et al. (2000) address

336

J. Minnery

what they see as a move from municipalism to a business-dominated local agenda at the local level in the UK. Donahue and Nyes collection (2002) specically focuses on a range of forms of market-based governance. Pattberg (2006), although not dealing specically with urban governance, identies three functional pathways to global private forestry management: governance through regulation, governance through learning and discourse, and governance through integration, thus identifying three forms of marketcentric governance. The World Bank is sometimes credited with introducing the term governance into the development literature, with its report on the development crisis in sub-Saharan Africa in 1989 (World Bank, 1989; Kjr, 2004), but the Banks focus is on improving governance as a pathway to supporting a largely free market economy. In other words, the efcient working of a free market is the critical goal and the kind of governance structure the Bank originally supported is there to sustain and buttress a free market. In more recent times the Bank has softened this stance and now recognises more strongly the development role of civil society. One reason for the necessity to incorporate the private sector in governance is the tension between the territorial boundedness of local governments and the lack of territorial restriction shown by the problems with which local government has to deal. Bock (2006) goes as far as to claim that the municipality in its territorial boundaries and as a political institution based exclusively on a representative mandate will no longer be a sufciently viable entity (p. 327). The local municipality needs to move towards new local and regional alliances and forms of cooperation, including those with the private sector. A good example of the potential success of market-centred governance is the development of master planned communities in places such as South East Queensland. In the existing examples, private interests propose large-scale development on greeneld sites that are normally outside the strategic trajectory of residential development of the relevant local authority. The initiative comes from the private developer, who then negotiates with State and local governments over priorities, infrastructure requirements, phasing, layout and design and possibly over the eventual transfer of responsibility to the local authority. The local community may or not be involved in such negotiations, although participation by the new residents as the estates ll out is often a strong selling point (Minnery & Bajracharya, 1999). Market-driven governance may not necessarily achieve public planning goals. In Bull and Jones (2006) discussion of a regeneration project in Naples, Italy, the master plan developed by the municipality was undermined when private players utilised their own social and political networks to build facilities on an abandoned steel works site that were contrary to the municipalitys own plans. Davies (2002) analysis of a number of urban regeneration projects in the UK claims that regeneration partnerships involving the public and private sectors show that some at least have not been instrumental in achieving their visionary ambitions for regeneration (p. 311). Community-Centrality There are also approaches to governance and urban governance that focus on civil society as the central player (for example, Adams & Hess, 2001; Smyth et al., 2005). The terms community or third sector or civil society are preferred here to the common alternative of networks, as the term networks can potentially include the state and market as well as the community sector. Many authors use the term networks when

Stars and their Supporting Cast

337

referring to the ways the community sector works because this implies it relies on informal ` relationships built on trust and mutual obligation. Le Gales (1998) refers to reciprocity as the mechanism relevant to civil society. Some approaches that extol community centrality in governance are versions of the continuing discourses on civil society and social capital that Hyden (1997) has identied as contemporary extensions of long-standing philosophies, approaches that people such as Putnam (1993) and Cox (1995) have given a more modern meaning to. For example, Beall (2001, p. 359), using the term social resources rather than social capital, argues that public action as a social process embraces the ways in which social resources feed into political processes. When these processes become more formalized and feed sustained forms of civic engagement with the state and other development institutions, the concept of governance can also be used. Some authors use the term community governance to refer to the need for power to be exercised as close as possible to citizens and local communities (McKinlay, 1999, p. 1). This is often within a context of increasing distrust of or indifference to government at various levels. OToole and Burdess (2005) identify from their study of small towns in rural Victoria a wider context for the shift towards a greater recognition of civil societya convergence between neo-liberal ideologies and communitarianism: neo-liberals see it as a way of providing a solution to market failures by using community voluntary action to replace many state and market services while communitarians embrace the focus on community as a reinvigoration of collective approaches to public policy . . . (and) emphasise the place of civil society in economic development and social cohesion, and the use of bottom up approaches in social and economic development (p. 241). There is also a dark side to a focus on community in urban governance. First, the retreat by governments from many formerly public responsibilities has often relied on community organisations and the wider society picking up these responsibilities. As Beall (2001) notes, the concept of social capital that underpins many of these changes appeals to state policy makers because the social capital framework is underpinned by an implicit rationale that allows for the unburdening of scal responsibility onto lower-order institutions and citizens themselves (p. 359). Second, there are the continuing problems of the them and us division inherent in the development of strong community identities. Community-based NIMBYism can block policy initiatives with wider public implications and support. As shown by Bull and Jones (2006), and as many practising planners are fully aware, there can be considerable divergence in views amongst community interests. And recent developments such as gated communities (Low, 2003; Glasze et al., 2005) give concrete form to a kind of community-centric governance that relies on exclusion for its effectiveness. Some of the examples used by Healey (2006) illustrate both the positive community contributions and the difculties that can arise when community is seen as central to governance. In her examples, which focus on different areas within Newcastle, UK, community trusts were the initiating factors for urban renewal and regeneration. The rhetoric of the New Labour central government in the UK since 1997 has been to support local democracy through community involvement in partnership arrangements focusing on regeneration of run-down urban localities. But community initiatives, such as the Grainger Town Partnership in Newcastle, can be under continued pressure from local government which might feel its autonomy to be under threat. In addition, because local and central government in the UK has a very strong presence, governance initiatives

338

J. Minnery

outside the state have had difculties growing and surviving without nding a way to link to formal government in some way (p. 313). Similar difculties were reported in other areas in the UK participating in the governments New Deal for Communities by Wright et al. (2006). The changes in local governance in rural towns in Victoria discussed by OToole and Burdess (2005) saw several roles for local citizens, one of which was as active governors or enablers in local communities through their participation in local community associations. In fact, the different groups participate in governance through their leadership roles in the local towns and their partnerships with outside agencies (p. 250). The examples related to the structure of the Australian welfare state explored by McDonald and Marston (2002), although not connected directly to urban governance, show that the non-prot community sector (as opposed to the state) has been actively privileged as a key institutional site for responding to future welfare demands (p. 384). The relevant discourse has enthusiastically endorsed some of these changes seeing them as leading to the re-emergence of community, the strengthening of social capital, to social entrepreneurship, to the enabling state, to the Third Way and to active citizenship. Clearly in a community-centred approach to governance the two main players are seen to be the community and the state; the private sector may play a role through entrepreneurship or building partnerships in local economic development but unless there is a clear economic focus its potential role is largely overlooked. The Governance Orthodoxy The central actor in both governance and urban governance can clearly be any one of the triad of government, the community sector or the private sector. Any one of them can potentially be the star of the performance. The potential roles of the other two players in relation to that central actor can vary enormously, as do roles of the supporting cast in any number of plays. It is important to emphasise, as does Davies (2005), that the web of interactions amongst the state, the market and civil society may not produce consensus but can lead to conict. Sbragia (2000, p. 245) goes as far as to identify state and market as adversaries. Community antagonism over both private sector and state initiatives is common. The relationships may be both conicted and dialectical. This idea sits uneasily in analyses of state market community relationships that focus on networks or partnerships or with what Davies (2005, p. 312) calls the governance orthodoxy, the orthodoxy that governance relationships are consensual and cooperative. The orthodoxy can be illustrated by Garcias (2006, p. 745) denition of governance as a negotiation mechanism for formulating and implementing policy that actively seeks the involvement of stakeholders and civil society organisations beside government bodies and experts. It is a model of decision-making that emphasises consensus and output . . . . Conict has been a relatively neglected component of models of governance, as once it was in urban planning (see, for example, Minnery, 1985). The orthodox approaches to urban governance tend to identify networks of interactions based on trust and value consensus, so that governance is seen to mobilise resources towards the achievement of politically dened and mutually agreed goals. If there is not a recourse to the authority and sanctions of government (Pierre & Stoker, 2002, p. 32) then it is assumed there are collaborative, cooperative, consensual mechanisms that can allow the partners jointly to reach mutually desired outcomes. Keil (2006, p. 337) specically identies governance as a form of control that contains more

Stars and their Supporting Cast

339

communicative and cooperative elements . . . . But desired outcomes sometimes are not all agreed upon and collaboration is only one of the paths by which players can reach their own goals. Yet, as Davies (2005, p. 314) notes, the orthodoxy is that the interpretation of governance places a strong analytical and normative emphasis on consensus. It has tended . . . to downplay antagonistic tendencies and social cleavages in favour of an aggregative or generative model of political interaction. Analyses of the structures and processes of urban governance will be effective only to the extent that they recognise the roles of both cooperation and conict. Whenever each of the triad of state, market and community is constituted as the central actor, the other two components of the triad will either support or conict with that central actor to some degree. By recognising this, it is possible to work towards identifying areas of support and consensus amongst the participants in governance, and so urban governance, as well as areas of conict. A simplication of these potential relationships is shown in Table 1. The table gives examples of some of the ways there can be either conict or cooperation amongst the three actors. It shows that there are several different ways in which the tensions and collaboration amongst the three actors can be played out. The table represents the kind of situation that could occur at a specic time. As this discussion has already emphasised, the relationships are changing over time. Relationships could move from collaboration to conict, or conict to collaboration. But at least the structure set out in the table provides a starting point for the analysis of urban governance at a particular location and at one time. A more detailed understanding of the relationships outlined in Table 1 can be gained through a more nuanced modelling of the elements that make up the relationships. One such attempt to do this used ve components of urban governance, namely, participants, objectives, instruments and outcomes (following Pierre (1999)) but adding resources (following Rhodes (1997)), to provide a more detailed framework by which the relationships amongst the state, the market and the community could be analysed (Minnery, 2004). The case study used in that analysis (the inner north eastern suburban
Table 1. Actors and roles in urban governance Central actor Local State Support from other actors . . . Market: e.g. public private partnerships, funds through taxes, incorporation of business skills Community: e.g. community partnerships, source of legitimacy Community: e.g. clients, purchasers of services State: e.g. state as builder of markets, provider of rule of law Market: e.g. philanthropy State: e.g. funding, including grants Conict with other actors . . . Market: e.g. concern for overregulation, suppression of externalities, prot-only goals Community: e.g. crisis of legitimacy, distrust of government Community: e.g. concern for non-economic externalities State: e.g. enforcement of minimum standards Market: e.g. threatening community activists through the courts State: e.g. accountability, overloading with devolved tasks

Market

Community

340

J. Minnery

urban renewal project in Brisbane) showed that although all three actors were involved in this urban governance initiative, the role played by one of them (in this case the community) was relatively minor. There should be no assumption about symmetrical power or inuence between the two non-central actors in this approach to urban governance. This ve-component approach is too detailed to be utilised fully here, but the components it identies would allow for greater depth of analysis of governance relationships and interactions. It is also important to re-emphasise that each of the three players in governance is not monolithic. Bache (2000) clearly identied a split in government in the UK between central and local levels and noted that . . . local authorities were often reluctant partners within the new institutional arrangements for urban regeneration (p. 581; emphasis in original). Similarly Bull and Jones (2006) comparison between Bristol and Naples identied tensions amongst community participants in Bristol and between local and regional and local and national governments in both places. Again, a more nuanced analysis of the structures implied in Table 1 would incorporate more adequately the roles, conicts and collaborations of the different components that make up each of the three sectors. Such an analysis is beyond the scope of this article.

Conclusions What can we learn about urban governance from this analysis? Clearly it is an analytical and conceptual framework that involves all three actorsthe state, the market and the community. Urban governance incorporates but transcends urban government. It must be understood as an urban dimension of governance-beyond-the-state rather than as governance-without-the-state; but extending policy making and implementation beyond the state raises questions about accountability, legitimacy and the proper exercise of authority. A critical aspect of better understanding urban governance is an appreciation of what happens when any one of the three actors is given a central or starring role in the relationship. It then becomes an empirical question to identify the roles of the other two actors as supporting cast. These relationships can be ones of cooperation, trust and collaboration, as identied in the classic governance orthodoxy. They can also involve conict and antagonism, or even an attenuated asymmetrical role for one player that amounts to it being ignored. In insisting on the identication of the place of all three actors, this analysis extends beyond both the neo-liberal approach (which would see the basic partnership as that between the state and the market, as urban policy becomes more market dominated) and the communitarian approach (which would see the basic partnership as that between the state and the community, as urban policy moves towards greater participation and engagement). There are state-centric, market-centric and community-centric approaches to urban governance. Each can exist in parallel. Different forms of governance may overlay one another in the same location, or as Pierre (1999) asserts they can even coexist in different parts of the one organisation. Yet it is also important to recognise that none of the players in urban governance is monolithic. Each is multi-level and potentially fragmented. The agencies of the state can change over time as can the kind and level of state involvement in urban governance; there are numerous factions of capital and competing business interests; and community

Stars and their Supporting Cast

341

involvement can be through a range of formalised or informal channels, each pursuing different agendas. The central issue pursued in the analysis was recognition of the need to move beyond the governance orthodoxy focusing on collaborative and cooperative networks to incorporate the possibilities of tensions and conict in urban governance. Healeys (2006) three examples demonstrate that conict may be expressed as resistance to change rather than as active disputation. Her examples demonstrated the continuing capacity of a local council to resist change and to undermine the innovative potential of experiments in new government forms (p. 314). Clearly the potential for conict amongst the players in urban governance is real. In general terms the landscape of urban governance is on the move but the direction of the trajectory is uncertain. Current studies of urban governance in Australia appear to be moving only slowly towards the full recognition of the roles of all three major players. There is a growing Australian literature that explores aspects of the changing governance landscape in cities and metropolitan areas but it tends to emphasise either a state-centric model or a community-centric model; it rarely if ever considers the roles of all three governance actors. Many analyses seem also to be caught up in the governance orthodoxy. Yet analyses of wider Australian urban policy have long recognised the tensions inherent in the complex federal system of government within which urban policy operates. Similar tensions will be apparent for urban governance that incorporates but transcends urban government. The potential for both cooperation and conict captured in a somewhat simplied way in Table 1 can be seen as a pointer to future research opportunities in Australian urban governance. Using this analytical framework extends the idea of urban governance beyond the common governance orthodoxy and being based on the relationships amongst the three actors in urban governance has the potential to help analysts reach a deeper understanding of the making and implementation of urban policy. It can also help identify critical elements of context that shape the form and nature of Australian urban governance. Many of the case studies used here are derived from the literature from the UK and Europe. They stem from an interest by analysts of urban governance in two factors that should resonate with Australian researchers. The rst is the changing circumstances in Europe as the various countries in the European Union grapple with the implications of a pseudo-federal government system. The second is the interest in urban regeneration or urban renewal in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. Australian urban governance has both a lot to learn and a lot to contribute to European analyses of the relationships involved in urban governance across a range of government scales. Similarly, the concern in the UK with the roles of government, the private sector and the community in urban regeneration initiatives resonates with similar concerns across Australian urban areas. Certainly the growing recognition of the inadequacy of relying on a governance orthodoxy that assumes collaborative and cooperative partnerships in urban renewal will enhance the richness and effectiveness of Australian urban governance analyses.

Notes
1. My thanks to one of the anonymous referees for this insight.

342

J. Minnery

2. This would be true for situations where all three players were involved. There are still government actions that are beyond the approach to governance used here, where government governs without relying on support from either markets or community. The market also often acts on its own, as does the community.

References
Adams, D. & Hess, M. (2001) Community in public policy: fad or foundation?, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 60(2), pp. 13 23. Allison, G. T. (1971) Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (Boston: Little Brown). Allison, G. T. & Zelikow, P. (1999) Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, 2nd edn (New York: Longman). Bache, I. (2000) Government within governance: network steering in Yorkshire and Humber, Public Administration, 78(3), pp. 575 592. Bassett, K., Grifths, R. & Smith, I. (2002) Testing governance: partnerships, planning and conicts in waterfront regeneration, Urban Studies, 39(10), pp. 17571775. Beall, J. (2001) Valuing social resources or capitalizing on them? Limits to pro-poor urban governance in nine cities of the South, International Planning Studies, 6(4), pp. 357375. Bock, S. (2006) City 203021 cities in quest of the future: new forms of urban and regional governance, European Planning Studies, 14(3), pp. 321334. ` Brugue, Q. & Valles, J. M. (2005) New-style councils, new-style councillors: from local government to local governance, Governance, 18(2), pp. 197 226. Bull, A. C. & Jones, B. (2006) Governance and social capital in urban regeneration: a comparison between Bristol and Naples, Urban Studies, 43(4), pp. 767786. Burns, D. (2000) Can local democracy survive governance?, Urban Studies, 37(5/6), pp. 963 974. Carroll, B. W. & Carroll, T. (1999) Civic networks, legitimacy and the policy process, Governance, 12(1), pp. 1 28. Cars, G., Healey, P., Mananipour, A. & Magalhaes, C. De (Eds) (2002) Urban Governance, Institutional Capacity and Social Milieux (Aldershot: Ashgate). Cashore, B. (2002) Legitimacy and the privatization of environmental governance: how non-state market driven (NSMD) governance systems gain rule-making authority, Governance, 15(4), pp. 503529. Cavallier, G. (1998) Challenges for Urban Governance in the European Union (Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Condition). Clarence, E. & Painter, C. (1998) Public services under New Labour: collaborative discourses and local networking, Public Policy and Administration, 13(3), pp. 8 22. Coaffee, J. & Healey, P. (2003) My voice: my place: tracking transformations in urban governance, Urban Studies, 40(10), pp. 19791999. Colebatch, H. & Larmour, P. (1993) Market, Hierarchy and Community: A Students Guide to Organization (London: Pluto). Cox, E. (1995) A Truly Civil Society ABC Boyer Lectures (Sydney: ABC Books). Cox, K. R. (1998) Spaces of dependence, spaces of engagement and the politics of scale, or: looking for local politics, Political Geography, 17(1), pp. 123. Dahl, R. (1961) Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press). Davies, J. S. (2002) The governance of urban regeneration: a critique of the governing without government thesis, Public Administration, 80(2), pp. 301 322. Davies, J. S. (2005) Local governance and the dialectics of hierarchy, market and network, Policy Studies, 26((3/4), pp. 311335. Donahue, J. D. & Nye, J. S. (Eds) (2002) Market-Based Governance: Supply Side, Demand Side, Upside, and Downside (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press). Durose, C. & Rummery, K. (2006) Governance and collaboration: review article, Social Science and Policy, 5(2), pp. 315 321. Garcia, M. (2006) Citizenship practices and urban governance in European cities, Urban Studies, 43(4), pp. 745 765. Geddes, M. (2005a) International perspectives and policy issues, in: P. Smyth, T. Reddel & A. Jones (Eds) Community and Local Governance in Australia, pp. 1334 (Sydney: University of New South Wales Press).

Stars and their Supporting Cast

343

Geddes, M. (2005b) Neoliberalism and local governancecross-national perspectives and speculations, Policy Studies, 25(3/4), pp. 359 377. Gissendanner, S. (2003) Methodology problems in urban governance studies, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 21, pp. 663 685. Glasze, G., Webster, C. & Frantz, K. (Eds) (2005) Private Cities (London: Routledge). Gleeson, B. & Low, N. (2000) Australian Urban Planning: New Challenges, New Agendas (St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin). Gleeson, B., Darbas, T. & Lawson, S. (2004) Governance, sustainability and recent Australian metropolitan strategies: a socio-theoretic analysis, Urban Policy and Research, 22(4), pp. 345366. Hambleton, R. (2002) The new city management, in: R. Hambleton, H. V. Savitch & M. Stewart (Eds) Globalisation and Local Democracy: Challenge and Change in Europe and North America (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan). Harding, A., Wilks-Heeg, S. & Hutchins, M. (2000) Business, government and the business of urban governance, Urban Studies, 37(5/6), pp. 975995. Harvey, D. (1985) The Urbanization of Capital (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press). Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies (London: Macmillan). Healey, P. (1999) Institutionalist analysis, communicative planning and shaping places, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19(2), pp. 111 122. Healey, P. (2006) Transforming governance: challenges of institutional adaptation and the new politics of space, European Planning Studies, 14(3), pp. 299320. Hohn, U. & Neuer, B. (2006) New urban governance: institutional change and consequences for urban development, European Planning Studies, 14(3), pp. 291 298. Hooghe, L. & Marks, G. (2003) Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance, American Political Science Review, 97(2), pp. 233243. Hunter, F. (1953) Community Power Structure: A Study of Decision Makers (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press). Hyden, G. (1997) Civil society, social capital, and development: dissection of a complex discourse, Studies in Contemporary International Development, 32(1), pp. 331. Jessop, B. (1998) The rise of governance and the risks of failure: the case of economic development, International Social Science Journal, 155, pp. 2945. Keil, A. (2006) New urban governance processes on the level of neighbourhoods, European Planning Studies, 14(3), pp. 335363. Kjr, A. M. (2004) Governance (Cambridge: Polity Press). Kooiman, J. (1993) Governance and governability: using complexity, dynamics and diversity, in: J. Kooiman (Ed.) Modern Governance: New GovernmentSociety Interactions, pp. 35 48 (London: Sage). Kooiman, J. (2003) Governing as Governance (London: Sage). Larmour, P. (1996) Models of Governance and Development Administration State, Society and Governance in Melanesia Program (Canberra: Australian National University). Larmour, P. (1998) Making Sense of Good Governance State, Society and Governance in Melanesia Program (Canberra: Australian National University). Lawson, S. & Gleeson, B. (2005) Shifting urban governance in Australia, in: P. Smyth, T. Reddel & A. Jones (Eds) Community and Local Governance in Australia, pp. 7593 (Sydney: University of New South Wales Press). ` Le Gales, P. (1998) Regulations and governance in European cities, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 22(3), pp. 482506. ` Le Gales, P. (2002) European Cities: Social Conicts and Governance (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Lodge, M. & Wegrich, K. (2005) Governing multi-level governance: comparing domain dynamics in German Landlocal relationships and prisons, Public Administration, 83(2), pp. 417442. Logan, J. & Molotch, H. (1987) Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place (Berkeley: University of California Press). Low, S. M. (2003) Behind the Gates: Life, Security and the Pursuit of Happiness in Fortress America (New York: Routledge). Mackinnon, D. (2002) Rural governance and local involvement: assessing state community relations in the Scottish Highlands, Journal of Rural Studies, 18, pp. 307324. Marshall, T. (2000) Urban planning and governance: is there a Barcelona model?, International Planning Studies, 5(3), pp. 299319.

344

J. Minnery

McCarney, P. L. (1990) Considerations of the notion of governancenew directions for cities in the developing world, in: P. L. McCarney (Ed.) Cities and Governance: New Directions in Latin America, Asia and Africa, pp. 3 20 (Toronto: Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto). McDonald, C. & Marston, G. (2002) Patterns of governance: the curious case of non-prot community services in Australia, Social Policy and Administration, 36(4), pp. 376 391. McFarlane, L. (2001) Cities for Citizens: Improving Metropolitan Governance (Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). McGuirk, P. M. (2000) Power and policy networks in urban governance: local government and property-led regeneration in Dublin, Urban Studies, 37(4), pp. 651673. McKinlay, P. (1999) Understanding community governance. Paper presented at the Local Government New Zealand Conference. Available at http://www.mdl.co.nz/library/librarydocs/local_governance/ Understanding_community_governance_1999.pdf (accessed August 2006). Minnery, J. (2004) Modelling the elements of urban governance. Paper presented at the Association of European Schools of Planning Conference, Grenoble, July. Minnery, J. & Bajracharya, B. (1999) Visions, planning processes and outcomes: master planned communities in South East Queensland, Australian Planner, 36(1), pp. 33 41. Minnery, J. R. (1985) Conict Management in Urban Planning (Aldershot: Gower). Nye, S. J. & Donahue, J. D. (Eds) (2000) Governance in a Globalizing World (Cambridge, MA and Washington, DC: Visions of Governance for the 21st Century and Brookings Institute Press). OToole, K. & Burdess, N. (2005) Governance at community level: small towns in rural Victoria, Australian Journal of Political Science, 40(2), pp. 239 254. Pattberg, P. (2006) Private governance and the South: lessons from global forest policies, Third World Quarterly, 27(4), pp. 579 593. Peters, B. G. & Pierre, J. (1998) Governance without government? Rethinking public administration, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), pp. 223243. Phares, D. (2004) Governance or government in metropolitan areas?, in: D. Phares (Ed.) Metropolitan Governance without Metropolitan Government?, pp. 16 (Aldershot: Ashgate). Pierre, J. (1999) Models of urban governance: the institutional dimensions of urban politics, Urban Affairs Review, 34(3), pp. 372396. Pierre, J. (Ed.) (2000) Debating Governance: Authority, Steering and Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Pierre, J. (2005) Comparative urban governance: uncovering complex causalities, Urban Affairs Review, 40(4), pp. 446 462. Pierre, J. & Peters, B. G. (2000) Governance, Politics and the State (Houndmills: Macmillan). Pierre, J. & Stoker, G. (2002) Towards multi-level governance, in: P. Dunleavy, A. Gamble, R. Heffernan, I. Holliday & G. Peele (Eds) Developments in British Politics 6 (Basingstoke: Palgrave). Pratorius, R. (2003) Debating governance: whatever that means, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(2), pp. 235235, (Review of J. Pierre (Ed.) (2000) Debating Governance: Authority, Steering, and Governance (New York: Oxford University Press). Putnam, R. D. (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press). Reddel, T. (2002) Beyond participation, hierarchies, management and markets: new governance and place policies, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 61(1), pp. 5063. Reddel, T. (2004) Exploring the Institutional Dimensions of Local Governance and Community Strengthening: Linking Empirical and Theoretical Debates Urban Policy Program Research Paper No. 2 (Brisbane: Grifth University). Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996) The new governance: governing without government, Political Studies, XLIV, pp. 652 667. Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997) Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reexivity and Accountability (Milton Keynes: Open University Press). Rhodes, R. A. W. (2000) The governance narrative: key ndings and lessons from the ESRCs Whitehall Programme, Public Administration, 78(2), pp. 345 363. Sbragia, A. M. (2000) Governance, the state, and the market: what is going on?, Governance, 13(2), pp. 243 250. Smith, B. (2000) The concept of an enabling local authority, Environment and Planning C: Government and Politics, 18, pp. 7994.

Stars and their Supporting Cast

345

Smyth, P., Reddel, T. & Jones, A. (Eds) (2005) Community and Local Governance in Australia (Sydney: University of New South Wales Press). Stoker, G. (1998) Governance and theory: ve propositions, International Social Science Journal, 50(155), pp. 1728. Stone, C. N. (1989) Regime Politics: Governing Atlanta 19461988 (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas). Stone, C. N. (2005) Rethinking the policypolitics connection, Policy Studies, 26(3/4), pp. 241260. Swyngedouw, E. (2005) Governance innovation and the citizen: the Janus face of governance-beyond-the-State, Urban Studies, 42(11), pp. 19912006. Taylor, I. (2000) UNCHS (Habitat): the global campaign for good urban governance, Environment and Urbanization, 12(1), pp. 197 202. Thynne, I. (2000) The state and governance: issues and challenges in perspective, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66(2), pp. 227240. TUGI (The Urban Governance Initiative), (2004) Available at http://www.tugi.org (accessed January 2004). UNCHS (United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat)) (2000) The Global Campaign for Good Urban Governance, Draft 4A May 2000 (Nairobi: UNCHS (Habitat)). UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) (1997a) Governance for Sustainable Human Development (New York: UNDP). UNDP (1997b) Reconceptualising Governance (New York: Management Development and Governance Division, Bureau for Policy and Programme Support, UNDP). Wildavsky, A. (1973) If planning is everything, maybe its nothing, Policy Sciences, 4(2), pp. 127 153. Wood, G. (2006) Die postmoderne Stadt: Neue Formen der Urbanitat im Ubergang vom zweiten ins dritte Jahrtausend, in: H. Gebhardt, P. Reuber & G. Wolkersdorfer (Eds) KulturgeographieAkteulle Ansatze und Entwicklungen, pp. 131147 (Heidelberg and Berlin: Spektrum), (cited and translated in Keil, 2006). World Bank (1989) Sub-Saharan Africa: From Crisis to Sustainable Growth (Washington, DC: World Bank). Wright, J. S. F., Parry, J., Mathers, J., Jones, S. & Orford, J. (2006) Assessing the participatory potential of Britains New Deal for Communities: opportunities for and constraints to bottomup community participation, Policy Studies, 27(4), pp. 347 361.