On the few occasions I have had the opportunity to discuss my studies with friends and

family, the mention of the words ‘Urban Governance’ have provoked a rather distant
glazing of the eyes. Their expression is suggestive of imagined council members
droning interminably on subjects limited to the burst water main on Charles Street, a
new parking meter system or increasing the width of some remote byway. In other
words, urban governance is often perceived as an objective and technocratic provision
of necessary but uninteresting services and the enforcing of ultimately irrelevant
bureaucratic and legislative minutiae.

It is interesting to note that these same friends and family become quickly engaged
when the subject changes from being framed in terms of ‘what does urban governance
involve?’ to the more obviously political questions of ‘who should urban governance be
for?’ and ‘who should decide what urban governance involves?’. Framing urban
governance in political terms adds a layer of complexity to the question, ‘what is good
urban governance?’

I would like to answer that question by contextualising it in terms of three main

discussion questions; ‘Who has the right to the city?’, ‘Who has responsibility for the
city?’ and ‘What are the politics and pragmatics of the city?’ From those comments, I
draw six basic principles which I believe are important to hold as ‘ideals’ when
considering urban governance.

‘Who has the right to the city?’ is partly a question about who has access to, or even
‘ownership’ over the city. Harvey sees it as an issue of which political structures and
social processes give access to not just the present city, but the city that we want for the
future. (Harvey, 2003) Henri Lefebvre describes how the ‘space’ within the city is
socially produced as a political act (Bridge & Watson, 2002).

If the construction of space is a political act, then there must be some political and
ethical justification given for how space is used and what access and right different
people have to the city itself. But, within the city, different political and social forces
are multiplied and compete for hegemony. We must then ask ‘for whose benefit should

1|Page
decisions in the city be made?’ While individuals, social groups and business or
political groups might often seek their own benefit, there is a strong argument for urban
governance to maintain the rights and support the interests of those who have a
diminished capacity to realise their own interests. This is especially so, given that there
is an increasing gap in the majority of cities between the richest elites and the poorest of
the poor and an increasing number of those who sit closer to being regarded as ‘poor’
than to being regarded as ‘rich’ (APA, 2006).

It would seem then that any ‘right to the city’ should favour social justice issues.
Harvey (2003) makes an interesting contribution to the understanding of issues of the
politics and ethics that motivate capitalist accumulation and ways that social justice
ethics could be the basis of the ‘right to the city’.

‘Who has responsibility for the city?’ It is one thing to say that decisions should be
made for the benefit of the vulnerable, but who is it that is responsible for how the city
develops and who is responsible for making sure the vulnerable are benefitted?
Obviously, the first stakeholder to come to mind would be government agencies and
structures tasked with ‘managing’ the growth and servicing of the city. But, even
within this stakeholder grouping, complications arise between different levels of
government. Larger state governments may have access to greater resources and be in
a position to make more strategic decisions about issues such as land use and service
provision, but they lack immediate relationship to the particularities of the individual
urban location and even in democratically elected governments, they don’t necessarily
represent the views of the constituents of the locale.

Even if they were closer to the action, the city itself could not be assumed to be a
homogenous ‘whole’ that could be represented by one voice. Localised government
bodies might be more effective in dealing with local planning and management, but
again may not necessarily have sufficient ability or delegated authority to govern
effectively. Civil society has sometimes played a greater role in mobilising involvement
of the people in the governance issues that affect urban areas and can contribute expert
knowledge and organisational benefits that are unavailable at a grassroots level. But

2|Page
more important than the involvement of civil society in urban governance is the
participation of the people living within the city. The urban population can make or
break the success of urban governance strategies either through active support or even
simply passive resistance. They are often in a position to more acutely understand the
difficulties faced in their location.

Ignoring informal settlements and increasing poverty is decreasingly regarded as a

viable option for good urban governance and so consequently, engaging the inhabitants
of the city in governance is increasingly seen as a critical step in decision making.

‘What are the politics and pragmatics of the city?’ Mass participation in urban
governance orientated by social justice concerns does present some complications.
Urban governance is a balancing act of competing interests, complicated by power
relations exercised through financial, political and social spheres. Whilst absolute
values of justice and equity might make for good rhetoric, they do not always maintain
coherence in the face of the present dominant political and economic systems. Even if
we could throw caution to the winds and embrace heuristic terms such as ‘Justice’ and
‘Equity’ as absolute values imbued into every decision, difficult choices need to be
made between different groups of poor and vulnerable people.

These decisions are problematic even if all could agree on the definition of ‘poor’ and
‘vulnerable’ and any sort of increased claim they might have on the shared resources
and space of the city. To complicate matters further, we cannot approach cities as some
sort of ‘planning from scratch’ exercise. Each city already exists with its own set of
circumstances, from seasonal flooding to increasing informal urban development.
These existing issues serve to frustrate attempts to simplify ‘good’ urban governance.

Without acknowledging ethical defeat, pragmatism must ask the question, ‘what can be
done here and now?’ That is, while acknowledging difficulties in process, working on
what is feasible and maintaining a healthy dose of critical reflection, we must still hold
urban governance to ethical ideals. In practice, that means keeping those ideals as the

3|Page
basis of planning and decision making, whilst accommodating the pragmatics of each
individual urban governance challenge.

From these thoughts, I have selected six principles which I believe can serve as ideals to
illuminate the path for urban governance in the future.

Transparent urban governance makes communication and decision making clear and
visible to all the city stakeholders. It is not simply the publishing of facts and figures
but making information freely available, in a meaningful way. This not only
encourages involvement by stakeholders but facilitates better planning and decision
-making outcomes by making sure that the right information is available to the right
people at the right time. Further, it lessens the possibility for corruption and power
politics to affect the planning and decision making processes.

Responsive urban governance is governance that is aware of the changing needs of the
city inhabitants. New issues are constantly arising and slow bureaucratic management
often exacerbates issues. Responsive urban governance seeks to understand, solve and
even pre-empt issues through efficient and effective planning and service delivery.
Decentralised governance allows for more responsive outcomes because decentralised
models of governance are often more aware of, and able to be more intimately involved
in, local issues.

Innovative urban governance is flexible in seeking new ways to solve problems. It

attempts to act as an enabler for better social justice outcomes and balance competing
interests. Rather than being constrained by bureaucracy or historical planning legacies,
innovative governance can adopt methods, negotiate policy or engage in partnerships to
improve social outcomes.

Inclusive urban governance calls for participation from the city inhabitants in the
governance issues that affect them personally. It gives decision making capacity to
those with little political power and works with people to find solutions to urban

4|Page
problems. Inclusiveness allows for diversity and vibrancy in spatial planning and seeks
to provide opportunities for social development.

Ecologically responsible urban governance attempts to reduce the environmental

impact of the city itself. It takes note of the affect of development on the environment
and the surrounding environs to ensure that damage is minimised. It seeks to ensure that
planning decisions are sustainable and that environmental impacts have been clearly
identified.

Threat minimising urban governance seeks to plan for and mitigate threats to the city
inhabitants. Planning not just to respond to disasters, but to forestall those disasters
wherever possible, is imperative. Further, it seeks to establish security and rule of law
to maintain order and safety for all inhabitants of the city.

Whilst the above sounds like some sort of social manifesto, it bears repeating that these
‘principles’ are held as ideals on which to base urban governance in general terms. The
pragmatics and murky particulars of particular urban- governance issues remain a
challenge to the future of cities in both the developed and developing world. The
political nature of ‘good’ urban governance is acknowledged in setting forth these ethics
and ideals and they can stand as lights with which to illuminate the path forward.

5|Page
Bibliography

The following articles were of particular assistance: Werna and Harvey on the importance of politics in
planning and governance, the UNHCS and APA on inclusion and planning principles and Roy on
innovation.

American Planning Association (APA) et.al 2006. Reinventing Planning: A new

governance paradigm for managing human settlements. Position Paper for the World
Planners Congress, Vancouver Jun 2006.

Bridge, G. 2002. The Blackwell city reader. Malden, MA, Blackwell Publishing.

Harvey, D. 2003. ‘The right to the city’. International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research 27 (4), 939-941.

Roy, A. 2005. ‘Urban informality: Toward an epistemology of planning’. Journal of the

American Planning Association 71 (2), 147-158.

UNCHS. 2000. ‘The global campaign for good urban governance’. Environment and
Urbanization 12 (1), 197-2002.

Werna, E. 1995. ‘The management of urban development, or the development of urban

management?’ Cities, 12 (5), 353-359.

6|Page