partnership local governance okatisoz
Post on 09-Apr-2018
218 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/8/2019 Partnership Local Governance OKatisoz
1/22
1 / 22
AA DDiissccuussssiioonn oonn PPaarrttnneerrsshhiipp wwhhiicchh iiss nnooww oonn tthhee aaggeennddaaaass aann iimmppoorrttaanntt ffeeaattuurree ooffllooccaall ggoovveerrnnaannccee iinn tthhee UUKK
WWhhyy hhaass tthhiiss ddeevveellooppeedd,, aanndd iiss iitt ddeelliivveerriinngg wwhhaatt cciittiieess
nneeeedd??
zzlleemm KKaattsszz
INTRODUCTION
Local governance is a trendy concept involving the dynamics of contemporary
public policy and local politics agenda. Influence of the neoliberal agenda as well
as overall decentralisation trend have changed the understanding of how and in
what spatial unit the problems are supposed to be solved. Local governance, in
that context, is like a mirror reflecting the circumstances of the period stressing
out the need for a bottom-up approach, grassroots awareness and inclusion
within a local spatial scale. Partnership is not the only but one of the most
important strategies of this new governing system called local governance. The
paper, here, aims to examine two issues in this regard, (1) to analyse how the
concept ofpartnership working has emerged and developed in local governance
particularly in terms of tackling against deprivation and problems in social issues
such as education, health and employment (2) to discuss whether it is delivering
what cities need. In the first section, background and theoretical framework
which concepts like governance, local governance emerged in and what it means
in urban politics are going to be presented. In the second part, partnership
working as a particular strategy is going to be investigated; what it means and
why it matters. In the third part the paper analyses what matters to
contemporary cities and discusses whether the partnership working delivers
what cities need drawing on the practises.
-
8/8/2019 Partnership Local Governance OKatisoz
2/22
2 / 22
EMERGENCE OF NEW URBAN POLITICS
Over the past several decades, the contexts and dynamics of socio-urban space
have undergone a dramatic change and new ways of city management has been
required to meet the challenges of this contemporary changing economic
environment. This is evaluated as the emergence of new urban politics and
emergence of the new or the entrepreneurial city producing new mechanics
and constellations of urban order in literature (Harvey 1989, Hall & Hubbard
1998, MacLeod 2002, Smart & Smart 2003, Fischer et al. 2004).
As of 70s transformation as national government ceased its assistance and
influence on local government which Brenner (2003) calls state rescaling or
Corry and Stoker (cited in Geddes 2006) call neoliberalization of urban space. As
of 1990s as a response to the emergence of fragmentation and need for
collaboration and coordination between agencies brought up the concept of joint
up governance. All the way throughout this transformation
the local governments gained a business-like attribute such as risk-taking,profit motivation,
new form of urban politics emerged which has been mostly shaped byparticipation of private sector
managerialist and networked institutions have been created
public monopoly local services are eliminated and they are replaced bycompetitive contracting and privatized provision
economic promotion through a range of local supply-side policies and localized,competitive entrepreneurial strategies have been replaced the traditional
compensatory regional policies
-
8/8/2019 Partnership Local Governance OKatisoz
3/22
3 / 22
the old bureaucratic silos and the local politicians associated with them, arereplaced by decentralised multi governance structures
entrepreneurial local leadership and public-private co-operation has beenaccelerated
fragmentation stimulated the need for a new form of governance namely jointup governance
(Darlow et al 2007, Jessop, Painter & Goodwin, Brenner & Theodore cited in
Geddes 2006, Hall & Hubbard 1998)
LOCAL GOVERNANCE: SHIFT FROM GOVERNMENT TO GOVERNANCE
As Geddes (2006) argues that shift to governance is an interface to soften the
negative effects of neoliberal policies on the urban space as well as facilitating
its competitive edge in the contemporary competitive economic environment
therefore it is necessary to see local governance from both the new institutional
perspective and perspective of political economy of neoliberalism in order to
precisely grasp the power and limitations of local governance. UK Government
explains its vision about local governance as arevitalised system of local
authorities working with partners from every sector. Together they will develop
better public services built around the communities, families and individuals who
use them. We want people to take an active part in the democratic life of their
place and to be part of how it improves.(Communities 2008)
Contemporary public policy literature has been focused on the merits of
governance. What is governance? IDEA (2006), a UK institution working on
improvement of local governments, explains it as structuring basing on strong
relationships between individuals and organisations, trust and accountability.
-
8/8/2019 Partnership Local Governance OKatisoz
4/22
4 / 22
Why is it so important?Lebel et al (2006) and Rhodes (1996) argues that goodgovernance facilitates the multi actor social formation where activities are
backed by shared goals not by any formal authority; creates self organised
and self responsible societies which is fuelled by the autonomy given implying
not only freedom but also responsibility; creates effective climate for
interdependencies of the actors or networks - that are genuinely formed to
achieve a particular objective or to sort out a particular need /problem;
produces trust & cooperation among actors stemming from this interdependency
condition. Governance steers the system not rows it; increases effectiveness
and efficiency, empowers citizens, turns them into shareholders, provides
accountability; increase the adaptive capacity of public against risks and benefits
(Lebel et al. 2006, Rhodes 1996).
Separation of steering and rowing has strategic importance in that particular
point where the national economies have been transforming and welfare state
has been shrinking. Osborne and Gaebler (cited in Yamamoto 2007) explain this
need of strategic action asSteering requires people who see the entire universe
of issues and possibilities and can balance competing demands for resources.
Rowing requires people who focus intently on one mission and perform it well.
Steering organizations need to find the best methods to achieve their goals.
Rowing organizations tend to defend their methods at all costs This leaves
government operating basically as a skilful buyer, leveraging the various
producers in ways that will accomplish its policy objectives.
Drawing on these debates, local governance has been popularly is badged with
the local partnership and community discourse of Third Way politics. Multi-
organisational and community-based partnerships have become dominant social
inclusion and exclusion methodologies, particularly in promoting urban
-
8/8/2019 Partnership Local Governance OKatisoz
5/22
5 / 22
regeneration and more joined-up strategies to address cross-cutting
community issues (Atkinson, Lowndes & Skelcher cited in Reddel 2004).
Such partnerships, as enacted in urban regeneration programs, local action
zones and regional development initiatives, reflect a confusing mix of principles.
Lowndes and Skelcher (cited in Reddel 2004) argue that partnership should be
seen as an organisational form that can operate across different modes of
governance based on markets, hierarchies or networks. Danger of misfocusing,
therefore, should be carefully considered for the partnerships that are
contructed without a systemic analysis of basic governance modes and
outcomes. (Reddel 2004)
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Public administration literature has been discussing new forms of governing
structures. The local governance discussions, in that context, varying from new
institutionalism to regime theory presents diverse governing structures and
partnerships. Below section summarizes the contemporary approaches to outline
the key issues which have been observed, analysed and emphasized in
theoretical course.
Regime Theory assumes that urban governance emerges in the form of
informal governing alliances among the prominent figures of community such as
private sector, community leaders and government officials to complete tasks
which is called social production of power (DiGaetano & Lawless 1999).
DiGaetano & Lawless (1999) diversify the regime theory according to different
governing structures; clientelistic, corporatist, managerial and pluralistic. Each
has different modes of state-society relations and governing logic. Partners are
-
8/8/2019 Partnership Local Governance OKatisoz
6/22
6 / 22
in a reciprocally benefiting relationship in a clientelistic, favouritistic mode while
civic leaders are the core of the negotiations in the corporatist mode (DiGaetano
& Lawless 1999). In managerial mode, state is the key decision maker having
bureaucratic base relationships with non-governmental actors while in the form
of pluralist structure, state is merely a broker balancing the private interest in
the urban space (DiGaetano & Lawless 1999). New institutionalism recognizes
that institutions operate in an environment consisting of other institutions, called
the institutional environment and in order to survive, institutions need to
establish legitimacy within the world of institutions. Informal conventions as well
as formal structures and rules, the role of values and power relations or
structures and, importantly, the interactions between individuals and institutions
are component of contemporary new institutionalist approach. Concept of the
strength of weak tiesis critical in understanding the nature and form of new
inter-organisational partnerships and networks involving often dispersed groups
and individuals. These discursive flows are seen as opening up previously closed
networks or cliques and facilitating improved information flows which promote
greater participation and engagement between policy actors across
organisational fields (Geddes 2006). New Public Management (NPM )
approach is the broad concept intended to reflect the trend of public
management reform and public sector reform since the 80s coming through the
present in the late 2000s (Yamamoto 2007). It assumes that a system must be
managed and must manage for itself but also it must be let the management by
a network of interdependent components concerned organisations and sectors
(Yamamoto 2007). Yamamoto (2007) argues that counterpart of this approach
in public management is the multilevel governance by PPPs (public private
partnerships) schemes. NPM focuses on the interaction, cooperation, and
-
8/8/2019 Partnership Local Governance OKatisoz
7/22
7 / 22
collaboration of the trilogy of governments, markets and citizens (Yamamoto
2007).
Network theorists such as Rhodes and Marsh and Smith argue for a
differentiated analysis based on relative power, structure and resource exchange
within and between networks. Five ideal types of policy network have been
described: tightly integrated policy communities, professional, inter-
governmental, producer and loosely integrated issue based networks (Geddes et
al 2007)
PARTNERSHIP WORKING: BACKGROUND, SCOPE
The partnership discourse has become the key governance principle in the
United Kingdom due to the challenges of(1) building authoritative democratic
state capacity, in the face of public sector reforms based on a recipe of
competition and neo-liberalism, (2) citizen disengagement, and a retreat from
the state(Geddes 2006). Painter and Goodwin (cited in Geddes 2006)
emphasize entrepreneurial local leadership and public-private cooperation as
one of the key elements of local restructuring. Targeted at areas of high
deprivation, the idea that problems that are connected to social exclusion
require joined-up solutions has contributed to the value placed on partnership
(Ashtana et al 2002). Geddes (2006) argues that partnership at local levels will
create more efficient, inclusive and pluralist local governance, bringing together
key organizations and actors (from the three spheres of state, market and civil
society) to identify communities top priorities and needs, and work with local
people to provide them and partnership working is a the way of achieving
effective outcomes, and solutions to so-called wicked issues, by building trust,
sharing knowledge and resources, and working collaboratively across
boundaries.
-
8/8/2019 Partnership Local Governance OKatisoz
8/22
-
8/8/2019 Partnership Local Governance OKatisoz
9/22
9 / 22
neighbourhoods with inequalities in terms of health issues such as rate of illness
and accessibility to health services (Painter & Clarence 2001).
Actions zones are, significantly, mostly concentrated in urban areas and based
on partnership approach aiming the joint agency working to break down
established bureaucratic organisational barriers and to promote more integrated
responses to public policy problems (Painter & Clarence 2001). The ethos of
multi-agency working central to the action zone initiatives provides a direct link
to the notion of joined-up government and New Labours broader
modernisationprogramme of which this forms part(Painter & Clarence 2001).
Painter and Clarence (2001) argue that top-nature of the initiatives effect the
nature of the partnership and constraints the localities ability to move. Central
government is far from being flexible and, enabling as well as oriented to short
term outcome which in return affect the sustainability of the action.
Local Area Agreements (LAAs)
LAAs are described as follows on Communities link: LAAs set out the priorities
for a local area agreed between central government and a local area (the local
authority and Local Strategic Partnership) and other key partners at the local
level. LAAs simplify some central funding, help join up public services more
effectively and allow greater flexibility for local solutions to local
circumstances. Through these means, LAAs are helping to devolve decision
making, move away from a 'Whitehall knows best' philosophy and reduce
bureaucracy.
LAAs require form of joined up governance and collective delivery which all
public service providers of this particular locality cooperates (IDEA 2006). LAAs
main objective is to present the tools for the key partners in a locality for
-
8/8/2019 Partnership Local Governance OKatisoz
10/22
10 / 22
sharing priorities, planning the businesses, and making decisions of resources
allocations with reference to a agreed strategy and collectively accountable
(IDEA 2006). However there are some issues which should be taken up and that
the local partnership system needs new organisational transformation such as;
Rationalising and reducing the partnership; it is found that present partnerships
are formed due to central government requirements and serving the need of
particular client groups
Clearer definition of purpose and scope of partnership; partnerships are mostly
effective in terms of information sharing however not as effective as them in
terms of service delivery
The research literature identifies major limitations to local partnerships.
Fundamental to neoliberal politics is a reduction of state power and a shift of
policy responsibilities and risk to under-resourced local communities (Reddel
2004).
Local Strategic Partnership (LSPs)
LSP is a body which brings together at a local level the different parts of the
public sector as well as the private, business, community and voluntary sectors
so that different initiatives and services support each other and work together.
LSPs are non- statutory, and largely non-executive organizations, and the
intention is that they operate at a level which enables strategic decisions to be
taken yet is close enough to the grassroots to allow direct community
engagement. (Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions cited
in Geddes 2006)
What is the scope of LSPs?
-
8/8/2019 Partnership Local Governance OKatisoz
11/22
11 / 22
Improvement of the economic, environmental, and social well-being of eacharea, and contribute to the achievement of sustainable development across the
country
Narrowing of the gap between the most deprived neighbourhoods and the restof the country, Effective neighbourhood renewal is seen to depend on services
working together which local people, business and the voluntary sector all
need to be able to contribute to planning and delivering.
Local Public Service Agreements (LPSAs) and Local Area Agreements (LAAs)are being instituted between central and local government to tackle key
national and local priorities (on health, education, employment, crime, and
housing), with agreed flexibilities, pump-priming and financial rewards if
improvements are delivered. Those agreements are executed through the
LSPs.
LSPs are targeting the problem of confusing production processes ofpartnership, plans and initiatives at the local level, and of duplication and
unnecessary bureaucracy. In short they aim to simplify the action for partners
to get involved. (Geddes 2006)
In areas with district and county LSPs, there is the additional challenge ofensuring that local needs and views are adequately represented in the
development and implementation phase of LAAs. (IDAE 2006)
Although LSPs aim to enable strategic decisions to be taken yet is close enough
to the grassroots to allow direct community engagementit is observed that
there is the unease among local authorities and councillors about the potential
leaching of power to LSPs, which is, in essence contributing to the fragmentation
of accountability and dilution of local democracy (Geddes 2006). Government,
-
8/8/2019 Partnership Local Governance OKatisoz
12/22
12 / 22
Geddes (2006) argues relying on the findings on the researches on the
effectiveness of LSPs, needs to give much greater recognition to the local
leadership role of councillors in LSPs.
NDC (New Deal for Communities)
The NDC programme is the UK governments flagship programme to regenerate
those neighbourhoods suffering the most disadvantages within the wider
National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal (NSNR). Each is able to draw on
funding of about 50 million over a 10-year period. Each local NDC project is
managed by a partnership board, and has developed a strategy and a delivery
plan, based around the five key outcome areas of the NSNR which are crime,
employment, education, health, housing and physical environment.
A key feature of NDC is that the emphasis is placed on utilizing the resources
and powers of the NDC to influence mainstream service provision, rather than
regarding the 50 million funding as the main means by which the
neighbourhood will be improved. Secondly, local NDC projects are intended to
be community led in a stronger sense than has been the case in previous
regeneration initiatives the rhetoric from government at the launch of
NDC was of communities in control. Even though this has since been somewhat
weakened in a way, a recent report by the National Audit Office found that the
NDC programme had taken significant steps to involve community interests
(Ryde cited in Geddes 2006).
However it attracts some critiques as well. Lawless (cited in Geddes 2006)
argues that the programme has a relatively marginal role in attacking
deprivation and highlighting the political tensions at both national and local
levels which can disrupt local projects of this nature. Through NDCs are
-
8/8/2019 Partnership Local Governance OKatisoz
13/22
13 / 22
particularly interesting in the extent to which they function robustly as
institutions which encourage bottom-up participation by citizens from
disadvantaged areas in the system of local governance (Geddes 2006). This
reflection above may be interpreted as fact that local governance strategies is
not necessarily strengthening this grassroots capacity, rather may be causing a
dependency situation in that context.
IS IT DELIVERING WHAT CITIES NEED?
How effective and how legitimate? Is partnership working delivering what cities
need? For a clear discussion it is better to begin the analysis by very briefly
discussing what cities need.
Decline of Fordist production systems transformed the urban space into a space
of conflict which Sassen (1994) calls emergence of centrality and marginality.
Reorganisation of production has led to the reorganisation of labour market in
the form of such as growth of an informal economy, decline of unions, loss of
contractual protection and increase in part time / temporary jobs, as well as
increasing homelessness and decreasing affordability of people, new
intra/interurban inequalities (polarisation). Parallel to the transformation of
economic sectors, context of public administration has been profoundly
restructured as well. Classical local government approach has been replaced by
local governance principles. This new public administration understanding
favours individual over state; the interconnection among shareholders relying on
volunteer-based cooperation over hierarchic relations; negotiation, democratic
participation, project democracy over imposition; facilitator, enabler local
government over applicator one; systems caring diversity and local value over
standardising systems; accountable over conservative (Goymen 2004).
-
8/8/2019 Partnership Local Governance OKatisoz
14/22
-
8/8/2019 Partnership Local Governance OKatisoz
15/22
15 / 22
activists have to struggle is hard to achieve (Wainwright cited in Geddes
2006).
Business decisions are one of the most important factors which will determinethe success or failure of local strategies. Business participation is therefore
encouraged by the perceptions of business organizations and individual
businesses about the possible benefits (availability of direct business
opportunities (in service provision for example) or better knowledge of the
local business environment) and the opportunity costs of involvement through
local engagement and networking. In general, this has meant so far that
partnerships have found it difficult to secure business involvement. National
reporting about partnership such as the NAO audit found that partnerships are
having particular difficulties in engaging business and connecting residents to
the local labour market (Geddes 2006).
For neighbourhood-based local community and voluntary sector actors, theapparent opportunities to exercise real
influence partnerships over public service
provision appear very considerable, and
many local activists seem prepared to
make huge personal commitments to
partnerships to take hold of them
(Geddes 2006).
The meta-governance is a fact of successand effectiveness of local partnerships.
Central government is usually the major
constraint against the success and
-
8/8/2019 Partnership Local Governance OKatisoz
16/22
16 / 22
effectiveness of local partnerships. The effectiveness partnerships at the local
level depends heavily on practices at national and regional levels of
government, and government has adopted a range of strategies and
interventions, to control and regulate the new local institutions they have set
up (Geddes 2006) This is not only a question of the dominance of national over
local priorities in a period when achieving public service delivery outcomes are
a major government priority. It is also that, in this period of intensive
restructuring and change, the invention and application of new institutional
norms, incentives and sanctions has been led from the centre not from the
local level. Thus LSPs operate within a centrallydriven regime, especially in
those areas eligible for NRF funding, where they must be assessed annually by
government regional offices, according to a set of rules drawn up by the NRU
(Geddes 2006). The move to a stronger local government may be perceived as
a sign of significant change. However, current developments more reflect the
priorities of central government agenda and tend to undermine the expressed
objective of empowering local communities. Furbey (1999) argues that whilst
bids do reflect local issues, local priorities are tested against the priorities of
central government in order to comply with real or perceived government
requirements. Local governance strategies are regularly monitored and tightly
controlled by performance management systems instituted by central
government and carried through by regional government offices. Thus, on the
one hand, those partnerships represent an attempt to open up local
governance to a wider range of local interests and better reflect local priorities
and needs; but on the other hand they are both subject to central government
monitoring and performance management arrangements which judge them on
-
8/8/2019 Partnership Local Governance OKatisoz
17/22
17 / 22
their ability to match targets and objectives imposed from above(Geddes
2006).
As long as the local governance strategies depend on central governmentbudget, they are subject to
domination and control of it due
to accountability and
governmentality requirements
which Geddes (2006) call
performance-managed public
service agencies. Partnerships
are bounded by governments
success indicators and priorities
not only in budgeting but also in
objective setting. Geddes (2006)
explains the case as follows; Partnerships are subject to regular review,
inspection and audit. Thus LSPs operate within a centrallydriven regime,especially in those areas eligible for Neighbourhood Renewal Funding, where
they must be assessed annually by government regional offices, according to a
set of rules drawn up by the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit
Time-limited initiatives, framed by strong bidding guidelines and with therequirement to supply increasingly strong and comprehensive measures of
project inputs and outputs are more of an outcome of more mechanistic
approaches (Furbey 1999). Therefore partnerships are likely to turn into a
mode of checklist rather than targeting more practical issues which soft project
as such require.
-
8/8/2019 Partnership Local Governance OKatisoz
18/22
18 / 22
Local authorities have a leading role which both a facilitator and a barrieraspect. They are supposed to be facilitator because the process needs a single
actor to lead and may likely to turn into a function of barrier because
perception of domination may cause lack of ownership among other parties.
(Darlow et al 2007)
Local politics has bad reputation of the limited and even declining local politicalparticipation, or the quality of local elected or the perception problem of lack of
transparency and accountability of local politics. Local governance strategies
appear to offer involvement of a wider range of interests in local policy
making, and a framework within which trust can be developed and the
perspectives of different interests identified and understood(Geddes 2006)
Local partnerships should support representative democracy, and should formthe platform for negotiation of different ideas, views which Geddes (2006) calls
as shift from antagonistic to agonistic mode.
Perception of partnerships has been improved as a result of communitystrategy process. Data sharing and joint target settings are the steps that
partnerships work the best. Community strategies drive partners to sign up to
a single document hence resulted in the development of a common brand and
identity for that particular locality (Darlow et al 2007). However involvement
of all parties has critical role in success.
Partnerships lead to a better understanding of local needs (Darlow et al 2007)Moving from the experience of LSPs, it is argued that authorities have found
that there is a need for a central body which is responsible for practical
spending decisions the allocation and/or alignment of funds (IDEA 2006). This
accountable body comprises senior members and elected officials of the key
-
8/8/2019 Partnership Local Governance OKatisoz
19/22
19 / 22
agencies in a locality. Constituent LSPs remain in place under the revised
arrangements and retain their visioning and co-ordinating role, overseeing
countywide strategic issues to realise the Community Strategy objectives
(IDEA 2006)
CONCLUSION
The paper firstly analysed the current public administration realm and
contemporary economic and institutional transformation that have been
embodied in urban space as local governance. It, then, focused particularly on
the issue of partnership working as a local governance strategy. Practises have
been examined, and factors of success and failure have been analysed.
In conclusion, the paper argues that inputs and processes which define success
of partnership working in the urban space have very relative and intangible
aspects. Balance between despotism and leadership, bureaucracy and
informality leading local initiatives, practicality and accountability stimulates the
question of whether a genuine partnership can be externally constructed,
whether the principles of goodpartnership can be written down, whether
partnership can be free from special / conditional attributes to be mainstreamed.
Attempts of UK government in the process of modernisation of local authorities
have been very much focusing on empowerment of local agencies and
communities in goal setting and service delivery through the promotion
partnerships via various structures such as LAAs, LSPs, NDCs. Top-down nature
of attempt negatively effects its efficiency and legitimacy. Accountability is a
must in public administration and it is possible to monitor accountability through
performance criteria may seem as the most practical and just way. A
-
8/8/2019 Partnership Local Governance OKatisoz
20/22
-
8/8/2019 Partnership Local Governance OKatisoz
21/22
21 / 22
REFERENCE
Ashtana S, Richardson S & Halliday J 2002, Partnership Working in PublicPolicy Provision: A Framework of Evaluation, Social Policy and Administration,Vol. 36, No.7, pp. 780-795 Retrieved on April 19, 2008, from University of
Birmingham E-Resources Database
Brenner, N 2003,Glocalisation as a State Spatial Strategy: UrbanEntrepreneurialism and the New Politics of Uneven Development in WesternEurope, in J Peck & H Yeung (eds), Remaking the Global Economy: Economic-Geographical Perspectives, Sage, London and Thousand Oaks. RetrievedJanuary 30, 2008 fromhttp://artefact.mi2.hr/_a04/lang_en/theory_brenner_en.htm
Communities Website 2008, Retrieved on April 10, 2008, formhttp://www.communities.gov.uk/localgovernment
Darlow,A, Percy-Smith J & Wells P 2007, 'Community strategies: Are theydelivering joined up governance?', Local Government Studies, Vol. 33, No.1,pp. 117 - 129
DiGaetano A & Lawless P 1999, Urban Governance and Industrial Decline:Governing Structures and Policy Agendas in Birmingham and Sheffield,England, and Detroit, Michigan, 1980-1997, Urban Affairs Review, Vol. 34, No.4, pp. 546-577
Fischer, B, Turnbull, S, Poland, B, &Haydon, E 2004, Drug Use, Risk AndUrban Order: Examining Supervised Injection Sites (SIS) As
Governmentality, International Journal of Drug Policy, Vol. 15, pp. 357365.Retrieved December 13, 2007, from Birmingham University E-Resource
Friends of Earth 2005, Community Strategies and Local Strategic Partnerships, Retrieved on April 21, 2008 fromhttp://www.foe.co.uk/resosurce/briefings/community_strategies_and_l.pdf
Furbey R.A 1999, Urban 'regeneration': reflections on a metaphor, CriticalSocial Policy,Vol. 19, pp. 419-445 Retrieved on April 25, 2008, from Universityof Birmingham E-Resources Database
Geddes M 2006, Partnership and the Limits to Local Governance in England:Institutionalist Analysis and Neoliberalism, International Journal of Urban andRegional Research, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 76-97 Retrieved on April 25, 2008, fromUniversity of Birmingham E-Resources Database
Geddes M, Davies J & Fuller C 2007, 'Evaluating Local Strategic Partnerships:Theory and practice of change', Local Government Studies, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp.97-116 Retrieved on April 25, 2008, from University of Birmingham E-Resources Database
Gymen K 2004, Local Governments as Stakeholders and Leaders of LocalDevelopment, Proceedings of Conference of Role of the Municipalities on Local
http://artefact.mi2.hr/_a04/lang_en/theory_brenner_en.htmhttp://www.communities.gov.uk/localgovernment/performanceframeworkpartnerships/localstrategicpartnerships/http://www.foe.co.uk/resosurce/briefings/community_strategies_and_l.pdfhttp://www.foe.co.uk/resosurce/briefings/community_strategies_and_l.pdfhttp://www.communities.gov.uk/localgovernment/performanceframeworkpartnerships/localstrategicpartnerships/http://artefact.mi2.hr/_a04/lang_en/theory_brenner_en.htm -
8/8/2019 Partnership Local Governance OKatisoz
22/22
Development, Sabanci University Istanbul Policy Center (24 January 2004),Istanbul, Turkey. Retrieved December 28, 2007, fromhttp://ipc.sabanciuniv.edu/tr/?ArastirmaAlanlari/Yonetisim.html
Hall, T & Hubbard, P 1998, The Entrepreneurial City, John Wiley & Sons,Chichester
Harvey, D 1989, From Managerialism to Entrepreneurialism: TheTransformation in Urban Governance in Late Capitalism, Geografiska AnnalerSeries B, Human Geography, Vol. 71, No. 1, pp. 3-17. Retrieved January 10,2008, from Birmingham University E-Resource
IDEA 2006, Local Governance the changing role of LSPs, Retrieved on April17, 2008, from http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/aio/4083715
Lebel, L, Anderies J.M, Campbell B, Folke C, Hatfield-Dodds S, Hughes T. P &Wilson J 2006 Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional
social-ecological systems, Ecology and Society, vol. 11 (1), no. 19. [online]Retrieved October 18 2007 fromhttp://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art19/
MacLeaod, G 2002, From Urban Entrepreneurialism to a Revanchist City? Onthe Spatial Injustices of Glasgows Renaissance,Antipode, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp.602-624. Retrieved January 12, 2008, from Birmingham University E-Resource
Painter C & Clarence E 2001, UK Local Action Zones and Changing UrbanGovernance, Urban Studies, Vol. 38, No. 8, 12151232 Retrieved April 27,2008, from Birmingham University E-Resource
Reddel T 2004, Exploring the Institutional Dimensions of Local Governanceand Community Strengthening: Linking Empirical and Theoretical Debates,Urban Policy Program Research Paper 2 Retrieved on April 19, 2008, fromwww.griffith.edu.au/centre/urp/urp_publications/Issues_Papers/UPP_RP2_Reddel_Final.pdf
Rhodes, R.A.W 1996, The New Governance: Governing without Government,Political Studies, vol.XLVI, pp.652-667, Retrieved May 25, 2006, from METU e-resources
Sassen, S 1994, Cities in a World Economy, Pine Forge Press, CaliforniaSmart, A & Smart, J 2003, Urbanization and The Global Perspective, Annual
Review of Anthropology, Vol. 32, pp. 263285. Retrieved May 15, 2008, fromMiddle East Technical University E-Resource
Yamamoto H 2007, Multi-level Governance and Public Private Partnership:Theoretical Basis of Public Management, Interdisciplinary InformationSciences, Vol. 13, No. 1 pp. 65-88 Retrieved April 19, 2008, from BirminghamUniversity E-Resource
http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/aio/4083715http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/anti;jsessionid=4k55j5gf4cugq.victoriahttp://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/anti;jsessionid=4k55j5gf4cugq.victoriahttp://www.griffith.edu.au/centre/urp/urp_publications/Issues_Papers/UPP_RP2_Reddel_Final.pdfhttp://www.griffith.edu.au/centre/urp/urp_publications/Issues_Papers/UPP_RP2_Reddel_Final.pdfhttp://www.griffith.edu.au/centre/urp/urp_publications/Issues_Papers/UPP_RP2_Reddel_Final.pdfhttp://www.griffith.edu.au/centre/urp/urp_publications/Issues_Papers/UPP_RP2_Reddel_Final.pdfhttp://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/anti;jsessionid=4k55j5gf4cugq.victoriahttp://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/aio/4083715
top related