On Municipalities in

Experimental Governance

ANNICA KRONSELL, PROFESSOR,

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, LUND

CHAIR ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIAL SCIENCE, SCHOOL OF GLOBAL STUDIES,

GOTHENBURG

Focus: Urban Living Labs ULL

• Spaces from which to explore the relation between

democratic governance and expertise in an urban

context.

• ULL – sites devised to design, test and learn from

social and technical innovation in real time.

• ULL – intentional collaborative arenas of researchers,

citizens, companies and local governments.

• In ULL knowledge, learning, participation, co-creation

are central features.

Why study Municipalities’ role in

experimental governance?

• Democratic/public governance in urban context

• Experimental governance as a ’new’ emerging form of

climate and sustainability governance (Bulkeley et al 2015;

Castán Broto and Bulkeley 2014, Evans 2016; Frantzeskaki and Loorbach

2010, McCormick et al 2013)

• Experimental governance concerns developing expertise,

knowledge, learning, sharing knowledge, co-production

• Has been argued that public sector/political/administrative

sector less engaged and concern with these efforts due to

privatization, neo-liberalisation

• Project data ULL: 50 snapshots from mainly four european

countries and 16 in-depth case studies

• with Dalia, Mukhtar-Landgren ‘Experimental Governance:

The Role of Municipalities in Urban Living Labs’, European

Planning Studies, Special Issue on Experimental

Governance.

• With Mukhtar-Landgren, Timo von Wirth, Yuliya Voytenko

’Municipalities as Enablers? The Role of Municipalities in

Climate Governance in Sweden and the Netherlands’

urbanlivinglabs.net

Municipal roles in experimental

governance

• Combining theories on transition and sustainability

governance with theories on local and collaborative

goverment (Bulkeley & Kern 2006; Frantzeskaki et al 2014 Wanna 2008, p.

8; Qvist 2012; Wittmayer et al (2016a, 2016b; Vangen et al 2015 )

• Three roles (Wittmayer et al 2016a, 2016b)

• Promoter – when a municipality initiates, finances and

implements an ULL, or plays a leading role in its design and

development.

• Enabler – when a municipality has an interest in facilitating an

ULL, open up opportunities for collaboration and create

supportive conditions.

• Partner – when a municipality engages in a partnership with

other stakeholders.

PromoterSmart City Hartberg (Austria)

Smart City Project Graz Mitte (Austria)

Smart District Gnigl (Austria)

New Light on Alby Hill (Swe)

Stapeln Open Maker Space/STPLN (Swe)

Medialand Living Lab (France)

Future City Glasgow (UK)

Newcastle City Deal (UK)

Circulair Buiksloterham (NL)

Maastricht-LAB (NL)

Luchtsingel (NL)

PartnerVision step 1 Villach (Austria)

Renewable Wilhelmsburg (Germany)

Acqua Dock Rotterdam (NL)

Urban-Gro.Lab (NL)

Norrby innovation platform (Swe)

Living Don (UK)

Newcastle Science Centre (UK)

Manor House PACT (UK)

T-city Friedrishafen (Germany)

Concept House Heijplaat Rotterdam (NL)

Sum Studios (UK)

The Community Energy Lab (UK)

Greening Wingrove (UK)

UbiGo (Swe)

Living Lab Uddevalla (Swe)

EnablerShape your world (Swe)

Hållbarheten (Swe)

Future by Lund (Swe)

Malmö Innovation Platform (Swe)

Aspern – Vienna’s urban lakeside (Austria)

ERnteLaa (Austria)

MK: smart (UK)

Muswell Hill (UK)

Feijenoord Proeftuin (NL)

Open Lab Ebbinge (NL)

ZoHo district (NL)

E-mobility graz (Austria)

Non roleVienna Shares (Austria)

Urban farm (Austria)

Interethnic co-existance in European cities (Austria)

City of the Future Living Lab, COTFLL (UK),

Apulian ICT Living Labs (Italy).

Nexthamburg (Germany)

Evomobile (Spain)

Insero Live Lab (DK)

Danish Outdoor LightingLab(DK)

Design Research Lab(Germany)

Marconia (NL)

HSB Living Lab (Swe)

Why explore the enabler role in

experimental governance?

• The enabler role appears to be a newer role for the

municipality with its focus on governing collaborations and

expanding activities beyond core municipal areas.

• The aim is to advance understanding of the enabler role by

exploring how municipalities practice the politics of enabling.

• A policy instrumentation perspective

• Move beyond discussing which roles that municipalities take

on to analyze how these roles are materialized in concrete

policy instruments put into practices.

• an in-depth multi-case study approach of four ULL cases in

two countries, Sweden and the Netherlands.

Policy Instrumentation

Processes

(Lascoumes & Le Galés 2007)

Guiding questions to the empirical material

Organizing How is the municipality creating meeting places and collaborative structures?

How has the municipality expanded participation with the help of ULL?

Resourcing What kind of economic support is the municipality providing?

Which additional resources does the municipality provide?

Visioning Is the municipality putting forward a joint vision which seeks the inclusion of

stakeholders?

If yes, how is the vision framed?

The Malmö Innovation Platform Future by Lund Open Lab Ebbinge Concept House Village Lab

Location Malmö, Sweden Lund, Sweden Groningen, The Netherlands Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Aim

To use physical regeneration as a

motor for socio-economic

development, long-term

environmental goals and business

opportunities

To develop sustainable attractive

cities by working with and advancing

the concepts of “smart cities” and

“smart citizens”

To develop a previous wasteland area into a

center for business creativity by making

space for the creative economy, culture and

entertainment

To test and experiment with concept

houses and building retrofitting within an

existing (real) residential setting, in

order to speed up innovations in the

sustainable building sector.

Focus areas

Renovation of existing apartment

buildings, energy efficiency, socio-

economic development

Lighting, mobility, smart energy

systems, makers and sharing, and

internet of things

Redevelopment of a vacant area,

sustainability, experimentation with mobile

architecture and temporary (city) construction

Sustainable urban development,

building technologies, new building

retrofitting approaches

Funding

scheme

VINNOVA – Swedish Innovation

Agency

VINNOVA – Swedish Innovation

Agency

Main subsidy from the European Regional

Development Fund (ERDF) coordinated by

the Ministry of the Foreign Affairs and

Groningen municipality

Threefold: from the EU Interreg

SusLabNWE program, the Dutch

ministry of Economic Affairs and the

Municipality of Rotterdam

Duration 2013 - Present 2013 - Present2008 - 2017; with an initial funding period

from 2009 - 2011

2010 - present; with a core operating

period until 2015

Lead partner City of Malmö City of Lund

Private sector / Civil Society:

The local retailers association

Ebbingekwartier (in close collaboration with

local citizen initiatives and the city)

Knowledge Institutions:

University of Applied Sciences

Rotterdam & TU Delft

Partner typesLocal and regional government,

academia, business

Local and regional government,

academia, business

Local government, private sector, local

community, civil society, knowledge institutes

Local government, knowledge

institutions, private building construction

sector, residents

Further

information

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx

nHQBC0SIPBVHRBb0NjNGJJaVk

/view

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxnH

QBC0SIPBSUN6cklEcW8xbGM/view

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxnHQBC0SI

PBVG5paGcyUDFmcWs/view

See also: www.openlabebbinge.nl/

Silvester et al. 2017

and:

http://concepthousevillage.nl/

Main findings (tentative)

• Enabler uses ’traditional’ policy instruments in ’new’ ways

• Organizing: meeting places are key, informal-formal (creating new, outside, arms-length)

• Knowledge and different types of knowledge sharing- innovation present, some co-production, often information sharing

• Participation is central, expanding often, but sometimes moreexclusive

• Resourcing: applying to funders, buildings, land

• Short lived, temporary character of experimental govenance

• Visioning: tying to general visions of the urban context and alsoabout marketing the city

• Embedded om multi-level governance relations, through fundingand sharing of knowledge.

Questions posed to

the case studies

Malmö Innovation

Platform/Arena

Future by Lund CHVL Open Lab Ebbinge

How is the

municipality creating

meeting places and

collaborative

structures?

Open meeting place

outside normal

arrangements

Formal organizing

Steering group, Muni

official lead

Closed Meeting place

at arm’s length

Formal organizing

Steering group, Muni

official lead

Open flexible Meeting

place

Municipality initially

passive role, begins

with informal

organizing gradually

becomes more formal

in SD strategy

New Flexible Meeting

place for mutual

learning

Informal organizing

Municipality initially

reluctant and passive

role, begins with

informal organizing

gradually meeting

What kind of

economic support is

the municipality

providing?

What kind of

economic support is

the municipality

providing?

City of Lund direct

financing of some

projects, Municipality

applicant to VINNOVA

Funded by European

research and regional

development fund

with academic

institutions as

applicants.

Municipality key

applicant for grant

from European

Regional

Development Fund

Which additional

resources does the

municipality provide

(e.g. land,

knowledge)?

Complimentary

funding by partners,

also national and EU

in specific projects

Working hours by

municipal staff

Initially only by land

parcels for the lab,

after other funding

ended financing

staffing to keep lab

running

Municipality provides

public facilities (is

supported also by

Dutch Ministry for

Economic Affairs,

local retailers)

Is the municipality

putting forward a joint

vision which seeks

the inclusion of

stakeholders?

Yes, social integration limited vision in

relation to the

scientific

achievements (ESS

MaxLab)

Align with urban

challenges for a new

economy Rotterdam

Limited vision related

to

demonstration project

Thank you !