Master planning in the megalopolis: exploring the opportunities and barriers for urban governance reform in Bangalore, India

Drawing upon an analysis of Flint’s 2012–2013 master planning process, this article explores a puzzling set of questions: Why would a city under emergency management with an abrogated democratic process explicitly encourage extensive citizen participation in one of its most important and strategic documents? How does the urge to involve the community in decision-making reflect new priorities of urban governance? The paper suggests that such a paradox can be conceived as a coherent strategy for addressing conflicting priorities. On the one hand, the exigencies of official claims to democratic engagement operate during a period in which public discourse on inequality has grown in prominence. On the other, harsh fiscal constraint compels local officials and stakeholders to create the conditions for new market-led investment as the singular remedy to urban decline. The result is a transformation of the normative boundaries of the public, lauded as democratic, yet narrowly defined as those participating in highly choreographed and non-binding civic rituals. Local stakeholders, outside consultants, and city administrators generated consensus on a set of urban planning best practices deemed conducive to novel forms of growth, suggesting a transferal of authority from elected office holders to non-elected experts. This process then established the conditions under which community participation was pursued. The intertwining of technical expertise and elite decision-making, however, predetermined community input by naturalizing technocratic logics in planning policy, while signaling the post-political bent of some participatory processes in U.S. cities.

Download Full-text

Mayoral governance in Bristol: has it made a difference?

Directly Elected Mayors in Urban Governance ◽

10.1332/policypress/9781447327011.003.0002 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

David Sweeting ◽

Robin Hambleton

Keyword(s):

Urban Governance ◽

Political Leadership ◽

Vital Role ◽

Evaluation Framework ◽

Governance Reform ◽

Civic Leaders ◽

Clear Vision ◽

The City

This chapter considers whether the introduction of a directly elected mayor form of political leadership can make a difference to the governance of a city. To do so we present research results from a study of governance reform in Bristol, UK, which introduced a directly elected mayor in 2012. The views of Bristol citizens and civic leaders are analysed using an evaluation framework encompassing different aspects of urban political leadership. The new model of governance has led to: a startling increase in the visibility of city leadership, the development of a clear vision for the future of the city, and a boost to Bristol’s reputation as an inventive city. However, data shows public perceptions of trust in and timeliness of decision-making have not improved. Also, for some the mayoral model concentrates too much power in the hands of one individual, and impairs the quality of representative democracy because it weakens the vital role of councillors in the governance of the city. Conclusions are drawn highlighting themes emerging from the Bristol experience that could be of interest to wider debates about how to improve the quality and effectiveness of urban governance.

Download Full-text

Australia's Metropolitan Imperative

10.1071/9781486307975 ◽

2018 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Keyword(s):

Land Use ◽

Land Use Planning ◽

Urban Governance ◽

Environmental Benefits ◽

State Governments ◽

Governance Reform ◽

Global Trend ◽

Australian State ◽

History Of ◽

Commonwealth Government

Since the early 1990s there has been a global trend towards governmental devolution. However, in Australia, alongside deregulation, public–private partnerships and privatisation, there has been increasing centralisation rather than decentralisation of urban governance. Australian state governments are responsible for the planning, management and much of the funding of the cities, but the Commonwealth government has on occasion asserted much the same role. Disjointed policy and funding priorities between levels of government have compromised metropolitan economies, fairness and the environment. Australia’s Metropolitan Imperative: An Agenda for Governance Reform makes the case that metropolitan governments would promote the economic competitiveness of Australia’s cities and enable more effective and democratic planning and management. The contributors explore the global metropolitan ‘renaissance’, document the history of metropolitan debate in Australia and demonstrate metropolitan governance failures. They then discuss the merits of establishing metropolitan governments, including economic, fiscal, transport, land use, housing and environmental benefits. The book will be a useful resource for those engaged in strategic, transport and land use planning, and a core reference for students and academics of urban governance and government.

Download Full-text