Over the last couple of decades, metropolitan areas around the world have been engaged in a multitude of initiatives aimed at upgrading urban infrastructure and services, with a view to creating better environmental, social and economic conditions and enhancing cities' attractiveness and competitiveness. Reflecting these developments, many new categories of 'cities' have entered the policy discourse:

No abstract

No abstract

Since Hofstede introduced his approach to understanding cultural differences through dimensions of national culture, various authors have presented their own dimensions, sometimes similar, sometimes different, and sometimes partially overlapping. The status quo in the development of research on cultural dimensions can now be qualified by two words: enriched and messy. Some scholars have attempted to bring the most likely common denominators of the dimensions together in an overview, but these attempts were based on ad hoc considerations and common sense. The goal of this article is to come to a synthesis of the insights from relevant authors and present a set of clusters of cultural dimensions based on systematic theoretical and statistical analysis. This is done by testing the conceptually established clusters through an ecological factor analysis. We included the work produced by Hofstede, Inglehart, Schwartz, GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness), Minkov, and a number of well-known qualitative authors, ending up with nine exclusive clusters: Individualism versus Collectivism, Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance (UA), Mastery versus Harmony, Traditionalism versus Secularism, Indulgence versus Restraint, Assertiveness versus Tenderness, Gender Egalitarianism, and Collaborativeness.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide a comprehensive cross-national comparative framework to compare open data policies from different countries and to derive lessons for developing open data policies. Open data policies guide the opening and stimulate the usage of public data. However, some countries have no or less developed open data policies, in this way missing the opportunity to reap the benefits of open data. Design/methodology/approach – Literature review and case studies were conducted to extend an existing comparison framework, and the framework was used to compare open data policies of the UK, the USA, The Netherlands, Kenya and Indonesia. Findings – The comparison of open data policies highlighted several lessons that can be learned, including actions regarding a robust legal framework, generic operational policies, data providers and data users, data quality, designated agencies or taskforces and initiatives and incentives for stimulating demand for data. National policies should also be focused on removing barriers on the operational level and policies for stimulating the release and use of data. Research limitations/implications – There is hardly any research systematically comparing open data policies. The comparative framework provided in this paper is a first analytical basis for cross-national comparison of open data policies and offers possibilities for systematic cross-national lesson-drawing. Practical implications – The authors found two waves of policy-making. The first wave of policy is focused on stimulating the release of data, whereas the second wave of policy is aimed at stimulating use. The comparison can be used to learn from other policies and help to improve open data policies. A third wave of open data policy is expected to materialize focusing on realizing added value from utilizing open data. Social implications – Improving a country’s open data policy can help the country to reap the benefits of open data, such as government transparency, efficiency and economic growth. Originality/value – Open data are a recent phenomenon and countries are looking for ways to obtain the benefits. This research can be used for developing and evaluating open data policies.

Currently little is known about how institutional arrangements coevolve with urban experimentation. This paper mobilizes neoinstitutional literature and recent urban experimentation literature as a framework to explore how and why institutional arrangements differ across urban contexts. Empirically the paper focusses on smart city initiatives in Amsterdam, Hamburg and Ningbo. These three cities are frontrunners in adopting a comprehensive smart city agenda, but they do so in different ways. The paper examines regulative, normative and cognitive elements of institutional arrangements, explores how they shape experimentation, and reflects on their place-based specificities. The comparative analysis suggests that the focus of, and approach to, experimentation can be understood as resting in a (possibly unique) combination of strategic agency and dynamics at multiple spatial scales. ARTICLE HISTORY

No abstract

No abstract