No abstract

This article retraces the emergence and shows the implications of current regulative frameworks in the field of urban drug policy. Framed by an analytical perspective that is based on the concept of urban governance, the article focuses on the processes by which cooperation and coordination between various conflicting governmental and non-governmental agencies are achieved to address drug-related problems in the major agglomerations of Switzerland, as well as in the metropolitan areas of Amsterdam, Glasgow and Frankfurt am Main. In the first part, it is shown that these problems are structured and debated along a conflict between advocates of the public-health approach and those of the public-order approach in the field of drug policy, as well as, to a lesser extent, a conflict between core cities and fringe municipalities about spillover effects related to the provision of services for users of illegal drugs. It is argued that this stems from a general tension between the goals of an attractiveness policy aimed at enhancing local economic development, and the necessities of social policy needed to address urban social problems. The second part examines the emergence of mechanisms of governance aimed at addressing drug-related urban problems. It is argued that a 'social public order' regime emerged to regulate drug-related urban problems, controlling urban practices of drug users by a combination of police and social work. In addition, it is held that in Switzerland, where social policy is traditionally confined to municipalities, these mechanisms of governance contributed to the emergence of metropolitan regions as new territorial actors in the field of drug policy. Copyright Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2001.

Abstract.  Extensive decentralization and devolution efforts among industrialized nations throughout the 1980s and 1990s call for a closer look at the effect these trends have on public policy. This article investigates the impact of these trends on the environmental performance of industrialized countries. There are two competing hypotheses as to how federalism and other multilevel governance structures affect the environmental performance of countries. The first stresses that the resulting institutional fragmentation and regulatory unpredictability is detrimental to the protection of the environment. An alternative hypothesis emphasizes that multilevel systems fare better regarding environmental performance because they can effectively respond to local needs and encourage innovation at the sub‐national level. Based on OECD air pollution data, the study finds that multilevel structures affect the way in which important determinants of environmental performance work. Thus, corporatist accommodation structures, which are known to enhance environmental policy, do so primarily in multi‐tiered systems. A high level of economic development, on the other hand, which has also been shown to contribute to environmental performance, does so mainly in countries that are characterized by weak multilevel structures. The article discusses theoretical and practical implications of these findings.

Public action increasingly takes place in self-organizing networks that are remote from direct governmental control. While these transformations have been subject to scrutiny in regard to their efficiency, less attention has been paid to their democratic quality. This article discusses governance-induced problems of democracy by isolating two major criticisms. Deliberative criticism argues that governance, rather than allowing for true deliberation in the public space, may lead to a loss of accountability. Participatory criticism stresses that governance impinges on participatory venues. The article discusses these criticisms theoretically and empirically, drawing from research on drug policy in Switzerland. The findings show that the criticisms are relevant, albeit not entirely justified.