Hybrid contractual landscapes of governance: Generation of fragmented regimes of public accountability through urban regeneration

Abstract

<jats:p> In this article we explore the idea of public accountability in the contemporary entrepreneurial governance of cities, which are influenced by market dependency and private sector involvement. We specifically focus on the fragmentation of public accountability through hybrid contractual landscapes of governance, in which the public and private sector actors interactively produce a diversity of instruments to ensure performance in service. This is in sharp contrast to the traditional vague norms and values appealed to by urban planning institutions, to safeguard the public interest. We argue that within these complex contractual governance environments public accountability is produced by public and private sector actors, through highly diverse sets of contractual relations and diverse control instruments that define responsibilities of diverse actors who are involved in a project within a market-dependent planning and policy making environment, which contains context-specific characteristics set by the specific rules of public-private collaboration. These complexities mean public accountability has become fragmented and largely reduced to performance control. Moreover, our understanding of contractual urban governance remains vague and unclear due to very limited empirical studies focusing on the actual technologies of contractual urban development. By deciphering the complex hybrid landscapes of contractual governance, with comparative empirical evidence from The Netherlands, UK and Brazil, we demonstrate how public accountability is assuming a more ‘contractual’ and unpredictable meaning in policy and plan implementation process. </jats:p>

Fragmented governance architectures underlying residential property production in Amsterdam

“…In the scholarly literature on urban governance, the politics of entrepreneurialism or progrowth agendas are mainly covered in reference to hybrid, neoliberal governance formulations (Pierre, 1999;Tas¸an-Kok et al, 2020). However, the underlying infrastructures of these formulations, which are equally important for defining the future of spatial development, are largely untouched.…”

Ontologies of live-work mix in Amsterdam, Brussels and Stockholm: an institutionalist approach drawing on path dependency

“…Amsterdam's institutional path seems to have reacted sooner to external changes and in several steps. Firstly, after the 1970s economic crisis, mixed-use development was introduced in urban renewal policies (Healey, 2007), and economic growth objectives were integrated into urban developments (Taşan-Kok et al, 2020).…”

Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Investigating Planners’ Learning Experiences in Amsterdam’s Fragmented Governance of Property Development

“…Thereby, public sector planners often take on facilitating and negotiating roles (Sehested, 2009;Fainstein, 2008). Flexible planning policy creates room for these negotiations and adds to the existing institutional complexity (Tasan-Kok et al, 2020). At the same time, an institutional perspective sheds light on the fact that all development projects, regardless of their unique actor constellations and relations, are embedded in a wider governance landscape (Figure 1).…”