Local Governance in the Third Millennium: a brave new world?

Denters, Sebastianus A.H.; Rose, L.E.

doi:10.1007/978-0-230-21242-8_1

Cited by 32 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Generally, an understanding has developed that there is typology of systems of local government which distinguishes between the "north" and the "south". Originating with work by Page and Goldsmith (1987), this distinction has been repeatedly elaborated by Newman and Thornley (1996), John (2001) and Denters and Rose (2005) among others. The contrast is between those countries where local government has a wide range of responsibilities and discretion but low access to central decision-making (typically Britain in the post-war years) and those where responsibilities and discretion are low but where there is access to central decision-making through the role played by local politicians at the national level (typically, France).…”

Section: A Culture Of Local Governancementioning

confidence: 90%

Planning and the Culture of Governance: Local Institutions and Reform in France

Booth

2009

European Planning Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: A Culture Of Local Governancementioning

confidence: 90%

Planning and the Culture of Governance: Local Institutions and Reform in France

Booth

2009

European Planning Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For some (e.g. Denters and Rose, 2005) bottom‐up claims for participation and involvement have even been catalogued among the main ‘triggers’ for new governing arrangements, and Osborne and Gaebler (1992) include the empowerment of communities into their ‘ten commandments’ for ‘reinventing government’. Citizenship participation and community involvement have spread as core elements in all sorts of partnership arrangements, be it in policing and safety policies, service delivery, welfare and health policies or local economic development (O'Malley and Palmer, 1996; Rose, 1996; Cruikshank, 1999).…”

Section: Governance and Resident Involvementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards Radicalized Communicative Rationality: Resident Involvement and Urban Democracy in Rotterdam and Antwerp

Beaumont

Loopmans

2008

Int J Urban Regional Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What are the theoretical tools at our disposal for helping explain local participatory processes in the context of the governance of social and ethnic diversity in cities? Conventional wisdom within urban scholarship often has it that new modes of governance are, by definition, more conducive to participatory practice in cities. In this article we take issue with this assumption with reference to political process derived from Habermas and Mouffe as well as detailed case material on participation in the Delfshaven district of Rotterdam (the Netherlands) and in the Antwerp-North district (Belgium). While we are sympathetic with the ideals of Habermas given the highly fragmented, individualized and conflictive politics observed in Antwerp, we equally do not see the alternative in the bureaucratic form of rationality we see in Rotterdam. We therefore argue for a radicalized communicative rationality, combining a Habermas-inspired ideal speech situation with more organic, grassroots and bottom-up processes in line with Mouffe. Our 'hybridized' conception of participation transcends the pervasive tendency to treat Habermas and Mouffe, among others, as epistemologically distinct and concerned with incommensurable conceptions of social power. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications of our argument for theorizing governance and participation in cities. Copyright (c) 2008 The Authors.

show abstract

“…This notion of governance involves governments sharing power with civil society and market actors within inter-organisational networks (Treib, Bahr, & Falkner, 2007). Governments need to adopt different ways of operating, which often include more influencing through steering and less through actually doing (Stoker, 1998, p. 24;Denters & Rose, 2005).…”

Section: Positioning Defining and Categorising Community Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Missed opportunities for democratic engagement: the adoption of community indicators in local government

Ryan

Hastings

2015

Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Community indicators, as a framework for the measurement of community wellbeing and progress established in collaboration with the community itself, have more than three decades of history in the United States. Although community indicator projects developed in Australia from the 1990s onwards, particularly by local governments, they have primarily been used as a reporting tool rather than as an instrument for democratic engagement and evidence-based policy development. In this article, an analysis is provided of the range of approaches to community indicators in Australia and the United States. The argument is made for the use of community indicators to enhance the democratic capacity of local government. The aim is to stimulate discussion about the potential benefits of community indicator projects for local government in Australia and increase understanding of the possible extent of their application.

show abstract

Local Governance in the Third Millennium: a brave new world?

Cited by 32 publications

References 0 publications

Planning and the Culture of Governance: Local Institutions and Reform in France

Planning and the Culture of Governance: Local Institutions and Reform in France

Towards Radicalized Communicative Rationality: Resident Involvement and Urban Democracy in Rotterdam and Antwerp

Missed opportunities for democratic engagement: the adoption of community indicators in local government

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About