Collaborative Governance
Area: Community participation
With the world becoming increasingly urbanized and city planning facing numerous complex challenges, urban governance is being downscaled and decentralized, from the national level to the local level. Local authorities are now assuming more prominent roles in structuring urban development plans at the city or neighbourhood level.
Various interpretations of governance exist (see, for example housing governance on this vocabulary). However, the definition proposed by Ansell and Gash (2008) – describing governance as the “regimes of laws, rules, judicial decisions, and administrative practices that constrain, prescribe, and enable the provision of publicly supported goods and services” – remains pertinent in discussions about housing, energy, and urban development. Governance involves the negotiation and reconfiguration of institutions – representing “a set of norms” (Savini, 2019)– leading to claims of urban citizenship and power struggles. These processes aim to establish location-specific governance practices, as noted by Baker and Mehmood (2015) and Zavos et al. (2017).
In European urban planning, innovative governance models are emerging, integrating housing and spatial planning with increased resident decision-making control (Nuissl & Heinrichs, 2011; Scheller & Thörn, 2018; Van Straalen et al., 2017). Consequently, exploring collaborative urban governance is crucial. Ansell and Gash (2008, p. 544) define collaborative governance as “a governing arrangement where one or more public agencies directly engage non-state stakeholders in a collective decision-making process that is formal, consensus-oriented, and deliberative and that aims to make or implement public policy or manage public programs or assets”-
The shift towards neighbourhood-level governance is pivotal in nurturing a "politics of locality" (Ghose, 2005). Despite power disparities, new opportunities for active citizenry emerge, especially in housing, neighbourhood revitalization, and service delivery. Governance now extends beyond governmental tiers, incorporating the civic sphere and community-driven initiatives, bridging gaps left by formal state-driven sectors. Collaborative governance develops over time, benefiting from shared vision, dialogue, consensus-building, and understanding diverse roles and responsibilities (Innes & Booher, 2003). This integration emphasizes alternative governance forms, focusing on "territorially-focused collective action" (Healey, 2006, p. 305) and self-organization, contrasting the top-down, modernist model.
Collaborative governance, akin to collaborative planning, emphasizes rights-claiming processes, granting decision-making authority to non-experts. Ghose (2005, p.64) contends that “in order to participate in the power hierarchies […] one has to understand how to perform actively as a citizen in order to claim a right to the city”. Therefore, collaborative governance is a process characterized by shared responsibilities, where shared knowledge serves as the primary currency. This shared knowledge is emphasized as crucial in challenging the authority of experts, as noted by Emerson et al. (2012).
References
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
Baker, S., & Mehmood, A. (2015). Social innovation and the governance of sustainable places. Local Environment, 20(3), 321–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2013.842964
Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur011
Ghose, R. (2005). The complexities of citizen participation through collaborative governance. Space and Polity, 9(1), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562570500078733
Healey, P. (2006). Transforming governance: Challenges of institutional adaptation and a new politics of space. European Planning Studies, 14(3), 299–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310500420792
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2003). The Impact of Collaborative Planning on Governance Capacity. In IURD Working Paper Series.
Nuissl, H., & Heinrichs, D. (2011). Fresh wind or hot air-does the governance discourse have something to offer to spatial planning? Journal of Planning Education and Research, 31(1), 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X10392354
Savini, F. (2019). Responsibility, polity, value: The (un)changing norms of planning practices. Planning Theory, 18(1), 58–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095218770474
Scheller, D., & Thörn, H. (2018). Governing ‘Sustainable Urban Development’ Through Self-Build Groups and Co-Housing: The Cases of Hamburg and Gothenburg. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 42(5), 914–933. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12652
Van Straalen, F. M., Witte, P., & Buitelaar, E. (2017). Self-Organisation in Oosterwold, Almere: Challenges with Public Goods and Externalities. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, 108(4), 503–511. https://doi.org/10.1111/tesg.12267
Zavos, A., Koutrolikou, P. (Panagiota), & Siatitsa, D. (2017). Changing landscapes of urban citizenship: Southern Europe in times of crisis. Citizenship Studies, 21(4), 379–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2017.1307601
Created on 26-10-2023 | Update on 08-12-2023
Related definitions
Housing Governance
Area: Policy and financing
Created on 16-02-2022 | Update on 21-02-2022
Read more ->Community Empowerment
Area: Community participation
Created on 03-06-2022 | Update on 03-06-2022
Read more ->Collaborative Planning
Area: Design, planning and building
Created on 06-03-2024 | Update on 06-03-2024
Read more ->Related case studies
Self-Organisation in a New Dutch Suburb: Housing development in Oosterwold
Created on 21-11-2023
Related publications
No entries