caused by a rapidly changing urban environment
(ibd.). Van Herk et al. (2016a) distinguished
three levels of learning. Firstly, reactive learning
meaning ‘the discovery of existing knowledge,
from searching for lessons learned by other
cities’. Secondly, pro-active learning is ‘based
on inspiration and joint creation of new knowledge. This will take place during exchange
activities (e.g., sharing of information, good
practices and ideas amongst peers) and the execution of joint projects’. Lastly, there is ‘learning
from the learning process itself to secure the
capacity to learn’ defined as meta-learning. Here,
two decisive components are continuous monitoring and evaluation (Van Herk et al. 2016a).
Van Herk et al. (2016a) listed a number of reasons why cities should engage in C2CL processes, namely that it: (i) ‘accelerates the transfer
of knowledge and experience from one or more
cities, to one or numerous others’, (ii) ‘fosters the
joint creation of new knowledge in cities, in turn
empowering local governments: Creating a collective voice’, (iii) ‘reinforces local networks by
stimulating active participation of policy makers,
practitioners, the private sector, NGOs and citizens, paving a way for development of beneficial
approaches and multi- stakeholder partnerships’,
(iv) ‘enhances the collective memory of participating cities’, (v) ‘provides opportunities to
leverage and aggregate resources for joint activities (e.g. research programs)’ and (vi) ‘increases
the capacity of cities to learn overall’.
2.2 City-to-City Learning Within
a Broader Context
The knowledge and experience exchanges and
learning among government officials have been
investigated intensively, which has resulted in a
considerable number of different literature
streams. Generally, C2CL can be understood as a
specific form of peer learning and fits into the
literature on policy learning, lesson drawing but
also shares few similarities with theoretical
frameworks such as policy transfer and policy
mobility. Bennett and Howlett (1992) noted that
there is a ‘definitional ambiguity’ manifesting in
different authors using the same terms for learning. For instance, when discussing the relationship between policy learning and policy change,
while having very different notions of it. Without
attempting to go into detail, this paragraph aims
to introduce the most relevant synonymous literature and differentiate it from C2CL as understood in this research.
As mentioned before, the logic behind C2CL
mainly stems from peer learning. According to
Andrews and Manning (2016, 4) peer learning
should be understood as ‘a potentially powerful
way of sharing knowledge about doing public
sector reform’ and describe it as follows:
This learning involves individuals exchanging
knowledge and experience with each other, and
diffusing this learning back to their organisations
to ensure an impact—at scale—on reform initiatives. While peer learning entails complex organisational logistics, it avoids the risk of focusing on
process rather than product. It recognises that
ultimately learning takes place between individuals
and it facilitates interpersonal interchanges that are
well- matched and that are based on trust and
commitment.
Andrews and Manning (2016) also highlighted
the importance of the ‘political’ in peer learning
since public sector management cannot be seen
isolated from political influences. They emphasise that ‘Peer learning replaces abstract notions
of “vision” and “political will” with an emphasis
on practical problem-solving’ (Andrews and
Manning 2016).
In a recent literature review on policy learning
in the social sciences, the term was defined as
‘the updating of beliefs based on lived or witnessed experiences, analysis or social interaction’
(Dunlop and Radaelli 2013, 599). Technically
speaking policy learning takes place ‘when
policy-makers adjust their cognitive understanding of policy development and modify policy in
the light of knowledge gained from past policy
experience’ (Stone 2004). A subcategory of
policy learning is government learning which
describes ‘the process by which governments
increase their intelligence and sophistication and
in this manner enhance the effectiveness of their
226
W. Haupt et al.
(ibd.). Van Herk et al. (2016a) distinguished
three levels of learning. Firstly, reactive learning
meaning ‘the discovery of existing knowledge,
from searching for lessons learned by other
cities’. Secondly, pro-active learning is ‘based
on inspiration and joint creation of new knowledge. This will take place during exchange
activities (e.g., sharing of information, good
practices and ideas amongst peers) and the execution of joint projects’. Lastly, there is ‘learning
from the learning process itself to secure the
capacity to learn’ defined as meta-learning. Here,
two decisive components are continuous monitoring and evaluation (Van Herk et al. 2016a).
Van Herk et al. (2016a) listed a number of reasons why cities should engage in C2CL processes, namely that it: (i) ‘accelerates the transfer
of knowledge and experience from one or more
cities, to one or numerous others’, (ii) ‘fosters the
joint creation of new knowledge in cities, in turn
empowering local governments: Creating a collective voice’, (iii) ‘reinforces local networks by
stimulating active participation of policy makers,
practitioners, the private sector, NGOs and citizens, paving a way for development of beneficial
approaches and multi- stakeholder partnerships’,
(iv) ‘enhances the collective memory of participating cities’, (v) ‘provides opportunities to
leverage and aggregate resources for joint activities (e.g. research programs)’ and (vi) ‘increases
the capacity of cities to learn overall’.
2.2 City-to-City Learning Within
a Broader Context
The knowledge and experience exchanges and
learning among government officials have been
investigated intensively, which has resulted in a
considerable number of different literature
streams. Generally, C2CL can be understood as a
specific form of peer learning and fits into the
literature on policy learning, lesson drawing but
also shares few similarities with theoretical
frameworks such as policy transfer and policy
mobility. Bennett and Howlett (1992) noted that
there is a ‘definitional ambiguity’ manifesting in
different authors using the same terms for learning. For instance, when discussing the relationship between policy learning and policy change,
while having very different notions of it. Without
attempting to go into detail, this paragraph aims
to introduce the most relevant synonymous literature and differentiate it from C2CL as understood in this research.
As mentioned before, the logic behind C2CL
mainly stems from peer learning. According to
Andrews and Manning (2016, 4) peer learning
should be understood as ‘a potentially powerful
way of sharing knowledge about doing public
sector reform’ and describe it as follows:
This learning involves individuals exchanging
knowledge and experience with each other, and
diffusing this learning back to their organisations
to ensure an impact—at scale—on reform initiatives. While peer learning entails complex organisational logistics, it avoids the risk of focusing on
process rather than product. It recognises that
ultimately learning takes place between individuals
and it facilitates interpersonal interchanges that are
well- matched and that are based on trust and
commitment.
Andrews and Manning (2016) also highlighted
the importance of the ‘political’ in peer learning
since public sector management cannot be seen
isolated from political influences. They emphasise that ‘Peer learning replaces abstract notions
of “vision” and “political will” with an emphasis
on practical problem-solving’ (Andrews and
Manning 2016).
In a recent literature review on policy learning
in the social sciences, the term was defined as
‘the updating of beliefs based on lived or witnessed experiences, analysis or social interaction’
(Dunlop and Radaelli 2013, 599). Technically
speaking policy learning takes place ‘when
policy-makers adjust their cognitive understanding of policy development and modify policy in
the light of knowledge gained from past policy
experience’ (Stone 2004). A subcategory of
policy learning is government learning which
describes ‘the process by which governments
increase their intelligence and sophistication and
in this manner enhance the effectiveness of their
226
W. Haupt et al.