in which “government” is traditionally defined as a political system in which a body
of people is administered and regulated by different levels of government that have
different responsibilities involving the authority to make and enforce laws. “Governance” is defined simply as what government does. However, in recent decades there
has been a conceptual and practical merging of these two categories in the urban
context so that policy making includes both the private sector and civil society in
increased consultation (Healey 1997; Douglass and Friedmann 1998; Vranken et al.
2003). Examples are the various Environmental Impact Assessment regulations put
in place by many countries, and which involve community consultation. Policy
spaces should be opened up for such initiatives, particularly at the local level from
within civil society (Vranken et al. 2003; Zoomers and van Western 2011; Zoomers
et al. 2011). Examples are the development of participatory budgets at the municipality level in Brazil (Sousa 2001) and community responses to change in the
Philippines (Dodman et al. 2010).
I would argue that this merging of government and governance is absolutely
crucial in the formation of effective policies that create a common vision for the
promotion of economic growth, ecological sustainability, and social inclusion as
well as policies designed to cope with the “low-carbon transition.” This is the
fundamental difference in the institutional order of the urban twenty-first century
because the implementation of the new visions of sustainable and resilient cities
must be accepted by all sectors of urban society. There are two main challenges in
creating these new urban governance structures that are necessary for urban sustainability. The first is to develop collaborative relationships between the national,
provincial, and urban levels at the national level. This is often the case in the large
mega-urban regions, where urbanization spreads into adjacent areas that are not part
of the urban administration. (Angel et al. 2005; Angel 2011). The second is to
develop collaborative institutions within urban areas that often consist of fragmented
municipalities that have unevenly distributed fiscal resources, different political
parties, and conflicting policy goals. This is no easy task, as I have discovered in
the last 4 years of working on a project on collaborative governance in Brazilian
metropolitan regions (McGee 2010). The top-down policies of the governmentdriven agendas of the twentieth century have to be replaced by collaborative,
inclusive institutions that are engaged in a form of “eco-governance” that involves
introducing new paradigms of urban sustainability and making profound changes in
the way cities and regions are conceptualized.
2.3 Conclusion
Of course, in arguing that we need to reimagine these intellectual frameworks that
we use to understand urbanization, I am only too aware of the “embedded nature” of
ideas and the practical challenges that have to be faced to bring about change. The
conventional wisdom is not changed overnight and perhaps it should not be. But
often there is a huge lag in understanding processes of change. For example, the term
2 The Management of Urbanization, Development, and Environmental Change in. . .
29
of people is administered and regulated by different levels of government that have
different responsibilities involving the authority to make and enforce laws. “Governance” is defined simply as what government does. However, in recent decades there
has been a conceptual and practical merging of these two categories in the urban
context so that policy making includes both the private sector and civil society in
increased consultation (Healey 1997; Douglass and Friedmann 1998; Vranken et al.
2003). Examples are the various Environmental Impact Assessment regulations put
in place by many countries, and which involve community consultation. Policy
spaces should be opened up for such initiatives, particularly at the local level from
within civil society (Vranken et al. 2003; Zoomers and van Western 2011; Zoomers
et al. 2011). Examples are the development of participatory budgets at the municipality level in Brazil (Sousa 2001) and community responses to change in the
Philippines (Dodman et al. 2010).
I would argue that this merging of government and governance is absolutely
crucial in the formation of effective policies that create a common vision for the
promotion of economic growth, ecological sustainability, and social inclusion as
well as policies designed to cope with the “low-carbon transition.” This is the
fundamental difference in the institutional order of the urban twenty-first century
because the implementation of the new visions of sustainable and resilient cities
must be accepted by all sectors of urban society. There are two main challenges in
creating these new urban governance structures that are necessary for urban sustainability. The first is to develop collaborative relationships between the national,
provincial, and urban levels at the national level. This is often the case in the large
mega-urban regions, where urbanization spreads into adjacent areas that are not part
of the urban administration. (Angel et al. 2005; Angel 2011). The second is to
develop collaborative institutions within urban areas that often consist of fragmented
municipalities that have unevenly distributed fiscal resources, different political
parties, and conflicting policy goals. This is no easy task, as I have discovered in
the last 4 years of working on a project on collaborative governance in Brazilian
metropolitan regions (McGee 2010). The top-down policies of the governmentdriven agendas of the twentieth century have to be replaced by collaborative,
inclusive institutions that are engaged in a form of “eco-governance” that involves
introducing new paradigms of urban sustainability and making profound changes in
the way cities and regions are conceptualized.
2.3 Conclusion
Of course, in arguing that we need to reimagine these intellectual frameworks that
we use to understand urbanization, I am only too aware of the “embedded nature” of
ideas and the practical challenges that have to be faced to bring about change. The
conventional wisdom is not changed overnight and perhaps it should not be. But
often there is a huge lag in understanding processes of change. For example, the term
2 The Management of Urbanization, Development, and Environmental Change in. . .
29