"Public Administration, Public Policy and Governance: challenges & innovations"
Lisbon, Portugal, 9–11 April 2003
Conference Report
The IGU Commission on Geography and Public Policy’s conference "Public Administration, Public Policy and Governance: Challenges & Innovations" held in Lisbon, at Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian’ Conference Center, from 9 to 11 April 2003, addressed contemporary developments in Public Administration and Public Policy in a period of growing convergence in administrative structures and processes towards new forms of governance. The opening and closing sessions were co-chaired by Doris Wastl-Walter and Carlos Nunes Silva, respectively chair of the Commission and conference organizer. The program was structured in 4 sessions and included also the Commission’s business meeting. The conference started on 9th April afternoon with an excursion/study visit to the historical center of Lisbon and overview of the policy adopted by the municipality for this particular area. In total were presented, in the 4 working sessions, 14 papers, involving 21 authors from 12 countries (Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Holland, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States of America), some of them present for the first time in an event organized by the IGU Commission on Geography and Public Policy. The participation at the conference was conditioned to the presentation of a paper, which created good conditions for fruitful and livable discussions, which was enriched by the multidisciplinary background of the participants.
The theme of the two first panels was concerned with ‘Institutional innovation and new forms of governance’. The main challenge put to the conference participants in these two panels was the discussion of the most recent transformations in the way government, at different levels, is (re)organised and how it deliver public policy. Or, by other words, the main objective was to identify and discuss in which way traditional forms of government are giving place to forms of governance and what geographical consequences result from that and in what sense does the territory affect the development of these new forms of organisation in the public administration sector.
In the first panel, chaired by Doris Wastl-Walter, were presented four papers: (i) ‘Policy change and institutional reform in the public sector. Causes and consequences of changes in the mode of governance’, by Maria Asensio Menchero (Instituto Nacional de Administração, Oeiras), discussed the role of institutions, viewed as a set of values, standards, rules, routines and processes that explain the particular layout and results of administrative systems, complementing it with the analysis of the impact of the administrative tradition, through a comparison of Southern Europe and Anglo-Saxon referents, regarding both public administration layout and its modernization processes; (ii) ‘Constitutional change and governance in the English regions, by Sarah Ayres & Graham Pearce (Aston Business School, Aston University, UK), explored the key drivers leading to the strengthening of institutional capacity in the English regions, presented an overview of the implications of these reforms at the regional level, charted how central government departments are responding to the decentralisation agenda through the shaping of new roles and relationships, both in Whitehall and in the regions and, finally, reflected on the reform process by examining how far the emerging institutional structures are able to formulate, co-ordinate and deliver distinctive regional policies and the extent to which this is leading to changes in the relationship between sub-national and national government; (iii) ‘Decentralising the ‘unified’ British Civil Service: lessons from Northern Ireland’, by Paul Carmichael (University of Ulster, School of Policy Sciences, UK), addressed the issue of the British Civil Service and had as its main aim to fill the lacuna that continues to exist in the academic literature in what respects the analysis of variations across the United Kingdom in this respect; the author demonstrated that with devolved fora now established for both Scotland and Wales, with associated pressure for more distinctive (even separate) civil arrangements in each, Northern Ireland offers valuable insights into how the UK Civil Service may develop in Scotland and Wales; (iv) ‘European urban policies and domestic responses towards a model for evaluating implementation performance in different urban areas’, by Charalampos Koutalakis (Humboldt University, Institute of Social Sciences, Berlin, Germany), presented an evaluation of the domestic impact of EU structural policies in Greece, through an analysis of the ways in which domestic actors at all levels of government (national, regional, local) respond to EU requirements for effective implementation of structural assistance programs.
The second panel, chaired by Piet Saey, included three papers: (i) ‘Developing options for decentralisation and local government in Kosovo’, by Doris Wastl-Walter (University of Bern, Department of Geography, Switzerland), discussed the political and administrative situation in Kosovo/Kosova which is still far from being clear in all its facets, arguing that the key issues at the moment are how ethnic problems can be resolved and how economic and political development can be guaranteed by democratically elected and broadly accepted political and administrative institutions, and what will be the final political status of Kosovo; (ii) ‘Changing approaches to urban governance in post-apartheid South Africa: a critical appraisal’, by Brij Maharaj (University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa), critically assessed urban reconstruction and development strategies in post-apartheid South Africa, arguing that the state's response has been to increasingly support the privatisation of basic services, which has far‑reaching geographical implications and militates against the aim to build an inclusive society concluding, therefore, that a strong state intervention is both desirable and necessary in order to address the inequalities of the apartheid era; (iv) ‘New local partnerships in the context of prevailing structures’, by Markku Kiviniemim, Ella Mustakangas and Hilkka Vihinen (University of Helsinki, Department of Political Science & MTT Economic Research, Finland), identified both opportunities and obstacles in the progress of new local partnerships through the presentation of the results of an empirical study conducted in four rural municipalities in southern Finland.
The theme of the third and fourth panels was ‘Governing Cities and Regions’. The main challenge put to the conference participants in the two panels was to discuss recent developments in the governance of cities and regions and in specific sectors which, like the first theme, was addressed in different and stimulating ways.
The third panel, chaired by Hans Thor Andersen, included three papers: (i) ‘Organising connectivity as the key to multi-level governance. The case of metropolitan planning’, by William Salet (University of Amsterdam, AME, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Nederlands), discussed the findings of a comparative research on Metropolitan Governance and Spatial Planning in twenty major European city–regions, coordinated by Salet, Thornley and Kreukels; the authors adopted an institutional typology of regions in order to differentiate the practices of governance in such different metropolitan circumstances, which enabled them to analyse the characteristic problems and the typical solutions for each type of institutional context; (ii) ‘Brussels: the contradictory results of multiple governmental re-scaling’, by Piet Saey (University of Ghent, Department of Geography, Ghent, Belgium), addressed the case of Brussels as one of the most successful metropolises in the world in terms of international intercity competitiveness, a success based primarily, although not exclusively, on its role of international political centre of decision-making, in particular its role as capital of the European Union; (iii) ‘Governing Metropolitan Lisbon’, by Carlos Nunes Silva & Stephen Syrett (University of Lisbon, Department of Geography, Portugal & Middlessex University, London, UK), examined the processes driving forward governance change in Lisbon, drawing out the interplay between these forces and how they have manifested themselves in the current governance landscape, and explored the various processes of change that have produced important shifts in the style and nature of metropolitan governance and the extent to which this can be considered a shift from government to governance.
In the fourth and final panel, chaired by William Salet, were presented four papers: (i) ‘Globalization of the commercial property market and changing urban governance in Lisbon’, by Anders Lund Hansen & Eric Clark (Lund University, Department of Social and Economic Geography, Sweden), analysed the linkages between globalization of commercial property markets and changes in urban governance in Lisbon, concluding that Lisbon has experienced marked globalization of its commercial property market and considerable change in its urban governance, and that these processes are inextricably intertwined; (ii) ‘Understanding the causes of citizen satisfaction with the municipal services: the expectancy-disconfirmation model’, by Gregg Ryzin (City University of New York, School of Public Affairs, New York, USA), discussed the growing use of performance measurement as well as the efforts to make government more responsive to citizens, arguing that it’s important to know the cognitive processes citizens use when forming overall satisfaction judgments, both for policy analysts working with citizen survey data and for public managers seeking insight on how citizens respond to the performance of local government; (iii) ‘Enterpreneurial welfarism’, by Hans Thor Andersen & John Jorgensen (University of Copenhagen, Department of Geography, Denmark), argued that there is a certain risk that the focus on competitiveness diverts interests away from issues related to the dynamics and conflicts of ‘the social base’, based on a study of new forms of economic governance in the Copenhagen Metropolitan Area from the end of the 1980s and onwards; the authors discussed whether the plethora of ‘entrepreneurial’ strategies have led to a situation where welfare-oriented goals have been redefined in order to meet the requirements of a more growth-oriented agenda; (iv) ‘Regulation of regional employment in Denmark, since the mid 80ties. A case of fragmented, decentralised multi-layered governance’, by Peter Abbas & Frank Hansen (University of Copenhagen, Department of Geography, Denmark), examined the regulation systems both at demand and the supply side in Denmark, with the focus upon the supply side; the authors dealt with the political organisation of the different systems, their values and logics, their interaction and the social outcome of their overall, fragmented governance.
The IGU Commission Meeting took place after the second panel and participants were informed, by the Commission chair, about past activities and perspectives for the near future, especially the next conferences, being given particular emphasis to the 2004 World Congress in Glasgow.
The full program and abstracts are on-line and can be download from the Conference web page. Most of the papers presented will be submitted, by the respective authors, for publication in international refereed academic journals.
Carlos Nunes Silva
Department of Geography - University of Lisbon
Lisbon, Portugal