Focusing on Actors, Scaling-Up, and Networks to Understand Co-Production Practices: Reporting From Berlin and Santiago

IF 1.7 Q3 URBAN STUDIES
Urban Planning Pub Date : 2024-02-27 DOI:10.17645/up.7297
Paola Alfaro d’Alençon, Diego Moya ortiz
{"title":"Focusing on Actors, Scaling-Up, and Networks to Understand Co-Production Practices: Reporting From Berlin and Santiago","authors":"Paola Alfaro d’Alençon, Diego Moya ortiz","doi":"10.17645/up.7297","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In different policy agendas, such as the New Urban Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals, co-production is introduced as a desirable urban planning practice to validate the engagement and inclusion of diverse actors/networks. Nevertheless, some scholars argue (e.g., Watson, Robinson) that the Western planning approach faces difficulties incorporating rationalities beyond the Global North–South division. In this context based on the research project DFG-KOPRO Int for the German Research Foundation on Chilean and German cases and the local context, this article seeks to explore how local groups are undertaking co-production, which means of legitimacy are used, and which socio-spatial results develop. In doing so, the research focuses firstly on the negotiation processes (governance) between stakeholders by undertaking network analysis and, secondly, on understanding the impulse for urban development by analysing the project’s socio-spatial material patterns. Chile’s neoliberal context and the case studies showcase diverse cooperative forms that try to close governance gaps within strong political struggles. In the German context, actors from different areas, such as cultural institutions, universities, and private actors undertake diverse mandates for testing regulatory, persuasive, or financial instruments. As different as local realities are, the overall results show that co-production occurs mostly in highly contested fields such as housing projects and highlights a three-part constellation of actors—state, private, and civil society—in urban development. However, negotiation processes take place, ranging from conflictive to cooperative. Hence, co-production challenges prevailing social and political structures by providing an arena for new forms of collective and pluralistic governance.","PeriodicalId":51735,"journal":{"name":"Urban Planning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urban Planning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17645/up.7297","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"URBAN STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In different policy agendas, such as the New Urban Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals, co-production is introduced as a desirable urban planning practice to validate the engagement and inclusion of diverse actors/networks. Nevertheless, some scholars argue (e.g., Watson, Robinson) that the Western planning approach faces difficulties incorporating rationalities beyond the Global North–South division. In this context based on the research project DFG-KOPRO Int for the German Research Foundation on Chilean and German cases and the local context, this article seeks to explore how local groups are undertaking co-production, which means of legitimacy are used, and which socio-spatial results develop. In doing so, the research focuses firstly on the negotiation processes (governance) between stakeholders by undertaking network analysis and, secondly, on understanding the impulse for urban development by analysing the project’s socio-spatial material patterns. Chile’s neoliberal context and the case studies showcase diverse cooperative forms that try to close governance gaps within strong political struggles. In the German context, actors from different areas, such as cultural institutions, universities, and private actors undertake diverse mandates for testing regulatory, persuasive, or financial instruments. As different as local realities are, the overall results show that co-production occurs mostly in highly contested fields such as housing projects and highlights a three-part constellation of actors—state, private, and civil society—in urban development. However, negotiation processes take place, ranging from conflictive to cooperative. Hence, co-production challenges prevailing social and political structures by providing an arena for new forms of collective and pluralistic governance.
关注行动者、扩大规模和网络,了解共同生产实践:来自柏林和圣地亚哥的报告
在不同的政策议程中,如《新城市议程》和《可持续发展目标》,共同生产被作为一种理想的城市规划实践引入,以验证不同参与者/网络的参与和包容。然而,一些学者(如 Watson、Robinson)认为,西方的规划方法在纳入全球南北分界线之外的合理性方面面临困难。在此背景下,本文以德国研究基金会的 DFG-KOPRO Int 研究项目为基础,以智利和德国的案例和当地情况为背景,试图探讨当地团体是如何开展共同生产的,使用了哪些合法手段,以及发展了哪些社会空间成果。在此过程中,研究首先通过网络分析关注利益相关者之间的谈判过程(治理),其次通过分析项目的社会空间物质模式了解城市发展的动力。智利的新自由主义背景和案例研究展示了多种多样的合作形式,试图在激烈的政治斗争中缩小治理差距。在德国,来自不同领域的参与者,如文化机构、大学和私人参与者,承担着测试监管、说服或金融工具的不同任务。尽管各地的实际情况各不相同,但总体结果表明,共同生产主要发生在住房项目等竞争激烈的领域,并凸显了城市发展中由国家、私人和民间社会三部分组成的行动者群体。然而,谈判过程也在进行,从冲突到合作,不一而足。因此,共同生产为新形式的集体和多元化治理提供了舞台,从而对现行的社会和政治结构提出了挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Urban Planning
Urban Planning URBAN STUDIES-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
5.60%
发文量
124
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Urban Planning is a new international peer-reviewed open access journal of urban studies aimed at advancing understandings and ideas of humankind’s habitats – villages, towns, cities, megacities – in order to promote progress and quality of life. The journal brings urban science and urban planning together with other cross-disciplinary fields such as sociology, ecology, psychology, technology, politics, philosophy, geography, environmental science, economics, maths and computer science, to understand processes influencing urban forms and structures, their relations with environment and life quality, with the final aim to identify patterns towards progress and quality of life.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信