治理“无法治理的”?金融化和伦敦“全球城市地区”的交通基础设施治理

IF 5 1区 经济学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Peter O’Brien , Andy Pike , John Tomaney
{"title":"治理“无法治理的”?金融化和伦敦“全球城市地区”的交通基础设施治理","authors":"Peter O’Brien ,&nbsp;Andy Pike ,&nbsp;John Tomaney","doi":"10.1016/j.progress.2018.02.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The governance of infrastructure funding and financing at the city-region scale is a critical aspect of the continued search for mechanisms to channel investment into the urban landscape. In the context of the global financial crisis, austerity and uneven growth, national, sub-national and local state actors are being compelled to adopt the increasingly speculative activities of urban entrepreneurialism to attract new capital, develop ‘innovative’ financial instruments and models, and establish new or reform existing institutional arrangements for urban infrastructure governance. Amidst concerns about the claimed ‘ungovernability’ of ‘global’ cities and city-regions, governing urban infrastructure funding and financing has become an acute issue. Infrastructure renewal and development are interpreted as integral to urban growth, especially to underpin the size and scale of large cities and their significant contributions within national economies. Yet, overcoming fragmented local jurisdictions to improve the governance and economic, social and environmental development of major metropolitan areas remains a challenge. The complex, and sometimes conflicting and contested inter-relationships at stake raise important questions about the role of the state in wrestling with entrepreneurial <em>and</em> managerialist governance imperatives. City and government actors are simultaneously engaging with financial actors, the financialisation of the built environment, the enduring and integral position of the state in infrastructure given its particular characteristics, the transformation of infrastructure from a public good into an asset class through the agency of private and state interests, and what relationships, if any, exist between ‘effective’ urban governance systems and improved economic performance.</p><p>Contributing to theoretical debates about the apparent ‘ungovernability’ of global cities and city-regions, this paper presents analysis and findings from new research examining the financialisation and governance of transport infrastructure in the London global city-region. The continued rise in London’s population is placing significant demands upon existing infrastructure assets and systems and provoking debates about the extent and nature of growth in the UK’s capital, the development of and relationship between urban and sub-urban built environments, and the ability of national, sub-national and local actors to plan infrastructure renewal and investment both within London’s formal administrative boundary and wider city-region. Combining aspects of urban entrepreneurialism <em>and</em> managerialism amidst the challenges of governing a global city-region, the search for new infrastructure investment by state actors is leading to the revival of specific funding and financing mechanisms and practices. The mixing of existing and new funding and financing techniques as well as governance arrangements in distinct and, at times, hybrid ways, is amplifying the novel challenges facing actors and institutions responsible for London’s governance.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47399,"journal":{"name":"Progress in Planning","volume":"132 ","pages":"Article 100422"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.progress.2018.02.001","citationCount":"27","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Governing the ‘ungovernable’? Financialisation and the governance of transport infrastructure in the London ‘global city-region’\",\"authors\":\"Peter O’Brien ,&nbsp;Andy Pike ,&nbsp;John Tomaney\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.progress.2018.02.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The governance of infrastructure funding and financing at the city-region scale is a critical aspect of the continued search for mechanisms to channel investment into the urban landscape. In the context of the global financial crisis, austerity and uneven growth, national, sub-national and local state actors are being compelled to adopt the increasingly speculative activities of urban entrepreneurialism to attract new capital, develop ‘innovative’ financial instruments and models, and establish new or reform existing institutional arrangements for urban infrastructure governance. Amidst concerns about the claimed ‘ungovernability’ of ‘global’ cities and city-regions, governing urban infrastructure funding and financing has become an acute issue. Infrastructure renewal and development are interpreted as integral to urban growth, especially to underpin the size and scale of large cities and their significant contributions within national economies. Yet, overcoming fragmented local jurisdictions to improve the governance and economic, social and environmental development of major metropolitan areas remains a challenge. The complex, and sometimes conflicting and contested inter-relationships at stake raise important questions about the role of the state in wrestling with entrepreneurial <em>and</em> managerialist governance imperatives. City and government actors are simultaneously engaging with financial actors, the financialisation of the built environment, the enduring and integral position of the state in infrastructure given its particular characteristics, the transformation of infrastructure from a public good into an asset class through the agency of private and state interests, and what relationships, if any, exist between ‘effective’ urban governance systems and improved economic performance.</p><p>Contributing to theoretical debates about the apparent ‘ungovernability’ of global cities and city-regions, this paper presents analysis and findings from new research examining the financialisation and governance of transport infrastructure in the London global city-region. The continued rise in London’s population is placing significant demands upon existing infrastructure assets and systems and provoking debates about the extent and nature of growth in the UK’s capital, the development of and relationship between urban and sub-urban built environments, and the ability of national, sub-national and local actors to plan infrastructure renewal and investment both within London’s formal administrative boundary and wider city-region. Combining aspects of urban entrepreneurialism <em>and</em> managerialism amidst the challenges of governing a global city-region, the search for new infrastructure investment by state actors is leading to the revival of specific funding and financing mechanisms and practices. The mixing of existing and new funding and financing techniques as well as governance arrangements in distinct and, at times, hybrid ways, is amplifying the novel challenges facing actors and institutions responsible for London’s governance.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47399,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Progress in Planning\",\"volume\":\"132 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100422\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.progress.2018.02.001\",\"citationCount\":\"27\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Progress in Planning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305900617300806\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Progress in Planning","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305900617300806","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 27

摘要

城市-区域规模的基础设施融资治理是继续寻求将投资引入城市景观的机制的关键方面。在全球金融危机、财政紧缩和经济增长不平衡的背景下,国家、地方和地方政府的行为体正被迫采取越来越投机的城市创业活动,以吸引新资本,开发“创新”金融工具和模式,并建立新的或改革现有的城市基础设施治理制度安排。在对“全球”城市和城市地区所谓的“不可治理性”的担忧中,治理城市基础设施的资金和融资已成为一个紧迫的问题。基础设施更新和发展被认为是城市增长的组成部分,特别是巩固大城市的规模和规模及其对国民经济的重大贡献。然而,克服分散的地方管辖范围以改善主要大都市地区的治理和经济、社会和环境发展仍然是一项挑战。这种复杂的、有时是相互冲突的、有争议的相互关系,引发了一个重要的问题,即国家在与企业和管理主义治理要求角力时所扮演的角色。城市和政府行为者同时与金融行为者接触,建筑环境的金融化,国家在基础设施中的持久和不可或缺的地位,通过私人和国家利益的代理将基础设施从公共产品转变为资产类别,以及“有效”的城市治理系统和改善的经济绩效之间存在什么关系(如果有的话)。对于全球城市和城市地区明显的“不可治理性”的理论辩论,本文提出了对伦敦全球城市地区交通基础设施金融化和治理的新研究的分析和发现。伦敦人口的持续增长对现有的基础设施资产和系统提出了巨大的需求,并引发了关于英国首都增长的程度和性质的辩论,城市和郊区建筑环境的发展和关系,以及国家、次国家和地方行动者在伦敦正式行政边界和更广泛的城市区域内规划基础设施更新和投资的能力。在治理全球城市地区的挑战中,将城市企业家主义和管理主义的各个方面结合起来,国家行为体寻求新的基础设施投资正在导致特定资金和融资机制和实践的复兴。现有的和新的融资和融资技术以及治理安排以不同的、有时是混合的方式混合在一起,放大了负责伦敦治理的参与者和机构所面临的新挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Governing the ‘ungovernable’? Financialisation and the governance of transport infrastructure in the London ‘global city-region’

The governance of infrastructure funding and financing at the city-region scale is a critical aspect of the continued search for mechanisms to channel investment into the urban landscape. In the context of the global financial crisis, austerity and uneven growth, national, sub-national and local state actors are being compelled to adopt the increasingly speculative activities of urban entrepreneurialism to attract new capital, develop ‘innovative’ financial instruments and models, and establish new or reform existing institutional arrangements for urban infrastructure governance. Amidst concerns about the claimed ‘ungovernability’ of ‘global’ cities and city-regions, governing urban infrastructure funding and financing has become an acute issue. Infrastructure renewal and development are interpreted as integral to urban growth, especially to underpin the size and scale of large cities and their significant contributions within national economies. Yet, overcoming fragmented local jurisdictions to improve the governance and economic, social and environmental development of major metropolitan areas remains a challenge. The complex, and sometimes conflicting and contested inter-relationships at stake raise important questions about the role of the state in wrestling with entrepreneurial and managerialist governance imperatives. City and government actors are simultaneously engaging with financial actors, the financialisation of the built environment, the enduring and integral position of the state in infrastructure given its particular characteristics, the transformation of infrastructure from a public good into an asset class through the agency of private and state interests, and what relationships, if any, exist between ‘effective’ urban governance systems and improved economic performance.

Contributing to theoretical debates about the apparent ‘ungovernability’ of global cities and city-regions, this paper presents analysis and findings from new research examining the financialisation and governance of transport infrastructure in the London global city-region. The continued rise in London’s population is placing significant demands upon existing infrastructure assets and systems and provoking debates about the extent and nature of growth in the UK’s capital, the development of and relationship between urban and sub-urban built environments, and the ability of national, sub-national and local actors to plan infrastructure renewal and investment both within London’s formal administrative boundary and wider city-region. Combining aspects of urban entrepreneurialism and managerialism amidst the challenges of governing a global city-region, the search for new infrastructure investment by state actors is leading to the revival of specific funding and financing mechanisms and practices. The mixing of existing and new funding and financing techniques as well as governance arrangements in distinct and, at times, hybrid ways, is amplifying the novel challenges facing actors and institutions responsible for London’s governance.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
1.60%
发文量
26
审稿时长
34 days
期刊介绍: Progress in Planning is a multidisciplinary journal of research monographs offering a convenient and rapid outlet for extended papers in the field of spatial and environmental planning. Each issue comprises a single monograph of between 25,000 and 35,000 words. The journal is fully peer reviewed, has a global readership, and has been in publication since 1972.
×
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